Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters
- Downloads：7135
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-10-26 03:19:07
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Steven Pinker
- ISBN：B08X4X4SQ4
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Urszula
，
This is a really excellent， short introduction that I would highly recommend to anyone unfamiliar with logic， rationality， different biases that affect our thinking。 It's elementary， so if you're already familiar with rational discourse， you will not find anything new in this book。 However， if you want to recommend someone a basic introduction to rational thinking - this is a gem， and you should totally use it！ It covers a great range of topics， from basic logic principles， through Bayesian prio This is a really excellent， short introduction that I would highly recommend to anyone unfamiliar with logic， rationality， different biases that affect our thinking。 It's elementary， so if you're already familiar with rational discourse， you will not find anything new in this book。 However， if you want to recommend someone a basic introduction to rational thinking - this is a gem， and you should totally use it！ It covers a great range of topics， from basic logic principles， through Bayesian priors and prisoners dilemma， to differences between correlation and causation。 It's also very current and touches upon conspiracy theories around covid/vaccines and other irrational/wishful thinking examples。 It also points us to some rationality results， like egalitarian societies and expanding circle with its anti-speciesism。 It's very simply written， so anyone will understand it （I would make it one of the books kids should read in class）。 Enjoyable read！ 。。。more
Nanette Luoma
，
Challenging read--need to go back through my notes and review the math--but well worth it。 The current examples and ideas make it very clear that we need to work on rationality。 His proposed changes and modifications are a great place to start when looking at how we as a whole consume media。
Chris Boutté
，
This book is great and so-so at the same time。 Learning about human irrationality is one of my favorite topics， and I’ve read dozens of books in this realm。 Many of these books have the same discussions and explain all of our various cognitive flaws， so they can get repetitive。 When I started this book， I was pleasantly surprised that Pinker covered the same topics but added some newer examples of how these biases， heuristics， and other flaws show up in daily life。 But eventually， I just got ext This book is great and so-so at the same time。 Learning about human irrationality is one of my favorite topics， and I’ve read dozens of books in this realm。 Many of these books have the same discussions and explain all of our various cognitive flaws， so they can get repetitive。 When I started this book， I was pleasantly surprised that Pinker covered the same topics but added some newer examples of how these biases， heuristics， and other flaws show up in daily life。 But eventually， I just got extremely bored with this book because it wasn’t much different than anything else I’ve read。 I think the most surprising part about this book is how people either hate it because Pinker’s polarizing or call him a genius because of it。 But since I’ve read so many of these books， there’s literally nothing new in here。 I’m glad someone like Pinker wrote a book on rationality because he has such a large audience， but if you’re someone who reads these books， it’ll be extremely familiar from cover to cover。 。。。more
Ed Carmichael
，
Steven Pinker could write a 500-page tome on earthworm biology and I'd still want to read it; his prose is that good。 Fortunately， he has spared us that particular dread and instead given us something not only much more readable， but eminently practical: a treatise on rationality and why it matters。 The book delves into the various logical fallacies to which many of us instinctually fall prey， while showing us how to use sound reasoning processes to make better decisions。 What's more is that he Steven Pinker could write a 500-page tome on earthworm biology and I'd still want to read it; his prose is that good。 Fortunately， he has spared us that particular dread and instead given us something not only much more readable， but eminently practical: a treatise on rationality and why it matters。 The book delves into the various logical fallacies to which many of us instinctually fall prey， while showing us how to use sound reasoning processes to make better decisions。 What's more is that he shows us how improving upon our thought processes can lead to tangibly better results when pursuing our goals。 Pinker makes his position clear that the universe cars not one iota for the well-being of humanity， but through our unique faculties of reasoning， endowed to us through an evolutionary miracle， we can bring about the circumstances that foster human flourishing。Not my favourite of Pinker's works （that title belongs to his masterful documentation of human progress， "Enlightenment Now"）， but the least bit disappointing either。 4。5/5 。。。more
