Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters
- Downloads：9466
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-10-21 09:51:14
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Steven Pinker
- ISBN：1984843540
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Can reading a book make you more rational？ Can it help us understand why there is so much irrationality in the world？ These are the goals of Rationality， Steven Pinker's follow-up to Enlightenment Now （Bill Gates's new favorite book of all time"）。
In the 21st century， humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding--and at the same time appears to be losing its mind。 How can a species that developed vaccines for Covid-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news， medical quackery， and conspiracy theorizing？
Pinker rejects the cynical clich� that humans are an irrational species--cavemen out of time saddled with biases， fallacies， and illusions。 After all， we discovered the laws of nature， lengthened and enriched our lives， and discovered the benchmarks for rationality itself。 Instead， he explains that we think in ways that are sensible in the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives， but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning our best thinkers have discovered over the millennia: logic， critical thinking， probability， correlation and causation， and optimal ways to update beliefs and commit to choices individually and with others。 These tools are not a standard part of our educational curricula， and have never been presented clearly and entertainingly in a single book--until now。
Rationality also explores its opposite: how the rational pursuit of self-interest， sectarian solidarity， and uplifting mythology by individuals can add up to crippling irrationality in a society。 Collective rationality depends on norms that are explicitly designed to promote objectivity and truth。
Rationality matters。 It leads to better choices in our lives and in the public sphere， and is the ultimate driver of social justice and moral progress。。 Brimming with insight and humour， Rationality will enlighten， inspire， and empower。
In the 21st century， humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding--and at the same time appears to be losing its mind。 How can a species that developed vaccines for Covid-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news， medical quackery， and conspiracy theorizing？
Pinker rejects the cynical clich� that humans are an irrational species--cavemen out of time saddled with biases， fallacies， and illusions。 After all， we discovered the laws of nature， lengthened and enriched our lives， and discovered the benchmarks for rationality itself。 Instead， he explains that we think in ways that are sensible in the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives， but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning our best thinkers have discovered over the millennia: logic， critical thinking， probability， correlation and causation， and optimal ways to update beliefs and commit to choices individually and with others。 These tools are not a standard part of our educational curricula， and have never been presented clearly and entertainingly in a single book--until now。
Rationality also explores its opposite: how the rational pursuit of self-interest， sectarian solidarity， and uplifting mythology by individuals can add up to crippling irrationality in a society。 Collective rationality depends on norms that are explicitly designed to promote objectivity and truth。
Rationality matters。 It leads to better choices in our lives and in the public sphere， and is the ultimate driver of social justice and moral progress。。 Brimming with insight and humour， Rationality will enlighten， inspire， and empower。
Reviews
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
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
，
There's something very laudable in the stated goal of this book， as given by the subtitle - a thorough overview of rationality， what it is， why it's scarce and why it matters。 However， the way Pinker does it is by cramming in a half-decent course in statistics and probability theory。 To most who bother to slog through it， it's probably mostly old hat， and for those who don't master the subjects， there are better primers on the scientific method。Where Pinker shines is in the down-to-earth example There's something very laudable in the stated goal of this book， as given by the subtitle - a thorough overview of rationality， what it is， why it's scarce and why it matters。 However， the way Pinker does it is by cramming in a half-decent course in statistics and probability theory。 To most who bother to slog through it， it's probably mostly old hat， and for those who don't master the subjects， there are better primers on the scientific method。Where Pinker shines is in the down-to-earth examples and overarching conclusions， but the in-between lectures are frankly boring。 。。。more
D。L。 Morrese
，
