This is a list of everything that’s gotten worse in America since 1980. I wrote this for an article That I’m going to be publishing. It lists all the negative things that have happened to the US since 1980 when US adopted conservative neoliberal policies. Steven Pinker is a Neoliberal. The list: Since 1980 wages have been flat for the poor and middle class, except for the top 5% which have increased Their wealth from $8 trillion to $50 trillion. This data comes from Ronald Reagan’s own budget Director. The US is now the most highly unequal industrialized country in the world next to South Africa. This was not the case prior to 1980. Since 1980 when conservative Neoliberal policies were implemented productivity and wages have not gone up in tandem. Prior to 1980 from the inception of America, productivity wages were going up in tandem. This all ended around 1980. - The US has the highest income inequality of any industrialized country. Not so before 1980. - The U.S. has far and away the highest rates of poverty in the developed world. In addition, the extent of U.S. income and wealth inequality also tends to be extreme when compared to other industrialized countries. Not so before 1980. - The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Not so before 1980. - Homicide: Americas fourth on the list of highest homicide countries in the world. - Economic competitiveness: The IMD World Competitiveness Center reports that the U.S. is ranked 10th in its 2020 Competitiveness Report. After ranking first in 2018, the U.S. fell to the third spot in 2019. The seven-point tumble to 10th place in 2020 represents the lowest the U.S. has ever been in the annual ranking system by far.6. Not so before 1980. - 22% of kids in America live in poverty. Second to Mexico. Not so before 1980. - Animal extension: 60% of animal populations have wiped out since 1970. - Minimum wage. The minimum wage in the US has been stagnant for decades. After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today. Another parts of the world like Australia and Sweden a McDonald’s worker makes around $20 per hour starting. - Education: The US had the best educational system in the world, but not anymore. The truth is that the U.S. ranks near the bottom in a survey of students’ math skills in 30 industrialized countries. Not so before 1980. - The US is also the only advanced economy in the world not to have full health coverage of its population. - 50,000 Americans die each year because of lack of healthcare. Not before 1980. - Child mortality is higher in the US than any other advanced economy. Not so before 1980. - Americans also live shorter lives: Average US life expectancy is 78.8 years, nearly two years less than the OECD average. Not so before 1980. - African-American happiness: Quote by Steven Pinker who is a fan of Friedman said: “African Americans are happier than they’ve ever been:” Since the 1980s incarceration rates for black men and women has skyrocketed. African-American women's incarceration rates increased by 828%. Since 2001 the likelihood of a Black men spending time behind bars in their lifetime was 1 in 3, while it was 1 in 17 for all U.S. men. - Today, infants born to black mothers die at twice the rate as those born to white mothers. This horrific disparity cannot be fully explained by differences in income, education, or even health care; evidence suggests that cumulative stress from generations of structural racism is driving this epidemic. To combat this persistent problem, lawmakers must attack structural racism in all its forms-including mass incarceration. - U.S. Incarceration rates: In 1973, after 50 years of stability, the rate of incarceration in the United States began a sustained period of growth. In 1972, 161 U.S. residents were incarcerated in prisons and jails per 100,000 population; by 2007, that rate had more than quintupled to a peak of 767 per 100,000. From its high point in 2009 and 2010, the population of state and federal prisoners declined slightly in 2011 and 2012. Still, the incarceration rate, including those in jail, was 707 per 100,000 in 2012, more than four times the rate in 1972. In absolute numbers, the prison and jail population had grown to 2.23 million people, yielding a rate of incarceration that was by far the highest in the world. Not so before 1980 - The US also stands out as one of the only countries in the world where maternal mortality has increased, rather than decreasing, over the past 15 years. Not so before 1980. - Mass shootings. There were more mass shootings across the U.S. in 2019 than there were days in this year. Mass shootings of skyrocketed since 1980. Not so before 1980. For decades, the toll of mass shootings has risen steadily. During the 1970s, mass shootings claimed an average of 5.7 lives per year. In the 1980s, the average rose to 14. In the 1990s it reached 21; in the 2000s, 23.5. This decade has seen a far sharper rise. Today, the average is 51 deaths per year. If you look at mass