Kevin
，
Huge Pinker fan， but this was my least favorite of his books。 I thought it was heavy on theory in a way that wasn’t necessary。
Russ
，
I just don't like Steven Pinker and that definitely influences the rating。 He comes across as a conceited， naïve， Ivy League elite who lives in a social and intellectual bubble and lacks humility。 That being said， if you've never read anything about critical thinking or probability or by Nassim Taleb， you may learn some interesting things in the middle chapters。 He does lay out thinking tools such as probability calculations， logic， and statistics。 If he had any integrity， he would rewrite or ex I just don't like Steven Pinker and that definitely influences the rating。 He comes across as a conceited， naïve， Ivy League elite who lives in a social and intellectual bubble and lacks humility。 That being said， if you've never read anything about critical thinking or probability or by Nassim Taleb， you may learn some interesting things in the middle chapters。 He does lay out thinking tools such as probability calculations， logic， and statistics。 If he had any integrity， he would rewrite or exclude his statements about Covid now that we know it was probably created in a lab， US tax money was used in its creation and the efficacy of the "wonder" vaccines is questionable。Steven， it's not that we're anti-intellectual。 It's personal。 We just don't like you。 。。。more
Russell
，
The most approachable book on formal and informal reasoning that I've ever read The most approachable book on formal and informal reasoning that I've ever read 。。。more
Andrei Khrapavitski
，
A new book from the preacher of optimism did not disappoint。 Even though after reading many of his works， including Better Angels of Our Nature， Enlightenment Now， How the Mind Works and Blank Slate， I feel like the leitmotif got quite repetitive。 There’s a multitude of books on the subjects of logic and rationality。 So here’s another one。 Good one， sure。 Maybe even needed at the time when emotions got hold of too many of us。 For quite a long while I hadn’t seen such a blazing misunderstanding o A new book from the preacher of optimism did not disappoint。 Even though after reading many of his works， including Better Angels of Our Nature， Enlightenment Now， How the Mind Works and Blank Slate， I feel like the leitmotif got quite repetitive。 There’s a multitude of books on the subjects of logic and rationality。 So here’s another one。 Good one， sure。 Maybe even needed at the time when emotions got hold of too many of us。 For quite a long while I hadn’t seen such a blazing misunderstanding of science as during this pandemic。 It’s a strange time to live through。 No wonder there’s so much confusion and falsehoods。 So it’s nice to get reminded again that correlation does not equal causation， what probability and randomness mean， how Bayesian reasoning works， etc。 It’s good to see some examples in this book are， in fact， Covid-related。 One issue was especially close to heart since in my work I sometimes have to deal with exponents。 The problem is that too many people misunderstand exponential growth。 And that’s exactly what was happening in the beginning of the pandemic。 Pinker has some wise words to say about calamities-peddling journalism。 According to him， a special place in Journalist Hell is reserved for the scribes who in 2021， during the rollout of Covid vaccines known to have a 95 percent efficacy rate， wrote stories on the vaccinated people who came down with the disease—by definition not news （since it was always certain there would be some） and guaranteed to scare thousands from this lifesaving treatment。Interestingly， Bret Weinstein， Maajid Nawaz， and Joe Rogan are contributing to this anti-vax agenda。 Who would’ve thought。So yeah， timely， relevant， worth reading。 Maybe a little trite for those who have long been into science literature。 。。。more
Pi
，
Zdecydowanie z tej książki można skorzystać。 Steven Pinker wziął na warsztat RACJONALNOŚĆ i starał się czytelnikom pokazać， a może raczej udowodnić jej ogromne znaczenie。 Książka ta została napisana w przystępny， ciekawy， wciągający i miejscami zabawny sposób。 Może was na początku przerazić pewna fachowość， nierozerwalne połączenie z naukami ścisłymi - ale właśnie tak to jest z LOGIKĄ。。。 wymaga myślenia。 Autor wciąga czytelnika w zabawę。 Podaje wiele z pozoru prostych łamigłówek， każe nam je roz Zdecydowanie z tej książki można skorzystać。 Steven Pinker wziął na warsztat RACJONALNOŚĆ i starał się czytelnikom pokazać， a może raczej udowodnić jej ogromne znaczenie。 Książka ta została napisana w przystępny， ciekawy， wciągający i miejscami zabawny sposób。 Może was na początku przerazić pewna fachowość， nierozerwalne połączenie z naukami ścisłymi - ale właśnie tak to jest z LOGIKĄ。。。 wymaga myślenia。 Autor wciąga czytelnika w zabawę。 Podaje wiele z pozoru prostych łamigłówek， każe nam je rozwiązać a potem ujawnia odpowiedź， która nie zawsze będzie po "naszej myśli"。 Jest coś wspaniałego w chwili - nazwę to górnolotnie - olśnienia。 Gdy zaczyna się rozumieć cały proces i łapie się człeczyna za głowę krzycząc "AHA！ Ależ ze mnie był matoł！" Podobają mi się te zabawy z umysłem， te próby， którym nas poddaje Pinker。 Poza wkręcaniem nas w racjonalną grę dostajemy wiele przykładów。 Mamy odniesienia do historii， opowieści z życia wzięte， cartoonowe smaczki， interesujące wykresy i błyskotliwe cytaty。 Wszystko to sprawia， że książka jest bardzo atrakcyjna i rzekłabym。。。 odkrywcza。 Przytoczę jeden przykład， który wiele zmienia i skłania do uważniejszego słuchania naszych rozmówców。 Więc， gdy ktoś wypowiada zdanie "Racjonalność jest niepotrzebna。"， to jak mamy mu wierzyć。。。 bo czy to zdanie w takim razie jest racjonalne？ Jeśli tak， to o co mu chodzi？ To tylko jeden z wielu możliwych， naprawdę ciekawych przykładów， gdy RACJONALNOŚĆ wygrywa z NIERACJONALNOŚCIĄ。 Oczywiście żałuję tylko， że autor tak jaskrawo opowiada się politycznie。 To mnie zawsze zniechęca i zaraz zaczynam podejrzewać， że jego racjonalne opinie może nie koniecznie są takie racjonalne - a bardziej polityczne， że forsuje jedną opcję， a ponieważ potrafi grać w te klocki logiczności lepiej niż przeciętny człowiek - cóż - może też i je wykorzystywać do umocnienia swoich teorii。 Lecz to trzeba RACJONALNIE przemyśleć。 Mnie książka się bardzo podobała i ją doceniam。 Dzięki niej z wielu rzeczy zdałam sobie sprawę i przede wszystkim zdałam sobie sprawę z tego， że warto cały czas nad sobą pracować i szkolić się w RACJONALNOŚCI， bo to ważne， by ów umiejętność nabyć w jak najwyższym stopniu。。。 i to choćby wyłącznie dla własnego dobra， np。 by nie dać się wpuszczać w maliny。 "RACJONALNOŚĆ co to jest， dlaczego jej brakuje， dlaczego ma znaczenie"， jest pozycją do której jeszcze będę zaglądać。 Niektóre zagadnienia potraktowałam zbyt powierzchownie， szybko przez nie przebrnęłam， a te treści wymagają skupienia， więc koniecznie muszę do tej lektury jeszcze wrócić。 pigułka na myślenie 7/10Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka 。。。more
Pete
，
Rationality : What It Is， Why It Seems Scarce， Why It Matters （2021） by Steven Pinker is the celebrity Harvard Psychologist’s latest work。 In Rationality Pinker uses the content of a course he teaches at Harvard about how to reason better。Most of the book is used to instruct the reader on logic， probability， Bayesian Reasoning， Expected Utility， Further Statistics， Game Theory and Correlation and Causation。 In the final two chapters Pinker describes what he sees as being wrong with people and fi Rationality : What It Is， Why It Seems Scarce， Why It Matters （2021） by Steven Pinker is the celebrity Harvard Psychologist’s latest work。 In Rationality Pinker uses the content of a course he teaches at Harvard about how to reason better。Most of the book is used to instruct the reader on logic， probability， Bayesian Reasoning， Expected Utility， Further Statistics， Game Theory and Correlation and Causation。 In the final two chapters Pinker describes what he sees as being wrong with people and finally states why he believes he Rationality matters so much。Pinker knows his subject and his very widely read and writes really well。 Pinker has read and understood Hume and includes Hume’s statements about causality and that notably， ‘reason is the slave of the passions’。 Pinker writes very well about Kahneman and Tversky and also includes Gerd Gigerenzer’s critiques of their work。 At times the combination of lessons in logic and psychology is very interesting。The didactic content of Rationality on reason would be better presented as a course than a book。 The sections on what’s wrong with people and Pinker’s justification of Reason are not substantial enough。 Pinker does make the worthwhile point that people are rational in their own lives and careers but then tend to believe in many strange things regarding politics。 But he doesn’t explore that enough。 Also Pinker fails to engage much with the concept that smart， very numerate and logical people come to wildly different conclusions on important subjects。 Economics provides many examples of this。Pinker’s treatment of statistics is quite good， but Tim Harford’s work with the More or Less podcast and his book ‘The Data Detective” are better。 Pinker also acknowledges and writes about ‘myside’ bias but his answers to that are not as good as those provided by Julia Galef’s book ‘The Scout Mindset’。 Bryan Caplan’s ‘The Myth of the Rational Voter’ also has interesting things to say about why people vote， and believe things about the world that they do。Rationality isn’t a bad book， but it’s not Pinker’s best。 Pinker gives the book a tremendous task but fails to deliver。 The lessons in reasoning aren’t bad but aren’t really extensive enough and the summary of the importance and the reasons for people’s irrationality are not sufficiently well developed。 。。。more
Haley
，