The title poses some very good questions， but does the book answer them？ Well。。。Steven Pinker is undoubtedly a brilliant fellow， and I loved his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined， but Rationality reads more like a textbook on probability than a clear explanation of reason and critical thinking。 Rather than introducing the subject in layman's terms using specific examples， it starts off with definitions of rules of logic， graphs， and diagrams。 That's all well and goo The title poses some very good questions， but does the book answer them？ Well。。。Steven Pinker is undoubtedly a brilliant fellow， and I loved his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined， but Rationality reads more like a textbook on probability than a clear explanation of reason and critical thinking。 Rather than introducing the subject in layman's terms using specific examples， it starts off with definitions of rules of logic， graphs， and diagrams。 That's all well and good， but it's a tad dry。 The issue on the minds of many people， and the reason this subject is so timely， was/is what seems like a spreading plague of irrationality epitomized by the rise of Donald Trump。 How were otherwise intelligent people lured into his delusions？ Did they not notice that much of what he said made little or no sense， or did they simply not care？ And if they didn't， why not？ What is going on in the minds of religious extremists and terrorists who believe that God wants them to hurt people？ What draws people into giving any credence at all to ranting radio talk show hosts and internet conspiracy theorists？ This book mentions some of these questions， especially in the final section， but I didn't find succinct answers to any of them。 Maybe there aren't any。 。。。more
Kevin Perrine
，
Solid primer on reason， logical fallacies， and statistics。
Tony Creech
，
Great stuff in this book and it’s an exceptionally hard topic to handle if you want to both speak broadly and speak to specific techniques and examples。 He does a great job but the writing wasn’t 5/5。 Will read again and reference this though
Daniel
，
When I saw that Pinker was publishing an entire book on rationality， I was eager to find out what he had to say。 Just last year I posted an extensive review of Enlightenment Now on Goodreads that can be found here in which I focus largely on Pinker's account of rationality。 Given that there was only one chapter on rationality in Enlightenment Now I figured an entire book on the topic would reveal a more extensively and thoroughly developed theory。 If you're looking for an account of reason or rat When I saw that Pinker was publishing an entire book on rationality， I was eager to find out what he had to say。 Just last year I posted an extensive review of Enlightenment Now on Goodreads that can be found here in which I focus largely on Pinker's account of rationality。 Given that there was only one chapter on rationality in Enlightenment Now I figured an entire book on the topic would reveal a more extensively and thoroughly developed theory。 If you're looking for an account of reason or rationality as such， however， you might not find it in Rationality， at least not easily。 Instead， the bulk of Rationality consists of seven chapters on different methods of applying rationality。 Each offers a brief overview or introduction to the topic at hand and they are written in Pinker's customary style – replete with phrases such as ‘jibber-jabber，’ ‘cock a snook，’ and ‘boo-boos’。 If， however， you open Rationality expecting to find a definition or comprehensive account， you might find yourself in the same position Socrates found himself in when he asked Meno to define virtue。 "How fortunate I am， Meno！" Socrates said， "when I ask you for one virtue， you present me with a swarm of them，" （Meno， 72a）。 In a similar way， Pinker offers many different examples of rationality and， at times， seems to hold to a conglomerate theory of rationality: “rationality is not a power than an agent either has or doesn’t have， like Superman’s X-ray vision，” he writes。 “It is a kit of cognitive tools that can attain particular goals in particular worlds” （6-7）。 Yet， if rationality is just the use of different tools in different situations， what is it that ultimately tells us whether to use a particular tool in a particular situation？ While the seven areas of rationality Pinker reviews are important， he acknowledges they need to be used with an understanding of their limits。 For example， formal logic， while important， needs to be abandoned in particular situations （94-101）。 Similarly， Pinker states that Bayesian reasoning also has its limits: there are times when we need to intentionally engage in ‘base-rate neglect’ – i。e。 when dealing with particular demographic categories， such as sex， race， and religion （163）。 But， given these limitations， what is it that enables us to see beyond these tools？ If rationality is just the use of various tools， it would not be able to identify the limitations of these tools。 The carpenter operates beyond the use of any particular tool and， in so operating， is able to see in advance what tool is appropriate for what task。 In a similar way， I suspect that human rationality is independent of the various ways it manifests itself。 The question， however， is， if rationality really is beyond any particular tool or its use， what is it？ One theory Pinker alludes to without unconditionally endorsing is that of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber （who seem to have lifted it without credit from Gregg Henriques）。 According to them， human reason is an evolved ability to persuade others and to justify our own positions （87）。 Rationality， on their view， has more to do with survival than with accurately representing the world。 However， if rationality is merely a survival mechanism fit for getting what we desire， are we to understand this theory as， somehow， having broken away from evolutionary impulses and truthfully described the itself？ It is not essential that we resolve this problem because Pinker offers several other definitions of rationality that he finds insightful。 Early on， he suggests that rationality might be “ ‘the ability to use knowledge to attain goals’” （36）。 He then states that knowledge is typically “justified true belief” and suggests that an important aspect of rationality is the ability for us to get what we want。 