Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters
- Downloads：1984
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-09-06 07:53:03
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Steven Pinker
- ISBN：0141989866
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
A TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR 2021
'Punchy， funny and invigorating 。。。 Pinker is the high priest of rationalism' Sunday Times
'If you've ever considered taking drugs to make yourself smarter， read Rationality instead。 It's cheaper， more entertaining， and more effective' Jonathan Haidt， author of The Righteous Mind
In the twenty-first 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 discovered vaccines for Covid-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news， quack cures and conspiracy theorizing？
In Rationality， Pinker rejects the cynical cliché that humans are simply an irrational species - cavemen out of time fatally cursed with biases， fallacies and illusions。 After all， we discovered the laws of nature， lengthened and enriched our lives and set the benchmarks for rationality itself。 Instead， he explains， we think in ways that suit the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives， but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning we have built up over millennia: logic， critical thinking， probability， causal inference， and decision-making under uncertainty。 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 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。
'A terrific book， much-needed for our time' Peter Singer
'Punchy， funny and invigorating 。。。 Pinker is the high priest of rationalism' Sunday Times
'If you've ever considered taking drugs to make yourself smarter， read Rationality instead。 It's cheaper， more entertaining， and more effective' Jonathan Haidt， author of The Righteous Mind
In the twenty-first 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 discovered vaccines for Covid-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news， quack cures and conspiracy theorizing？
In Rationality， Pinker rejects the cynical cliché that humans are simply an irrational species - cavemen out of time fatally cursed with biases， fallacies and illusions。 After all， we discovered the laws of nature， lengthened and enriched our lives and set the benchmarks for rationality itself。 Instead， he explains， we think in ways that suit the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives， but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning we have built up over millennia: logic， critical thinking， probability， causal inference， and decision-making under uncertainty。 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 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。
'A terrific book， much-needed for our time' Peter Singer
Reviews
Jeff
，
I liked this a lot， although much of it was repetitive for me。 I'll just note a few things that went beyond what I've read before。Pinker's explanation of what rationality is was very good。 It made sense to me。 I can't paraphrase it very well， but it was insightful and， to me， uncontroversial。 The two aspects that stand out in my memory are， first， that being rational is essentially behaving or acting in a way that is consistent with your professed values and your beliefs about the world。 Or， to I liked this a lot， although much of it was repetitive for me。 I'll just note a few things that went beyond what I've read before。Pinker's explanation of what rationality is was very good。 It made sense to me。 I can't paraphrase it very well， but it was insightful and， to me， uncontroversial。 The two aspects that stand out in my memory are， first， that being rational is essentially behaving or acting in a way that is consistent with your professed values and your beliefs about the world。 Or， to reverse that， we say someone is irrational if they act in a way that is contrary to what they profess to value， given what they believe about how the world works。 The other aspect I recall is how it is part of an attempt to get beyond or outside each of our limited， subjective perspectives， to try to learn what is true in the world。 You have your perspective， I have mine， but how can we figure out how to resolve differences in our perspectives？ Both of these seemed timely to me。 The full discussion is much more robust， of course。Another treatment I liked was a reconsideration of recent literature on how irrational people really are。 Pinker's approach is to reframe many of these experiments to show how， yes， we have a hard time being rational when problems are construed in a particularly difficult way for the minds evolution has given us， but when you put the same problems into everyday scenarios people perform much better。 And also when people work together in a group they perform much better - as Pinker puts it， it just takes one person in the group to spot the solution， and the rest of the group can then see it。 The last thing that stands out in my memory comes from the final section which was roughly an answer to the question "why has everything gotten so crazy today？" Pinker makes an interesting distinction between beliefs - I don't remember his terminology but essentially you have sacred beliefs and I'll say profane beliefs。 