My new favorite book of all time • Hacker News Board

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#271

Post by ixtli » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #247

ABCLAW wrote: post #213

I've read a lot of the discussions regarding Pinker's work in both books (but particularly his position in Better Angels), and I've always found his position to be slightly disconcerting. Pinker attempts to make a specific argument, that violence has decreased over time. Violence is not a first order phenomenon at a social scale - it's presence is predicated upon the existence of other key criteria, largely the exist…

All that is true, but its important to define the comparison. Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence. The fact that our current system is imperfect does not mean it isn't better than it was . That being said, I find Nassim Taleb's criticism of Pinker's ideas much more relevant: That you can't know what kind of distribution you're in until it's over. Violence may simply b…

Forgive me for needling here, but i'd like to contest

> Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence

This is only true if being imprisoned for many years is always better than being physically attacked. Obviously there are edge cases since certain types of violence are worse then other types of imprisonment but I bring this up only to say: don't get caught up in what is easy to view instantaneously. Imprisonment, especially in america, can sometimes be far more violent than the crime a person did to get there.

Also, I realize that this is adjacent to the point you're trying to make but it is a shade of a sentiment i see expressed often.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#272

Post by resu_nimda » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #256

resu_nimda wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You acknowledged that he made a specific argument about violence, which is a fairly straightforward and measurable metric. He didn’t claim that “conflict is being better managed” or that “things are getting better,” which are extremely subjective and hard to quantify. Your point about the legal system, while valid, seems irrelevant to his argument. And you didn’t provide any argument that the situation has gotten wor…

1) The issue is that violence is a poor metric for progress. Pinker has made it clear that the description of declining violence is done in order to describe the improvement of the human plight, as most succinctly crystallized in the title of his first work on the point, and the overarching research thesis of his second. The structure of his first argument also points to this: violence has decreased, and all of the r…

You have yet to provide even a hint of a demonstration of how the have-nots have it worse than before. It should be pretty simple, just one example of backward progress that you think is more relevant than reduction of violence.

Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#273

Post by kgabis » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #235

kgabis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bombing of Dresden is well known, of course, but it doesn't compare to a single bomb that can level cities when it comes to deterring your enemy. I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden, but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in similar, "conventional" way (like Warsaw, Breslau or Tokyo), so I don't see why it should be treated in a special way.

> Bombing of Dresden is well known, of course, but it doesn't compare to a single bomb that can level cities when it comes to deterring your enemy. It does actually. The only difference is how long it took and arguably Dresden was in worse shape than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. > I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden Well, forgive me. > but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in…

> No, there aren't. That's exactly why Dresden stands out.

I don't think it should be treated as a "most destroyed city" contest, but you should really research the scale of destruction in the cities I've mentioned. [1] looks quite comparable to [2], [3] looks arguably worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw#...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...

[3] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2d/10/af/2d10af195da2779dbd4c31ddf...

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#274

Post by ABCLAW » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #267

ABCLAW wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that our current system is imperfect does not mean it isn't better than it was. Sure, but that's my point. Pinker makes an argument for "it is better" without actually delving into confounding measures of "better". >Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence. First: If you were systemically dispossessed, you might take chaos over certainty of a negative outcome. Bu…

> Why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles. Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict. Compared to that, modern times are certainly more 'peaceful'. As you rightly point out, that peace may come through state domination, which we may qualitatively assess as good or bad (or perhaps more appropriately…

>Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict.

No it hasn't. Even the worst figured in Pinker's own cherry picked data show that's the case.

Next, even if we jump fully onto the Hobbesian boat, conflict resolution and alignment is literally the raison d'etre of the state.

Finally, we can compare judicial effectiveness (albeit somewhat crudely) across societies (and within differential groups/industries )and the delta between them doesn't lead us from 'everlasting peace' to 'perpetual violence' either.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#275

Post by Haul4ss » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

vanderreeah wrote: post #206

The vast, vast majority of people in the world have to work most of the best hours of the day in order to pay for shelter from the weather and food for their family. In return they get the dubious privilege of allowing their brain to decompress in front of corporate-manufactured garbage on television. Although we are not currently in a World War or its aftermath, and therefore our lives could reasonably be said to be…

I do not believe that is a solid argument at all.

A man in the 17th century would likely have to bury at least one of his children because of disease. The man himself might succumb early to painful illness or infection. If he needed to travel for business he would be away from his family for months. If he lived on a farm (as many did) his days would be filled with hard labor and his standard of living would be much lower.

To say nothing of men of color, or gay men, or women, or men who were not landed gentry.