This， he claims following William James， is what distinguishes the rationality of Romeo from the non-rationality of magnet filings （37）。 Romeo reflects on the options available for being with Juliet and then pursues the path that most easily brings them together。 In this way， Romeo uses reason to obtain what he wants。 To act rationality， then， is to evaluate the possibilities and select the one that maximizes the chance of obtaining what you desire。 This definition of practical reason， however， is tempered on two sides。 First， there is the moral injunction Pinker briefly but emphatically endorses， that we must act in a way that does not recognize a clear distinction between ourselves and others: “[t]he pronouns I， me， and mine have no logical heft – they flip with each turn in a conversation。 And so any argument that privileges my well-being over yours or his or hers， all else being equal， is irrational” （68）。 This places a strong limit on the prior account of practical reason as pursuing the best path to achieve one’s goals。 Now， in light of this restriction， we must pursue the best path that does not unevenly infringe on the interests of others。 Practical reason is also tempered by theoretical reason。 while practical reason is about achieving our goals， theoretical reason is about knowing what is true。 This definition of theoretical reason is， on Pinker’s view， more or less self-evident。 When people debate or challenge each other， they invariably demand reasons from their interlocutors。 These reasons are then analyzed in terms of whether they are true or whether they contribute to determining the truth of the conclusion being debated: “As long as people are arguing and persuading and then evaluating and accepting or rejecting the arguments，” Pinker writes， “it’s too late to ask about the value of reason。 They’re already reasoning， and have tacitly accepted its value” （39）。 These two views of reason and rationality – the practical and the theoretical – are fairly widespread。 In short， practical reason is about getting what you want， within limits， while theoretical reason is about determining what is true。 In an ideal world， the two will work together。 When determining the best course of action， I should try to discern what is true about the world – knowing the best course of action depends upon knowing the truth about the various ways to achieve it。 Similarly， we discover the truth most easily when we follow the best path。 If truth is our ultimate goal， then practical reason will help us pursue it。 The problem， however， is that practical and theoretical reason are not always aligned。 Pinker points this out indirectly when he identifies the taboo against using various demographic base-rates when predicting behaviour。 But there are many other areas where tension between practical and theoretical reason arise: there are situations where the use of human beings as disposable test subjects might lead to more knowledge and there are conceivable scenarios where circulating falsehoods can help bring about a more harmonious society。 The question， given these definitions of theoretical and practical reason， is less whether they are true， but whether the universe is structured such that they are able to coherently function together。 In this context， Pinker’s invocation of the Henriques / Mercier and Sperber thesis is interesting insofar as it throws a wrench into this more traditional account。 If we accept rationality as a mere product of evolution， as a tool evolved to assist us in our survival， then it seems a bit of a leap to suppose that it is also geared towards generating truths。 After all， from Socrates to Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr。， knowing and sharing the truth has not been conductive to survival。 Given these tensions， the task set for Pinker is to show why his accounts of practical and theoretical reason can work together。 That is， he needs to show that the pursuit of our goals， within moral limits， is typically aligned with the pursuit of truth。 This is what Pinker tries to show in the final two chapters of the book。 In chapter ten， Pinker offers a diagnosis of what is going wrong in contemporary society。 Why is it that so many otherwise healthy individuals find QAnon appealing？ Why do they resist vaccines？ Here， Pinker’s conclusions draw from a range of psychological studies， now fairly well known， that identify a persistent ‘myside’ bias in our reasoning。 The cost of changing our beliefs given a limited supply of evidence is often considered too great and so we reinterpret this evidence in light of our prior convictions （292-298）。 In the final chapter， Pinker offers evidence for the view that increased rationality is aligned with moral and social progress （328-340）。 Here， he quotes pre-Enlightenment， Enlightenment， and post-Enlightenment thinkers to show that Enlightenment thought has produced good arguments for， among other causes， gender， racial， and sexual equality， and religious tolerance。 Returning to chapter ten， in an effort to bolster his own view of the world， Pinker draws from Hugo Mercier and Joseph Henrich to identify a distinction between ‘reality-based beliefs’ and ‘mythological beliefs。’ The former， he states， are about “physical objects around them， the other people they deal with face to face， the memory of their interactions， and the rules and norms that regulate their lives” （299-300）。 By ‘reality，’ Pinker means， drawing from Philip K。 Dick， “that which， when you stop believing in it， doesn’t go away” （298）。 The other， mythological， realm concerns “the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past， the unknowable future， faraway peoples and places， remote corridors of power， the microscopic， the cosmic， the counterfactual， the metaphysical” （300）。 