Sacred beliefs are things you claim to believe as a condition of your membership in a （sacred） community。 These beliefs aren't subject to examination。 In fact， anyone who tries to question one of these beliefs is usually met with harsh criticism from the community in question。 But also community members don't act the way they would if they literally believed these things in a factual way。 Like， if you really believed， literally believed， that children were being kept against their will in the basement of a local pizza restaurant， why wouldn't you call the police， at a minimum？ This is one of Pinker's examples。 （I would augment this by noting that people usually have some quasi-rational explanation to offer， just as all religions have some rational argument for their core beliefs， but I think the point stands in that these aren't beliefs that the holder is really open to reevaluating。） Profane beliefs， on the other hand， are in the everyday world of being open to rational argument and new evidence。 Like， is that squeaking sound in your car coming from your breaks or your fan belt？ When does your flight leave the airport？ What's the price of gas today？ I thought this framework was very helpful in noting， when talking to someone or encountering someone online， whether a belief they seem to hold is sacred or profane。 If it's sacred， and you don't agree with it， it's best to treat them the way you would treat someone from a different religion。 （As a Canadian， that means trying to politely change the subject。） This ties into the question "why are things so crazy these days？" in that the sphere of sacred beliefs has broadened on both sides of the political spectrum。 So there are far more subjects than a few years ago where questioning certain beliefs could result in your being twitter-mobbed。 。。。more
Eva
，
I might be graving more of a narrative thread in my non-fiction books lately。 This is starting to feel too much like a compendium of all the usual logic examples， and I don't have the patience to power through it to get to the potentially interesting conclusions at the end。 So I'll DNF。 I might be graving more of a narrative thread in my non-fiction books lately。 This is starting to feel too much like a compendium of all the usual logic examples， and I don't have the patience to power through it to get to the potentially interesting conclusions at the end。 So I'll DNF。 。。。more
Adam
，
Disappointing， though entertaining to read。 Two thirds of the book covers high-school-level basics of logic， probability， statistics， causal inference， rational decisions making。 Hard to learn anything there。 Last two chapters aim to answer how and why people can be irrational and why rationality matters。 Pinker's engaging writing could not compensate for sparsity of insights there either。 Disappointing， though entertaining to read。 Two thirds of the book covers high-school-level basics of logic， probability， statistics， causal inference， rational decisions making。 Hard to learn anything there。 Last two chapters aim to answer how and why people can be irrational and why rationality matters。 Pinker's engaging writing could not compensate for sparsity of insights there either。 。。。more
Peter S
，
If I was smart it wouldn’t be as boring
Kristen
，
4⭐️。
Will
，
I give it a four star due to the relevance and importance of the content。 Pinker illuminates the inherent biases of human cognition and squares them with our superbly critical and rational abilities。 I must say， he's a bit too smart for his own good sometimes and it was a bit of a struggle to get through merely due to his lexicon and I-assume-you-know-this attitude to， well， everything he knows。 Clearly he's a smart cookie but he made me feel truly stupid at parts， which is never incredibly fun。 I give it a four star due to the relevance and importance of the content。 Pinker illuminates the inherent biases of human cognition and squares them with our superbly critical and rational abilities。 I must say， he's a bit too smart for his own good sometimes and it was a bit of a struggle to get through merely due to his lexicon and I-assume-you-know-this attitude to， well， everything he knows。 Clearly he's a smart cookie but he made me feel truly stupid at parts， which is never incredibly fun。 One might say that'd be my fault for not being smarter， one might also say it's on the part of the author to be comprehensible， especially when communicating knowledge。 Nevertheless， Pinker illustrates the utmost importance of rationality and reason in this book and for that reason I applaud him。 。。。more
Tim
，
Rationality by PinkerThis was a pretty good book until the last 10%。 I admit that I myself am not a great speaker or writer。 Sometimes I find my foot in my mouth。 So does the author。 After hundreds of pages writing about a wide variety of topics as an “expert”， the author proceeds to discuss religion in a manner which reveals his absolute ignorance。 He discusses the subject as if he learned about faith from television。 Talk about your selection bias。 Nearly all of his presuppositions are excessi Rationality by PinkerThis was a pretty good book until the last 10%。 I admit that I myself am not a great speaker or writer。 Sometimes I find my foot in my mouth。 So does the author。 After hundreds of pages writing about a wide variety of topics as an “expert”， the author proceeds to discuss religion in a manner which reveals his absolute ignorance。 