Scan barcode
juliabaz3's review against another edition
1.0
Overall I found this disappointing. I didn't love this medium for sharing the debate, as I couldn't read the nuance in what I'm sure were the interactions between the debaters if viewing them live. I also felt like the pre-debate interviews would've been better to read prior to launching into the debate itself, the structure of this book was odd.
In terms of content, it's a debate and it was short so all the ideas that were raised weren't really explored in much depth, and no-one was forced to cite actual evidence for some of the remarkable claims they were making. It was also a very skewed panel which really came through in their respective arguments. A boringly western, male, relatively affluent view of the world and approach to the debate.
In terms of content, it's a debate and it was short so all the ideas that were raised weren't really explored in much depth, and no-one was forced to cite actual evidence for some of the remarkable claims they were making. It was also a very skewed panel which really came through in their respective arguments. A boringly western, male, relatively affluent view of the world and approach to the debate.
polijus1's review against another edition
3.0
I have never heard of the Munk Debates before reading this book. Had I known about it I probably would've watched the debate instead of reading the transcript. In the Pro team we have Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley, which I suppose, are scientists, and in the Con team we have Alain de Botton, modern philosopher and Malcolm Gladwell, a renowned author. I do have to say that the debate is slightly skewed, I'd say that the debate would be more interesting if we have a scientist on the con team and vice versa. Some part of the debate also have ad hominem fallacy which is easily spotted when you're reading the transcript and maybe not so much if you watch the debate live. The topic is interesting, the notion each speaker brings is also interesting, but I don't think it should be read, it's better to watch the debate.
ratrug's review against another edition
3.5
I expected this debate to centre more on human nature - mankind’s tendency to operate selfishly as an individual versus selfishly as a species
I think the emphasis on data from the ‘pro’ team disregarded how we use that data. Everyone acknowledged and accepted we had the means to improve things, but whether we will seize that means (that is, whether it is a politically and financially desirable choice for the people whose opinions matter) feels a more significant question.
The question of whether progress needs to be eternally positive (I.e.. mankind’s best days need to lie ahead and then keep on lying ahead) for the statement to be true is interesting, and I don’t feel the definitions of the statement were unpacked that nicely.
Enjoyable read but the debate itself wasn’t that good.
I think the emphasis on data from the ‘pro’ team disregarded how we use that data. Everyone acknowledged and accepted we had the means to improve things, but whether we will seize that means (that is, whether it is a politically and financially desirable choice for the people whose opinions matter) feels a more significant question.
The question of whether progress needs to be eternally positive (I.e.. mankind’s best days need to lie ahead and then keep on lying ahead) for the statement to be true is interesting, and I don’t feel the definitions of the statement were unpacked that nicely.
Enjoyable read but the debate itself wasn’t that good.
bucketoffish's review against another edition
1.0
This book consists of a debate transcript between Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, Alain de Botton, and Malcolm Gladwell, as well as pre-debate interviews with each of the speakers and a post-debate analysis. The topic was "Do humankind's best days lie ahead?".
Overall, I thought the debate was terrible. Both Botton and Gladwell made good points in their pre-debate interviews, but were unable to bring them up clearly in the actual debate. Botton in particular seemed like he was rambling, and it was difficult to tell during the debate what he was talking about. All parties involved constantly talked past and over each other, and very few points were actually addressed. I think you can see this in the pre and post-debate polls of the audience, which showed that very few people changed their minds. Makes sense when there was barely any actual discussion. The points made by Pinker were already accepted by all four speakers before the debate began, and the actual points where they differed were not given due attention.
In order to have an effective debate, everybody needs to start on the same page. I think it would have helped if one of the pro debaters tried to clarify the opposing position. Imagine if Pinker had said, "Botton, I think you're saying that material progress can't really be the only judge of whether or not it's pleasant to be a human being. There's things like loneliness, anxiety, depression, and loss of agency that are elevated in the present day, correct? Well, my response to that is to look at how social attitudes have changed towards mental health. Therapy is more available these days, and more people are aware and thinking about these problems. Data also shows that we're kinder to each other. Instances of bullying in schools, for example, have been on a downward trend... [etc.]". If we had more of this kind of discussion instead of the endless crosstalk, the debate could have been interesting and ended up changing some people's minds.