In a very odd endorsement of a kind of ‘logical positivism，’ Pinker claims that “[w]e children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset” （301）。 There are several problems with this distinction。 First， shortly after establishing that we need to move all our beliefs into the reality-domain， Pinker identifies four key principles of science。 One holds that “all physical interactions are governed by a few fundamental forces” while another states that “the mind is the information-processing activity of the brain” （306）。 Not only is it not true that all scientists throughout history have accepted these principles or that one needs to accept all of them to carry out science， it’s not clear whether all they are even open to testing。 Pinker presents them as fundamental axioms and not as evidence-based conclusions。 This is fine， but it doesn’t blend well with his earlier aim to ensure that all our beliefs are testable。 The problem encountered here is not unlike the fundamental problem besetting logical positivism， i。e。， is the claim that there ought only to be observation sentences and analytic truths itself either an observation sentence or an analytic truth？ Further， Pinker’s treatment of religious and conspiratorial belief is patronizing at best。 He cites Mercier’s claim that these beliefs are not supposed to be true or false by referring to the fact that hardly anyone acted on the Pizzagate conspiracy and Christians today do not generally try to convert others by force: “they don’t take the next logical step，” he writes， “and try to convert people to Christianity at swordpoint for their own good， or torture heretics who might lure others into damnation” （299， 301-302）。 But this is a very strange conclusion given that non-violence is one of the central tenets of Christianity （Matthew 5: 38-47; 26:52）。 Further， isn’t one of the original and main features of Christian conversion that it has to occur voluntarily？ That Jesus’ followers were sent out to persuade others of the gospel by relating their testimonies， by healings， and by explaining the scriptures？ Further， even as figures like Charlemagne were trying to forcibly convert barbarians， others like Alcuin of York tried to convince them that Christianity cannot spread through violence and coercion。 Pinker’s use of these examples to establish his conclusion about mythological beliefs is， I find， quite strange。 It is also challenged by the fact that people do act on these beliefs。 They acted on them when they stormed the Capitol， and they continue to act on them when they reject vaccines and refuse to wear masks。 How， then， are we to reconcile the idea that mythological beliefs are not supposed to be true or false with the evidence that people actually hold these beliefs to be either true or false？ Further， how do we reconcile this with the observation that some of Pinker’s own beliefs transcend the ‘true/false’ dichotomy？ How， for example， is Pinker supposed to respond to the view that all human beings are equal？ Or the idea that money， political institutions， and goals do cease to exist once we stop believing in them？ The arguments Pinker lists in chapter eleven in favour of equality are grounded on inconsistencies in the audience’s views: Americans simultaneously held all people to be equal while owning slaves; absolute sovereignty is rejected while still upheld in the family， etc。 But if we ask what the evidence is that all human beings are inherently equal， it’s difficult to find an answer。 If we appeal to intelligence， genetic traits， capacities， or even rationality （on the view of rationality endorsed by Pinker）， not all people are equal。 So equality is something we must presuppose and it is not the consequence of any physical trait。 In all， then， it appears that Pinker’s reality/mythology distinction is easily undermined。 And this is to avoid dealing with Pinker’s puzzling claim that he doesn’t “believe in anything you have to believe in” （325）。 Given the ultimate difficulties inherent in Pinker’s view of reason， where does this land us？ I find myself partial to Immanuel Kant’s account of theoretical reason （The Critique of Pure Reason， A298/B355 – A338/B396）。 On Kant’s view， everyone is rational and rationality is non-normative。 We are rational insofar as we try to find some kind of unity。 Conspiracies， on this view， are just as much products of reason as science is。 Metaphysical systems are just as rationally generated as ideas about nature。 The task of Kant’s first critique is to reign in the excesses of reason。 It has ventured too far， he argues in the preface， away from empirical data （Avii-Aix）。 Given this view of reason， irrationality can be understood as operating “within the house of reason，” as Donald Davidson puts it （“Paradoxes of Irrationality"）。 It is the failure to allow that one’s views might be false or to admit the possibility that the world is other than how one sees it。 Hence， an irrational person is also rational。 If we apply this theory to conspiracies， we see that the irrationality of these theorists rests in their failure to allow for the possibility of being wrong。 Given this rationality/irrationality distinction， it is worth reflecting on Pinker’s own convictions。 One element in particular comes to light – that of alien visitations。 In several spots， Pinker refers to alien visitations as clearly irrational。 He remarks with amazement that “a quarter to a third of Americans believe we have been visited by extraterrestrials” （286）。 Now， I don’t know what Pinker would consider an ‘alien visitation。’ However， it seems reasonable to me to think that if the recent UAP （“unidentified aerial phenomena”） videos are of genuine alien spacecraft， whether there are aliens in them or not， it is safe to conclude that aliens have visited earth in the same way our rovers on Mars license supposed Martians to believe humans have visited Mars。 