He discusses the subject as if he learned about faith from television。 Talk about your selection bias。 Nearly all of his presuppositions are excessively broad or flat out wrong。 Also， two billion Christians are not a monolith。 See the five hundred years of wars of religion。 All that division happened because， as the author himself points out， people actually believed in their faith as real truth， but didn’t agree about various important finer points。 Christians don’t compartmentalize faith away from reality。 We see it as a rational statement of reality。 There are Christians who believe in evolution。 There are Christians who believe in a 14 byo universe。 There are Christians who believe in enlightenment thinking and the scientific method。 We simply enterpret the results pointing to God， not away from him。 To me， faith is a statement of my rational thinking， not superstition or mythology。 I love science。 I love faith。 The war between science and faith seriously needs a ceasefire and people on both sides need to grow up。 Put on your big-boy pants and open your mind。 To be clear， I would be equally disappointed to read a thoughtful book about faith which made hare-brained claims about science， philosophy， or reason。 Stick to what you know and put your bigoted culture war aside！ I would have been very impressed by this book if the author had stuck to his eloquent expertise and not dallied with subjects irrelevant to his point， of which he proves himself ignorant， sloppily conflating the two in conclusion。 Next time you want to attack religion， maybe find a religious person to run your ideas past BEFORE you allow yourself to sound like a bigot in print。 。。。more
Sergio
，
Me considero un "adherente" de la racionalidad y creo que si todos los humanos fuésemos más racionales， el mundo sería un lugar muchísimo mejor。 Este libro habla de eso。 Sí pienso que se gasta la primera mitad del libro （o más） siendo un curso de probabilidades en vez de un libro que promueva la racionalidad。 Es que yo pienso que el obstáculo para la racionalidad es principalmente actitudinal， de predisposición， más que algo relacionado con conocimiento sobre probabilidades。 Este libro es un pun Me considero un "adherente" de la racionalidad y creo que si todos los humanos fuésemos más racionales， el mundo sería un lugar muchísimo mejor。 Este libro habla de eso。 Sí pienso que se gasta la primera mitad del libro （o más） siendo un curso de probabilidades en vez de un libro que promueva la racionalidad。 Es que yo pienso que el obstáculo para la racionalidad es principalmente actitudinal， de predisposición， más que algo relacionado con conocimiento sobre probabilidades。 Este libro es un punto intermedio entre El Mundo y sus Demonios y Pensar Rápido Pensar Despacio。 Aunque esperaba más， es recomendable。 Voy a seguir leyendo libros de Steven Pinker。 。。。more
Joa Lobato
，
Reaprender as lógicas de pensamento humano， tão necessárias agora mais que nunca！ Leitura lenta para quem não tem tão presente o que está por trás da racionalidade e que tipos de lógica podem argumentar contra ou a favor de afirmações， situações， discussões ou factos aparentemente verdadeiros。
Kunal Sen
，
Another brilliant book from a brilliant thinker。 As in all his other books， Pinker tackles the issue with open-mindedness， reason， sharp logic， and without any fear of challenging some accepted notions。 He tackles all aspects of what we call reason and rational thinking and exposes all the pitfalls of rationality。 I can bet that even the smartest readers will benefit from recognizing these pitfalls because we all make these mistakes of reason all the time。 Getting them exposed will not make us p Another brilliant book from a brilliant thinker。 As in all his other books， Pinker tackles the issue with open-mindedness， reason， sharp logic， and without any fear of challenging some accepted notions。 He tackles all aspects of what we call reason and rational thinking and exposes all the pitfalls of rationality。 I can bet that even the smartest readers will benefit from recognizing these pitfalls because we all make these mistakes of reason all the time。 Getting them exposed will not make us perfectly rational creatures but should make us more careful thinkers。 The root of these mistakes lies deep in how our brain evolved， so it is a constant battle to fight against the natural tendencies， but exposing them may help us recognize the traps。The book is also extremely timely since， as a society， we are going through a period where globally， there is a huge decline in rational thinking。 A growing section of the population is engaged in irrational and often dangerous beliefs that are rapidly transforming our political landscape。 We are indulging ourselves in creating alternative realities that are very far from the truth and， in the process， denying the institutions that maintained our societal commitments to reason。 I am not sure the book will reach that segment， but at least it should make the rest of us understand that we， who believe we are rational， can be just as vulnerable。 It once again made me aware that ideology and reason are enemies， irrespective of our political leaning。At a personal level， I feel proud and happy that Steven Pinker recently agreed to write the article on Rationality for Encyclopaedia Britannica， the company I work for （www。britannica。com/topic/rationality） 。。。more
