Everything all the time

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

Does it detract to know that Pinker does an hideous job of cherry-picking in order to establish his thesis of human’s violent nature?

No for two reasons. 1) the evidence that he is cherry picking is scant. As witnessed by your selection of quotes, as opposed to data, and a study that concludes he did not cherry pick. You might want to slow down on your bias confirming google searches. 2) I have some evidence-evaluating skills so pick through Pinker like I do anyone. I haven’t bought the book and don’t plan to work through it, but I have absorbed other sources for the topics he covers and do my best to intergrate all of it.

@citizenschallengev4

This article is an interesting look at the complexity of this question, that Pinker’s treatment sidesteps, in his zeal to elevate the Western Ideal.

In the OP video, he comments more than once that there is not a steady reduction of violence through history, that it is full of ups and downs, and that the data offers no support for a conclusion that the reduction will continue. I don’t call that a sidestep.

@citizenschallengev4

Gat contributes some useful points to the debate. But too often, at important junctures, he’s either disingenuous or a little blinkered. – quoting Gyrus from the link provided

This is where I start to lose your thesis. This quote is about how this is a debate, ongoing, something Pinker says. I agree that we should keep discussing it.

@citizenschallengev4

It’s all about death:

And, then a deeper look into the data, something I wish had the time to do. That author concludes:

After this assessment of Pinker’s data, I did not find any reason to assume that he cherry-picked. He included all the data that his sources included. – Max Roser

@citizenschallengev4

How differently outlooks would be, had we actually absorbed the lessons that evolution lays out for us. We are animals. Our thinking and knowledge comes from within our own bodies interacting with the physical biological reality we are immersed in. Period.

If by “evolution”, you mean the Theory of Evolution, then I agree, that tells us that we came from the same place, the same process, as all other creatures. But that knowledge of that theory came from observations of our environment and thoughts and ideas passed on and accumulated and built upon over generations. If it’s the knowledge you are talking about then I don’t know what you mean by it “comes from within our own bodies”.

I have no sense, and can identify no instinct that tells me my thoughts are created by a nervous system with millions of neurons firing at a rapid rate. Somebody told me that, and they knew because generations before them figured it out. And all of them still can’t agree on exactly how it all works. In a larger sense, a sense of eons and billions of interactions, sure, the only place knowledge comes from is bodies interacting with physical reality. But if you want to discuss how to create a more peaceful world, how does that inform the conversation?

My answer to that was recently included in the Vervaeke thread, with a mention of Ursula Goodenough’s work. Put aside the narrative view of history, of a timeline of kings and progress leading to some better place, and instead plumb the depths of our abilities to understand who we are. (See the bottom of that post)

Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis

[Ep. 38 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - Agape and 4E Cognitive Science] It’s been a while. These are getting to where the first half is a lot of terms, a lot of rearranging of words that have been introduced throughout. This would probably be at least two semesters in the college level, and you’d read the material. Overall, I think he did a good job picking the 50 session format. The meat usually comes in the last 15 minutes. Although the stuff at the beginning about agape is …