Political Correctness is Redpilling America 

My first red pill was finding out that women are not paid less for doing the same work. That rabbit hole was a crazy one.

In order to defend your view, you must understand your opponents argument as well as they do, and preferably better.

Political correctness first made me read Sam Harris' work in Islam. I had read his work on the "mind" and consciousness and knew that he wasn't bigotted so I knew the leftist narrative that he hates Muslims was wrong. And when I read his book, sure enough, he doesn't hate Muslims, he is just concerned that Islam has some backward ideas that some Muslims WILL follow; and that most Muslims deny that because THEY dont follow the backward part of Islam. Then it was Peterson; they said he was a nazi who hated gays and trans; did some research, that was complete nonsense, he is just against ideological politics being force into everyones lives via law. Then it was Shapiro, he is the nazi alt righter who thinks trans people dont have the right to exist. And again, nonsense, he says you can be trans if you want, just dont force him to call you by a specific gender by law. Everytime the left tries to unfairly malign someone, it strengthens right wing thinking.

Love this consideration of both sides of the argument. This is on what civil discourse should be modelled.

The problem he doesn't address: WHY are such facts controversial in universities and the mainstream?

Your stuff on Islam not having religious wars is brutally wrong. But otherwise a good video.

The most striking part of this talk is he had to spend 5 minutes protecting himself before talking about the politically correct left.

The James Damore debacle at Google is when I stopped listening to the social justice group. That was such a clear example of a witch hunt, and the Covington Kids debacle only reinforced my decision.

Aren't Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates kind of like the crusades, just hundreds of times bigger?

And so goes the saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me." Which is absolutely true in my case.

Excellent and thoughtful points. A must listen for any teacher, at any level.

Islam never had religious wars? Um, which Islam is it you are discussing there Steve? How much of Europe was conquered by Islam? Do you not know who Charles Martel was?

This dude deserves a badge of honor for bravery.

How are sexism, racism, ect related, in any way, to Ararcho-Libertarianism?

Doesn't Harvard discriminate against Asian American applicants?

I love Steven Pinker! He usually has some very rational, well balanced arguments.

Every time I start a Stephen Pinker video ready to get offended, I'm nodding my head like a minute into it

It's like I'm scrolling down an IQ ladder. Listening to an intelligent view on political correctness, and as I scroll down to the comments section intelligence drops exponentially.

'There was no equivalent of the war of religion in islam' - Not True.

I dont know any Anarcho-Capitalists that are opposed to safety nets and regulated markets. Sounds like the same problem of coming to extreme and hasty conclusions when hearing a new truth his entire argument was predicated on. You absolutely can have those things through voluntary and peaceful means.

Pinker is very much worth listening to, and probably one of the clearest and most rational voices on the internet.

I wouldn't say that "taking the red pill" is the same as "joining the Alt Right," but other than that, all very solid points.

"...people whose affiliation might be up for grabs..." Poetry.

Islam not waging religious wars in the past history? Really Pinker? You might want read a history book some time.... Or maybe you have, and you are just being deliberately dishonest?

How did anarcho-capitalism get lumped in with the Alt Right? Or anything else he mentioned as a negative position?

Animal farm is unfortunately being introduced literally all around us, and it will lead to a combination of 1984 and a brave new world.

I liken the progressive left to a street gang, at least in hierarchy. For those unfamiliar, street gangs deal drugs by having a low level gang member stand on a street corner. This is obviously a task with a high likelihood of being caught by police, so the gang puts layers of intermediaries between the street member and the boss, so when the street member is invariably caught, there is nothing to give the police. As gang members rise within the gang hierarchy, they not only become privy to the gang’s inner workings, but also gain more protection. Naturally, we might wonder what it is that draws a low level gang member to risk so much to enrich the gang boss while they shoulder little of the burden. The ‘street members’ of the left are those you meet in protests, antifa, and so on. They don’t really understand their gang’s inner workings, its goals, or its methods. In this sense, I can’t really hate these leftists. They are being used for the high-level leftists’ goals.

The main problem with American politics is many people cannot distinguish political correctness and political awareness To be aware is the real point people need to achieve .

Pinker is correct that many of the facts such as the differences between men and women do not advocate discrimination or any other extreme action. However, they do bring one to realise that the policies, laws and institutions built up around the denial of these controversial facts must be abolished. That itself is a radical position that is verboten in public discourse. Also, leave Ancaps alone. They are the least dangerous extremists in America and not part of the Alt-Right ffs.