Timothy
，
A concise argument on what rational thought is and how we’re losing it。 Points are made and followed up by mathematical equations。 Ergo the dry。 My mind would wander。 I just couldn’t stay focused despite the importance of the topic。
Brad
，
I'm a lover of rational thinking， and I enjoyed Pinker's previous book， "Enlightenment Now。" So I was quite disappointed to find that this book read like an introductory psychology textbook。 The majority of its contents was a fairly surface-level overview of biases， logic， uncertainty， and game theory。 There was very little that was new for me， and I assume it would be the same for most readers who voluntarily pick up a book called "Rationality。"The final section of the book offered partial rede I'm a lover of rational thinking， and I enjoyed Pinker's previous book， "Enlightenment Now。" So I was quite disappointed to find that this book read like an introductory psychology textbook。 The majority of its contents was a fairly surface-level overview of biases， logic， uncertainty， and game theory。 There was very little that was new for me， and I assume it would be the same for most readers who voluntarily pick up a book called "Rationality。"The final section of the book offered partial redemption， where Pinker provided:1） his commentary on how rationality is/isn't being used in modern society， and the implications2） his defense of why rationality is useful for individuals， communities， and humanityI think the social commentary could easily have been a Medium post and that the rest can be skipped without regret。 。。。more
Meepspeeps
，
I finished and asked “why did the author write the book the way he did and who was his intended audience？” There are many chapters that belong in a statistics textbook， and there are a few “jokes” that belonged in the garbage can。 I recommend reading Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 until the “Rationality and Moral Progress” section， which is opaque to me。 Due to the author’s own myside bias， conservatives will have to hold their noses and ignore the many snipes if they want to consider the excellent p I finished and asked “why did the author write the book the way he did and who was his intended audience？” There are many chapters that belong in a statistics textbook， and there are a few “jokes” that belonged in the garbage can。 I recommend reading Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 until the “Rationality and Moral Progress” section， which is opaque to me。 Due to the author’s own myside bias， conservatives will have to hold their noses and ignore the many snipes if they want to consider the excellent points about rationality in Chapters 10 and 11。 The author didn’t seem to understand that many people have rational arguments for supporting certain politicians’ policies; they are willing to work through the noise and scare tactics to support these policies。 There were some references to self-interest and its impact on rational thinking， but I don’t remember anything significant about fear or desire for power。 I would have liked the author to explore how these affect rationality from a scientific perspective， and what to do about the irrational aspects of them in order to make progress as a society。 。。。more
Mary
，
I love a book that tells me how and why I think what I do。 This book was great at exposing bias and preference and a serious of things that may muddy our ability to be rational。 It was a good read overall。
an-chi
，
I am beyond "happy" to say that I finished this book after struggling so much。 If you're thinking to buy this book because you want to be more rational in your life， please DON'T。 If you're interested in different theories behind rationality， i。e。 game theory and randomness， maybe you should try a few pages before buying。 Honestly， this is like a textbook for courses in the university， and it is not fun at all。 Do I learn anything？ Yes， but in a painful process。中文版 [理性：人類最有效的認知工具，讓我們做出更好的選擇，採取更正 I am beyond "happy" to say that I finished this book after struggling so much。 If you're thinking to buy this book because you want to be more rational in your life， please DON'T。 If you're interested in different theories behind rationality， i。e。 game theory and randomness， maybe you should try a few pages before buying。 Honestly， this is like a textbook for courses in the university， and it is not fun at all。 Do I learn anything？ Yes， but in a painful process。中文版 [理性：人類最有效的認知工具，讓我們做出更好的選擇，採取更正確的行動]這大概是我今年度目前看過最痛苦的一本書，因為行文很像教科書口吻，說句實話，我真的掙扎了很久才看完。如果你以為看完這本書後，你會變得更理性，我真的覺得不會。如果你真的對理性背後的科學有興趣，我也建議你試讀一下再下手。其實我真的有學到東西，只是痛苦的過程和收穫不成比例。 。。。more
Hazel Bright
，
Some interesting stuff， but padded by such things as a list of logical fallacies， a list of vegetables and other foods and their attributes ostensibly to describe neurology and how brain cell function， and a relatively simplistic description of the brain as a neural network， and the whole discussion of probability， game theory and any other "Hey Martha" observation that might be loosely related to rationality as presented in this book。 It's not a bad soporific， if you are looking for a bedtime b Some interesting stuff， but padded by such things as a list of logical fallacies， a list of vegetables and other foods and their attributes ostensibly to describe neurology and how brain cell function， and a relatively simplistic description of the brain as a neural network， and the whole discussion of probability， game theory and any other "Hey Martha" observation that might be loosely related to rationality as presented in this book。 It's not a bad soporific， if you are looking for a bedtime book。 A couple of pages of this random dancing on the head of a neuron and I'm out like a light。 。。。more