For many, many people, the 17th century was not a good time.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#276

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

kgabis wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bombing of Dresden is well known, of course, but it doesn't compare to a single bomb that can level cities when it comes to deterring your enemy. It does actually. The only difference is how long it took and arguably Dresden was in worse shape than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. > I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden Well, forgive me. > but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in…

> No, there aren't. That's exactly why Dresden stands out. I don't think it should be treated as a "most destroyed city" contest, but you should really research the scale of destruction in the cities I've mentioned. [1] looks quite comparable to [2], [3] looks arguably worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... [3] htt…

Those cities are larger. But the reason Dresden is used as an example in these conversations is not because such a huge number of people died (much more was left standing. Dresden was pretty much gone.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#277

Post by Bartweiss » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #245

ABCLAW wrote: post #213

I've read a lot of the discussions regarding Pinker's work in both books (but particularly his position in Better Angels), and I've always found his position to be slightly disconcerting. Pinker attempts to make a specific argument, that violence has decreased over time. Violence is not a first order phenomenon at a social scale - it's presence is predicated upon the existence of other key criteria, largely the exist…

You acknowledged that he made a specific argument about violence, which is a fairly straightforward and measurable metric. He didn’t claim that “conflict is being better managed” or that “things are getting better,” which are extremely subjective and hard to quantify. Your point about the legal system, while valid, seems irrelevant to his argument. And you didn’t provide any argument that the situation has gotten wor…

> He didn’t claim that “conflict is being better managed” or that “things are getting better,”

Hang on, my reading of Pinker is that he claims exactly that. Certainly Gates thinks so: this post on Enlightenment Now is about "how and why the world is getting better"!

If I disagree with OP, it's only because Pinker directly addresses the growth of the legal system in Better Angels with his discussion of Leviathan. I certainly don't think it's irrelevant to Pinker's argument, since he explicitly lauds Hobbes and the rise of state power as a major factor in the decline of violence.

As for better access to justice, that's a vastly harder question, and largely one of definition. But yes, I'd be inclined to argue that the evolution of social structures has frequently traded off declining violence against rising injustice.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#278

Post by ABCLAW » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #272

ABCLAW wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The issue is that violence is a poor metric for progress. Pinker has made it clear that the description of declining violence is done in order to describe the improvement of the human plight, as most succinctly crystallized in the title of his first work on the point, and the overarching research thesis of his second. The structure of his first argument also points to this: violence has decreased, and all of the r…

You have yet to provide even a hint of a demonstration of how the have-nots have it worse than before. It should be pretty simple, just one example of backward progress that you think is more relevant than reduction of violence. Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling.

Yugoslavia under Tito is a great example of a cauldron of economic and sectarian violence being temporarily held in check by a violent warlord.

Given none of those issues actually got solved during his time, the complete disintegration of his country which followed his death is a great example of actual conflict not being accurately tracked by violence figures.

Feel free to check out the development figures for the bloc countries and read up on the history. Should be instructive.

>Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling.

Well, I haven't seen your argument demonstrating that that's the case, but from the tone of this reply, I'll have to stop responding to your points as I don't think there's very much effort towards understanding and discussion.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#279

Post by poir00t99 » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #272

ABCLAW wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The issue is that violence is a poor metric for progress. Pinker has made it clear that the description of declining violence is done in order to describe the improvement of the human plight, as most succinctly crystallized in the title of his first work on the point, and the overarching research thesis of his second. The structure of his first argument also points to this: violence has decreased, and all of the r…

You have yet to provide even a hint of a demonstration of how the have-nots have it worse than before. It should be pretty simple, just one example of backward progress that you think is more relevant than reduction of violence. Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling.

If you're gonna be all "Nuh uh you're wrong." bring a better argument than "Nuh uh you're wrong."

I agree with the parent.

Justice is expensive, like healthcare.

Wages are down.

Debt for the proles is up.

Social mobility is down.

Incarceration rates are up

Suicide among the proles is up.

Authoritarian control of resources and economic output is up.

Addiction is up.

And by "up" I mean the ratio of people suffering from one or more relative to the rest. Not just a raw count.

These are easily found data points and they contradict all your "nuh uhs" readily.

It's very much a myth among the neoliberal crowd that things are better for the proles, while they kick it eating avocado toast and massaging each others egos over losing followers on Twitter

The HN crowd is just as stuck in its own filter-bubble when it comes to progress.

Go to the shanty towns and bum camps that are popping up all over and growing. Tell me things are better.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#280

Post by mamon » Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #235

kgabis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bombing of Dresden is well known, of course, but it doesn't compare to a single bomb that can level cities when it comes to deterring your enemy. I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden, but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in similar, "conventional" way (like Warsaw, Breslau or Tokyo), so I don't see why it should be treated in a special way.

> Bombing of Dresden is well known, of course, but it doesn't compare to a single bomb that can level cities when it comes to deterring your enemy. It does actually. The only difference is how long it took and arguably Dresden was in worse shape than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. > I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden Well, forgive me. > but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in…

Dresden only stands out due to relatively short time in which all the destruction was done - it was just a few nights of heavy bombing.

If you compare overall damage then Dresden had less than 50% of its building destroyed, while Warsaw had been destroyed in 80%-90%.