this is a very important book, and amazingly well-researched.
the breadth and depth of the research is astounding; the arguments are well-grounded in history, logic, and statistics; and the author is always careful not to overstate his conclusions.
Many other reviews highlight this book's strengths, which are considerable, but there is another side. A few of the revealing details:
1) Pinker's grotesque and malignant caricature of religion in general and Christianity in particular acknowledges no positives whatsoever and exaggerates historical negatives.
2) He rationalizes abortion as not violence in one part, but treats it as violence in another context where females are disproportionately selected for termination. Well, which is it?
3) Not one, but two star turns for the odious Peter Singer.
4) A social science based argument that liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid.
Over and above these points, the book is almost suffocatingly smug in its aggressive left/progressive/secular/atheist ideology, which is unnecessary for the main point but helps drive its bulk. Arthur Morey's reading superbly conveys this complacence.
Extremely detailed research, laid out in a thoughtful and balanced manner. Pinker's case is something I've personally long believed, so I must be wary of some confirmation bias in reviewing the book. However, even if you already open to his case, I believe this would still be an interesting and pleasurable experience.
Some parts are quite graphic, but they are integral to the point that Prof. Pinker is making. This is one of those books, like The Omnivore's Dilemma, that makes you stop and reassess how you interpret the world around you. All of Pinker's arguments are well defended and seem obvious in retrospect, thanks to the clear layout of this book.
This a powerfully fascinating book where Pinker shows, with very thorough evidence, that human nature has changed for the better over the centuries. In short, Pinker will prove to you how we have, if still incompletely depending on culture and region, become more peaceful, just and civilization after a fashion. In that, the author gives a detailed look at the history of violence in society that will make you blanch at the bloody antics done by our ancestors and the psychological research trying to explain it. Just hear the reader read out how medieval people found
I was heartened for at least one element of the human race, even while I wanted to give those sadists in the past a taste of their own medicine.
Pinker takes a stroll through the ages and may leave you challenging much of the history you have been taught.
This is one of the five best books I have read.
Another gift from one of the best minds we have.
I wish I could say I was surprised by this fascist diatribe masquerading as a scholarly work. What does surprise me is the praise heaped upon it by critics who should know better.The author's main assumption that violence has declined is a sound theory, backed by credible data. It seems almost self explanatory for a student of history. It's when the writer tries to explain modern changes in violent behavior that his political aims show through.The author attests that the decline in violence after the 1980s was caused by increased rates of imprisonment, and the tightening up of social norms after the 1960s. Yet, as the author points out himself, most of the rest of the world saw a decline in violence without an increase in incarceration as we had in the US. He gives this only a hand wave, and says it doesn't really mean anything. Except it does. Second, he provides no data whatsoever about changes in social norms. I would bet that he would find an increased liberalization of social conventions across the board, if he ever bothered to check. But since that doesn't fit his theory, it is easily ignored. All data and historical evidence supports the writer's main thesis, that violence had declined. However, he really needs to go back and really think about his theories of causation. Which I suspect her will not because they do not fit his political agenda.It's really a shame because he is an engaging author, and knows how to get a point across.
Hey Audible, don't raise prices and I promise to buy lots more books.
Steven Pinker is known for his wide-ranging advocacy of evolutionary psychology and, as the expression goes, “when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (TBAoON) purports to show just that. That over the ages of human history, violence has declined. Pinker is an acknowledged authority on such subjects as language and cognition. TBAoON is not a book on any of that. Pinker stretches his argument over 800 pages with research data, graphs and tabulations. Unfortunately, what he suggests is at best, open to interpretation. Statistics are like that.
As is often done, the author uses a highly selective interpretation of data. He appears to select what supports his hypothesis and disregards the rest. Further, while there might be more evidence to support it, he does not present it and his extrapolations seem to be weak at best. Statistical sample sizes seem at times to be small and Pinker makes no apologies for this and fails to proffer its limitations. In fact, we are even sometimes asked to ignore some of the data. Ahhh, me thinks not.
A tome this size perhaps warrants more of a review however, when the scientific method is totally mangled and evidence-based science is completely ignored, it’s probably time to stop reading let alone spend the time reviewing a book like this. I thoroughly enjoyed The Blank Slate. It was my introduction to Steven Pinker. I thought that I could not wait to read more by this author. I should have become suspicious about one who writes on subjects seemingly light years removed from his field of expertise. However, I took a chance and unfortunately, I was disappointed.