It's fascinating to watch Pinker try and denounce PC from within the confines of PC. It's all very toothless, and he still seems nervous, like a flash mob might at any moment decide to tear him limb from limb. And this is what counts as brave truth-telling in academia -- sad!

Pinker and his brain, brain, brain, brain

Brilliantly-eloquent and as polite as anyone I’ve ever heard speak a word. Well said.

I’m really annoyed with the idea that a person can’t hear these things of which her speaks WITHOUT becoming an “alt-right extremist. All we’d like is for these facts to be a part of the discussion on fixing these issues, as they obviously have to be and are not currently. The solutions will never be correct until that happens

Things do change over time, true. Things are getting harder in the black community. Feminism is getting worse.(ex. metoo) He seems to using omission and half truths to distort reality. Academia is doomed.

I usually like Pinker. But everything he said in this talk was sooo caricatural. It is like the only alternatives are: either you are a leftist or you are a bigot -- even if you are a bigot who happens to know his facts. He makes it looks like the mission of any sensible person would be to prevent good, but naive, people to be corrupted by right-wing influence. Come on! As the a french president once answered to a leftist adversary in the 60s : "you don't have the monopoly of good intentions." If anything else, in these last decades, the Left seems to have degenerated into a cult blindly followed by people with no qualms about doing actual evil in exchange for the promisse of a future, vague and questionable good. Actually, I feel it is my moral duty to denounce the violence in the modern progressives methods; to denounce the totalitarian tendencies of leftist political goals; to have the courage to hold a stand against diffamation and docxing campaigns in order to denounce racism, sexism and bigotry when it comes disguised as social justice. I understand he is probably talking at an University. Therefore he must adjust his speech to the public. However, it seems to me that he felt himself victim to the political correction he was criticising...

It really is sad that Anarcho-Capitalism is talked about as and considered to be extreme. How is it that "Don't steal from, forcibly coerce, or assault others" became the extreme position? Sad.

I could nitpick but he seemed pretty chill. Agreed with much of viewpoint about freedom of speech.

I have a very weird feeling that most of the people commenting on this video are not the kinds of people that Steven Pinker wants to associate with, and yet this video is titled exactly to appeal to those people instead of necessarily representing Pinker's view.

Some of his facts are historically inaccurate. I still agree with the conclusion for the most part.

It all started with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. After that case everybody had to be PC at work. Sexual harassment training was mandated etc.

I want to be as free as possable, and the only way I can see to do that is to not deny any one the freedom that I want. That is why I am an Individualist. Aslong as you harm no one you are free.

i think whats important is how you frame these facts as well as who's saying them and what their intention is. what I noticed is that every time the right speaks out about pc they do so with the intention to " own the libs" and "trigger lefties" which is also how they try to frame their arguments and phrases while also leaving out important facts and other details as well as mentioning other facts out of context. When they do this, of course it will upset the left who in response will lash out in the name of pc which in turn creates a cycle with the right "triggering" them, the left lashing at them, and the right getting upset before it repeats itself. to an extent, I do believe in some form of pc but one that is encouraged in society and has naturally become a social norm; not one that has been enforced by the government. I think it should be discouraged that using racial slurs, homophobic slurs, etc be used in daily life but that is in my opinion that pc is defined as avoiding offensive slurs and phrases that are meant to dehumanize or target certain groups of people or individuals. however I believe that it is crucial that we keep certain facts that can be deemed "offensive" in context as well as using ALL of the facts and the way we frame them and our intentions behind saying them so that it will not seem "anti-pc" so that we may keep the public informed about these facts while not seemingly trying to upset everyone.

The critique of anarcho-capitalism as the desire to remove regulations and social safety nets is unwarranted. Regulations and social support systems are unanimously seen as beneficial to libertarian thinkers from Molinari to Spooner to Rothbard to Molyneux to Woods, the only thing wrong with the current system is the widespread use of violence perceived as legitimate under the territorial monopoly of a non-voluntary government body. This is not an extreme position objectively, merely having the appearance of extremity due to the cultural context where it is common for people to be put into cages where there is a chance they will be uncared for if they are raped daily for the rest of their life for trading pieces of paper for pieces of plants to consenting adults. Nonaggression is not extreme morally, it is the Golden Rule of civilization.

Imagine that, a world we people dont live in fear a facts, but face them courageously and honestly.

