UKC

John Gray picks a fight with Steven Pinker

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Hooo 15 Mar 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-...

I was impressed with Straw Dogs when I first read it, and more so with Better Angels. On reading this essay I went and had a look at Straw Dogs again. It's no match for Pinker's book, it's all statements with no evidence and some of it is blatantly wrong.
Anyone on here want to defend Gray? Are we really doomed to an endless cycle of violence? Or as Pinker claims, are people getting nicer?
 Jon Stewart 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:
You've got to have some chutzpah to pick a fight with the always right Steven Pinker. And i didn't like straw dogs at all, so unsurprisingly i don't fancy defending Gray.

good article, but just moaning on about bad things doesn't make pinker wrong. I don't think that anyone would deny that what we now refer to as Enlightenment values are a modern interpretation after the fact. Both intuitively and in the evidence, pinkers argument is still compelling.
Post edited at 08:39
 Mike Highbury 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> good article, but just moaning on about bad things doesn't make pinker wrong. I don't think that anyone would deny that what we now refer to as Enlightenment values are a modern interpretation after the fact. Both intuitively and in the evidence, pinkers argument is still compelling.

Really? Pinker appears a-intellectual to me; but then we grew up reading the Dialectic of the Enlightenment after Maariv.
 johnjohn 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Mike Highbury:

This piece annoyed me. So some 'enlightenment' thinkers were pro eugenics and other bad things? Gray simply fails to link this observation to any evidence that would contradict Pinker's thesis about declining violence, probably because there isn't any.

I don't think, by the way, that Pinker argues that people are getting nicer, just that the state/society is making them behave more nicely.
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Both books are, imho, second rate. If anything, Pinker's is worse than Gray's.
1
 seankenny 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Both books are, imho, second rate. If anything, Pinker's is worse than Gray's.

Please suggest something from the Stainforth Library which deals with the same subject but in a more first-rate fashion?
In reply to Hooo:
I think the point Gray makes about nuclear weapons and MAD is valid in the context of this argument. Not sure why Pinker dismisses it. Also, how "enlightened" is Pinker on the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Is Netanyahu getting "nicer"?
Post edited at 11:03
In reply to seankenny:

Pretty much the whole corpus of Nietzsche, but particularly On the Genealogy of Morals.
 seankenny 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

This under-educated pretender does wonder whether Nietzsche might not have had so many stats to hand as Pinker, and was perhaps a bit too close to the Enlightenment - temporally speaking - to have a clear view on it?

In reply to seankenny:

According to a lot of the commentary (as I am an under educated pretender too), it's Pinkers' poor use of stats that lets him down
 Jon Stewart 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

"Pinker: a poor man's Nietzsche" sounds a bit odd to me!
1
 seankenny 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Or is it "Gray: a poor man's Nietzsche" with Pinker as stats illiterate tea boy?

It's tough being just another under-educated piece of flotsam and jetsam that emerged from the slops bucket of the British education system. Where are the big brains who can sort all this out for us?
1
 johnjohn 17 Mar 2015
In reply to seankenny:

Speak for yourself. I'm aware that there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach about the raising of the wrist, if that helps? I know quite a lot of other philosophers too: Immanuel Kant. Heidegger, Hume, Hegel, Schlegel, right through to René Descartes. You get the idea. (Foucault, - not on this list for some reason. Teetotal?- has a lot to say - albeit not much comprehensible - about deviancy and punishment from a post-modern perspective. Foucault to do with this discussion, mind, though about as much as Nietzche.)

Anyway, I wanted to see an argument about the stats. If Gray was able to prove that you are no more likely to die a violent death in hunter-gather/tribal/village/medieval societies than in modern societies where there are actual laws enforced by police, that would be interesting. If improbable.
 bigbobbyking 17 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:

I'm just reading Better Angles now and this article annoyed me too. Seems that Gray doesn't really contradict the central thesis of Pinker's book, which is to my mind to show that violence has greatly declined at all levels, from state-to-state wars, to homicide, to violent crime. Pinker also advances some explanations for why this might be the case but this seems secondary. And Gray denies that this decline is even the case.