Given these terminological preliminaries， whatever you think about the recent American intelligence report， it would at least seem warranted to be open to the possibility that they signal an alien visitation。 And yet， as Leslie Kean astutely notes in “How the Pentagon Started Taking U。F。O。s Serious，” “[i]f [the skeptic] Mick [West] were really interested in this stuff， he wouldn’t debunk every single video 。 。 。 。 He would admit that at least some of them are genuinely weird。” Just as those who seem to ‘know’ that the objects in a new certified UAP video are alien spacecraft are considered irrational insofar as they leave no room for doubt， those who， upon seeing the same video， ‘immediately know’ the objects are not alien spacecraft are also irrational。 Both the resolute believers and the resolute skeptics consistently seem to know in advance what the truth is。 The problem for both is just a matter of making the evidence fit their prior conclusions。 It is this kind of irrationality – the irrationality of resolute denial – that Pinker is susceptible to。 Instead of presenting himself as working firmly to be in the side of ‘reality，’ however confused that domain is， Pinker should， instead， acknowledge that there are many things he is uncertain about。 He should be free to admit， for example， that he is unsure whether aliens have visited earth， whether miracles can occur， whether God exists， and so on。 Yet， as Avi Loeb has noted， academia is very unforgiving towards those who posit hypotheses that are outside what’s deemed acceptable。 Whether Loeb’s convictions about ‘Oumuamua turn out to be true or false， he has correctly identified a certain irrationality within the academy， an irrationality that correlates with knowing in advance what kinds of conclusions are possible， what kinds of phenomena cannot exist， and what kinds of explanations are acceptable。 Pinker has provided us with the resources for a more robust understanding of belief， one that is not strictly governed by bivalence， but in the final chapters of Rationality retreats to clichés about the rational scientist and reality。 Overall， the opening and central chapters offer good introductions to various kinds of reasoning。 My main issue is that Pinker does not think about what brings all these tools together。 Perhaps the tensions that exist between the urban and the rural， the working-class and academia would relax if each side adopted a bit more humility。 。。。more
Allie Fowler
，
Hold up。Mr Pinker， did you just say "sudden adoption of a radical academic doctrine called Critical Race Theory？"Critical Race Theory literally calls for the teaching of ACTUAL US HISTORY， rather than the whitewashed fiction that passes in schools even still today。 Even a casual mention that yes， the Tulsa bombing massacre of entire Black neighborhoods occurred as well as the numerous coup d'etats of democratically elected Black governments。 Things I was never taught as a white person growing up Hold up。Mr Pinker， did you just say "sudden adoption of a radical academic doctrine called Critical Race Theory？"Critical Race Theory literally calls for the teaching of ACTUAL US HISTORY， rather than the whitewashed fiction that passes in schools even still today。 Even a casual mention that yes， the Tulsa bombing massacre of entire Black neighborhoods occurred as well as the numerous coup d'etats of democratically elected Black governments。 Things I was never taught as a white person growing up in the south， 90 minutes away from one particularly egregious coup。My dude， your own bias is showing。 And now I need to go back and question each of your little ad libs。 A shame， because you did a pretty decent job of spelling out the formal logic errors that most US citizens aren't taught。 。。。more
Mary
，
Recommended by Hammond
John Petrocelli
，
It is very hard not to like a Steven Pinker book。 It summarizes all of the classic K&T research on the misuse of heuristics， mental fallacies and errors （e。g。， confirmation bias and illusory correlation） as well as the relatively new stuff。 It also serves a great read for a course in judgment and decision making， but not as a primary text。 However， I'm not so sure the problem is that people are too irrational。 It's that their data collection procedures are not very solid。 That is， information pr It is very hard not to like a Steven Pinker book。 It summarizes all of the classic K&T research on the misuse of heuristics， mental fallacies and errors （e。g。， confirmation bias and illusory correlation） as well as the relatively new stuff。 It also serves a great read for a course in judgment and decision making， but not as a primary text。 However， I'm not so sure the problem is that people are too irrational。 It's that their data collection procedures are not very solid。 That is， information processing is usually done through personal experience only， and is often random， unrepresentative， ambiguous， incomplete， inconsistent， indirect， and counterattitudinal。 I think Pinker misses the boat on this problem as well as practical ways to solve the poor data collection problem。 Perhaps The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit （by yours truly） is a good companion to this book。https://www。amazon。com/dp/1250271622？。。。 。。。more
Ietrio
，