Not sure about many of his statistics, but most of his conclusions are good. I will say, that the notion of doing away with government safety nets isn't an extreme notion. Depending on who's statistics you use, >50% of the nation is on some sort of government handout (including corporations.) Very few people actually need some form of assistance, the rest just have excuses. Voluntary giving to charities can easily support those who absolutely need the help. Forcing the population into mandatory altruism is just theft. Especially when you realize that the majority of the allocated tax money doesn't even go to those who need the help. Worse is the simple fact that government safety nets only promote adding more people into their programs. People need incentives to get out of social programs, not stay in them.

Islam also had loads of inter-religious conflict, for example the Qarmatian fanatics waged a religious war across Arabia for decades and even managed to sack the holy city of Mecca itself, slaughtering all the pilgrims there and desecrating the holy sites, including stealing the sacred Stone. That is not even touching the Banu Hilal invasion of Northern Africa or the Shia Sunni wars of the Fatimids etc.

He is so wrong about Islam being more enlightened than Christianity. He said there was no equivalent to the Inquisition. The entire history of the spread of Islam was advanced through violence. The Shiites, and Sunni's have had many violent clashes, not to mention the persecution of minority Islamic sects, such as the Baha'i.

Debates hurt people's feelings, and in today's world any attack on someone's feelings is equivalent to an act of terror.

I liked this video but Pinker was wrong about social safety nets and ignores the fact that Islam was rapidly spread by the sword

I'd appreciate Mr Pinker addressing homicide rates of certain races within their homeland nations. I suspect they are quite similar to that found in the states.

3:55 - 4:02 No one suggests they do. It's never a conflict involving an argument that we should. It is a conflict involving the accusation that discrimination is responsible for the differences. The idea that there are not naturally any differences arises logically when reasoning from the accepted fact that the accusation is true. 7:05 - 7:19 Again, the facts don't lead anyone to those conclusions! The problem is the facts can not be discussed without emotional accusations of racism etc being levied in lieu of thoughtful consideration and discussion. That is why Trump won. We got sick of not being able to have a discussion for all the virtue signaling based on forgone conclusions.

5:06 the tenasity of the Irish Americans is now channeled through joining the military and police :)

lol "the majority of domestic terrorism in this country is committed by right wing extremist groups not by Islamic groups" what a pathetic failure of reasoning. Per capita, Muslims in the United States are incredibly over-represented among terrorist attacks even though there's just a tiny tiny minority. You're better than this Steve.

Finally i found a balanced channel! Subscribed!

the fact that capitalist countries tend to have a social saftey net doesn't mean that that social saftey net has to be coercively provided by a centralized government. It could instead be voluntarily provided by private charities, which are generally more efficient with their funding becasue they know they can't just get more if they say they need it.

Steven.....ugh. C'mon, I love you bro. Did you have to be so cautious that you went and bit it so hard on Islam? No equivalent to the Inquisition? No religious warfare? Drilling down on these claims is going to get you distinctions, without any qualitative, substantive differences - none relevant to the concern of religious violence, neither in kind, nor in quantity. Dude, you were my favorite. STOP the cowardess. Speak the truth and let the chips fall where they will.

They didn't seem to mention the constant Anti-White bigotry and Anti-White Racism Whites are increasingly being subjected to. They may have helped LOL.

Pinker is eminently thoughtful and rational, and chooses his words very well. Navigating controversy the way he does, and bringing this kind of reason to very emotionally incendiary subjects, is not trivially easy. It's a skill which all academics should seek to master. I disagree with his assessment of pure vs. mixed capitalism, but I have to commend him anyway just for speaking so well, which is incredibly valuable even if it only means that other people I disagree with have an example of what virtue in debate looks like.

I'm shocked that this needs to be explained. I always thought it was clear to everyone with a high school diploma, let alone to students on prestigious American universities