Raphael Dorigo
，
Maybe the best book on the topic that I have seen， along with Julia Galef's "The Scout Mindset"。 That doesn't mean it doesn't have its weaknesses， though。Pinker does a better job than many others at discussing rationality in depth and with nuance。 You can really learn a lot of things from this book， and its contents will spark a plethora of fascinating thoughts and conversations。The main issues I have with this book are #1 that the tools for rationality it lays out are impractical and #2 that Pi Maybe the best book on the topic that I have seen， along with Julia Galef's "The Scout Mindset"。 That doesn't mean it doesn't have its weaknesses， though。Pinker does a better job than many others at discussing rationality in depth and with nuance。 You can really learn a lot of things from this book， and its contents will spark a plethora of fascinating thoughts and conversations。The main issues I have with this book are #1 that the tools for rationality it lays out are impractical and #2 that Pinker doesn't spend enough time discussing the question of what goals our rationality should be used in service of。 He praises rationality a little too much at the end of the book， considering that even he himself regularly acknowledges throughout the book that rationality can be used to attain all kinds of goals， not just noble ones。If you're interested in the question of how knowledge can be used to attain goals， look no further than this book。 If you're looking for something like wisdom， however， you'll find intriguing starting points for further thinking， but not enough discussion of goals and values and not enough practical advice。 。。。more
Kelly
，
A long and somewhat tedious read， but a really good topic， and a remarkably good author。Well researched and well written。
Helene
，
This book is the latest one I read about rationality （after The Scout Mindset， part of Rationality: From AI To Zombies， Predictably Irrational， and Think Again） and overall I enjoyed it a lot。 The book is divided into more chatty chapters and more theoretical and numbers-heavy ones。 The former chapters are about what rationality broadly is， why it is important and whether humans are inherently rational beings。 While at the time I had several aha-moments during these chapters， I realize that not This book is the latest one I read about rationality （after The Scout Mindset， part of Rationality: From AI To Zombies， Predictably Irrational， and Think Again） and overall I enjoyed it a lot。 The book is divided into more chatty chapters and more theoretical and numbers-heavy ones。 The former chapters are about what rationality broadly is， why it is important and whether humans are inherently rational beings。 While at the time I had several aha-moments during these chapters， I realize that not much has stuck with me from these parts。 In contrast， the latter chapters I learned a lot more from。 In each of them， he approaches the topic of rationality from a different angle， amongst them formal logic， Bayes’ Theorem， game theory， rational choice theory and statistical decision theory。 I was superficially familiar with many of the concepts Pinker introduces， so I took away a lot from looking at them in more depth。 I especially appreciated his many anecdotes and examples to illustrate each theory–this definitely helped me apply what otherwise would have been abstract concepts to real situations and will probably make it easier to recognize traps that risk irrational thought and behavior。 Will definitely re-read the book at some point！ 。。。more
Pat Herndon
，
Yeah…pretty good。 But， I’ll NEVER understand the Monty Hall problem。
Eric
，
This book was informative and thought provoking。 The cohesiveness could have been better。 It seemed like the author had a lot of ideas that fell under the umbrella of rationality but didn't tie them together as much as I think he probably could have - almost like he rushed to get something published。 Nevertheless there were some ideas that deserve acclaim。 So anyway I might read another one of the other 8 books he has published if I want -- I don't know。 On to the next！ This book was informative and thought provoking。 The cohesiveness could have been better。 It seemed like the author had a lot of ideas that fell under the umbrella of rationality but didn't tie them together as much as I think he probably could have - almost like he rushed to get something published。 Nevertheless there were some ideas that deserve acclaim。 So anyway I might read another one of the other 8 books he has published if I want -- I don't know。 On to the next！ 。。。more
Matthew Balshaw
，