shootings over time, two things are alarmingly clear: The attacks are becoming far more frequent, and they are getting deadlier. - Suicide. By the numbers: An alarming rise in suicide. Suicide rates in the United States have increased substantially over the past two decades. From 1999 through 2018, the suicide rate increased 35%, from 10.5 per 100,000 to 14.2. From 1999 through 2018, the suicide rate increased 35%, from 10.5 per 100,000 to 14.2. - Working hours. The U.S. is the Most Overworked Developed Nation in the World. * According to the Center for American PROGRESS on the topic of work and family life balance, “in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70 percent of American children live in households where all adults are employed.”. U.S. * The U.S. is the ONLY country in the Americas without a national paid parental leave benefit. The average is over 12 weeks of paid leave anywhere other than Europe and over 20 weeks in Europe. * Zero industrialized nations are without a mandatory option for new parents to take parental leave. That is, except for the United States. * At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not. * In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week. * According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.” * Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. * According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.” * Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. - American Paid Vacation Time & Sick Time: * There is not a federal law requiring paid sick days in the United States. * The U.S. remains the only industrialized country in the world that has no legally mandated annual leave. In every country included except Canada and Japan (and the U.S., which averages 13 days/per year), workers get at least 20 days of paid vacation days. In France and Finland, they get an entire month off paid vacation every year.
Pinker had to lie down and have a minion brush his hair for half an hour after this interview. Not quite a Tedtalk or brunchtime Q&A at Davos this one.
If the interviewer believes that we should reject the ideas of Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson and other enlightenment figures just because some of them were slave owners and racist, why won't he throw out the dogma of Islam since Mohammed was also a slave owner, racist, etc.?
Lmao, Mohamed didn't own slaves, nor was he racist. Islam is literally anti-thetical to race supremacy. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Islam and Mohamed, but the ones you listed are factually incorrect. Besides, you haven't actually countered his point, you;ve just put out another whataboutism.
@@alb0zfinest According to the BBC in their article, "Slavery in Islam": "The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition."
It feels to me like a lot of attempts to save the planet are futile, not because they couldn’t work on a global scale, but because none of the attempts are being enforced on a global scale. And optimism is good because you get through the day but relentless optimism is deadly because we’ll all be saying “it’ll be okay” until we perish. At least it makes me feel better that someone else is being real about it. Thanks, Hasan.
@@russellkimmel7975 Pinker is delusional in a way that pays him lots of money and gets him trips to Epstein island. So it's a convenient delusional to for him.
The interviewer is acting as "devils advocate" its a good way of getting to the core of the interviewees claims. It might seem like he hates him but its their job. They were trying to squeeze in as much as possible given the time constraint.
It’s because it’s been years since the world has seen good journalists and interviewers who don’t just nod along to the claims of the guests. You’re SUPPOSED to, as an interviewer, as journalist, be tough and ask hard questions.
What a despicable way to interview a person. Accuse rather than criticize, take the most uncharitable interpretation of every response given, talk over and cut off your guest when he's replying to your accusations, and before you let him reply you get in one last shot and quickly change the subject. This is what Al Jazeera counts as journalism?
Lol, this is a hilarious take on the interview. You realise that its a journalists job to be critical of the person they are interviewing and not just empty out their views unopposed and he only interrupted him when he knew that Pinker was making a dishonest or incorrect point. MANY scholars have pointed out that Pinker's definition of extreme poverty is absurdly incorrect and the cutoff should be MUCH higher which, like Medhi points out, makes his arguments on poverty falls apart. And moving on is a constant thing with interviewers because they don't have hours to go over everything, not to mention that its incredibly common these days for people being interviewed in a critical way try to gish gallop (just keep talking to prevent the interviewer from making any point).
