Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Steven Pinker

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



The world's most annoying man[edit]

Absolutely brutal Pinker quotes in this article, some of which should be edited into the page.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/the-worlds-most-annoying-man --Frybread

Why? The author is still a student. Surely there must be a more seasoned critic to quote? Also, please sign your comments.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about Pinker's frighteningly ignorant quotes, which could be mistaken for Alex Jones with a thesaurus. It doesn't matter if a Harvard PhD candidate and EiC of Current Affairs selected them, we can cite the source himself. --Frybread (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
For example? Please give original source. Pinker has a massively celebrated rep. The grad student, not so much.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
If you manage to get past the author's byline you can see them.--Frybread (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Trobriand cricket[edit]

Would this be an example of The Better Angels of our Nature thesis - and indeed other forms of competition used as surrogates for violence? Anna Livia (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is anti-Pinker biased.[edit]

There is not a satisfactory overview regarding Pinker's ideas and datas about progress. The only reference to his arguments are criticisms, one of which is a insignificant, short and cherry-picking article on a blog. The positive reception by The Economist, The Times and The New York Times is completely omitted. — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk / contribs

"Pinker fanboy wrote this" says a section in this talk page.
Damn can't please anyone anymore. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 17:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't worry about whether we please or not people, but if those people have valid arguments, should we? — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk / contribs
Pinker's a fucking sack of shit, this article should be more critical, not less. β€” Oxyaena Harass 18:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I may be a Pinker fan-boy (I haven't touched this article, nor will I do so), but Pinker seems a thoroughly decent, intelligent scientist. Excessive disparagement of Pinker will only aggravate this wiki's reputation as extremist. I advise against it. Pinker is not at fault for being smarter than anyone you know.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Extreme right takes a quote of a Harvard professors out of the context: one would expect that the left is enough intelligent to refute alt-right fallacious arguments on this playground. Instead, what I see is a condemnation of this rational and decent Harvard professor. Those leftists shouldn't complain when an a**hole like Trump wins the elections. — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk / contribs
He defended a pedophile, and so what if we look extremist? Telling the truth is not popular with moderates it seems, fuck off, you damn bootlickers. β€” Oxyaena Harass 02:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
He defended a friend during the process BEFORE the sentence. Usually, people wait the sentence before drawing conclusions about other people. This is the Rule of Law. However, I don't see how this vile Ad Hominem should affect my judgement on his political and philosophical ideas. — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk
He tripped over his feet to defend a sexual predator, again. Fuck him and fuck you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Before the sexual predator was condemned. That means before knowing he knew he was a sexual predator. PS: Buzzfeed is an unreliable source. It failed many fact checks (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/). — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk
Oh Pinker knew better... He just has shitty taste in friends... Also, on subject of failed fact checks, so has Steven Pinker. Weird that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The only subject of failed fact check until now is this commie minor RationalWiki page when citing Buzzfeed and unknown anticapitalist blogs. LOL — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk
Argumentum ad hominem, On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Yawn. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your technical advice. You seem ok in this realm. Cheers. — Unsigned, by: 78.12.70.116 / talk
Callin things "commie" and "this is why Donald Trump won elections" are usually signs of bullshitting. So, carry on. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm guessing that "The positive reception by The Economist, The Times and The New York Times..." happens in the Op-ed section for the NYT. Guess who rates that part of the NYT as shit sourcing? Again, weird that. I'd also like to add that it's pretty easy to write positive reviews of a man who literally wastes reams of ink writing the "everything is fine" meme in as many words as possible. Pinker isn't beyond our intellectual level, he's below it, just like Peterson and the rest of the IDW. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Epstein[edit]

This section is hilarious. It's just adorable. Pinker responds on Twitter:

"I have no relationship with Epstein & have taken no funding from him. Our circles have occasionally overlapped: In 02, my lit agent invited me to join a group of east-coast TED speakers Epstein flew to CA. In 14, Krauss seated me next to him at a lunch, & someone snapped a photo." The section is a perfect example of impuissant rage. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't like my edits?[edit]

You can state your reason here.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying that a guy studied in a State College and that he "owned" a Harvard professor nonetheless looks pretty useless to me. GeeJayK (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
That being said, I don't agree with Flanders edit too. I'm not going to edit it now, but to be honest, did you guys read that doorstop? Most of these arguments are so unrelated to what Pinker said in The Better Angels of Our Nature... GeeJayK (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Ariel has a history of freaking out when anything critical is added about Pinker to this page stretching back years, just look at it. Also he was edit warring. β€” Oxyaena Harass 05:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, the Singer review shouldn't in my opinion be on the criticism section, since it's a section... for criticism. I'm a Pinker fan boy, but he does live in a glass house. That's all I'm going to say, at least for now, I just don't have time or patience for this particular page. GeeJayK (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I know nothing about Pinker, but I have a gripe too because Ariel’s edits are unformatted! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Duce. Formatting is not a skill I have developed. Let me know what to do will you?Ariel31459 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
People should not be called out for being optimistic about World Civilization because it violates your personal meta-narrative. As for edit warring, I don't expect to be reverted without at least a token explanation. GeeJayK: Criticism is both positive and negative. The "guy" studies at a State College, as he is currently an undergraduate. The Singer review was mentioned, not for balance, but to suggest that the previous criticism was by an unqualified person. I do that sometimes. Maybe it is not the best practice. I thought it was better than removing the whole criticism section, which is wholly uncorroborated, pedestrian opinion by non-experts. And that's a fact. Since you say you are a fan GeeJayK, I am glad to leave the thing to you.Ariel31459 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Poisoning of the well noted, and the author of the essay I wrote is most certainly an expert, he is definitely "accomplished" as the page itself says. Note that Pinker is most definitely not a historian, which I think is a very valid criticism of him, if nothing else. The fact that you yourself are a noted Pinker fanboy sews doubt on your impartiality. β€” Oxyaena Harass 06:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜

β€œβ€People should not be called out for being optimistic about World Civilization because it violates your personal meta-narrative.

Huge ass strawman noted, Ariel. What Pinker is being called out for is misrepresenting history and cherrypicking data. β€” Oxyaena Harass 06:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You just have to put the link in brackets with the title of the article and the write the name of the source outside of the bracket. There are examples elsewhere in the article it looks like. [link β€œarticle title”] source Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)