Sweet irony！ A call to rationality from a white old male who is dominated by his irrational fears: Muslims， Covid， anything that might threaten his dominant status。 And， like the Christian preachers he despises， whomever doesn't care about his important issues， they are irrational， a white way to say Haram。 Sweet irony！ A call to rationality from a white old male who is dominated by his irrational fears: Muslims， Covid， anything that might threaten his dominant status。 And， like the Christian preachers he despises， whomever doesn't care about his important issues， they are irrational， a white way to say Haram。 。。。more
Nilesh
，
Rationality spends most of the book length covering elementary concepts from a collection of subjects。 Even when it comes to pulling them together for something original in conclusions， the book fails equally abjectly。For some strange reasons， the author recounts the topics well covered in hundreds of books from the fields of probability theory， statistics， game theory， logic， behavioral sciences， and the likes。 These discussions are staggeringly unoriginal in their conclusions and the details - Rationality spends most of the book length covering elementary concepts from a collection of subjects。 Even when it comes to pulling them together for something original in conclusions， the book fails equally abjectly。For some strange reasons， the author recounts the topics well covered in hundreds of books from the fields of probability theory， statistics， game theory， logic， behavioral sciences， and the likes。 These discussions are staggeringly unoriginal in their conclusions and the details - say in the examples or illustrations used， descriptions， or explanations of the formulas。 These chapters form almost 90% of the book; they are without a single aha moment for those even somewhat familiar。When one finally reaches the most anticipated part - something even the author pens in as many words to start the section - the disappointment compounds with the banality of the postamble。 Rather than spending any more time about the book's content， the reviewer is jotting down his thoughts sparked by the book - not necessarily original but undoubtedly personal。 Nothing is entirely rational， or everything is， because of the massive range of issues that impact any rational analysis。 A deployment of rational concepts and tools for human brains - even those straightforward ones in math and logic - requires immense training。 Behavioral finance is replete with examples of how our intuitions crumble in various reasonably objective settings。 At the same time， other psychological fields prove our mental inadequacies in dealing with situations that require intricate interplays。 In real life， many factors that go into rational-conclusion-throwing-cauldron are highly subjective。 What one decides as a rational course of action is dependent on the highly subjective utility functions， ethics， and personal histories。 Circumstances and experiences play additional random roles in what the person doing the analysis prioritizes as the primary goal at a specific time point while relegating the other discordant types。 All of the above does not count the role played by norms and expectations。 The book shows well through discussions on taboos， the societies and communities around us erect artificial bounds on rational tools， methods， analysis， and conclusions available to us。One of the key conclusions the book fails to draw despite coming close is the circularities involved in rational thinking because of the concepts like Bayesian priors。 Priors are those critical irrationals - call them axioms， beliefs， superstitions， assumptions， or whatever else – at the root of most real-life rational analysis。 Like in Newton Method in calculus， and actually far worse， the results of a supposedly rational exercise are utterly dependent on the initial assumptions for which there is often no obvious agreement。Say my faith in what I hear from my ancestors makes me believe that there is almost a hundred percent probability of the existence of black swans， even if extremely rare。 Let's say that while I meet a hundred who consider me a looney， I also meet a believer who claims that he spotted a black swan in the dark of the night recently。 The others may consider this person delusional， but given my priors， I would not only give higher credence to such one-off data points but use them to increase my overall conviction levels。One can replace Black Swan with a ghost or a unicorn or a particular type of god or even geocentric views at the times of Galileo to see how what is deemed irrational by one may not be irrational at all in the contexts of the highly subjective priors one starts with。 And all this is not factoring in limits of rationality most cleverly exposed in game theory situations but more realistically observed in people with differing goals。 In practical life， it often pays - "rationally" - to be irrational。What is rational is not a zero-one game， but it is not even a scale where at one end you have things as true as 2 and 2 equals four， with the opposite having the claims of the same as five。 Rationality is a multi-dimensional landscape shaped by the above and more - like rules， laws， generally accepted objective facts， etc。Any conclusions veering towards the paucity of absolutes for a field searching for the truths would leave almost everyone unhappy， including the most liberals。 Clearly， many with specific input parameters would rationally decide to be intolerant of anyone who does not subscribe to their views。 Even a few in any mix would create those game theory situations where it is rationally better for all to become intolerant of dissenting groups。 With such extreme analysis， rationality turns out to be not just axiomatic （and almost irrational or faith-based） but also nihilistic。 Or in other words， it does not pay to overthink rationality！ 。。。more
Alexander
，