Eric Franklin Your points don’t make sense. Medhi is simply interrupting Pinker in a disrespectful way. The interviewer is trying to point out that Pinker, by arguing for the Enlightenment values, is encouraging slavery. Not to mention that “moving on” to another point because he has little time to discuss it is just stupid. Pinker’s arguments are not 1-minute explanations, and the questions that are being asked do not ask for short answers.
"you also use absolute numbers" @6:08 . Yeah idiot, if the sheer number of people in poverty is decreasing then expressing it as a proportion of an increasing population is going to be *more* impressive, not less. You don't have to use proportions if the sample size and the number of things you're concerned about are going in opposite directions. If the number of cows I have with a certain disease is increasing while the total number of cows is decreasing, the proportion is going to be increasing even faster than the sheer number.
Love how you are dismissing his actual argument. The interviewer is complaining about Pinker not giving the whole picture of the data and choosing the way to present it that makes his ideas look better and you are basically saying that he is right about that. Pinker doesn't give you relative measures and the raw data because that makes his point weaker. And Pinker is clearly presenting the data in a misleading way by choosing between those two ways of saying the data that makes him look right. Btw. The interviewer replys that after Pinker literally stated that the important thing is the proportion and not the raw number. So. Pinker pretty much cherry picks how to show the data.
@@BST-vk7lb "things are better overall" I made that point. Suffering is subjective so I was just saying suffering will always be suffering. The Buddha touches on this lol
I hope Al Jazeera donates all the ad-revenue generated by this video (which has got to be a lot given there's an ad every 2.5 minutes!) to end global poverty.
Pinker isn't hearing what Medhi is saying. Medhi said that many enlightenment philosophers were pro slavery and pro colonialism and gave arguments in favour such things Pinker retorts by attacking a strawman claiming that slavery and colonialism didn't being with the enlightenment which Medhi never claimed. He then goes on to state an absolute falsehood which is that it was during the "enlightenment" that arguments against slavery and colonialism first began to carry the day. Firstly there were abolitions of slavery in certain countries before the enlightenment, there are pacifist traditions which stretch back millennia and things like the Congolese genocide, the grab for Africa and the holocaust all happened after the Enlightenment. Just ahistorical fantastical whitewashing nonsense from Pinker, of course eaten up by his gullible "we're the best and the smartest" fan boys.
Pinker got embarrassed, finally someone who is skeptical and questions the sources and numbers of these (Harris, Peterson, Pinker) dishonest people who obviously trying to make money on the alt-right niche, but you people are to stupid to realize it. I can see ( based on the dislikes) that the fan boys of the so called "intellectual" dark web is here. Were you expecting a Ruben style interview lol?
@@adammaru773 Oh please adam, Medhi has a history of lying and misquoting people in the past and has been called out by the likes of Starkey. Also Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Pinker don't appeal to the "alt-right" as the alt-right hate the 1st 2 as they disprove their believes which if you didn't follow the propaganda from the likes of huffington post etc you wouldn't make such a ignorant statement and make yourself the stupid idiot you accuse others of being. Also if you're going to complain about dislikes I'd advise staying away from videos like youtube rewind 2018.
I have to say the interviewing here was just awful. I get the idea of having tough questions, and that should be encouraged, but the interviewer's idea of tough questions was being statistically illiterate and putting words in the guest's mouth even after being corrected. Someone who refuses to comprehend the ideas being presented to him is not fit to be conducting interviews. My respect for this network just took a nosedive after seeing this clip because it's really hard for me to believe that someone this dense could be hired to discuss intellectual issues (if the density was just an act to create drama I'm not sure if that would be worse.)
An Interviewer should be a devil advocate, why in the world shouldn't a person not be responsible for his statements. The questions should be hard. The point was not that either are wrong, the point is to have points and counter point.
