Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I agree with the thesis of this book in the broadest sense. The major issue I have with the thesis is that nuclear weapons present an existential threat to humanity. Imagine a second edition written by Pinker during a nuclear winter, as he dies of radiation poisoning in a bunker alongside other protected intellectuals.

I also feel like the book lauds some accomplishments that have only advanced peace in specific demographics. I feel like the net decrease is explained fairly well, but there are many specific areas Pinker does not cover. This leads me to my main critique. It's a remarkably shallow and superficial survey of mostly Western violence and a bunch of over-simplified definitions. One minute you think you're reading a Wikipedia page maybe called "Violence in the Western Canon" and the next you think you're reading a high schooler's paper standardized test essay, in which the high schooler uses two sentences to explain the similarities and differences between state-sponsored violence, and the person who kidnapped Etan Patz. The book is like 400 CNN opinion articles strung together. It's like a response to The Today Show. A little testosterone here, a little Genghis Khan there. Ok, I can get into this because I've heard of that chemical and saw some of the movie they made about the guy. Pinker just proooooooves violence was a thing. So good that he sets us all straight, because we were all in error by not looking at complicated things like history, tracking its stops and starts. Pinker, please simply philosophies in the process, offer none of your own, and continue the tradition of the famous misquotation of Hobbes' most quoted line from Leviathan. Such a good catch up/101 for people who don't like history and philosophy. I'm occasionally tripping over some pop culture references (Daily Show, The Godfather Part II, Saturday Night Live just to keep things FAKE), while I'm thinking about nuclear arsenals now and their complex risk management systems, everything from mind to technology and their interfaces. Pinker takes me out of interesting questions by sticking to the simplest highlights. Just listen to one single broadcast, or read one article, from an International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons member and, even if you don't agree, your perspective will be broadened and you will be better informed. He doesn't address, for example, the thesis that a nuclear arsenal increases the authoritarian control a leader has.

Not only is there no real new perspective delivered by Pinker, the shallow factual survey does not include any deep thoughts at all. It just fucking plucks quotations from pop culture! Pinker wonders, how in the world people can still be racist if Michael Jordan is popular? (page 390) There are a number of lazy and dangerous underlying assertions within this question, and in many of the questions Pinker introduces without any rigor. This book is for people who do not want to investigate philosophically, historically, and what's probably worst, scientifically.

I hate his equivocal media, and superficial polling and thought statistical interpretation throughout the book. Page 367 "Many Muslims feel the United States does not want to spread democracy in the Muslim world, and they have a point: the United States, after all, has supported autocratic regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, rejected the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and in 1953 helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran."

He mentions overreaching controls for children intendede to prohibit juvenile violence and calls them "sacrament and taboo" (pages 442-444). This is the type of dilemma that is presented on local news, coupled with lazy bullshit windbag language. Bad allegories, limited context and data.

I'm so upset that someone at the economist said "He writes like an angel, too." and that was printed on the back of the edition I have. Not an ANGEL. This book requires no thinking whatsoever. The text teaches almost nothing and it's easy to fly through the book.

He introduces the prisoner's dilemma, and yes he explains it to fill out the page count in this stupid book, by saying "Imagine a Law and Order episode". It's like, In order to understand the words I'm about to say, imagine you're watching tv and I'm on tv reading you this review.