Are all maps equally useful？Suppose that you are lost in the Himalayas but only have a map of the Pyrenees。 Is this map helpful？ Sure， it is viable as fuel for fire but not as a map to navigate the territory。 Maps correspond to the territory as our beliefs correspond to reality。 Are all beliefs about reality equally accurate？ Are all beliefs about how to achieve a goal equally conducive？You cannot make an accurate map of a city by sitting at home with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper Are all maps equally useful？Suppose that you are lost in the Himalayas but only have a map of the Pyrenees。 Is this map helpful？ Sure， it is viable as fuel for fire but not as a map to navigate the territory。 Maps correspond to the territory as our beliefs correspond to reality。 Are all beliefs about reality equally accurate？ Are all beliefs about how to achieve a goal equally conducive？You cannot make an accurate map of a city by sitting at home with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper according to your impulses。 The lack of an ultimate map of the territory does not imply that no map is better than another or that the territory doesn’t exist。 Similarly， the absence of an ultimate belief system does not mean that all beliefs are equally valid or that reality does not exist！ A false belief feels the same from the inside as a true belief until you run an experiment。How does Pinker define Rationality？ He certainly does not define it as "objective facts。" He is an imperfect mortal， but he is not so naive。 The modern-day definition of Rationality fully embraces the inherent subjectivity of the human experience。 It fully embraces the intrinsically probabilistic nature of human knowledge。 It fully embraces the enormous advances that have been achieved in modern cognitive science， which assert that our experiences are abstract representations of reality。 All organisms create models of their environments （in other words， they create maps or belief systems about reality）。There is no single， ultimate theory of Rationality， and Pinker does not pretend one exists。 A complete theory of Rationality requires that we have a complete theory of cognition; not only human cognition but all possible minds。 That being said， we do have some conjectures about what Rationality tools work effectively and why。 Pinker dedicates 7 chapters of his book to exploring these tools。 These tools are not prescriptive。 They are simply tools。 It is up to you whether you decide to use them or ignore them。Pinker defines Rationality as follows: to use knowledge to achieve goals。 Another commonly accepted and similar definition is: Epistemic rationality: to systematically improve the probabilities of your beliefs about reality。Instrumental rationality: to systematically improve at achieving your goals。 If you think “rationality” is “bad” then you are almost certainly defining it as something other than the above。 Rationality does not prescribe goals。 Therefore， it is not in principle good or bad。 Rationality is beyond good and evil。If someone wants to reject this definition and claim that it's "contradictory" or "impossible"， then they have the daunting burden of explaining to the rest of us exactly how and why it's impossible to improve our models of the world and exactly how and why we cannot improve at achieving goals。Rationality does not claim to know "objective truth"。 Instead， it provides us with a set of tools that promise to improve our chances of making better predictions of future experiences。 Objective reality is not a place we can ever reach （as far as we know） but rather a direction。 This quote from The Constitution of Knowledge captures this beautifully: "Truth， as Karl Popper said， is a regulative principle。 Like north， it is a direction， an orientation， not a destination。 When we join the reality-based community—when we sign up for the years of training， the exacting research， the criticism and lost arguments—we resolve to conduct ourselves as if reality were out there and objectivity were possible， even while acknowledging that reality is elusive and perfect objectivity is impossible。" You will find some reviewers here making claims along the lines of "There are no objective facts; such things are self-contradictory" as criticism of this book。 This makes me question their underlying agenda。 Such claims make three transgressions。 First， a strawman argument for Rationality has never claimed to know objective facts。 Second， this sentence is itself a contradiction for if it's true， it must be false。 Third， such claims denigrate without providing alternatives， i。e。 they are cynical。If you think that contradictions are somehow ok because Hegel said "Everything is inherently contradictory， and in the sense that this law in contrast to the others expresses rather the truth and the essential nature of things" in a remark in the Doctrine of Essence then you probably need to expand your horizons and move beyond Hegel。 Bertrand Russell's attack on Platonists in his epic polemic A History of Western Philosophy applies aptly to Hegel and Hegelians: "It is noteworthy that modern Platonists， almost without exception， are ignorant of mathematics， despite the immense importance that Plato attached to arithmetic and geometry， and the immense influence that they had on his philosophy。。。 a man must not write on Plato unless he has spent so much of his youth on Greek as to have had no time for the things that Plato thought important。" Some critics of rationality like to use this quote from The Enigma of Reason: "Whereas reason is commonly viewed as a superior means to think better on one’s own， we argue that it is mainly used in our interactions with others。 