I guess this is gonna be unwatchable due to the interviewers absolute rudeness. Constantly cutting off and never allowing a proper response, at least through 7 minutes.
He should have To Catch A Predator'd Pinker instead..."hi I'm 12 years old and hanging out w/ Alan dershowitz and the Clintons...come over and plz bring wine coolers and eyes wide shut masks Mr. Pinker!" "I'll be right over once Jeffrey picks me up in his plane!"
This was a great interview and Mehdi pushed back hard and with evidence on some of the claims Pinker puts forward in his book. It is sad to see so many people here who've been completely missed the point of Mehdi's interruptions and don't even have a counter for those but would rather engage in circlejerking over Pinker.
The point is that pushing back is not the same thing as interrupting someone as soon as you hear them utter something you disagree with. A good interviewer (someone who pushes back and challenges the interviewee, as he/she should) will allow the interviewee the time and space to articulate and elaborate on their talking points (even if they turn out to be wrong or misguided) before challenging or refuting the points that were made. This wasn't a good interview, it was an argument, and it is mainly the fault of Mehdi who set up an argumentative dynamic through his interviewing style.
You have to look at this interview against the backdrop of near universal praise for Pinker's book among elite circles. There are counter arguments that do not get coverage because they don't support the elite consensus that "Everything's cool, we are in control" . Search "Brian Ferguson Anthropology" and "Chomsky Responds to Steven Pinker on Violence" ; and TMBS "Steve Pinker Embraces Third Way, Knows Nothing Of Political History"; and Rebecca Watson does a good short video on Pinker as well.
I admire your optimism in thinking that any of the pro-Pinker (not that there's anything wrong with that) people here would ever read/watch any of those things.
@@plorphole3211 I watched the Chomsky video. And as someone pointed out in the comment section, Chomsky said that, yes, Pinker is right ("the only thing that he's right about") when he says that our moral values have improved and our moral circle has expanded since the enlightenment, and this was exactly the entire premise of "Enlightenment now". It's as if Chomsky didn't understand the book at all (if he even read it). And I know that Chomsky is far from unintelligent, nor unable to read. But despite all the good things about him he's definitely one of the prophets of doom that Pinker talks about. Also, Chomsky then yakked on about absolute numbers and the second world war, again, forgetting that the proportion as well as in what direction the curve overall is going is what matters. And as Pinker shows in the book, the first half of the 20th century had a LOT more war deaths than the late 1800s, yet the jagged curve is going down overall. Worth noting is also that the second half of the 20th century was a lot more peaceful than the first half.
@@mcnyregrus Here's the caveat with Chomsky. Chomsky never generalises into such massive claims that pinker does. So Chomsky can say that yes, he's right about enlightnment values, but he's wrong to try and apply that to such broad arguments that imply that positive progress is connected with our economic system. A LOT of the positives that we have today are thanks to people directly STRUGGLING AGAINST the status quo economics, all the labour rights in the west for one. So pinker just creates a lot of messy and lazy false dichotomies, and tries to give credit where it's not at all due. "forgetting that the proportion as well as in what direction the curve overall is going is what matters." This is an important point, why does that matter? Why is that the only thing that we should be worrying about? Pinker never examines the questions he asks, to see if they are the right questions to ask. Another way to frame it would be to ask for the trend of how destructive individual wars have been. If you ask that question, then individual wars have just been getting more destructive over time. That trend is definitely negative. Why is the average number of deaths from violence a more important trend than the destructive scale of wars? And what if we look at the trend of deaths from self violence; a lot of stats indicate that suicides are going up over time, that's a terribly negative trend. There's no clear answer here, pinker never bothers to determine if he's asking the right questions. Statistics are not magic, they can only give you an indication of the question you've asked, they can't tell you whether the question is a good one, or whether it's a well formed one, whether there's actually any causal relationship to free-market ideas (which is what pinker claims, I think it's the opposite). It's for these reasons that I've always called pinker the statistical equivalent of a snake oil salesman. He's completely ignorant of labour movements, of politics, of centers of power, of history. All he has is his malformed and unexamined questions and his statistics.