Gray argues that decline in battlefield deaths is misleading because non-battefield deaths have increased, but he doesn't really provide any evidence for that. There are plenty of historical anecdotes suggesting that violence against civilians was commonplace, e.g. medieval or bibical accounts of seiges ending with everyone enslaved or killed.

His rebuttals of Pinker are anecdotal and rely on the availability bias: events of the 20th century are more available to us and therefore apt to jump to mind when we think of terrible violence. We don't remember the small wars from the 17th century and so jump to the conclusion that they didn't happen. What Pinker convinced me of was that with a little digging there was plenty of evidence that wars of previous centuries were just as terrible as those currently being waged.

Also I don't see Gray making any attempt to deny that Western Democracies are far less violent places to live than ever before, fewer murders, rapes etc.


 Postmanpat 17 Mar 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

> This piece annoyed me. So some 'enlightenment' thinkers were pro eugenics and other bad things? Gray simply fails to link this observation to any evidence that would contradict Pinker's thesis about declining violence, probably because there isn't any.

> I don't think, by the way, that Pinker argues that people are getting nicer, just that the state/society is making them behave more nicely.

Exactly. Gray seems to be flirting with straw man territory.
OP Hooo 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:

Can anyone point me to a good commentary on Better Angels that shows Pinker's poor use of statistics? I fully admit that I'm too lazy to do the research myself
As a few people have said, if the statistics let the book down, why doesn't Gray offer any evidence? Merely stating that it isn't true isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
OP Hooo 18 Mar 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

> I don't think, by the way, that Pinker argues that people are getting nicer, just that the state/society is making them behave more nicely.

We're still only three meals away from savagery? That's possibly true, but within society people seem to be less accepting of violence. I was struck by a recent thread on here about child smacking, where an large majority declared it inexcusable. I don't think you'd have got that response twenty years ago. Society created this change in people, but if society collapsed would they revert to beating their children? I don't think so.
 flaneur 18 Mar 2015
In reply to bigbobbyking:

> Gray argues that decline in battlefield deaths is misleading because non-battefield deaths have increased, but he doesn't really provide any evidence for that. There are plenty of historical anecdotes suggesting that violence against civilians was commonplace, e.g. medieval or bibical accounts of seiges ending with everyone enslaved or killed.

Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) is a good example of "collateral damage" far exceeding battlefield casualties well before the term was coined. Estimates vary but 33-40% of Germany's total population perished.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/population_thirty_years_war.htm

 Dave Garnett 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:

> Society created this change in people, but if society collapsed would they revert to beating their children? I don't think so.

Maybe the nice people who are horrified by the idea of smacking a child under any circumstances wouldn't change their view but it wouldn't matter because they would be eaten by others who have few moral scruples even under ideal circumstances, never mind after the apocalypse.
 winhill 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:

> Can anyone point me to a good commentary on Better Angels that shows Pinker's poor use of statistics? I fully admit that I'm too lazy to do the research myself

> As a few people have said, if the statistics let the book down, why doesn't Gray offer any evidence? Merely stating that it isn't true isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

Er, it's linked to in the OP you posted!
 seankenny 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Maybe the nice people who are horrified by the idea of smacking a child under any circumstances wouldn't change their view but it wouldn't matter because they would be eaten by others who have few moral scruples even under ideal circumstances, never mind after the apocalypse.

This of course assumes that in the event of a massive disaster that people will immediately and without doubt go feral. I don't think this is a given at all. Rather it depends on the level of development, trust and co-operation within a society before any disaster befalls it. Germany and Japan could reorganise themselves fairly quickly during and after WWII, despite suffering severe destruction. Admittedly it wasn't always pretty, but compare and contrast with Afghanistan or the Congo. In the former cases people could still organise themselves into productive groups, whereas in the later two it was pretty much every man for himself.
1
 Dave Garnett 18 Mar 2015
In reply to seankenny:

> Germany and Japan could reorganise themselves fairly quickly during and after WWII, despite suffering severe destruction.

My comment was tongue in cheek, I don't really think that society would immediately resort to cannibalism, not while there are supermarkets to loot...

However, with respect to your examples, Germany and Japan weren't left to organise themselves, the Allies took responsibility for re-establishing civil society.