The debate format has problems too. The free-for-all section needs to go. Absolutely nothing useful was said there. Additionally, each speaker needs more time. It's not sensical to invite four people on stage and to give them a combined hour of speaking time. I think two people, two hours is a better format, and if there is a free-for-all section, the moderator needs to make sure that people don't interrupt each other.
At the very least, it was nice to hear a summary of Pinker's ideas. I feel like it's less necessary now to read The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Overall, I thought the debate was terrible. Both Botton and Gladwell made good points in their pre-debate interviews, but were unable to bring them up clearly in the actual debate. Botton in particular seemed like he was rambling, and it was difficult to tell during the debate what he was talking about. All parties involved constantly talked past and over each other, and very few points were actually addressed. I think you can see this in the pre and post-debate polls of the audience, which showed that very few people changed their minds. Makes sense when there was barely any actual discussion. The points made by Pinker were already accepted by all four speakers before the debate began, and the actual points where they differed were not given due attention.
In order to have an effective debate, everybody needs to start on the same page. I think it would have helped if one of the pro debaters tried to clarify the opposing position. Imagine if Pinker had said, "Botton, I think you're saying that material progress can't really be the only judge of whether or not it's pleasant to be a human being. There's things like loneliness, anxiety, depression, and loss of agency that are elevated in the present day, correct? Well, my response to that is to look at how social attitudes have changed towards mental health. Therapy is more available these days, and more people are aware and thinking about these problems. Data also shows that we're kinder to each other. Instances of bullying in schools, for example, have been on a downward trend... [etc.]". If we had more of this kind of discussion instead of the endless crosstalk, the debate could have been interesting and ended up changing some people's minds.
The debate format has problems too. The free-for-all section needs to go. Absolutely nothing useful was said there. Additionally, each speaker needs more time. It's not sensical to invite four people on stage and to give them a combined hour of speaking time. I think two people, two hours is a better format, and if there is a free-for-all section, the moderator needs to make sure that people don't interrupt each other.
At the very least, it was nice to hear a summary of Pinker's ideas. I feel like it's less necessary now to read The Better Angels of Our Nature.
josephinininie's review against another edition
challenging
informative
fast-paced
2.5
Not that relevant anymore. Perhaps interesting context of the time of writing. Mostly 4 white men bickering...
linalilo97's review against another edition
4.0
4,5 it was phenomenal for a moment I felt like I was there in the debate in Toronto an intersting ,eye opening reading
hugh_williams's review against another edition
3.0
I could very well have over thought the philosophical intrigue this book would have. Do humankind's best days lie ahead, is a meaty quest and one that cannot be adequately solved or even scratched at in an hour and a half televised debate turned in to a 59-page transcript.
Do not be mistaken, the ideas that are presented as part of this debate are incredibly interesting: is the relieving famine worth, through interconnectedness and risk pooling, worth the possibility of a catastrophic virus destroying the whole of humanity? However, without one question being tackled, this debate boils down to four old men sitting in a room, calling each other names, and not responding to the points others have made; answering questions with questions. And, whilst such is part of philosophy, I hoped for so much more from this.
Worth a read, but it will only pose more questions for the reader to think about.
Do not be mistaken, the ideas that are presented as part of this debate are incredibly interesting: is the relieving famine worth, through interconnectedness and risk pooling, worth the possibility of a catastrophic virus destroying the whole of humanity? However, without one question being tackled, this debate boils down to four old men sitting in a room, calling each other names, and not responding to the points others have made; answering questions with questions. And, whilst such is part of philosophy, I hoped for so much more from this.
Worth a read, but it will only pose more questions for the reader to think about.