Learn what it means to be humanThinking rational though and conversing with others about it is the critical difference between humans and other animals。 Pinker points out several “folk” reasoning issues that are common to humans and how to overcome them， because if you don’t pay attention， it’s easy to get things wrong。 What are the fundamental rules of reason and how should we use then？ Why are they good for humankind？ What can we do to improve our lot and how is it connected to reason？ Pinker Learn what it means to be humanThinking rational though and conversing with others about it is the critical difference between humans and other animals。 Pinker points out several “folk” reasoning issues that are common to humans and how to overcome them， because if you don’t pay attention， it’s easy to get things wrong。 What are the fundamental rules of reason and how should we use then？ Why are they good for humankind？ What can we do to improve our lot and how is it connected to reason？ Pinker covers this and more。 。。。more
Elsie
，
The first several chapters read like a college textbook。 Chapter 10 and 11 are must reads。 They address what has happened to our rationality and how to reclaim it。
Lance McNeill
，
We need to teach rational thinkingI appreciated the main takeaway from this book and a historical context setting perspective that gives me hope that while we may be lacking rationality now， we may be able to improve like we have in the past。
JW
，
Essential reading， but do it twice: once to get the flavour， then again for proper digestion。
Justin Pickett
，
Mediocre。 It essentially provides a summary of what is in Thinking， Fast and Slow and The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect， sprinkled with shorter summaries of specific research articles （e。g。， Tetlock's work on the psychology of the unthinkable）。 The few additions to this material that Pinker makes generally constitute philosophical nonsense。 The most useful thing about this book is probably just that Pinker explains some complex things （e。g。， Bayesian updating） in understandabl Mediocre。 It essentially provides a summary of what is in Thinking， Fast and Slow and The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect， sprinkled with shorter summaries of specific research articles （e。g。， Tetlock's work on the psychology of the unthinkable）。 The few additions to this material that Pinker makes generally constitute philosophical nonsense。 The most useful thing about this book is probably just that Pinker explains some complex things （e。g。， Bayesian updating） in understandable ways。 。。。more
Kyle
，
It seems that books on defending rationality are in vogue （having recently read the newly published books by Jonathan Rauch [Constitution of Knowledge] and Julie Galef [The Scout Mindset]）。 Pinker's contribution is a good read that focuses more on the tools of rationality and would work well as teaching the tools （Rauch's is more on the sociology of knowledge and Galef on the sort of attitude to inculcate to be more epistemically rational）。 Pinker is an engaging writer and I thought the book flo It seems that books on defending rationality are in vogue （having recently read the newly published books by Jonathan Rauch [Constitution of Knowledge] and Julie Galef [The Scout Mindset]）。 Pinker's contribution is a good read that focuses more on the tools of rationality and would work well as teaching the tools （Rauch's is more on the sociology of knowledge and Galef on the sort of attitude to inculcate to be more epistemically rational）。 Pinker is an engaging writer and I thought the book flowed well from topic to topic。 If you are familiar with biases， regression （correlation）， logic， probability， and statistics， then you will find this to be a good overview。 If not， I would certainly recommend it as a great starting place。 My only concern with recommending the book is that it does not really tread any new ground， and so if you feel you have a good grasp on the topics above you will not really learn anything new。 It really feels more like a strong defense of using the tools of rationality by explaining how they can be helpful than in pushing any particular insight。 The problem might be restated as you may not need this to convince you of the advantages of rational thinking if you are interested in reading the book。 Still， a good synthesis of available information is welcome。 （Perhaps part of the feel of the book is that it came from Pinker teaching a class on rationality [which I believe was recorded and is available to the public]， and I think that shows in the structure of the book。） 。。。more
Hugh Carter
，
I haven't read any of Pinker's other books。 Don't think I'll be seeking them out after this one。If arguing on the internet is your jam then this is a book for you。 Most of the book is Pinker explaining what cognitive biases are and how we should be thinking about probabilities and data， and it oscillates between an overly complex Wikipedia article and a dull lecture。He sprinkles in some poorly reasoned （or not reasoned） analysis of:Why deplatforming people is bad A bad faith connection between t I haven't read any of Pinker's other books。 Don't think I'll be seeking them out after this one。If arguing on the internet is your jam then this is a book for you。 Most of the book is Pinker explaining what cognitive biases are and how we should be thinking about probabilities and data， and it oscillates between an overly complex Wikipedia article and a dull lecture。He sprinkles in some poorly reasoned （or not reasoned） analysis of:Why deplatforming people is bad A bad faith connection between the death of George Floyd and the existence of Critical Race TheoryHow young people don't save for retirement because of an inability to delay gratificationWhy higher insurance rates for minorities us simply due to statistical analysisAnd a couple of oblique Jordan Peterson references。Perhaps the target audience for this is Reddit trolls， in which case， go for it， I guess。 But the best stuff here is better written elsewhere （Thinking Fast and Slow， for one）。I skipped a chunk of math in the second half so maybe there was some redemption there， but overall I didn't find anything of value here。 It ends with an appeal to reason， but if you've read this far， it's preaching to the choir。 。。。more
