It can be difficult staying focused while reading a long book. Especially with regards to remembering plot details of the story or the main thesis in the case of non-fiction. It's harder when you aren't reading consistently. Sometimes it feels you're just trying to consume pages to get closer to finishing it without really thinking about what you're reading.
Recently I've managed to carve out more time in my day for reading. I make consistent daily progress so I don't feel like I'm rushing to finish as much as possible in each "session". This is why reading The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which is not a short story by any means, was an enriching experience.
The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which henceforth I will refer to as "Better Angels", is by Steven Pinker. It explores the history of violence in humanity, in mostly chronological order. Pinker has tangents along the way to investigate changes in society, technology, or psychology that he correlates with reductions in violence. He also attempts to explain the overall forces that have shaped human nature. Pinker believes there are unique features of the human condition which propel us towards peaceful benevolence—the "better angels of our nature".
Overall, I found Better Angels was informative and safe from overreaching explanations about violence in humanity. Pinker presents a lot of data, but he doesn't force too many conclusions on the reader. He discusses possible relationships, but he uses careful language and often presents counterarguments to his ideas.
After finishing the book, I read a critical review of it because I think different perspectives are important on topics like this. The author, Edward S. Herman, believes that Pinker's work is apologist propaganda for Western (specifically American) violence and the military-industrial complex it's built on. One of his main criticisms is Pinker's frequent use of per-capita statistics to justify falling rates of violence, which Herman describes as "vague and misleading".
I didn't agree with many of Herman's arguments. Additionally, Herman is the author of various nightmare-inducing bedtime stories such as The Terrorism Industry* and The Politics of Genocide. Seems like someone who might have a vested interest in proving a thesis like "we are living in the most peaceful age in human history" wrong.
Highlights
As with all non-fiction reviews I've done so far, I'm going to share some excerpts from the book I found interesting and briefly talk about them.
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. With a world population of exactly four, that works out to a homicide rate of 25 percent, which is about a thousand times higher than the equivalent rates in Western countries today.
— Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, pg. 43
The first chapter of Better Angels looks at religious texts, especially the Bible. There are undoubtedly some pretty gruesome and horrific events described in this book. Despite the voracious subject matter, it's one of the more light-hearted chapters in the book—probably because Pinker understands that the Bible is mostly hyperbole and isn't the most accurate source to draw conclusions from.
Institutionalized torture in Christendom was not just an unthinking habit; it had a moral rationale. If you really believe that failing to accept Jesus as one's savior is a ticket to fiery damnation, then torturing a person until he acknowledges this truth is doing him the biggest favor of his life: better a few hours now than an eternity later.
— Pinker, pg. 70
For the majority of the last 2000 years, religion was the primary influence for every aspect of society, from government to dietary habits. Due to this tight integration of religion and life, people were much more invested in their faith, as well as it's proliferation and long-term success. I also believe this is because people still held onto a stronger form of tribal mentality, which discouraged individualism.
I found the above quote interesting in how it rationalizes torture performed in the name of religion, which always seemed hypocritical. But if you accept the premise of eternal happiness in heaven, it becomes understandable.
It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct.
— Sigmund Freud, The Better Angels of Our Nature, pg. 171
This is a quote of a quote. It's a succinct idea that expresses the paradox of civilization. Why do we all choose to acquiesce to a social construct that restricts our freedoms and autonomy?
I mean, if you think about it it's easy to come up with a laundry list of reasons why organized society has made all our lives better. Free health care is pretty great—I wonder if Freud ever thought about the benefits of free health care.
If our first nature consists of the evolved motives that govern life in a state of nature, and our second nature consists of the ingrained habits of a civilized society, then our third nature consists of a conscious reflection on these habits, in which we evaluate which aspects of a culture's norms are worth adhering to and which have outlived their usefulness. Centuries ago our ancestors may have had to squelch all signs of spontaneity and individuality in order to civilize themselves, but now that norms of nonviolence are entrenched, we can let up on particular inhibitions that may be obsolete.
— Pinker, pg. 350
This builds upon the quote from Freud above; that society is a trade-off between our natural instincts and our collective quality of life. In similar words, Pinker asserts that if our first nature is human instincts, then our second nature is the behaviors we've developed in order to coexist in a civilized society (a renunciation of our "first" instincts).
Shifting into modern day society, Pinker believes we've now reached a third abstraction of our natural instincts. We have enough collective experience with societal norms that now we've begun looking inwardly at accepted behaviors and reflecting on their necessity. This is a form of feedback that allows for greater individualism and freedom of expression.
This is fundamental progression inherent to any activity or skill that is practiced over many generations. Education is the core catalyst to this progression. Education teaches you to ask "why", and to be a critical thinker. Societal norms should only be norms if they are beneficial to all when adhered to by all. Otherwise, if their benefits are exclusive or if they impinge on the freedom of others, they have no place in a tolerant and educated society.
It began with a conceptual revolution. Instead of taking government for granted as an organic part of the society, or as the local franchise of God's rule over his kingdom, people began to think of a government as a gadget—a piece of technology invented by humans for the purpose of enhancing their collective welfare. Of course, governments had never been deliberately invented, and they had been in place long before history was recorded, so this way of thinking required a considerable leap of the imagination.
— Pinker, pg. 432
Again, this is about looking at the state of things and asking "why". Even if the creation of structured government was an organic change which had no forethought or planning, it does not mean it is infallible or unchangeable.
As Mueller notes, "No longer was it possible simply and honestly to proclaim like Julius Caesar, 'I came, I saw, I conquered.' Gradually this was changed to 'I came, I saw, he attacked me while I was just standing there looking, I won.' This might be seen as progress."