We produce reasons in order to justify our thoughts and actions to others and to produce arguments to convince others to think and act as we suggest。" This perspective is centred around comparing people's beliefs with each other but disregards an external reality， which is the ultimate judge of the accuracy of beliefs。 It present truth as just a weapon in a power struggle。 This kind of thinking is futile because it gets stuck in an infinite loop of comparing maps and ignoring the territory。Whenever someone attacks reason， their goal is to replace it with themselves as the authority on truth， a thinly veiled attempt to convince others to think and act as they suggest。 This kind of attempt is pathetic because it only works until it comes into contact with the stress-testing of reality。 Dogmatists deliberately operate to distort our reality for political gain。 Once you detach people from reality and reason， ask a soviet propagandist， you open them to demagoguery， to deceit， they become cynical， they become disorientated， they become demoralised。 All these things make it easier to control a political environment。Lasting persuasion is a byproduct of good explanations， which are precise predictions of future experiences。 Galileo certainly was not a persuasive lad but most of us today take for granted that the Earth moves around the Sun。 This letter from Galileo to Kepler in 1610 conveys both his frustration at the obstinacy of the crowds and failure to persuade: "My dear Kepler， I wish we could laugh at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob。 What say you about the foremost philosophers of this University， who with the obstinacy of a stuffed snake， and despite my attempts and invitations a thousand times they have refused to look at the planets， or the moon， or my telescope？" Why do we find Galileo's theory about the world more convincing than it's preceding or competing theories？ It is because this theory in contrast to the others offers a more precise map of reality， not because Galilio was a good rhetorician。Similarly， we find the physics of Einstein more convincing than the physics of Newton， not because Einstein was a better rhetorician than Newton but because the physics of Einstein achieves better map-territory convergence compared to that of Newton。 The physics of Einstein offers more precise assertions about reality。 When calculating the Earth-Moon transfer orbit with each type of physics， we find that Einstein's relativity produces predictions that are more accurate by ~1。3cm。What I liked about this book:This book is more succinct and mainstream than Rationality: From AI to Zombies。 Rationality: A-Z goes into more depth， which is unsurprising given that it's about four times longer。 Pinker's book is more suitable for most people as an introduction to rationality。I quite liked that Pinker doesn't portray humans are irretrievably irrational savages， something many books on cognitive biases do。 Pinker provides examples showing that despite our numerous cognitive biases， we are very rational animals， just not in all contexts。 In situations that our survival depended on， we are remarkably rational。The San people of the Kalahari Desert， despite their mythological beliefs， are stunningly rational。 Louis Liebenberg documented how the San people use Bayesian reasoning for hunting， applying it to footprints and animal droppings to build an accurate picture of an arid desert on which they have subsisted for many thousands of years。The chapters on probabilistic reasoning and causal inference provided the most intuitive high-level explanations of those concepts that I’ve come across！What I disliked about this book:This book is too mainstream and flavourless for my liking。 It explains the concepts well， it is witty and the examples used are well selected and well presented， but it lacked the forcefulness and opinionatedness that Rationality: From AI to Zombies had。This book is titled Rationality: What It Is， Why It Seems Scarce， Why It Matters but the "Why It Matters" part of the book is rushed and I found Pinker's justification not quite profound or particularly convincing。 I found Rationality: A-Z to be much more convincing。Pinker references this series of Tweets by Tim Farley regarding the harm of irrationality:> What’s the harm in conspiracy theories？ FBI identifies “conspiracy-driven domestic extremists” as a new domestic terror threat。> What’s the harm in getting health advice from an #herbalist？ A 13-year-old died after being told not to take insulin。 Now the herbalist is headed to jail。> What’s the harm in a #faithhealing church？ Ginnifer fought for her life for 4 hours。 Travis Mitchell， her father， “laid on hands” and the family took turns praying as she struggled to breathe and changed colors。 “I knew she was dead when she didn’t cry out anymore，” Mitchell said。> What’s the harm in believing in supernatural beings？ Sumatran villagers killed an endangered tiger because they thought it was a shape-shifting “siluman。”> What’s the harm in seeing a #psychic？ Maryland “psychic” convicted of scamming clients out of $340K。 Pinker also references this study Individual differences in adult decision-making competence by Wändi Bruine de Bruin， et al。 which found that after controlling a few factors， such as intelligence and socioeconomic status， competence in reasoning and decision making was correlated with positive life outcomes。 However， this doesn't prove causation and still counts as weak evidence。Please don't be influenced by the mob that is trying to cancel Pinker for being an optimistic and honest man。 Read Pinker's books and decide for yourself。Overall， a good book on rationality。 Four stars because this book doesn’t offer a better explanation than previously available （and I dislike the cover）。 It merely summarises other peoples’ ideas in a clear， witty and succinct way。 。。。more
Lauren
，