this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
192 points (93.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43159 readers
1801 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember that there are biases at play here. There's the negativity bias (we worry more about bad things happening, than we are uplifted about good things happening), and the media bias to report the worst. As Pinker wrote:
Combine the two, and you will naturally have all media preferentially report (and often blow out of proportion for the views and clicks) bad news over good news.
Edit: typo and grammar
Pinker is a neoliberal hack.
Is the statement they're quoting incorrect?
This is my first time(that I remember) hearing about this guy. How is he hack? Legitimately asking.
I see you never got a reply to your question. I am obviously biased in favour of Pinker, but my perception is that "liberal hack" (and other epithets) is a mindless insult that people throw at him when they don't like to uplifting message that he's communicating, but can't find anything logically or factually wrong with his arguments or his presentation of data.
The closest I saw someone trying to have a legitimate case of showing Pinker misrepresenting reality, was the criticism of this passage (also from "Enlightenment Now"):
(i.e. only 1% is at war)
Critics pointed out that, at the time of Pinker's writing, the number of countries in Africa at war was X, and X divided by the number of all countries in Africa is much greater than the 1%, so clearly Pinker is lying. But firstly, the passage talks about ethnic neighbours, not countries, of which there is much more in Africa and the former Soviet Union, and secondly, there is almost always more neighbours than there is countries in any region. For example in Australia, there are 5 states, but 6 borders (pairs of neighbouring states), so if Queensland went to war with New South Wales, 60% of the states would be at peace, but 83% of pairs of neighbours would be at peace.
Edit: grammar
I mean, that's a nice info drop, but it doesn't really explain too much. Can you drop me a link to some of his stuff, so I can make my own mind up about it?
If you Google Steven Pinker, it should show you links to his websites, articles, and books.