More than 50% of this book covered statistics。 I really like statistics， and I went through several classes of it in high school and my comp Sci degree。 While this book wasn't a bad refresher for me， I didn't really learn anything new。Steven Pinker references a few other books in this work， such as Atomic habits， thinking fast and slow and sapiens。 While I was reading this I naturally compared it to them， and honestly felt that this book was dull and slow in comparison to those three 10/10 books More than 50% of this book covered statistics。 I really like statistics， and I went through several classes of it in high school and my comp Sci degree。 While this book wasn't a bad refresher for me， I didn't really learn anything new。Steven Pinker references a few other books in this work， such as Atomic habits， thinking fast and slow and sapiens。 While I was reading this I naturally compared it to them， and honestly felt that this book was dull and slow in comparison to those three 10/10 books。The best part of the book is the first 30% where he talks about rationality of animals and civilisation， but sapiens was a more thorough and interesting exploration of the development of the scientific theory。 I did enjoy that part and there were some different angles that Steven Pinker had， especially relating to modern day rationality。Overall I don't recommend this unless you feel like you would benefit from learning about statistics and want to read a book specifically focusing on rationality。 。。。more
Donal
，
Superb。 A brilliant primer on critical thinking。 Read it on my Kindle and immediately ordered the paperback so I would have it as a reference。
Aarish Khan
，
A really fascinating book; one of the best I’ve read。 It’s not easy to read at places。 Some of the inferential models explained in the book are slightly complicated and had me read and re-read them for better understanding。 Still， it is an interesting， engaging， and insightful book despite the dry subject of its inquiry。 It is one of those books that one would want to read more than once。 Some reviewers have criticized the book for reading like a textbook but， perhaps， this is what it should be: A really fascinating book; one of the best I’ve read。 It’s not easy to read at places。 Some of the inferential models explained in the book are slightly complicated and had me read and re-read them for better understanding。 Still， it is an interesting， engaging， and insightful book despite the dry subject of its inquiry。 It is one of those books that one would want to read more than once。 Some reviewers have criticized the book for reading like a textbook but， perhaps， this is what it should be: a textbook for social sciences undergrad courses。 The book might not be able to answer all your questions about rationality or meet all your expectations; no book does。 It does， however， compel you to think and decide rationally and to exhibit what the author refers to as “epistemic humility。” The author provides statistical models for rational decision-making but admittedly does not proclaim the reality of human decision-making to be mathematical。 The author writes on p。40 of the book:"Perfect rationality and objective truth are aspirations that no mortal can ever claim to have attained。 But the conviction that they are out there licenses us to develop rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually。"On the same page from where the above is excerpted， the author calls us to not “believe in” or "have faith in" reason but to "follow" it。 This is how the book should be read and perceived。On p。317 of the book， Pinker writes:"Human reasoning has its fallacies， biases， and indulgence in mythology。 But the ultimate explanation for the paradox of how our species could be both so rational and so irrational is not some bug in our cognitive software。 It lies in the duality of self and other: our powers of reason are guided by our motives and limited by our points of view。。。 [T]he core of morality is impartiality: the reconciliation of our selfish interests with others'。 So， too， is impartiality the core of rationality: a reconciliation of our biased and incomplete notions into an understanding of reality that transcends any one of us。 Rationality， then， is not just a cognitive virtue but a moral one。"One could split hairs over the nuances of this statement but overcoming inherent biases is one critical overlooked aspect of rationality， which the author has rightly explained as a moral virtue。 Enabling us to follow reason with epistemic humility and impartiality， rationality is not only a cognitive but a moral virtue。 。。。more
Christian Georgiev
，
"Rationality" is a typical Steven Pinker book in the sense that it attempts to aggregates a number of theoretical concepts and empirical findings and present a mostly coherent overview on the given subject matter， all in a language accessible to the casual reader。 At that， "Rationality"is quite successful - it presents a nice introduction to logic， statistics， and behavioral economics （among others） in an attempt to highlight the processes which result in behavior we would call irrational。With r "Rationality" is a typical Steven Pinker book in the sense that it attempts to aggregates a number of theoretical concepts and empirical findings and present a mostly coherent overview on the given subject matter， all in a language accessible to the casual reader。 At that， "Rationality"is quite successful - it presents a nice introduction to logic， statistics， and behavioral economics （among others） in an attempt to highlight the processes which result in behavior we would call irrational。