sillypunk's review against another edition
4.0
So long but so good.
The amount of data and different data sets that are marshalled to prove his point are remarkable.
The amount of data and different data sets that are marshalled to prove his point are remarkable.
statman's review against another edition
4.0
I don't necessarily agree with all that Pinker shows here but this is a book that will make you think. It is very dense with a writing style full of big academic words that still manages to read well. Warning, there is so much to digest in its near 700 pages and it is not a book for the faint-hearted looking to be entertained. The premise is that the last 100 years of history have brought a decline of violence of all sorts, in spite of all the cries of woe from many places. I appreciate that he backs this up very logically and with all the data analysis and statistics that can be mustered to demonstrate his arguments. Some of this book is too irreverent and downplaying of the role of religion in history. Pinker choose to focus only on the negative aspects of violence in the name of religion with no mention of the positive things and good that has been brought about by religion.
sakibat's review
Stopped at 11%. It's just too long, and I wasn't paying any attention to the audiobook.
bobbo49's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Well, this tome only took me a month to read - but the challenge, and the insights and analysis that Pinker provides, were well worth the time, as he substantiates the theory that modern societies - and their inhabitants - are less prone to internal and external violence. He starts out by carefully and statistically establishing the historical decline in violence/wars/killings over the centuries, even considering the two 20th Century global wars that briefly skewed numbers in the other direction. Pinker then systematically analyzes the underlying roots of this decline.
Yes, Pinker acknowledges the possibilities of contrary future trends, but he also clearly establishes the greater likelihood of continued evolution toward reductions in local and global violence.
All in all, a very well documented and carefully written analysis of why violence has, and should continue to, decline.
Yes, Pinker acknowledges the possibilities of contrary future trends, but he also clearly establishes the greater likelihood of continued evolution toward reductions in local and global violence.
All in all, a very well documented and carefully written analysis of why violence has, and should continue to, decline.
felixmpichardo's review against another edition
2.0
After some time, this book is not actually very good. Pinker doesn't know what he's talking about.
draeprice's review against another edition
This book has a lot of information and interesting ideas, but it's too gruesome for me to read.
borumi's review against another edition
4.0
3.5
Pinker tries to break apart our biased dispostion to look back and long for times gone by as the idyllic Eden of innocence in chapter 1 and see it plainly as what the title of the chapter suggests: a foreign country and a violent one. Then, through chapters 2-7, he goes over the six trends that took place in human history to retreat from that violent past: the Pacification Process (from prehistory to the first agricultural civilizations), the Civilizing Process (between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century), the Humanitarian Revolution (the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries), the Long Peace (after the end of World War II), the New Peace (since the end of the Cold Wars in 1989), the Rights Revolution (the postwar era, from the late 1950s to the present day). After describing the phenomenon, he goes on to explore both the causes that drove human beings to violence in the first place and then work to repel that violent tendency to move toward this trend toward nonviolence. The causes for violence are mainly the five inner demons described in chapter 8 (predatory of instrumental violence, dominance, revenge, sadism and ideology) and the inner motives for nonviolence, the better angels in chapter 9 are empathy, self-control, the moral sense and the faculty of reason. Chapters 8 and 9 are steeped in academic literature from both neuroscience, sociology and psychology and I think Pinker excels at delivering these points. Then he goes on with the more exogenous historical forces that favor peace: the Leviathan, the gentle Commerce, cosmopolitanism, feminization and the escalator of reason.
Writers like Diamond, Pinker and Harari are very good at going over a vast volume of content and presenting a relatively relatable and interesting perspective from that overview to the lay readers. Both Diamond and Pinker have expertise in natural sciences whereas Harari is a historian and they all delve into areas outside their comfort zones. That does not necessarily disqualify them as authors as the borderlines between natural and social sciences and other academia are increasingly becoming intermingled and blurred. So I wouldn't discredit this work as being 'out of his league'.
However, despite his huge compilation of evidence backing up his message, the statistical analysis is sometimes questionable and lacks power or fidelity (which is, to be fair, understandable due to the majority of his subject of analysis being placed in times with little trustworthy record). Some of the proposed causes are guessworks based on correlation and I hope it would be backed up by further evidences in the future but Pinker has already acknowledged this. I also wonder at his overlooking world wars I and II as momentary 'bumps' in the decline.