@@michaeld8555 Per capita is important when you're comparing like to like. Statistical measures have a context where they are useful are where they are not. It is not valid that one way of measuring things is always the best, like the per capita measure. So he claims that wars are becoming more destructive but less violent. How does he distinguish between violence and destruction?
@@michaeld8555 yes, except for the fact that war is not a population based thing in the same way that homicide is. Homicide is intrapopulation, war is interpopulation. The dynamics are entirely different because you are no longer dealing with individual humans acting due to their own environmental conditioning and nature, and are instead dealing with states interacting with hugely complex geopolitical dynamics. It's not at all comparable. I don't see that there's any basis to claim that wars have become less destructive since WW2, for one, it's only been about 70 years, a timescale that is tiny compared to the time prior to WW2, and the basis for the statement that wars were becoming more seldom but more destructive. And for two, there have been some of the most destructive wars ever in the last 70 years. If we utilise the measure of per capita victims as a measure for destruction, then the Vietnam war and the korean war have been more destructive than WW2 in terms of the destruction of the vietnamese population and the north korean population. Finally, if humans have been becoming less violent, then why has the last 100 years seen the most destructive wars in history? That completely contradicts the overall trend. And Pinker is definitely trying to make an overall claim about the entire progress of humanity.
@@sidsarasvati: Here, I’ll give you some homework to do before you contact me. In Steven Pinker is brilliant mind, 1 billion people living in extreme poverty who have increased their income from $1 per day to $2.25 over the last 40 years is progress and proof that the world is getting better and that this current style of capitalism is working. What he does not tell you is that it actually takes $7 per day just to barely survive and that doesn’t mean you’re going to have a car, an apartment, healthcare or go on a vacation to the Bahamas. A $2.25 per day is still horrific and is he factoring in inflation with this increase of income? do the math, if it has taken 40 years to increase peoples wages living in extreme poverty from $1 to $2.25, how long is it going to take it to reach the ideal level of seven dollars per day? 200 years? Do the math or maybe you should ask him to do the math. Once again, looking forward to your reply.
You gotta understand that the interviewer only has less than 20 minutes to ask all these questions. And he’s got enough skill at this point to tell when someone’s dodging a question the moment they say their first sentence, it’s not that hard in general to tell when someone’s trying to deflect or pivot. So he interrupts. You can argue it’s a bad tactic but you’ve gotta put it in its proper context to realize why it’s even done If this was an hour long debate, you likely wouldn’t see this happening
Because as we know fascists think the world is great and that’s why they are advocating for the violent overthrow of liberal democracy. The logic doesn’t follow buddy
If only Medhi would grill an Imam like that about the myriad of odious passages in the Qur'an as well as the misogyny, homophobia, and anti-humanist traditions inherent in Islam...
So many butthurt Pinker fans. What's wrong? Did the brown mans dissection of your heroes paper arguments hurt your feelings? Lets be clear. This was a MILD critique of Pinker's book. That's all it took for his entire premise to fall apart.
@@kylehankins5988 there is a 0% chance that history will look back kindly on Pinker's reactionary social commentary. He should have stuck to linguistics.
For those who don’t like the free and open exchange of ideas and vigorous debate, where people are actually challenged on their work....I could recommend the Rubin Report. Guaranteed he will be able to say whatever he wants there. Dave even says Elon Musk will save us from climate change, so that’s a bonus! But hey...reason and evidence...amirite?
I'd like this more if the interviewer would get into any of the subjects rather than a back and forth of "not true/yes true". He seems to be unaccepting of any of Pinker's foundations. It's just not an interesting style, it's aggravating.
Dave Rubin notoriously refuses to challenge his guests. He just agreed with Brigitte Gabrielle when she repeated debunked nonsense about George Soros working with the Nazis.