With respect to the writing， it should come as no surprise that it is very solid。 Pinker has demonstrated his mastery of the English language with many of his previous books and "Rationality" is no exception。 His combination of theory， research findings， on-point social commentary， and light humor result in， for the most part， a very enjoyable read。The major drawback of this book （which may understandably disappoint many readers） is the complete absence of novel insight。 Every topic discussed in "Rationality" has already been discussed at length in numerous other texts， down to the same exact arguments， examples， and citations。 This is quite unfortunate as I would have liked to hear someone like Pinker present a more original and contemporary analysis， especially since many （in fact nearly all） of the referenced research findings are well over a decade old。All in all， "Rationality"is a nice summary of basic concepts and can be a useful reference book for people with no previous exposure to the topics of rationality and decision making。 However， if you are even moderately familiar with these topics， you are unlikely to learn anything new。 。。。more
Petteri Rekomaa
，
I have really liked Steven Pinker’s earlier books， but something seems to have happened after the success of Better Angels of Our Nature。 Instead of writing bold but well argumented books that go deep into a subject， Pinker’s latest books have been very “safe” and barely go below the surface。 Rationality is the culmination of safe books。 It is very hard to disagree with， but it doesn’t offer new insights either。 Somehow it feels like that after gaining a certain status with the success of BAoON， I have really liked Steven Pinker’s earlier books， but something seems to have happened after the success of Better Angels of Our Nature。 Instead of writing bold but well argumented books that go deep into a subject， Pinker’s latest books have been very “safe” and barely go below the surface。 Rationality is the culmination of safe books。 It is very hard to disagree with， but it doesn’t offer new insights either。 Somehow it feels like that after gaining a certain status with the success of BAoON， Pinker doesn’t want to upset anyone， but rather enjoy his new status and preach to the choir。Rationality is not a bad book。 It's well written and offers a nice explanation of traits that make us irrational （or rational）。 But all of that has already been explained better in probably hundreds of other books。The most original part of the book is its second to last chapter where Pinker tries to explain why people today seem to be so irrational。 He starts by， correctly， noting that they can’t be explained by conspiracy theories or fake news because they are something that have always existed。 But then he proceeds to explain them by motivated reasoning， myside bias and mythological thinking， something that have certainly existed for millenia。 As a solution Pinker suggests that people should be more rational and reward rationality。 A noble aspiration for sure， but not an implementable solution nor anything the reader did not already know。It is not easy to explain the current surge in irrationality and trying would introduce the risk of being wrong。 My hunch is that it has something to do with rising inequality and changes in/challenges to established power structures。 Pinker almost touches those subjects， but it’s like he can’t quite bring himself to do so。 Maybe because that could upset part of the choir？So， is the book itself rational？ From Pinker’s point of view it undoubtedly is， but a reader is left with a feeling that Pinker is looking for the keys where the light is， not where they were dropped。 。。。more
Collin Kennedy
，
Pinker doesn’t shy away from the math and statistics in this one， and while this book might rub some people the wrong way because of the fact that it’s too “math-y”， it’s clear he’s choosing to write on the topic because of its obvious connection and link to logic and （probabilistic） reasoning。 If I could do my undergrad and Masters over again， I would read and learn Bayes’ theorem from this book as opposed to Casella & Berger。 While his presentation of the math isn’t as rigorous， his use of act Pinker doesn’t shy away from the math and statistics in this one， and while this book might rub some people the wrong way because of the fact that it’s too “math-y”， it’s clear he’s choosing to write on the topic because of its obvious connection and link to logic and （probabilistic） reasoning。 If I could do my undergrad and Masters over again， I would read and learn Bayes’ theorem from this book as opposed to Casella & Berger。 While his presentation of the math isn’t as rigorous， his use of actual English to describe the intuition behind the math is a welcomed alternative to the dry， formula and symbol-ridden pages of a statistics textbook。While there are some key differences between this book and Enlightenment Now， the overarching theme is more or less the same: humans， despite our prejudices， biases， and shortcomings （of which there are plenty）， still have and continue to demonstrate a remarkable capacity to progress， both materially and morally。 