[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 325 KB, 1200x1434, StephenPinker_344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20836125 No.20836125 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts???

>> No.20836154

>>20836125
>claims that Kevin MacDonald's books are unscientific
>when pressed, admits that he hasn't even read them, proving KMac's point

only the very dumbest retards from the very bottom of the barrel of idiots listen to this clown

>> No.20836168

I enjoyed Better Angels. He makes a pretty convincing case that violence has declined worldwide, while being careful to state that the trend may not continue. I've heard criticisms that a few of his graphs are misleading, but I don't know how true they are.

I haven't read Enlightenment Now, but from what I understand he takes things a step further and predicts further improvements in living standards. A more in-the-know anon can step in and correct me on this. It's possible that after the success of Angels, he is now "branded", so to speak, as a professional optimist, which could influence him to become even more of one.

I don't think 4chan basedposters would like him much, because I think he's pretty neoliberal in his general outlook.

>> No.20836175

>>20836154
Do you necessarily have to read someone to know if you agree with their main points?

>> No.20836180
File: 73 KB, 803x803, 1659894209124777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20836180

>>20836175
>it's unscientific
>how so?
>because I disagree with it

>> No.20836238

>>20836180
That's not what was said. Let me rephrase. I know I disagree with Aristotle about rats being spontaneously generated with food, even though I've never read where he actually said that.

>> No.20836240

ass

>> No.20836346

>>20836238
I would have to read Aristotle (or some faithful summary) before calling his idea unscientific, though. A wrong idea can be scientific just as a correct idea can be unscientific.
Occasionally you'll run into old texts where people actually consider multiple possibilities, weigh up observations, and then end up drawing the wrong conclusion.
(I don't know if that's relevant here. I barely even know who Kevin MacDonald is. He sounds unhinged.)

>> No.20836358

ass

>> No.20836452

>>20836168
>He makes a pretty convincing case that violence has declined worldwide, while being careful to state that the trend may not continue
it's just a much less interesting claim when you tack that addendum onto it. there are so many moving parts, so many new factors added every decade of the past three centuries, such a dependency on irrational human will and imagination - no shit you can't predict anything. i haven't read his books (i do not read books) but it looks like he's doing a motte and bailey by saying "LINE GO UP BECAUSE LIBERALISM GOOD" while whispering ("data not sure that line keep go up").

>> No.20836454

>>20836125
King of the midwits

>> No.20836456

Jew.

>> No.20836457

>>20836456
i forgot about this, disregard my post >>20836452

>> No.20836463

>>20836125
Anybody who makes a face like that has many dark secrets

>> No.20836482

>>20836346
If I wrote a book about how the smell of my dog's farts will predict the future of humanity, and I know this because a demon told me in a dream, you could rightly call it scientific without ever reading the book.

>> No.20836547

E P S T E I N
P
S
T
E
I
N

>> No.20836795

Better Angels legitimately changed my life

>> No.20836923

>>20836125
ass

>> No.20836935

>>20836547
I know some dude who tweeted this at him and got blocked by the guy. As for Pinker himself, his worldview is too rigid and dogmatic, much like religious types (I assume) he critiques

>> No.20836964

>>20836125
Jew

>> No.20836979

>>20836125
Jew and Epstein

>> No.20837002
File: 105 KB, 718x387, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20837002

>>20836482
Maybe. Terry Davis thought random number generators revealed the will of God, and while I wouldn't go so far as to call that scientific, he cared about externally verifiable evidence. He had his examples. (All brute-forced coincidences evaluated by a schizophrenic mind, but real.) He invited people to try for themselves.
Kevin MacDonald's thesis sounds like bullshit but the two-sentence summary doesn't sound unscientific yet. Maybe a hundred-sentence summary would, and I'm sure Pinker has read more than that.
I'm not bothered by what Pinker said, I just get peeved by equivocation of science and truth. Pinker's actual critique seems mostly about things MacDonald fails to do, not about his basic position. His claim is untrue but it's his methods that are unscientific.

>> No.20837109

>>20836482
Tat book already exists, it's called Better Angels.

>> No.20837215

>>20836125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQE9KAbFhNY