To the idea of the "struggle for truth," I would consider instead the ability to "identify and solve important problems." Truth is too often held hostage by ideology.
I don’t think that you are disagreeing with Pinker so much as you are both focused on different topics. Pinker is talking about progress, while you are talking about increased intelligence. Those are separate issues.
Ultimately, people have to be judged on what they say and write, and not on what they secretly think. I suspect Steven Pinker believes that humans have changed through gene-culture coevolution, but that's not what he writes.
If you take him at his word, he is arguing solely for cultural evolution. Humans have learned to become less violent, less impulsive, more intelligent, more forward-thinking, and more empathetic. And these changes have come about through "reason," "institution-building," and "moral commitment."
I don't wish to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not really true. Yes, humans have consciously pushed the bounds of their phenotype and have thereby created new cultural environments, which, over time, have favored those individuals who can better fit in and exploit the new opportunities.
But this is a slow multi-generational process. It's also genetic. Culture creates new patterns of thought and behavior by pushing the envelope, and then natural selection comes into the picture to hardwire those patterns.
I am not talking about what anyone secretly believes. Pinker is talking about progress, not evolution or intelligence. Nor do I know what Pinker thinks about the theory of Cultural Evolution.
In this article, you were talking about intelligence. That is a different subject from progress.
In addition, I don't think that you understand what the theory of Cultural Evolution actually is. It is not just about culture. It is also about biology and genetics.
The theory of Cultural Evolution is "gene-culture evolution." They are one and the same. The term "gene-culture evolution" actually comes from the theory of Cultural Evolution by Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd. That is the entire point of the theory. The theory of Cultural Evolution is heavily based on genetics and biology.
A public intellectual has a duty to speak and write clearly. Steven Pinker is talking about behavioral and intellectual change, and he ascribes this change to cultural evolution alone.
No, cultural evolution is not "gene-culture evolution." You are mistaken. Yes, I'm familiar with the writings of Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd. You could also mention Pierre van den Berghe and Charles Lumsden. The last two personally introduced me to the literature on this subject.
But that was decades ago. Old age, death — and fear — have taken their toll on this field of research.
A late comment but maybe it adds something. In 2006, Pinker wrote: “[T]he power to uncover genetic and evolutionary roots of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely to materialize and more incendiary in its consequences. And it is a prospect that we are, intellectually and emotionally, very poorly equipped to confront.” Given recent genomic research, it he might be avoiding the topic. https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes
Steven Pinker is famous for predicting in the 1990s that "major wars have ended" and "humans have evolved to the point of settling their differences in other ways as opposed to wars." But then in 2022 the huge Russia-Ukraine war broke out, killing over a million people, with the traditional battlefield and trenches. I thought the same way Pinker did about human evolution in this regard until this war proved him wrong.
By the way Peter, any thoughts on this monstrous Russia-Ukraine war, particularly in the context of human evolution? I agree with Trump that it's "ridiculous" and mass warfare casualties are bizarre in the modern age of technology and prosperity, yet they haven't ended. Or is this the last major war mankind will ever witness, similar to how slavery or other social phenomena have gradually disappeared from the human experience? Pinker's hypothesis was plausible, given how people have learned to avoid wars (or even mortality) at all costs.
Unfortunately, Ukraine has been simply a means to an end in this truly monstrous war. The end was to weaken Russia and replace the current regime with one that is more amenable to Western interests.
In reality, the outcome has been the opposite: it is the West that has been weakened, and we will see regime change throughout the West.
As for humanity's long-term chances for global peace, I've become pessimistic. We are still advancing technologically, and AI may help us continue to advance despite the overall decline in cognitive ability. But the people using that technology — for good or for evil — will on average be less intelligent and, more importantly, less empathetic and less prone to guilt over their actions.
Another great riposte Peter and Happy New Year! In regards to gene-culture evolution (or co-evolution as you sometimes say) and the 100-fold increase in cognitive abilities 10,000 years ago -- were there other great cognitive leaps outside of Western Europe? Say in Constantinople? Or other parts of the world that left their mark?
To the idea of the "struggle for truth," I would consider instead the ability to "identify and solve important problems." Truth is too often held hostage by ideology.
Nicely put.
I don’t think that you are disagreeing with Pinker so much as you are both focused on different topics. Pinker is talking about progress, while you are talking about increased intelligence. Those are separate issues.