And he means that in practically any sense of the word; “humanity overall is healthier， richer， longer-lived， better fed， better educated， and safer from war， murder， and accidents than in decades and centuries past”（324）。The examples are numerous， and while he admittedly provides far more evidence and examples of this general trend in Enlightenment Now， he doesn’t fail here either。 In an earlier chapter， when describing the negative psychological effects of the availability heuristic on our interpretation of the state of the world， he describes how things that happen that are relatively quick or immediate， like a war starting， or a collapse， or a catastrophe are much easier to notice and report on。 Meanwhile “good” things may take place over longer periods of time and may be harder to notice or quantify， but they are there。 He quotes an economist who points out that news outlets could’ve run the headline that “137，000 people escaped extreme poverty yesterday” every day for the last 25 years。 Pinker argues that humans can handle numbers and figures when it comes to sports and the weather， so why not incorporate more data and fact-driven reporting into one’s news media consumption？I enjoyed the chapter on statistical decision theory， and again he does an excellent job of describing highly mathematical concepts with good prose and good examples。 I got a kick out of his effective roast of social scientists and how they commonly don’t know the proper definition of a p-value （for the love of God it is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true）。 He also does a fantastic job in his chapter on game theory and the examples he provides are relevant and top notch。 I most notably appreciated his demonstration of the Tragedy of the Commons using a climate change mitigation example （game）。 With that said， a good chunk of this book felt like a crash course in stuff I already knew （he spent a fair amount of time on probability and bayesian reasoning， game theory/expected utility， etc）， but the thing I wanted to read the most about was the connection between morality and rationality。 When I was younger and read Kant for the first time during undergrad in one of my ethics classes， I was hooked。 But if I’m being perfectly honest， I was convinced of the soundness of the argument that morality is grounded in reason because it conformed to a narrative about the world that I desperately wanted to believe （this is motivated reasoning， something that Pinker also discusses in this book）。 In actuality， I am not convinced。 Obviously， Pinker is very much a Kant guy （recall Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”）， and argues that “when you combine self-interest and sociality with impartiality- the interchangeability of perspectives， you get the core of morality”（68）。 At face value that sounds lovely right？ In other words， it’s irrational to argue that I could hurt you， or let you starve， while also maintaining that you can’t hurt me， or let me starve。 You can’t argue and convince any rational being that one’s interests matter when it’s me， but as soon as we switch the pronouns and are talking about you， the statement no longer holds。 His point can more or less be summarized as an argument that the Golden Rule， “Do not do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is rational。 He then states， “None of these statements depend on taste， custom， or religion”（69）。 But is that true？ Couldn’t any two individuals have different perspectives or tastes on how they’d feel comfortable being treated？ While I would strongly agree that morality is the glue that binds us together and makes human civilizations more cohesive and in general better off， I still am struggling to see how anyone can argue it is entirely grounded in reason。 Couldn’t I also argue that sometimes it may be in someone’s best interest （and therefore rational） to do something society would consider to be immoral。 Is this not a contradiction？ Here are a couple of quotes that resonated with me:“But intelligence is not the same thing as rationality， since being good at computing something is no guarantee that a person will try to compute the right things” （324）“Ideas are true or false， consistent or contradictory， conducive to human welfare or not， regardless of who thinks them” （340） 。。。more
Jakub Goda
，
Probably still useful for many people but felt a bit recycled。
Rodrigo Martín
，
I have heard many times that statistics can lie to you。 This is a book that explains how and where statistics actually are used and gives you a starting point to question things and learn from data。 Also the chapter on logic is a great introduction to the topic， I went through the exercises as if it were a textbook， a very entertaining one with real world applications。 Last chapter on why rationality is needed and how it has been present in histories social justice debates is very powerful and i I have heard many times that statistics can lie to you。 This is a book that explains how and where statistics actually are used and gives you a starting point to question things and learn from data。 Also the chapter on logic is a great introduction to the topic， I went through the exercises as if it were a textbook， a very entertaining one with real world applications。 Last chapter on why rationality is needed and how it has been present in histories social justice debates is very powerful and inspiring。 。。。more
Susan
，