Joanne McKinnon
，
Remarquable。 The kind of book that makes you reflect on your perception of truth。
Kathryn Bashaar
，
This book can be tough going。 Pinker condenses into just a few hundred pages what would surely be a full 3-credit Logic course at a university。 It gets a little hard to follow。 But there's a payoff。 I think of myself as very rational。 But I fell for the fallacious answer to several of the questions that Pinker poses。 Here's an example。 On the game show Let's Make a Deal， let's say you chose Door #1。 If the host reveals that the big prize is NOT behind Door #3， should you change your choice to Do This book can be tough going。 Pinker condenses into just a few hundred pages what would surely be a full 3-credit Logic course at a university。 It gets a little hard to follow。 But there's a payoff。 I think of myself as very rational。 But I fell for the fallacious answer to several of the questions that Pinker poses。 Here's an example。 On the game show Let's Make a Deal， let's say you chose Door #1。 If the host reveals that the big prize is NOT behind Door #3， should you change your choice to Door #2？ I'd have said no， the chance that the big prize is behind Door #2 versus Door #1 are now 50-50。 You probably think the same。 Long story short， we are wrong。 I still don't quite understand why。 Some of the other logical fallacies are easier to understand， but， altogether， it is a tough book。 My brain was working so hard that one night I had trouble falling asleep after reading。But the cumulative effect is to help the reader to be a more critical thinker。 For example， I've always heard that correlation is not the same as causation， but I will now be much more alert to correlation fallacies。 In one chapter， I think Pinker did his readers a disservice。 He claims that 90% of breast cancer diagnoses are false positives。 First， he uses the assumption that only 1% of women will get breast cancer， which I believe is wildly incorrect。 Second， he explains his reasoning abstractly， without reference to the specific breast cancer example。 So it was really hard to follow， and hard for me to determine how much impact his use of the 1% figure had on his conclusion that 90% of diagnoses are false positives。 Also， he doesn't define what he considers a "diagnosis。" Is it a suspicious mammogram？ A biopsy result？ A pathology test after surgery？ And what is the difference between a "diagnosis"， and his claim that only 1% are true positives？ As a breast cancer survivor， it seemed sloppy to me。 Overall， though， I felt that the book was worth reading。 I especially appreciated the last few chapters。 In Chapter 10， he talks about why people seem so irrational at times。 Short version， emotion overrides rational thinking。 The obvious rational conclusion might not be to your liking （motivated reasoning） or might not confirm what you and your friends believe （myside bias）。 Or it might contradict a mythology （e。g。， religion） that is central to your understanding of the universe。 In the case of conspiracy theories， people are susceptible because it happens to be true that sometimes there really ARE conspiracies。 And honestly it's sometimes just easier to believe whatever grabs your attention， compared to thinking it through。 In Chapter 11， Pinker makes an impassioned and well-argued case for how rationality has improved lives。 And， bottom line， rationality is the only tool we have to convince each other when we disagree。 The alternative is force of some kind。 If we hope to keep our democracy， we must respect rationality。 Like my reviews？ Check out my blog at http://www。kathrynbashaar。com/blog/Author of The Saints Mistress https://camcatbooks。com/Books/T/The-S。。。Overall， though， this book was worth the hard thinking。 。。。more
Richard Thompson
，