While I like Steven Pinker's thesis and I agree that violence has gone down over time, I do not agree with a lot of his causation and some of his fact collection. The irony is that he put down Cultural Anthropology in chapter 1, yet this very thing could have saved him from fact errors. This Judeo Eurocentrism hurts his thesis, though it need not to. (His gaffe where he said "Muslim countries"... is an example of Judeo-Christian Ethnocentrcism. There are followers of Islam in the US and they aren't all violent.) Since I collected 20+ such errors, I will give a specific example of where looking outside of Western culture should have given him clues to real causations.
For example, he attributes the civil rights movements to the invention of the printing press, making works more available to the public. First off, Gutenberg did not invent the printing press anymore than Edison invented the light bulb or Bell wholly invented the telephone by himself--that is an easy fact to look up. Gutenberg invented adjustable brackets. Chinese invented the printing press and wood block printing, Koreans invented movable type (In the form of clay). Scholars in both countries for a long time were encouraged to learn to read and write. South Korean enjoyed a higher literacy rate than the US for longer at 99%. Yet, despite having both a printing press and a high literacy rate since the 1443 (which was when hangeul was invented), torture was still in place for a long time. And despite having a democracy, there are still some civil liberties that are currently not in place in South Korea. (which one would get from reading outside of the Western world. In which case, I would say the change in subsistence pattern and putting civil liberties into that of the state instead of the individual, would be the correct assumption--but such things take time because industrialization is a hard thing to handle and catch up with. Again, anthropology would help here.) I would propose instead of literacy rate or the printing press, it was freedom of speech that helped the civil rights movements in Britain, the United States, South Korea and Japan. This would account for the loss of civil liberties in such countries as North Korea in current times, despite the high literacy rate (99% literacy rate, BTW.), printing press and the potential for democracy. (Also accounts for Rome, Athens, Sparta and other city-states in Greece who were democratic and certainly literate with often extensive records.) It's the first amendment and something that at least *my* high school history classes covered extensively as one of the leading factors to civil change. It was the first civil liberty fought for. If one gets killed for speaking out, then the ability to speak to a larger audience becomes inconsequential and it won't reach anyone, especially if the government is regulating it. You can see this with the advent of using Twitter and Facebook to liberate Egypt and other parts of Africa--it's more the ability to speak out, organize and publish without the government looking over ones shoulder that causes civil change.
It's the little dropping of inaccurate facts that frustrated me--such as Witchcraft died because of the "Age of Reason" which is really unreasonable--it's Neolocal communities that do not have witchcraft beliefs. Many mobile forager groups do not have witchcraft beliefs and it is not to the degree that it was in Europe--with a little research he could have found that. (Éva Pócs' paper on witches, you find that out in undergraduate Anthropology class, Magic Witchcraft and Religion) In addition, early advances in science, like it or not were often tied to religion and following religion. Wallace, Darwin, Issac Newton and Linnaeus pursued science as a kind of devotion to Christianity. It's convenient for many people to skim over this in contemporary times since the division between religion and science became a strict line in around the 1930's. (I point this out, though I'm neither religious, nor a Christian.)
For these errors I knock off two stars because while his thesis is really good, it makes me cringe to hear so many inaccuracies. I hope that in the future, he reads outside of Europe--it's difficult, but not that hard given the way we are more and more connected to other countries and peoples--which I would attribute to the new civil liberties movements and the more liberal thinking minds of the younger generation. It's harder to say you hate all Z's if you happen to be acquainted with someone or someone of someone who is a Z and you didn't know it.
BTW, Japanese are perfectly civilized with picking up their soup bowls and drinking the broth while slurping (Move Tampopo.) And contrary to popular belief, there are civil rights movements for women and other groups. I find Japan very civilized with its manners and rules of conduct.
I should note I have the same issues with the Language Instinct... only examine outside of English and mostly Indo-European languages when it was convenient to support the thesis, rather than read and examine other languages completely outside of that scope and use it to fact check the base thesis.
The performance, however, is excellent, so I gave that 5 stars... giving this audiobook overall 4 stars.