his opening statement is to say: brilliant sheep get sheared and slaughtered. Even moderately aware shepherds can manage to live productive lives and stave off most wolves. Note how many of his resolutions end up somewhere in the middle... often toward the end of the spectrum that would be considered in the old days "liberal". a good bit of economic regulation, of egalitarianism asserted as to the sexes, etc. There used to be some of this synthesized evolved nuanced thinking within, believe it or not, the Democratic Party. But Political Correctness was not the first thing to ruin that liberalism. The first thing was selfishness at the top. The destruction of Operation Breadbasket rather than allowing control of it to leave the Democratic plantation, for example, and every like power play since..... every collusion with the worst of the Repubs to create maximum minimum sentences (based on an exaggeratedly racist interpretation of those crime statistics he describes) or Workfare- which resulted essentially in slavery to the government: a subsistence living of having to do everything the government says to justify your getting the subsistence living and no time left over to ever hope to get off it, only without the title. Who is the worst offender of this cynical either/or Party-First evil?? gotta be Billy Boy Clinton and his clowns, including his wife, a direct descendent of that Chicagoland Dem Party criminal conspiracy that with Congressman Pucinski stole and destroyed the hope of an independent economic freedom that MLK was developing for black and underprivileged Americans. From murdering Ricky Ray Rector to save his campaign onward, Clintons should have caused every one to #DemExit. They did me. Political Correctness/ Intersectionality and more fundamentally the ludicrous self-contradictory "post-modernism" are just various retreats necessary from the stubborn refusal of the Left to serve anyone but its own elite first. The whole #spygate debacle shows us that the retreat has become a most desperate rout. To think the heroes of my Youth who denounced Watergate would come back to defend a Watergate-a-day perpetrated by faked-FISA warrants based on the dirty lies provided by Hillary's Hirelings?? So i misunderstood Bernstein and Woodward. They weren't upset the corruption had threatened our Republic at all? they were just upset that it hurt their side? Do i need to go back to 3rd grade and switch my support away from McGovern now? I wasn't sure about the big ideas back then. I just knew that a political cheater shouldn't be president. Turns out Obama was one, and Hillary if she wasnt better at losing than lying would have been one too. smh. Listen to the man. Stop the unthinking attacks. You who are socially liberal will end up being ruled either by crazy right-wingers or more likely at this point Mohammedanist fundamentalists. Sheep stop feeding the wolves and realize you, individually, are sub-shepherds.

A lot of nowadays people reject reality if it does not comply to their wishes and thoughts... Several centuries ago the reality would literally kill such people, due to civilisation and evolution the reality reaction is slower now, much slower, anyway it works as always

Pinker is in many ways erudite, posing an interest in areas from cognitive science to linguistics to behavioural genetics to sexual selection. He is in many ways a merchant of 'what', and has much to say about what is. His 'why', of course, leaves much to be questioned. One doesn't *need* to know about group averages or such to be opposed to their abuse, and much of what was said with regards to right wing terrorism being more prevalent in the US - and even with regards to other white groups in the past - is an active part of progressive leftist discourse as is. It's *known* that these facts exist, but there are simply alternative accounts proposed which add more nuance. Perceived censorship of the notions altogether rightfully causes alarm but, we've of yet mostly anecdote to go by. Which begs the question of their salience as well as in turn what the MSM has to say as vectors of this. I also feel as if the continued notion that discussions of brain sex or the prevalence of Islamic terror simply aren't widespread enough let alone this being why the AR is so prevalent (rather than other stressors) is heavily misguided and almost laughable to one who noticed no such popularity of this extremism as tabloid publications had been sensationalising such items ad nauseam up until the AR finally hit their zenith: both notions have rung heavily in American culture and beyond to this very day, or at least these are major cultural contentions beyond what sway campuses pose for the population at large. I also have to seriously doubt that many college campuses actively endorse or normalise communism, even if perhaps not posing a layman's conception of the political theory and historical context at play. I wouldn't even say the mainstream as a whole normalises social democracy let alone anything further left, given the initial hysteria with which Bernie Sanders was covered. Rather it's the sheer and stubborn lack of any Keynesian aspects to 'economics 101' in the public eye that feeds a subculture of ancaps, rather than merely 'not liking communism'. This isn't even a linchpin of the AR's economics, but a side effect of the long standing economic illiteracy of the general public particularly with generations of neoliberal propaganda that blamed government regulations for literally everything. Many are in fact protectionist. While it is true that many ancaps/libertarians hold racist beliefs this is both not universal and also dates back to the likes of Rothbard and Hoppe. Mises iirc was pro-feminist, but also operationalised his ideas under the short lived austrofascist regime.It isn't that people are only recieving these notions from a point of first contact per se as racial animus with regards to crime and welfare were implicit back in the days of Raegan and so are hardly esoteric. The alt right comes as a more overt operationalisation of some of these notions with other factors hitting critical mass. This goes *far* beyond 'universities', which many AR folk haven't attended to begin with.One of the first uses of the term 'alternative right' dates, in fact, to Paul Gottfried's seminal invocation of the term in 2008: an economy in the balance, a populace experiencing fear and existential dread. In the wake of recession neoliberal economic thought faced a major shock and thus by proxy the political mainstream, and this was only to further mature with the passage of time: even now, economic outcomes continue to diverge with the wealthiest and the poorest in the United states for instance. It's material imbalances and shocks etc, rather than there being not enough discussion about 'Islamic terrorism' or 'communism being the biggest bad ever' (again, both notions fairly banal), which define the rise of such a movement in my view. Either of these two notions are honestly banal given the saturation of commentators offering this perspective, but few pose the same enthusiasm as the particular cohort of insecure young men who devote much attention to this line of enquiry. TL;DR: Many notions really are ultimately banal (correctly identified as such to some extent), but other factors drive the 'redpill/alt-right' movement.