In reply to seankenny:

Germany and Japan were mainly a mono culture, Congo and Afghanistan divided by religious/tribal sects (tutsi/hutu/sunni/shia) I would think that played a big part

 seankenny 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> My comment was tongue in cheek, I don't really think that society would immediately resort to cannibalism, not while there are supermarkets to loot...

It's a common view that the apocalypse is only three missed meals away. I'm not so sure myself.

> However, with respect to your examples, Germany and Japan weren't left to organise themselves, the Allies took responsibility for re-establishing civil society.

Note I said "during and after", ie they were quite well organised even when everything fell apart towards the end of the war. Whole neighbourhoods were destroyed but people still went back to work. One could argue that this was the result of the Nazis, but similar things happened in Britain too. I prefer to think of it as the strength of well-organised modern societies. It's interesting that the contemporary visions of apolcalypse and quick social disintegration tend to be American...

1
 seankenny 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Germany and Japan were mainly a mono culture, Congo and Afghanistan divided by religious/tribal sects (tutsi/hutu/sunni/shia) I would think that played a big part

I think it plays a part, but not a huge one. Ignoring Japan as I know very little about it, consider Germany. It's the home of two opposing sects who were quite happy to kill each other in huge numbers for centuries. But lots of other factors make this irrelevant. Clearly this is hugely complicated, but industrialisation, widespread education, an ability to work as part of large groups/division of labour, etc all played a part. Compare this to the Congo which had fewer than 100 graduates at independence and had been operated as a purely extractive economy for decades.
1
In reply to seankenny: "It's a common view that the apocalypse is only three missed meals away. I'm not so sure myself."

One thing to consider is a small spark can quickly escalate....panic buying of petrol at the whiff of a fuel shortage (see UK in 2012 as a recent example) and the Duggan riots (2011) where violence spread very quickly throughout London to Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol and resultant looting, arson and score settling in the chaos. All in a first world, well educated industrialized nation. There was a while where the authorities really did seem to have very little control. Having said that, at some point you would expect "decent" people to take control in the event of a complete failure of the authorities at some point, but how long after...who knows?

 seankenny 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "It's a common view that the apocalypse is only three missed meals away. I'm not so sure myself."

> One thing to consider is a small spark can quickly escalate....panic buying of petrol at the whiff of a fuel shortage (see UK in 2012 as a recent example) and the Duggan riots (2011) where violence spread very quickly throughout London to Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol and resultant looting, arson and score settling in the chaos. All in a first world, well educated industrialized nation. There was a while where the authorities really did seem to have very little control. Having said that, at some point you would expect "decent" people to take control in the event of a complete failure of the authorities at some point, but how long after...who knows?

Those things really aren't a big deal. Society will always be subject to panics, scares, irrational exuberance, and for a time the authorities lack some control (a good thing too, imho). The fact is that there were very very few long term ramifications from those events you use as an example. If you'd wanted to use a lack of control of authorities resulting in massive social change, you could try the 07/08 financial crash or the Euro debt crises, but despite being way more chaotic and difficult to deal with, our societies have just about coped. Compare that to, say, contemporary Greece or Russia in the 1990s.

My point is that a "complete failure of the authorities" is extremely unlikely in our societies. Have you seen "Threads", the 1980s nuclear drama? It was pretty well researched but still assumed there'd be a vestige of authority (even if it was arbitrary and brutal). Of course, we don't know whether this would be the case in reality. But that we can consider it a possibility is telling.

1
In reply to seankenny:
"The fact is that there were very very few long term ramifications from those events you use as an example."
I agree, but thought they were good examples of how quickly irrational or exacerbating behaviour can take hold (in response to the three meals analogy)

" If you'd wanted to use a lack of control of authorities resulting in massive social change, you could try the 07/08 financial crash or the Euro debt crises"

That's a good example...although I would say since the GFC the authorities are pretty hamstrung in their response as often it is political suicide to take the necessary medicine...so when you say "our societies have just about coped" I would say it's too early to tell as the can kicking has been pretty epic and I don't believe the chicken has come home to roost yet (excuse the idioms)

I haven't seen "Threads" , will look it up.
 Jon Stewart 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Hooo:
> As a few people have said, if the statistics let the book down, why doesn't Gray offer any evidence? Merely stating that it isn't true isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

Many people have seized on what may or may not be an important statistical critique. It appears that the exchange between its author and Pinker involved an awful lot of ego and irritation on both sides, and the tone of the critique - technical points presumably of merit, alongside bald value judgments as if the two were controvertible fact - frankly makes it less compelling than it probably should be (although I shouldn't be swayed!).