(1) ask question (2) wait for one word of the answer and interrupts pre-pared objections (3) immediately ask another question (4) sounds really smart!! i am sold on this brillian interviewer :D you can see the professor laying in fetal position at the end of the interview cuz he couldnt even fight back anymore.
Pinker is a bigger joke. He is the dream of Rebekah Mercer and the Koch brothers. A first rate propagandist for capitalism. Train an army of useful idiots
He’s not a joke. Jokes are funny. This interviewer is just a hack who relies on interruptions because he recognizes the mediocrity of his critique. The useful idiots are the ones who think this kind of shadowboxing passes as intellectual dialogue.
Why do you all have such a problem with the interviewer putting pinker through his paces? I love hearing people disagree. That's the only time a debate ever becomes clear.
Yes the reporter is aggressive but if you watch his other interviews you know it’s his style. If you can’t come up with a convincing reply and pause, he is going to counter or move on. What’s going on with these psychology professors like him and Jordan Peterson? They are so detached from reality, having lived in their own comfortable professor lives. Look at his face when the reporter told him correlation vs causality is the exact issue with his book.
I'm surprised people think the interviewer was bad. As a fan of Pinker and his book, I love to see a critical interviewer who attacks him with everything he's got (including straw men arguments). Pinker can respond to these arguments, and does so. That way I can see for myself how right and rational Pinker is. That's what it's all about, right? Discussion instead of dogma. This is a discussion!
He destroyed pinker… in addition to all the scientific evidence, you could hear the gulp in Pinker’s throat as he was challenged looking for a rebuttal.
@@ibnnoor If you believe all the false arguments this journalist gives, you surely will believe that. But look up the facts, and you'll find the truth.
@@ibnnoor I'm saying don't just believe the journalist, look up the actual facts about the discussed topics, how is that an ad hominem? The evidence is in the interview and his book. If you're just generally stating he's 'destroyed', then that's my response. If you want to discuss some specific argument, name it, and I can respond.
This guys should have just read the book. Pinker anticipated and answered nearly all of his questions in the book, and he would have known that had he read it. Pinker is not idolizing the figures of the Enlightenment, of course many were racists, held slaves, and so on, but they were some of the first people articulating reasoned arguments against slavery, racism, and other barbarities that have always existed throughout human history. The interviewer's statements presuppose the existence of an idyllic past from which Enlightenment thinkers were moving us away, which is completely false. The interviewer doesn't seem to understand statistics, there's really no point in making an argument about absolute numbers of people in poverty if you are not going to look at the number of people in poverty as a proportion of the total population. The latter method controls for variables, namely, the obvious variable of population growth. Billions of people have been added to the planet and still a larger fraction of people in poverty have moved up into greater wealth. Chomsky makes this very same mistake when it comes to violence, when it's the rate that matters, not the absolute numbers.
1 dude, most authors in the enlightenment who made arguments against slavery, racism, etc. were socialists or anarchists. 2 The rest of them like mill, voltaire, kant, locke were pretty racists and they were pro-capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. the enlighentment (and western society) has had two different, opposite views. Pinker attributes socialists (1) characteristics to the enlightenment to prove the point that capitalism is good (2). These are opposite ideas, this is the definition of cherry picking.
Mehdi has taken interview-technique lessons from Cathy Newman. However, his ideological blinkers prevent him from seeing that he'd been owned (unlike Cathy).
I thought Mehdi was far better prepared and was mostly on point. He actually listened and responded reasonably to what Pinker was saying. He was perhaps overprepared. He wouldn't shut up enough to let Pinker address any one disagreement.
It is one thing to ask difficult questions, or to counter the interviewee's points. But the dismissive tone, the ceaseless interruptions and not letting him finish his points before changing the subject are another thing completely. It is very clear that the interviewer already "knows" that the interviewee is wrong, so he is just trying to get his own points in on every subject, and is not interested in what the interviewee has to say.
