Steven Pinker first gained my attention when I encountered his book The Language Instinct during the mid-1990s. Chomsky’s name caught my eye as I perused the back cover, having already delved into some of his linguistics works. Like others, I found Pinker’s writing style to be very approachable and enjoyable.
Pinker has a knack for making scientific concepts engaging and memorable, and personally it has helped me solidify my understanding of linguistics and other cognitive fields. Similar to Chomsky, Pinker equips readers with tools to defend their beliefs using reason.
Despite being published in the late 1990s, Pinker’s How the Mind Works remains a standout comprehensive volume on how evolution has shaped human cognition. Described by The New York Review of Books as “a model of scientific writing: erudite, witty, and clear,” Pinker’s work continues to receive acclaim.
I could dedicate an entire book to reviewing Pinker’s extensive body of work. He serves as my primary reference in the field of psychology.
In 2011 he wrote The Better Angels of Our Nature, in which he meticulously documents and shows how much progress humanity has made as a species. Admitting that there’s obviously a lot more to be done, the point is that progress is being made gradually, and that the trends could be reversed if we let things slip. But the truly incredible thing about this book is how many folks still (it’s 2023) refuse to accept the obvious evidence.
Bill Gates aptly lauded Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress declaring it his “new favorite book of all time.”
While I admire Pinker’s insights, there are some aspects of his views that I find a bit challenging to reconcile. His recognition of the positive impact of capitalism and market economies, for instance, definitely shifted my earlier perspective on the subject, although I don’t fully share his loftier regard for it.
Additionally, I’ve observed a tendency in Pinker’s writing, notably in “Enlightenment Now,” to overlook certain underlying motives in human behavior. For example, his discussion of weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for the Iraq War fails to acknowledge potential profit-driven agendas behind such conflicts. Similarly, his analysis of Y2K paranoia attributes it solely to human biases, which seems to disregard the role of profit motives in stoking fear.
George Monbiot, the English journalist, also pointed out some environmental concerns in Englightenment Now, but he never received any responses from Pinker, despite several attempts. I wish Pinker would offer a quick response to Monbiot, whom I regard as a serious journalist and an environmental and political activist.
In Rationality Pinker lays down the incontrovertible reasons why rationality is really important to humanity, and how it is the essential driver of moral and social progress.
My favorite Pinker quote is:
Martin Luther King Jr. once said that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ In the same spirit, we can say that the arc of history bends toward progress — that is, toward greater reason, knowledge, and well‑being. — Steven Pinker