Is his new book good?

Is his new book good?

Is the the hero of liberal humanism in the 21st century?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VUDAdOdF6Zg
isreview.org/issue/86/steven-pinker-alleged-decline-violence
youtube.com/watch?v=iVT9sxyr2I0
nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/social-media-dumber-steven-pinker.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Rock star?Is he a musician as well?

>slate
>reliable source of news
this man is a fraud

Why do you say that?

a$$

he said that in today's JRE interview

He was just on Rogan

youtube.com/watch?v=VUDAdOdF6Zg

it's funny how quick all those 00s rationalwave/nuatheists/secular humanists became completely laughable to everyone regardless of position in the political spectrum.

He called himself a fraud?

I would be interested in a thoughtful user’s actual opinion on Steven Pinker. I’ve never taken the time to read his stuff but he seems very prolific and maybe well respected?

Anybody wanna redpill us on Pinker? /pol/tards need not apply. Let’s get something sensible.

it's not good, i don't know how the actual academic writing he did to makes his tenure bones was, but the books are bad, not that the content is bad, it's ok, it is what it is, but the style is like sort of angry, i just remember this one part where he sounded really mad that rock stars make a lot of money or that women liked the beatles, it was like this dude sounds a lil salty, which is guess is why redpill frogbois eat it up

ass

isreview.org/issue/86/steven-pinker-alleged-decline-violence

woah, peter singer endorsed pinkers shit? i thought singer was supposed be a serious guy, singer exposed

>which is guess is why redpill frogbois eat it up
the fuck are you talking about wojack

steven pinker is the most high profile 'muh enlightenment' spokesman for Davos forum Gates foundation globalist social progress in our culture right now

yeah but his books have this undercurrent of "why don't these dumb bitches realize what a nice guy i am" which resonates with repillers

can't be bothered to scan his whole ouevre for this but here's an example:

>Even today, inequality has allowed a kind of polygyny to flourish.
Wealthy men support a wife and a mistress, or divorce their wives at
twenty-year intervals and pay them alimony and child support while marrying
younger women. The journalist Robert Wright has speculated that
easy divorce and remarriage, like overt polygyny, increases violence.
Women of childbearing age are monopolized by well-to-do men, and the
shortage of potential wives trickles down to the lower strata, forcing
the poorest young men into desperate competition.

woah so redpilled this dude is woke amirite

>steven pinker is the most high profile 'muh enlightenment' spokesman for Davos forum Gates foundation globalist social progress in our culture right now

that's arguably even worse than being a frogman.

God, he looks so broken. Even in the pictures where he's smiling he looks dead inside.

When did this happen according to you? Sambo Harris sells out 3000 seat theatres just to say smug things in a comfy chair.

That is pretty woke desu.

Forced monogamy at the threat of violence is the only way to keep female hypergamy in check. A woman for every man is the only thing that keeps betas striving. If you remove that possibility they just say fuck it and play vidya, and rightly so.

>socialist muslim apologists

lel, opinion discarded

aleikum salaam

ass

that's the only reason i'd consider a full time job, to have a family, but if finding a wife is like pulling teeth fine i'll just relax and read n shit

That would be me, the CHAD cognitive scientist

Chalmers looks like a bloody skunk.
doubtlessly does some skunk too :^)

I havent read Pinker's work, but this seems pretty damning

>i thought singer was supposed be a serious guy

he's the lead singer of led zeppelin, robert plant

>hero of liberal humanism
Nah, miss me with that shit. FALGSC or bust.

and a conductor
youtube.com/watch?v=iVT9sxyr2I0

I'm a post-grad student specializing in an area tangentially related to his expertise and I can say his academic reputation is huge.

Somehow his positions on sexuality and a few statements regarding politics left a bad taste in the mouth of both people in the social sciences and a subset of liberal media pundits.

OBSESSED

>Is the the hero of liberal humanism in the 21st century?
nah, hasn't written anything good after blank slate

ass

nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/social-media-dumber-steven-pinker.html

Probably because he wrote a book attacking tabula rasa nonsense that sociologists and liberals in general love to parrot.

How come Veeky Forums doesn't read any serious academic works? In other words: papers. Who gives a shit about some pop books, it's just personalities making some money on the side. Honestly, if you read nonfiction that isn't papers or textbooks, you might be retarded.

>How come Veeky Forums doesn't read

The little bitch version of Noam Chomsky
All the fields of science can only produce works,dont take the whore seriously

'The Better Angels of Our Nature' was absolutely fantastic. I'll be reading 'Enlightenment Now' when it comes out.

>Is the the hero of liberal humanism in the 21st century?
One of the heroes, yes.

He "hates" Chomsky

ass?

Pinker is a hack.
t. Taleb

ass

lmao chompsky honk mad

Taleb is a dirty Arab who can't speak in clear sentences.

the truth is not egalitarian enough for academics i think

Who are the other ones?

ass

>'The Better Angels of Our Nature' was absolutely fantastic
>I'll be reading 'Enlightenment Now' when it comes out.

That conductor looks nothing like him.

Maybe you're thinking of pic related.

>ignores structural violence
>insists on using proportionality
this is why no one takes leftist seriously

>The anthropologist Douglas P. Fry even calls the belief that humans faced a far higher probability of violent deaths in “nonstate” than “state” societies, “Pinker’s Big Lie,” and adds that “in all cases, [war] was recent, not ancient activity—occurring after complex forms of social organization supplanted nomadic hunting and gathering.” In a forthcoming collection edited by Fry, the anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson assails what he calls “Pinker’s List” of twenty-one “prehistoric” graves, and concludes that the list “consists of cherry-picked cases with high casualties,” and misrepresents “war’s antiquity and lethality.”
This is pretty weak and even disingenuous given what Pinker writes. Pinker's argument is obviously geared towards the evolution of civilizations and cannot be applied to pre-civ without some adjustment. It should also be obvious to anyone that violence does not scale linearly with population but linearly with the number of interactions a population has. Scale any pre-civ society population to the levels of civilized societies and it is pretty fair to argue that they levels of violence would be far higher, because the number of interactions scales non-linearly with population. The only thing stopping pre-civ people from engaging in violence was a lack of availability, not better social organization. Dose Fry really think he is refuting Pinker's argument that social progress has occurred through civilization with his specious reasoning?