There's nothing new here for anyone who has a basic knowledge of logic， statistics， game theory and behavioral economics。 Still， it's a good recap of basic concepts， and Mr。 Pinker does a good job of describing current academic thinking about our departures from rationality and why things that seem like departures may really only be issues of context and point of view that are not necessarily irrational at all。 I generally agree with everything that is in this book， so why did I come away from i There's nothing new here for anyone who has a basic knowledge of logic， statistics， game theory and behavioral economics。 Still， it's a good recap of basic concepts， and Mr。 Pinker does a good job of describing current academic thinking about our departures from rationality and why things that seem like departures may really only be issues of context and point of view that are not necessarily irrational at all。 I generally agree with everything that is in this book， so why did I come away from it feeling that Mr。 Pinker and I have a fundamental divergence of our points of view and wondering whether this may be the last Steven Pinker book that I will read？I think perhaps that it is because I am deeply drawn to the irrational and spiritual。 I am not religious or superstitious。 I try to be as objective as possible in my evaluation of news and society and in my job。 And yet I also feel that there is a fundamental human need for something that is trans-rational。 Sometimes when things don't make sense that is the whole point of them， and they can only be understood by accepting their irrationality。 Like a Zen koan。 Or the Trinity。 And things that defy rational analysis can have great beauty。 However， Mr。 Pinker seems to be mired in the Enlightenment。 I have great admiration for Enlightenment thinking。 David Hume， who is quoted several times with approval by Mr。 Pinker， was very smart and was right far more often than he was wrong， plus he could write philosophy in a way that was much more readable than any of the great German philosophers。 And the French Enlightenment also produced some very good ideas。 But most of the world has gotten past all that。 We need to leaven our rationality with compassion， and we need to re-enchant the world。 Mr。 Pinker for all of his smarts and good intentions seems to miss this point。 He and I are on different tracks。 。。。more
Morgan Blackledge
，
Steven Pinker is a firebrand。And that in itself is a kind of a mystery to me。 Only because I find his basic arguments to be （for lack of a better word） reasonable。 His message is （essentially）:The current state of affairs is obviously concerning。But if you look at the human condition over the long term， a lot of things are improving。According to Pinker。Science， technology， rule of law and liberal democracy have liberated billions of humans from poverty， miserable servitude， disease and political Steven Pinker is a firebrand。And that in itself is a kind of a mystery to me。 Only because I find his basic arguments to be （for lack of a better word） reasonable。 His message is （essentially）:The current state of affairs is obviously concerning。But if you look at the human condition over the long term， a lot of things are improving。According to Pinker。Science， technology， rule of law and liberal democracy have liberated billions of humans from poverty， miserable servitude， disease and political terror。Even though we had Donald Trump， and even though the planet is obviously dying。 Let’s not panic。 Let’s stay focused， stay the course and （to the very best of our abilities） let’s let evidence and reason dictate our policies。 He’s a very controversial figure to both far left and extreme right of American politics。 The progressive left hate him because he criticizes some of their more anti-intellectual tactics。 Such as politically correct speech suppression， and Romantic mistrust of scientific methods and findings （when they counter progressive liberal talking points）。 The extreme right hate him （a little less， but still） because he’s （essentially） an outspoken liberal intellectual。Some locate him as center right。 Some locate him as center left。Regardless of his politics （a subject I find uninteresting and distracting from his arguments）。A lot of criticism focuses on his use of data。 Ok。 That’s legit。Everyone knows statistical data is easily massaged。But much of the same criticism seems to be politically motivated。 And snore…。As clearly abhorrent， toxic and （add whatever expletive you wish） ridiculous as the Trump era post truth tactics are。 Pinker thinks it is a mistake to allow them to poison the well of liberal thought and policy。 For instance。 Pinker criticizes progressive liberal bias in university culture。 Although my politics （for what it’s worth） lean progressive liberal。 I’m absolutely inclined to agree。 Trust and participation in university education is （by my account） a near unalloyed good。Keeping university culture open to a broad spectrum of thought keeps the engine of progress chugging。 My mother （a philosophy professor） used to say， “remove the agitator from the washing machine and see how clean the clothes get”。Seeking to stifle open debate in university is like a left wing version of the POS reverend Jerry Falwell‘s moral majority caucus from the 1980’s。In case you’re too young to remember how awful that bullshit was， Google it！Zealous adherence to “woke” new speak， cancel culture bullying， and cringe worthy nakedly transparent， “progressive” virtue signaling are toxic to the type of spirited open debate and evidence based methodology that makes university culture worthy of trust。My mom aslo used to say “never fight with a pig because you both get muddy and the pig will love it”。