My new favorite book of all time • Hacker News Board

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#381

Post by iwintermute » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 10:34 AM UTC

hoopladler wrote: post #308

scarmig wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1/7 GDP figure is misleading. It is absolutely true that everyone had an incentive back then to overstate the USSR's position: Communists and sympathizers for ego gratification, American liberals to use as an argument for government intervention in the economy and internal reform, and the American Right to ramp up militarism and domestic repression. That said, the revisionism that argues that it had no more power…

>revisionism that argues that it had no more power on the world stage than South Africa based on spurious GDP comparisons is just as off base. I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I think there are two factors at play here: 1. The USSR's power projection was really good because it's really hard to convince people to fight for capitalism. For communism, on the other hand, you always have a million volunteers. 2. T…

Name at least one reason to “fight for communism”?

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#382

Post by vanderZwan » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 11:46 AM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #324

torstenvl wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when "normal people" had better access to justice - the fact that you even need to ask this question should cause... ...you to realize that your propositions are not accepted uncritically and you should support them with evidence.

Costs, start there. In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.) But you'd have been better off decades ago as what counts as "small claims" has been totally trashed by inflation.

> In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.)

Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but isn't that's equivalent to "before women's suffrage, if you were a man..." or "before the civil rights movement, if you were white..."?

I find it a bit hard to see how that is an argument suggesting that things used to be better?

EDIT: Wait, was that your whole point? That a woman or an ethnic minority seeking justice was much worse of a few generations ago?

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#383

Post by pron » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:21 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #346

pron wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, for centuries (millennia, actually) the pattern is the same. A social change movement is invariably viewed as having "gone too far", but in order to be perceived as reasonable, the critics invariably say that the previous generation was right. Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as h…

> Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included). Sure, by some. It's also true that in about 100% of cases where people have argued for legitimately bad social change (eugenics, communism, prohibition, etc.), th…

Right, but the point that Pinker is missing that we are what we are because people fought to get us here -- the very same kind of people he dismisses.

Just a nitpick: communism has certainly not been "legitimately bad" everywhere. In my country (Israel), we have practiced communism (on a local scale, in the Kibbutzim) for much longer than the USSR (over 100 years now), and it's a more extreme form of communism (makes the USSR seem like a capitalist country by comparison), and while it has certainly not been an unqualified success (especially the communal raising of children), and it is certainly crumbling now (due to powerful external and internal pressures), it has been the complete opposite of failure. It has been entirely democratic for 100 years (with problems, but not unlike in any democratic system), and one of Israel's proudest achievements. So communism was an overall great success in Israel for a century.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#384

Post by bildung » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

msaharia wrote: post #309

bildung wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! Amartya Sen's theory of justice had a similar passage about quality of live of Indian women: Originally they self-assessed as healthy and without problems (while objectively being in very poor condition and having very low life expectancy), then, years later, as both education (esp. health-related) and access to healthcare improved, self-assessed as unhealthier than before! Turns out they didn't know/ co…

I think you mean Idea of Justice. Theory of Justice is by John Rawls.

You're right! I read the German version and translated back from memory.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#385

Post by edanm » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #231

rpedela wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why act like the world isn't getting better if it actually is?

It's getting better for some measures of 'better', and it's getting worse for others. It's also getting 'better' for some people, and less so for others. For example I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years, and is fabulously better for the super-rich.

"I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years"

Really? 40 years ago we didn't have the internet, didn't have videogames, had far far far fewer TV shows/movies/entertainment options. Worse health outcomes, though to a less significant degree I think. Far more access to education and educational content (you can effectively get the equivalent of a degree in almost anything, online, for free). More access to healthier foods.

Middle class families in the US have access to all of the above. Would most of them really go back to a time when they didn't?

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#386

Post by mar77i » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 1:26 PM UTC

rpedela wrote: post #194

sooheon wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is getting better for some people by some measures, and worse for others by other measures. What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional".

> What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional". That is a pretty extreme reading of what Pinker and Gates are saying. I don't think they are saying that at all.

I still fail to see the problem at hand?

Would faux rationality that the world is getting better constantly not keep us in silent optimism, as opposed to - urm - violently keep fighting for it being made much worse?

What cruel bastard would even do such a thing, anyway?

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#387

Post by prepend » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 2:13 PM UTC

koverda wrote: post #293

prepend wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but as a reader of both Sapiens and Homo Deus, I feel like the latter is a bit of fluff already covered by the end of Sapiens. Not a bad book, but more baseless theorizing while Sapiens was a really rich examination of history where he author definitely applied a lifetime of study and research.

I'm surprised that you would describe it as baseless, because the theories he presents are built upon the lifetime of study & research of the examination of human history and motivations.

Good point. I don’t mean baseless as worthless, just that it was largely out of the author’s wheelhouse and was more of his projection of ideas without much in the way of evidence. This differed from Sapiens as it was really rich in historical and anthropological sources.

It’s not bad, just not very valuable as an entire book to read. It’s mostly already covered in the final segment of Sapiens.

Homo Deus is certainly based on the author’s general wisdom and draws upon his study of history. It’s always hard to vet “futurists” to see who is worthwhile.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#388

Post by belorn » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #339

haberman wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just conservatives saying that, it is also people who have been feminists their whole lives: https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/...

Yep, for centuries (millennia, actually) the pattern is the same. A social change movement is invariably viewed as having "gone too far", but in order to be perceived as reasonable, the critics invariably say that the previous generation was right. Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as h…

When it come to history I find most political movements to be wrong on both facts and interpretation. Take women's suffrage in the US for example and the relation to shortage in conscription at the end of world war 1. Following liberal writing there exist no relation. According to those writing the right to vote came through demonstrating and women empowering themselves. True or false? Should we interpret it as a victory for self empowerment or as a result of lack of soldiers during the last year of the biggest war the world had seen (also called the war to end all wars)?

An other example: witch hunts. According to liberal writing those where all campaigns targeting the weak, poor and vulnerable in society. Historians points towards campaigns that transfered land and money from the accused families into the pocket of the church. True or false? Should we interpret it as men oppressing poor women or as a form plunder for profit by a religious institution that targeted those with something to take?

Personally I lean towards not trusting political movements when they write about history. Facts don't fit the nice narrative that is needed to gain mass adaption. Usually the truth is a bit from column A and column B and involve multiple events which together create an environment where famous historical facts happened. It is in the realization of those events and the interpretation that we can grasp what actually happened in the past and why.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#389

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

MrMoenty wrote: post #375

Bartweiss wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finally, the Nuclear Peace theory can’t explain why non-nuclear powers have avoided war, too—why Canada and Spain, for example, never escalated their dispute over flatfish to a shooting war. Frankly, this looks to me like Pinker is reasoning from a provably false premise. Non-nuclear powers haven't avoided war. The Congo War killed ~4 million people, including 300,000+ via direct killings. The Yugoslav Wars killed…

I think the Falkland war makes a good example of two first world countries, one of them even nuclear, going to war.

And over something of a comparable size to Pinker's fishing rights example!

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#390

Post by simonh » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #227

simonh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actualy the reason the Germans didnt use nerve gas in WW2 was because they mistakenly assumed Britain and Russia also already had them. Hitler was otherwise pretty keen on them.

Hitler was an experienced soldier and had been gassed a few times in the Great War. He ruled out using gas.

That's a popular theory, but not supported by the testimony of those involved at the time. For example Hitler ordered that tabun production be continued as the highest priority even though the precursor chemicals were in high demand and very short supply.

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Hitler-use-his-extensive-sto...