Ultimately, people have to be judged on what they say and write, and not on what they secretly think. I suspect Steven Pinker believes that humans have changed through gene-culture coevolution, but that's not what he writes.
If you take him at his word, he is arguing solely for cultural evolution. Humans have learned to become less violent, less impulsive, more intelligent, more forward-thinking, and more empathetic. And these changes have come about through "reason," "institution-building," and "moral commitment."
I don't wish to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not really true. Yes, humans have consciously pushed the bounds of their phenotype and have thereby created new cultural environments, which, over time, have favored those individuals who can better fit in and exploit the new opportunities.
But this is a slow multi-generational process. It's also genetic. Culture creates new patterns of thought and behavior by pushing the envelope, and then natural selection comes into the picture to hardwire those patterns.
I am not talking about what anyone secretly believes. Pinker is talking about progress, not evolution or intelligence. Nor do I know what Pinker thinks about the theory of Cultural Evolution.
In this article, you were talking about intelligence. That is a different subject from progress.
In addition, I don't think that you understand what the theory of Cultural Evolution actually is. It is not just about culture. It is also about biology and genetics.
The theory of Cultural Evolution is "gene-culture evolution." They are one and the same. The term "gene-culture evolution" actually comes from the theory of Cultural Evolution by Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd. That is the entire point of the theory. The theory of Cultural Evolution is heavily based on genetics and biology.
I recommend reading these summaries:
https://techratchet.com/2020/01/31/book-reviewnot-by-genes-alone-how-culture-transformed-human-evolution-by-richerson-boyd/
https://techratchet.com/2020/03/24/book-summary-the-origin-and-evolution-of-cultures-by-robert-boyd-peter-richerson/
A public intellectual has a duty to speak and write clearly. Steven Pinker is talking about behavioral and intellectual change, and he ascribes this change to cultural evolution alone.
No, cultural evolution is not "gene-culture evolution." You are mistaken. Yes, I'm familiar with the writings of Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd. You could also mention Pierre van den Berghe and Charles Lumsden. The last two personally introduced me to the literature on this subject.
But that was decades ago. Old age, death — and fear — have taken their toll on this field of research.
A late comment but maybe it adds something. In 2006, Pinker wrote: “[T]he power to uncover genetic and evolutionary roots of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely to materialize and more incendiary in its consequences. And it is a prospect that we are, intellectually and emotionally, very poorly equipped to confront.” Given recent genomic research, it he might be avoiding the topic. https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes
Recent genomic research is all the more reason to address this topic. In 2006, I was still uncertain.
Steven Pinker is famous for predicting in the 1990s that "major wars have ended" and "humans have evolved to the point of settling their differences in other ways as opposed to wars." But then in 2022 the huge Russia-Ukraine war broke out, killing over a million people, with the traditional battlefield and trenches. I thought the same way Pinker did about human evolution in this regard until this war proved him wrong.
By the way Peter, any thoughts on this monstrous Russia-Ukraine war, particularly in the context of human evolution? I agree with Trump that it's "ridiculous" and mass warfare casualties are bizarre in the modern age of technology and prosperity, yet they haven't ended. Or is this the last major war mankind will ever witness, similar to how slavery or other social phenomena have gradually disappeared from the human experience? Pinker's hypothesis was plausible, given how people have learned to avoid wars (or even mortality) at all costs.
Unfortunately, Ukraine has been simply a means to an end in this truly monstrous war. The end was to weaken Russia and replace the current regime with one that is more amenable to Western interests.
In reality, the outcome has been the opposite: it is the West that has been weakened, and we will see regime change throughout the West.
As for humanity's long-term chances for global peace, I've become pessimistic. We are still advancing technologically, and AI may help us continue to advance despite the overall decline in cognitive ability. But the people using that technology — for good or for evil — will on average be less intelligent and, more importantly, less empathetic and less prone to guilt over their actions.
Another great riposte Peter and Happy New Year! In regards to gene-culture evolution (or co-evolution as you sometimes say) and the 100-fold increase in cognitive abilities 10,000 years ago -- were there other great cognitive leaps outside of Western Europe? Say in Constantinople? Or other parts of the world that left their mark?
A research team is currently studying Chinese DNA for historical changes in mean cognitive ability. The results should soon be forthcoming.