The intuitive response to Trump era populist neofascist agitprop is to adopt an equal and opposite intellectual counterpose。 But if we do， we’re sinking to an unspeakable low。 Pinker’s argument （as far as I can tell） is:Rather than join in the pizza gate style， post truth， epistemological nightmare。 Better to stay the course， welcome reasonable debate， adhere to reliable methods， adjust policy based on hard evidence and continue to move， step by （at times excruciatingly slow） step， in the direction liberal humanistic values。I can’t reasonably disagree。Lastly。Many criticize Pinker’s admittedly corny humor。This is as much a matter of taste as anything。But I’m gonna come out in favor of it。 I find Pinker‘s clever and witty ‘dad’ jokes to be laugh out loud funny。 They make his otherwise dense writing massively entertaining and fun。Like， I wish my dad was that fucking funny。Anyway。 Given that Pinker is clearly a flawed human。 And just for fun， name a human that isn’t。 I’m a fan boy。 And I fucking loved this book。Sorry about it ¯\_（ツ）_/¯FIVE STARS ⭐️ 。。。more
Sebastian Gebski
，
Is there a topic more important these days （than rationality）？ I don't think so。 That's why I've pre-ordered "Rationality" - a book written by the author I respect and value high。Every topic can be approached from many different angles， this applies to rationality as well。 Pinker's approach is far more about probability， logic， game theory， and statistics than behavioral/cognitive psychology。 Or， to be more precise - he tries to use these mathematical foundations to understand the psychological Is there a topic more important these days （than rationality）？ I don't think so。 That's why I've pre-ordered "Rationality" - a book written by the author I respect and value high。Every topic can be approached from many different angles， this applies to rationality as well。 Pinker's approach is far more about probability， logic， game theory， and statistics than behavioral/cognitive psychology。 Or， to be more precise - he tries to use these mathematical foundations to understand the psychological aspects better。 This approach was some sort of a surprise。 I'm far from telling you that it's the wrong way， but it felt like the author is going through many simple concepts （that can be found in a zillion of sources - like correlation vs causation or conditional probability）， but in the end， the connection between irrational behavior and the laws of logic doesn't seem more comprehensible and clear。 Not mentioning bringing up good counter-measures （to advocate rationality） - don't expect any practical hints。But still， even with these flaws， I think it's a valuable book。 Some observations will enrage many people （from both sides of a heavily polarized sociopolitical scene）， but well - if you ask me， it's the price of rationally writing about rationality。In the end， this book could have been better， but at least it triggers the conversation， in a very well-balanced， open way。 That's a lot （IMHO）。 。。。more
Sharon
，
Fantastic read as always。 Pinker lays out the argument that maybe we’re not as irrational as we think。- crackpots and ， anti-vaxxers notwithstanding。 If we all arm ourselves with certain basic understanding of statistics and regression we too can make more rational decisions！
Brandon
，
Read a physical copy。 It doesn't translate well into an audio book。 The last 2 chapters were more of what I thought the book would be。 The majority of the book is a primer on rationality and less analyses of current trends。 I don't think its his best book， but I'd say it is as good as any other book on this subject matter and with Pinker's name on it I am sure it will reach a wider audience。 Read a physical copy。 It doesn't translate well into an audio book。 The last 2 chapters were more of what I thought the book would be。 The majority of the book is a primer on rationality and less analyses of current trends。 I don't think its his best book， but I'd say it is as good as any other book on this subject matter and with Pinker's name on it I am sure it will reach a wider audience。 。。。more
Michael Romero
，
Very thought-provoking and great writingA really good and interesting read especially considering this type of subject matter can oftentimes be dry and like slogging through a textbook。
Alek
，
When he came out with Enlightenment Now， I asked myself: do we really need a case for it？ Is it not self evident？ Well， the response the book told me yes。 I expect a similar response for this book too， since I was asking myself the same question。If you know nothing about rationality or LessWrong， or who Scott Alexander or Daniel Kahneman is， then go ahead and buy this book immediately。 For those with some familiarity， this is skippable， so buy it and gift it to your local irrational friend。
Enda Hackett
，
Disappoiting really。 Does not present anything new。 Merely a collection of statistics and stories。
Shane Duquette
，