He calls John Gray’s critique “anecdotal”, yet it is more powerful statistically (argument of via negativa) than his >700 pages of pseudostats.

When two experts are having a spat on technical issue, it's not sensible for onlookers to assume immediately that either one is completely right and the other wrong.

My own view is that while it's commendable to try to come up with detailed statistical evidence about the decline in violence, it's not realistic to expect to produce a story that can't be challenged by an expert who disagrees with the thrust of your argument.
Post edited at 12:38
1
 seankenny 18 Mar 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "The fact is that there were very very few long term ramifications from those events you use as an example."

> I agree, but thought they were good examples of how quickly irrational or exacerbating behaviour can take hold (in response to the three meals analogy)

Indeed. As an aside, remember that the fuel crisis in 2012 was, ahem, mostly caused by the government making stupid statements - it wasn't a lack of authority, it was authority not being very competent.

If authority totally broke down very quickly - say the scenario outlined by Margaret Atwood in "Oryx and Crake" - then it would be totally rational to loot and kill to ensure your family could eat. My point is that this sort of scenario is extremely unlikely, and that in most scenarios that we'd be likely to face, our society and our moral sense would remain intact for a long time. We see this in areas which undergo disasters, eg Japan, the Philippines.


> " If you'd wanted to use a lack of control of authorities resulting in massive social change, you could try the 07/08 financial crash or the Euro debt crises"

> That's a good example...although I would say since the GFC the authorities are pretty hamstrung in their response as often it is political suicide to take the necessary medicine...so when you say "our societies have just about coped" I would say it's too early to tell as the can kicking has been pretty epic and I don't believe the chicken has come home to roost yet (excuse the idioms)

Idioms excused. I lack the economic understanding to agree or disagree in any meaningful way, but from what I've read I suspect you're correct.


> I haven't seen "Threads" , will look it up.

It's all on YouTube. Beware, it's really depressing.

1
OP Hooo 19 Mar 2015
In reply to winhill:

> Er, it's linked to in the OP you posted!

Doh! In my defence, I didn't read the link in my OP. I read it in the paper, and linked to the online version for reference. Could be worse, it could have been a completely different article!
I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
OP Hooo 19 Mar 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Many people have seized on what may or may not be an important statistical critique. It appears that the exchange between its author and Pinker involved an awful lot of ego and irritation on both sides, and the tone of the critique - technical points presumably of merit, alongside bald value judgments as if the two were controvertible fact - frankly makes it less compelling than it probably should be (although I shouldn't be swayed!).

> When two experts are having a spat on technical issue, it's not sensible for onlookers to assume immediately that either one is completely right and the other wrong.

> My own view is that while it's commendable to try to come up with detailed statistical evidence about the decline in violence, it's not realistic to expect to produce a story that can't be challenged by an expert who disagrees with the thrust of your argument.

I've had a quick look at Taleb's essay, enough to know that I am not competent to judge whether his statistical arguments are valid. I agree with all your points above, I don't think it's realistic to answer this question purely with statistics, as the boundaries are all too vague. Pinker has made a good effort to summarise the data in a form that the likes of me can understand. Any summary like that will always be vulnerable to attack from an expert who holds an opposing opinion.
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Mar 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I've just seen this. Gordon, I assume you have read the book? Assuming that (and I'm not so sure) could you enlighten us as to why it is second rate?

He has a hypothesis; he tests it with extensive use of statistical and other evidence; and he provides possible theories as to why the phenomenon might be happening.

It's a pity that he is such lucid and gifted writer but hey, not everyone can be German.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I've just seen your reply I'll try to get back to this in about a week's time - I'm under huge pressure to complete next section of draft of next book by about middle of next week.
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Thanks for that ... haven't seen Gordon's response yet...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...