It's hard to take seriously a person who think human well being is basically staying alive. It's really silly the way he describes wellbeing around 4:10 or so in that interview by mentioning life expectency and violente crime rates like they were a good indicators of wellbeing. There's more to being well than that.
i love how steven pinker's followers would lash out at flat earthers and evolution denieres but support steven pinker's claims that are totally backwards to scientific consensus. we do not treat flat earthers and evolution denieres as "another point of view" we treat them as lunatics and this is what steven pinker is facing. He is just shouting pro-capitalist propaganda
sometime's I like this interviewer, and sometimes he is the most intolerable twit. This is not an interview, his only purposes is to refute his ideas without actually considering them.
NOTA BENE: The entire POINT of UPFRONT is for the interviewer to ask "HARD" questions. Similar to BBC's Hard Talk. That's why Mehdi Hasan is using such an aggressive style of questioning.
Sure, and that's completely fair, but you could let your guest answer your questions. Why else ask them? Clearly, the interviewer had an agenda: Pinker is W-R-O-N-G!!!
Everytime the interviewer wants to say something snide he’ll couch it in “some might say” or “many agree” like its not his opinion. So slimy in so many ways.
Hasan could be a bit more respectful. I get that Pinker is a somewhat controversial figure, but that doesn’t grant you this kind of prosecutor attitude
I know The interviewer had to move on yet again to a different point because pinker was just ridiculing his point
5 лет назад
Mehdi Hassan really annoys me. Why be positive about climate change, because positivity achieves positive results. Pinker doesn't mention the collapse of wildlife populations, it's one piece of a massive puzzle. I didn't like Hassan's attack on the Enlightenment as a positive social movement although it was I admit of it's time. Pinker's position may be globally applicable based on the $1.90 measure and I can believe that there has been a demonstration of improvement based on those absolute poverty statistics I don't think he gives enough weight to the power of inequality as Richard Wilkinson does for example. I'm not sure this is a clarion call for free market capitalism, it's probably as much a demonstration of the benefit of overseas aid and social programs as well as the benefit of relative peace and medicinal improvement.
Could the interviewer be less interested in Mr. Pinker's answers? He is absolutely horrible. Talking over everything, especially when his guest spectacularly refutes a point.
Pinker says,,,we all agree on what human well being consists of,,like life expectancy like death from disease like death from violent crime, Surely no one on earth apart from Pinker would agree with those criteria for human well being, Jeremy Bentham in the late C18 would agree,,but thinkers from Aristotle and Plato on have disagreed, Thankfully people like Pinker died out in the C18, Unfortunately he has lived on into the C21
I don't get why people who think like this interviewer don't just come out and say "The people in the past who we see as the originators of modern philosophy, rationale, enlightenment, etc. were racists, anti-semites, etc. so therefore we need to disregard every idea and thought they ever had because they also engaged in and used their ideas to promote terrible genocide, imperialism, racism, slavery, etc." Because that's what they are basically saying when he keeps bringing up those points to Pinker's thoughts on enlightenment. So dumb.
Capitalism needs states (nations). Even though those states give "freedom" to its citizens, they do not give it to immigrants. Not giving rights to certain type of people is just slavery 2.0 if you don't notice. Capitalism is just shape shifting, it changes the individuals who are not worthy of freedom and rights.
@ "massive inequality (and rising)" - false, on a global scale "Enlightenment helped the world - they didn't" - false, they did "Communist based country not rooted in enlightenment principles" - false, China probably the most neoliberal country in terms of global cooperation and trade for the last 30 years. Exactly the same years when so many people stopped being poor. "Progress has (and continues) to destroy the world" - false, by most significant metrics
I think the interviewer did a great job of researching the subject matter and asking questions or pointing out factual claims as a preemptive to pinker the interviewee's answer here. Good job at fleshing out Pinker's line of thought.