0:25 I'm shocked to hear him admit that the alt-right is highly intelligent.

some times it is just easier to believe what you want to hear.

If you haven’t studied Mises and Rothbard you don’t understand capitalism. That includes you, Dr. Pinker (who I like very much - a kind eloquent genius)!

Go Pinker! This is needed. Have seen so much of exactly what you're talking about in the Alt-right.

I appreciate the intent here but there is so much misinformation that it falls apart factually (at least I hope it's misinformation and not disinformation...).

2:26 - you can't say it. Somebody very famous on this campus did say it and you know what happened to him! You hear laughter and applause for one of the many dark events that is destroying Harvard's reputation for a classic liberal education. The fact that the President of Harvard couldn't say that men and women are different, and LOST HIS JOB OVER IT, is a huge condemnation about the lack of freedom of speech and inquiry on the Harvard campus, and extreme brainwashing of its students. So what do the students do? They laugh and clap! So now I know for sure that Harvard graduates still suck, and it's a good reason that I would not consider any resume from Harvard.

Good persuasive argument. I feel like the context thing was kind of off. To assume that everyone in the "group" is just unable to properly decide context is a scary way to think. I agree it is probably caused because of media and this new wave of overly political correctness. I believe that right most groups are overly logical, and left most groups are overly emotional and are unable to compromise with each other because their brains work in different ways.

Like Rush always said, conservatives teach that liberals are good people with bad ideas, but liberals teach that conservatives are bad people. Only one of those conclusions leads to further dialog and progression...

He says you don’t necessarily drift toward right wing politics after learning the facts. But many do, perhaps even a majority. Hence the desire to tell “noble lies.”

He should read some Michael Huemer or David Friedman before commenting on anarcho-capitalism.

That was fantastic. I only wish the conclusion was longer and went into more detail about how the left and right just argue and how to find those points of agreement via the historical/statistical/etc facts. It was cool how it pretty much was saying left and right are both right but they're using the wrong replies to the wrong accusations.

"Through much of it's history Islam was far more enlightened than Christendom" Lost me there... Completely ignorant and ridiculous statement. As well as lumping anarcho-capitalism in with racism, sexism etc. Laughable.

This video should be compulsory taught in schools.

The most successful economy in the history of the world was early 1800s America, when regulations were at their lowest. It's become WORSE as more regulation has been added, and significantly more so once central banking was introduced.

He makes sense. Why is it so hard for people to open their minds, too many opinions, the cup is full.

He discusses domestic "right wing terrorism" as being the most prevalent form of terrorism here but the most egregious cases (Las Vegas, Orlando, etc.) were committed by progressives. But otherwise great presentation.

If everyone thinks the same, someone is not thinking.

If men and women are on average different, pinker is right that it doesn't mean you should discriminate, however it does mean that you shouldn't be prevented from discriminating if you see fit.

I would say that this points to total failure of our education system to promote critical thinking in our students and the failure of our media outlets to broadcast honest and open debate.