— Pinker, pg. 452
This section was on the changing perception of war in society and the decline of related values like honour and glory. The romanticization of war has given way to the more realistic view that war was wholly destructive to all parties involved, win or lose.
go to the mountains and grow beards, or do nothing and stay a modern country.
— Pinker, pg. 832
I loved this quote. This is paraphrased from an interview with former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili after Georgia lost a violent five-day war to Russia in 2008 over control of two small territories along their shared border. It's the choice he proposed when deciding whether to organize an insurgency against the Russian occupation.
In Saakashvili's eyes, the idea of organizing a costly military effort would have been a "tremendous national burden". Choosing to abstain would be a vote for the benefits of modernism in Europe.
The cognitive psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has estimated that in the year after the 9/11 attacks, 1,500 Americans died in car accidents because they chose to drive rather than fly to their destinations out of fear of dying in a hijacked or sabotaged plane, unaware that the risk of death in a plane flight from Boston to Los Angeles is the same as the risk of death in a car trip of twelve miles.
The payoff was not lost on Osama bin Laden, who gloated that "America is full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east," and that the $500,000 he spent on the 9/11 attacks cost the country more than half a trillion dollars in economic losses in the immediate aftermath.
— Pinker, pg. 928
After reading Thinking Fast and Slow, I learned that terrorism is effective because of a cognitive bias called "denominator neglect". Denominator neglect is the effect of weighing a low-probability event with a higher likelihood than it deserve, especially when the event is some sort of negative outcome, like dying in a terrorist attack. People aren't good at reasoning about extremely low probability events. The presence of at least one example of an event in our mind will be given more attention in our decision making process than it deserves.
This bias is amplified by a related effect called the "exposure effect". Over-exposure to news also influences our decision-making. The media circus that followed the events of 9/11 triggered an exaggerated response from both people and government. Avoiding flying to drive instead, which is statistically much more dangerous, is the result of these cognitive effects at play.
The Prisoner's Dilemma has been called one of the great ideas of the 20th century, because it distills the tragedy of social life into such a succinct formula. The dilemma arises in any situation in which the best individual payoff is to defect while the partner cooperates, the worst individual payoff is to cooperate while the other defects, the highest total payoff is when both cooperate, and the lowest total payoff is when both defect.
— Pinker, pg. 1452
I've now read about the prisoner's dilemma in several books; sometimes cropping up in books I thought would have no relation to the concept at all. But I suppose that's what is interesting about the prisoner's dilemma—it's a condensed version of human nature, or more specifically human interaction.
So many conclusions have been drawn from this relatively simple theory. However, I think the more interesting version to look at is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, because it models real human interactions. In most scenarios, we don't simply interact with someone once and then never again. This makes the one-off prisoner's dilemma not as relevant, as defection against your partner will be remembered, and therefore you may be held accountable on subsequent "interactions". This concept of statefulness is much more intriguing as you can now ask questions like: "what's the optimal strategy in finite, or indefinite, iterated prisoner's dilemma?"
The psychologist Paul Rozin has identified a syndrome of acquired tastes he calls benign masochism. These paradoxical pleasures include consuming hot chili peppers, strong cheese, and dry wine, and partaking in extreme experiences like saunas, skydiving, car racing, and rock climbing. All of them are adult tastes, in which a neophyte must overcome a first reaction of pain, disgust, or fear on the way to becoming a connoisseur.
— Pinker, pg. 1517
"Benign masochism" is a great term that describes why I love eating spicy foods.
In many surveys it turns out that every student, questioned privately, thinks that binge drinking is a terrible idea, but each is convinced that his peers think it's cool.
— Pinker, pg. 1534
This is absolutely hilarious and it doesn't even need any more context.
Consider a different scenario. This time you are presented with a choice: you can lose your little finger, or a hundred million Chinese will be killed. Would you sacrifice a hundred million people to save your little finger? Smith predicts, and I agree, that almost no one would select this monstrous option. But why not, Smith asks, given that our empathy for strangers is so much less compelling than our distress at a personal misfortune
— Pinker, pg. 1843
I call this the "Chinese Finger Trap Thought Experiement".
If you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper that a massive earthquake struck mainland China and 100 million people died, you would be pretty shocked. You would talk about it with coworkers regularly for days, or weeks, and you may even donate some money toward relief efforts. However, you will still go home at night and eat a nice dinner, maybe watch a comedy and then probably have a sound sleep. You get the point, it's not going to impact you personally.
However, if you woke up one morning and accidentally SLICED YOUR PINKY FINGER OFF, and then it fell down a manhole or something and you're never ever going to get it back...that would have a huge impact on your life! You would be very sad, probably in a lot of pain for some amount of time, and you would have trouble doing a lot of regular things. Overall, it would definitely have an impact on the rest of your life. So that's the context, now re-read the question posed in the excerpt from above, and think about why most people (I sincerely hope most people) would choose to lose their pinky finger to save those millions of people on the other side of the planet that they most likely will never meet.
I mean, yeah it's easy to say "empathy", or that we would expect them to do the same for you etc., but really if you subscribe to any level of belief in Darwinian concepts of natural selection, then this choice doesn't really jive with that theory.
At its core, it shows how much our species has matured past the point of survival of the fittest. Our "circle of empathy" has been allowed to expand so wide that we can truly account for the well-being of absolute strangers on the other side of the planet. And this fact was a central thesis of The Better Angels Of Our Nature.