Moreover, I'm more worried that his definition of 'violence' and utilitarianism is too restricted at times. Sure, the explicit physical violence might be declining, but what about the other more insinuous violence of the government and capitalism which drove down the personal violence but may be a major player in the other forms of violence and dominance in the world?
Also, his perspective of good is westernized, anthropocentric and somewhat complacent regarding the increasing violence the human species are imposing on the environment and other species. I'm not as worried that his theory might be wrong as I am wary of the author's upholding an overly westernized, libertarian view towards both the forms of government and commerce and 'the way the world should be'. Isn't he propounding another ideal ideological theory of his own which he warned against in the first place?
It would also be interesting to follow up on the author's outlook in the post-Brexit, post-Trump world. What does he think of the simplified, unsophisticated political discourse and increasingly protective trade and immigration barriers rising in the democratic and capitalist West?
Pinker tries to break apart our biased dispostion to look back and long for times gone by as the idyllic Eden of innocence in chapter 1 and see it plainly as what the title of the chapter suggests: a foreign country and a violent one. Then, through chapters 2-7, he goes over the six trends that took place in human history to retreat from that violent past: the Pacification Process (from prehistory to the first agricultural civilizations), the Civilizing Process (between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century), the Humanitarian Revolution (the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries), the Long Peace (after the end of World War II), the New Peace (since the end of the Cold Wars in 1989), the Rights Revolution (the postwar era, from the late 1950s to the present day). After describing the phenomenon, he goes on to explore both the causes that drove human beings to violence in the first place and then work to repel that violent tendency to move toward this trend toward nonviolence. The causes for violence are mainly the five inner demons described in chapter 8 (predatory of instrumental violence, dominance, revenge, sadism and ideology) and the inner motives for nonviolence, the better angels in chapter 9 are empathy, self-control, the moral sense and the faculty of reason. Chapters 8 and 9 are steeped in academic literature from both neuroscience, sociology and psychology and I think Pinker excels at delivering these points. Then he goes on with the more exogenous historical forces that favor peace: the Leviathan, the gentle Commerce, cosmopolitanism, feminization and the escalator of reason.
Writers like Diamond, Pinker and Harari are very good at going over a vast volume of content and presenting a relatively relatable and interesting perspective from that overview to the lay readers. Both Diamond and Pinker have expertise in natural sciences whereas Harari is a historian and they all delve into areas outside their comfort zones. That does not necessarily disqualify them as authors as the borderlines between natural and social sciences and other academia are increasingly becoming intermingled and blurred. So I wouldn't discredit this work as being 'out of his league'.
However, despite his huge compilation of evidence backing up his message, the statistical analysis is sometimes questionable and lacks power or fidelity (which is, to be fair, understandable due to the majority of his subject of analysis being placed in times with little trustworthy record). Some of the proposed causes are guessworks based on correlation and I hope it would be backed up by further evidences in the future but Pinker has already acknowledged this. I also wonder at his overlooking world wars I and II as momentary 'bumps' in the decline.
Moreover, I'm more worried that his definition of 'violence' and utilitarianism is too restricted at times. Sure, the explicit physical violence might be declining, but what about the other more insinuous violence of the government and capitalism which drove down the personal violence but may be a major player in the other forms of violence and dominance in the world?
Also, his perspective of good is westernized, anthropocentric and somewhat complacent regarding the increasing violence the human species are imposing on the environment and other species. I'm not as worried that his theory might be wrong as I am wary of the author's upholding an overly westernized, libertarian view towards both the forms of government and commerce and 'the way the world should be'. Isn't he propounding another ideal ideological theory of his own which he warned against in the first place?
It would also be interesting to follow up on the author's outlook in the post-Brexit, post-Trump world. What does he think of the simplified, unsophisticated political discourse and increasingly protective trade and immigration barriers rising in the democratic and capitalist West?
adiatlas's review against another edition
4.0
What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe.