Steven Pinker is a firebrand.

And that in itself is a kind of a mystery to me.

Only because I find his basic arguments to be (for lack of a better word) reasonable.

His message is (essentially):

The current state of affairs is obviously concerning.

But if you look at the human condition over the long term, a lot of things are improving.

According to Pinker.

Science, technology, rule of law and liberal democracy have liberated billions of humans from poverty, miserable servitude, disease and political terror.

Even though we had Donald Trump, and even though the planet is obviously dying.

Let’s not panic.

Let’s stay focused, stay the course and (to the very best of our abilities) let’s let evidence and reason dictate our policies.

He’s a very controversial figure to both far left and extreme right of American politics.

The progressive left hate him because he criticizes some of their more anti-intellectual tactics.

Such as politically correct speech suppression, and Romantic mistrust of scientific methods and findings (when they counter progressive liberal talking points).

The extreme right hate him (a little less, but still) because he’s (essentially) an outspoken liberal intellectual.

Some locate him as center right.

Some locate him as center left.

Regardless of his politics (a subject I find uninteresting and distracting from his arguments).

A lot of criticism focuses on his use of data.

Ok.

That’s legit.

Everyone knows statistical data is easily massaged.

But much of the same criticism seems to be politically motivated.

And snore….

As clearly abhorrent, toxic and (add whatever expletive you wish) ridiculous as the Trump era post truth tactics are.

Pinker thinks it is a mistake to allow them to poison the well of liberal thought and policy.

For instance.

Pinker criticizes progressive liberal bias in university culture.

Although my politics (for what it’s worth) lean progressive liberal. I’m absolutely inclined to agree.

Trust and participation in university education is (by my account) a near unalloyed good.

Keeping university culture open to a broad spectrum of thought keeps the engine of progress chugging.

My mother (a philosophy professor) used to say, “remove the agitator from the washing machine and see how clean the clothes get”.

Seeking to stifle open debate in university is like a left wing version of the POS reverend Jerry Falwell‘s moral majority caucus from the 1980’s.

In case you’re too young to remember how awful that bullshit was, Google it!

Zealous adherence to “woke” new speak, cancel culture bullying, and cringe worthy nakedly transparent, “progressive” virtue signaling are toxic to the type of spirited open debate and evidence based methodology that makes university culture worthy of trust.

My mom aslo used to say “never fight with a pig because you both get muddy and the pig will love it”.

The intuitive response to Trump era populist neofascist agitprop is to adopt an equal and opposite intellectual counterpose.

But if we do, we’re sinking to an unspeakable low.

Pinker’s argument (as far as I can tell) is:

Rather than join in the pizza gate style, post truth, epistemological nightmare.

Better to stay the course, welcome reasonable debate, adhere to reliable methods, adjust policy based on hard evidence and continue to move, step by (at times excruciatingly slow) step, in the direction liberal humanistic values.

I can’t reasonably disagree.

Lastly.

Many criticize Pinker’s admittedly corny humor.

This is as much a matter of taste as anything.

But I’m gonna come out in favor of it.

I find Pinker‘s clever and witty ‘dad’ jokes to be laugh out loud funny.

They make his otherwise dense writing massively entertaining and fun.

Like, I wish my dad was that fucking funny.

Anyway.

Given that Pinker is clearly a flawed human.

And just for fun, name a human that isn’t.

I’m a fan boy.

And I fucking loved this book.

Sorry about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FIVE STARS ⭐️