As always， this is a well-written book that's easy to follow and full of insightful information。 But unlike some of Steven Pinker's other books， there's nothing revolutionary here。 I appreciate having statistics explained in a clear and entertaining way， but I already knew about statistics from the hundreds of other comparable books about statistics。 Instead of making a new or controversial point， the intrigue in this book seems to come from political snark。 And that's fine， I suppose， but it ma As always， this is a well-written book that's easy to follow and full of insightful information。 But unlike some of Steven Pinker's other books， there's nothing revolutionary here。 I appreciate having statistics explained in a clear and entertaining way， but I already knew about statistics from the hundreds of other comparable books about statistics。 Instead of making a new or controversial point， the intrigue in this book seems to come from political snark。 And that's fine， I suppose， but it made the book feel like it was aiming at being trendy instead of lasting。With that said， when I read Pinker's previous books， it was before learning he flew with Jeffrey Epstein。 Maybe that association is biasing me against Pinker's writing now。 I'm not sure。 It's a hard association to shake。Good book overall， but not a memorable one。 。。。more
Larry Norton
，
I have been a fan of Steven Pinker since reading The Better Angels of our Nature （2011） and Enlightenment Now （2018）。 As such， I was greatly looking forward to the release of Rationality， his latest book。Though filled with interesting insights and sometimes moving exhortations to embrace the power of reason， this book was somewhat of a disappointment for me。 In his preface， he writes: “A major theme of this book is that none of us， thinking alone， is rational enough to consistently come to sound I have been a fan of Steven Pinker since reading The Better Angels of our Nature （2011） and Enlightenment Now （2018）。 As such， I was greatly looking forward to the release of Rationality， his latest book。Though filled with interesting insights and sometimes moving exhortations to embrace the power of reason， this book was somewhat of a disappointment for me。 In his preface， he writes: “A major theme of this book is that none of us， thinking alone， is rational enough to consistently come to sound conclusions: rationality emerges from a community of reasoners who spot each other’s fallacies。” As it turns out， the greater part of the book is devoted to the first proposition， namely， we can not go it alone， with far less devoted to the community of reasoners。The sections of the book that are devoted to the ways we as individuals succeed and fail at reasoning read like a survey course。 We learn how we fail to apply logic， misunderstand probability and neglect critical thinking。 We constantly run into biases and fallacies that hinder our ability to think clearly。 Pinker provides introductions， with lively examples， to the topics of logic， probability， Bayesian reasoning， rational choice and expected utility， signal detection， decision theory， game theory， and the relationship between correlation and causation。 If you are even a casual reader in these disciplines， much of the ground that Pinker covers here has been covered elsewhere before。 Examples include the Monty Hall Problem， The Linda Problem， the Tragedy of the Commons and The Prisoners Dilemma。 A saving grace of Pinker’s survey of the territory of reason is that it is well organized and provides a bracing refresher to the obstacles that lay in the way of sound reasoning。Pinker’s arguments for rationality emerging from a community of reasoners are sparce and come late in the book， and I would have liked to have seen a deeper dive into his thinking here （perhaps it is meant for another book？）。 Again， he covers ground that others have covered on the values of institutions， such as government， academia， public and private research units， the press and our legal system and the communal processes that support these such as checks and balances， peer review， editing and fact-checking and the adversarial system in law。Having shown us all the ways we fail to live up to the standards of rationality， Pinker does not despair。 In his chapter “Rationality Matters” he makes that case that but for reason， we would not have progress。 We are， in fact， better off today both materially and morally， then we were at the dawn of the Enlightenment。 He paraphrases Martin Luther King， saying: “The arc of knowledge is a long one， and bends toward rationality”。 Yet， when he steps down from the broad perspective of history to discuss ways – today - that we can continue to bend that arc， his proposals， though laudable， seem weak or at least weakly argued。 We must “valorize” the norms of rationality， we should have more scientists in congress， we should build and support institutions that specialize in creating and storing knowledge。 To each of these proposals， I wrote in my notes “but how？”。I may have been asking for too much from this book; my hope was that Pinker would offer us powerful tools to help us combat the rising tides of irrationalism that our plaguing contemporary society。 However， as an analysis of where we are today in terms of our understanding of our strengths and weakness as rational agents， his is clear， accessible， and memorable。 。。。more
Popup-ch
，