Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 1, 2012 - Panglossian optimism? Oh good lord, where do I even start with you?The whole supposition that Pinker bases this line of thought upon is a mis-conception that people were more PEACEFUL in primitive times. His arguement emphasizes that humanity has inherrent violent tendencies, but due to technology and cultural advancement, the REASONS for resorting to violence have shrunk, and thusly so has violence.Also:-If data is designed to FOCUS on generalized observation, nuances are irrelevant.

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 1, 2012 - (cont.)And yes, this above all bears reiteration:Pinker is proposing a phenomenon that incorporates time, culture, technological breakthroughs, and murder rates. Explain to me HOW you would make a TESTABLE EXPERIMENT around that construct without committing crimes against humanity?!?Anyone who believes "If it can't be tested in a lab, it's not science" stands as a collective insult to the forward intellectual progress of this species.

DimmedDiamond Says:

May 2, 2012 - The speaker is severely wrong. He suggests that 1 act of violence in a population of 10,000 is JUST AS VIOLENT as 700 acts of violence in today's world. That's just dumb.

TekLok Says:

May 7, 2012 - So with all this decrease in violence we see the increase in procreation until everyone snaps and goes back to violence hahaha fuck.

52111centrumcz Says:

May 20, 2012 - For example; in the 1980s the regular yearly death rate of black poor african americans was HIGHER than the death rate of GIs in Iraq....interesting.

ChanChan3255 Says:

May 22, 2012 - I'll grant that this is the case, but it would still be completely besides the point.

52111centrumcz Says:

May 22, 2012 - A good idea would be to look at relative death rates to violence averaged over a century for different centuries. I would agree it would tend to go down a bit - but it would be marginal.

JimFattoo7 Says:

May 24, 2012 - All the violence he denies existing in 1st world countries doesn't mean it's absent from the rest of the world. Other data shows completely the opposite, from Occupy wall street and how it is handled by the police to how video games and some music genres increase violence in children. Concerning other torturing he denies existing as well, it happens all over Africa and in Asia too. And if it doesn't happen in 1st world countries that's because they do their dirty work overseas.

salasvalor01 Says:

May 26, 2012 - What a guy.. so dear. Pinker's excellent mind, courtesy, and integrity makes me love him and wish humanity was more of him. Obviously the host(?) saw these things in him and really admired him for them.

CharlieSuave2907 Says:

May 26, 2012 - violence is still ever present and persistent more than ever before, it just changed its form but doesn't mean it's not happening. at least previous cultures had something called honour. war for a just cause not profit

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 26, 2012 - well, actually birth rates fall in more stable, prosperous societies and have fallen below replacement rate in many rich world nations.Procreation and violence will continue to fall over time.

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 26, 2012 - What are you basing the assertion that we are more violent than ever on? Previous cultures did not only fight for honour and "just causes" but also fought for profit on a much larger scale than we do now. What do you think imperialism was, apart from profit, what about slavery? the colonial powers made trade deals with gunboat diplomacy (e.g. the opium wars in china) and sent in troops to back up corporate interests (e.g. East India Trading Company).

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 26, 2012 - 1st world countries rarely, if ever, shoot to death large numbers of protesters or carry out mass arrests, music and video game violence hardly compares with genocide and total war and while torture still exists in many countries its use has declined.

JimFattoo7 Says:

May 26, 2012 - I believe there are many other modern genocides other than Darfur and Iraq...alot more. And torture is just the same if not more in all countries..you just don't hear about it.

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 27, 2012 - That seems unlikely as the improvements in reporting and communication technologies have meant that genocides and wars are much more widely known about - do you really think a genocide could take place and no one would notice - even in the poorest countries at least some people are connected to social media.

JimFattoo7 Says:

May 27, 2012 - The funny thing is that the media does report these incidents..and they are everywhere..but nobody really cares..it has very minimal effect on people as they are diverted to more "entertainment" trivial stuff by the main stream media. Or these incident be on the media but when it's too late...like Kony 2012 for example.

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 27, 2012 - Okay, so maybe some people don't notice all of the violence in the world but, taking your example of African warlords, I highly doubt that Pinker left them out of his analysis. What you have to remember is that not so long ago "Kony" style atrocities and warfare were common within and between the nations of the western world which now have stable democratic governance.

JimFattoo7 Says:

May 27, 2012 - The "democratic" western world is responsible for many of the genocides happening today..drug war, weapons dealers, political ideologies..all these contribute 1 way or another. And for the same reason...profits. But I'm sure Pinker wouldn't mention that for not to defame his precious "civilized" 1st world countries ey?

discipleoftheteapot Says:

May 27, 2012 - But he uses, for example, murder statistics - these would take into account deaths due to the drug war and other policies.

Teghead Says:

May 27, 2012 - Dissapointed that Pinker has to misuse words like fractal and homogenious to make his point; damn I wish people wouldn't do that.

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 27, 2012 - Well since you seem to be coming at this from a fairly open minded perspective I'll take the dangerous risk of seriously addressing your point in a YT comment:Dr. Pinker's primary point isn't so much to illustrate that humanity has reached an all time level of peace and nirvana. He's countering the implication that humanity has gotten MORE violent over time. His assertion is that human nature is to be as violent as needed to get the resources to survive. (cont.)

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 27, 2012 - (cont. from last post)In primitive times, with precious few exceptions (certain North American tribes whose peaceful ways can't be proven by written documentation either btw), most ancient peoples vied constantly for resources, mating rites, territory, and religion, often killing to get their point across. In more modern times, technology has offered a double-edged sword. Many cultures now can convey ideas and gain resources WITHOUT bloodshead, but we're BETTER at it.(cont.)

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 27, 2012 - (cont. from last post (last one, promise!))ALL Dr. Pinker is suggesting in this one talk is a piece of his larger message that human nature hasn't really changed overall over time, only technology and it's impact on our nature has changed. Here he's trying to illustrate that by debunking the "progressive degenerate society" theorum by illustrating that statistics are relative. From a "per capita" perspective, YES we do kill less than our ancestors. But it's one case that the trend is wrong.

EXRazeBurn Says:

May 27, 2012 - Honestly? I'd say the perception that violence is rampant now more than ever is not the result of real time events but the work of the "information age". People talk about the deaths all over the world right now (especially in the Middle East). And while I don't approve of what's going on over there right now (be it losing U.S. servicemen or innocent nationals caught in fights with insurgents), look at a history book. Was Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI better? No, this has better CNN coverage.