I disagree with some of pinkers conclusions. However, his analysis of process and political response and reality is as usual excellent. To be specific: When he talks about the act of 'suppression' and 'encounter with the facts' and the responses you have towards it, he is exactly right to the psychology and from that the movement and motivation of the alt right. It also explains why free speech-- a traditionally liberal position is now a conservative issue. His judgments are somewhat dishonest because media is almost uniformly liberal to left leaning as well as the academics that produce them, and since PC culture in the 80's there has been a growing journalist movement vying for control over social narratives rather than accurate news reporting. Also journalists tend to be cloistered and there is quite a bit of group psychology research that should warn us of the ills of this. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, news media is being filtered and people should be upset. The alt right are fueled by a search for the truth, even if they unfortunately hold many conflicting and often terrible views. This pits them against the liberal media which is clearly veering left. They are not actually 'right wing' any more than they are 'reactionary right wing' and are flocking to conservative media because conservatives just aren't intolerant to different ideas and their ideas are fairly rational. The moment i realized how much fake news exists in mainstream media was when i saw that CNN put a literal anti-trump socialist on the panel of people that were interviewed as former trump fans. It felt like i had my 'wrestlemania' moment. Right now the so called Russia investigation started because of a dossier that was produced by collusion between the FBI and the Clinton which is overwhelmingly a crisis of democracy. Yet next to no media outlet is discussing it. Instead the very person responsible who was later demoted, suspended and finally fired for bias Peter Strozk has a go-fund me going for his defense. I dont mind the reporting on mueller, that is serious news. But you cant be serious, ignoring the obvious madness that was the DNC collusion and the clearly evidenced politicizing of the FBI? Its not right. Its not good journalism. Its the media imagining itself as a 5th arm of government and self organizing itself this way.

OMG an actual truth seeker!!! It won’t be long before someone destroys him I’m sure

My first red pill was being called a white supremacist for saying maybe all conservatives aren't simply islamophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, bigots who hate poor people. Mind you, I am Native American, born and raised on the reservation until I was 18 years old. I realized that progressivism isn't anything but

The alt right does possess the truth

Well this guy is half right on what he's saying. An example of where he's blatantly wrong is "there was no equivalent to the wars of religion" regrading Islam. The fact is war is precisely how Islam spread. The Crusades were a response to it. Pinker needs to take the red pill and not just acknowledge it exists.

Not the most honest piece I've seen. He uses PC Jargon, "African American" and "European American". He ignores the fact that the statistical differences in interest and ability drive the differences in careers and not discrimination. That's why the progressives deny them.

The first example in fact _is_ controversial because he has not defined the term "communist" prior to using it. I am from Germany, and I can assure you that the DDR was _not_ a _communist_ society. It barely even was a socialist one, rather an well-covered oligarchy. The nomenklatura (oligarchs) weren't millionaires but had all the available luxury and political power.

Pinker forgets to mention race and IQ. I wonder why?

I agree with a lot he is saying, but the bit about Islam being more enlightened for most of its history and having no internal wars of religion is inaccurate. There has been an almost continuous state of violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims since shortly after Muhammed's death.

babby's first red pills

Wait, extreme right makes the most violent but what may red pill me is seeing someone saying these things beaten and shouted down. Got it.

Pinker shows his limited understanding of economics when he criticizes anarcho-capitalistism. Lumping an-caps with racists, sexists, and other extremists. What is extreme about respecting property rights and condemning theft and violence?

Wait... did he say at 5:40 that there is no history of wars of religion within the classical history of Islam? Which part is the classical part?

Pinker speaks well but is ideologically blinded. I have consistently seen this on his Twitter profile. He has also wrongly presented several facts in this presentation.

especially the things about men/woman sound a lot like the google memo, where the google employee got fired for racism/sexism.... makes you think

I don't think that this guy understands what anarcho capitalism is.

At 6:01, Pinker states a dubious unsourced claim as an "uncontroversial truth": "some of the countries with the strongest social safety nets are also the countries that are most market-friendly, that have the greatest degree of economic freedom" it's very vaguely-stated and appears to be partially false. But it was so incoherently stated (with no examples or source) that it was hard to find examples/counterexamples. The 2022 Index of Economic Freedom (based on Heritage + WSJ) ranks Hong Kong as #1 for economic freedom, which pretty much rebuts Pinker's claim. At best Pinker's claim reduces to "some countries/regions with economic freedom have safety nets, some don't". But then again, some dictatorships have safety nets, some don't. Pinker seems to be implying a correlation or association without making the claim.

We should all be anarchocapitalists. :D

Seems like the problem is, everyone likes to feel smart. Problem is, being correct is an ongoing process; you can't just stop and say you're done. You always have to be an open skeptic. You always have to watch out for slippery slopes and jumping to conclusions. You always have to face ugly facts in order to change them. And you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have to keep in mind that you are still wrong or ignorant about plenty of things.