I agree that this isnât the ideal format for engaging with someone like Pinker, who seems capable of recognizing his mistakes without needing them spelled out to quite this degree.*
Based on my experience as a journalist, conversations Iâve had with journalists, and materials Iâve read from journalists and other writers (essays, interviews, etc.), thereâs often a lot of pressure, when publishing for a broad audience, to make a strong argument with few qualifications. Itâs possible that Pinker gradually removed nuance from this chapter during the editing process. Itâs also possible that he decided to write something forcefully one-sided to counteract what he sees as a heavily skewed public conversation.
(Finally, Iâll note that itâs probably really difficult to write a nuanced 500-page book about twenty different topics on a publisherâs deadline when you are also a famous professor with a number of other commitments.)
Even if none of my suppositions are true, I still think heâd be open to a more balanced discussion of X-risk if it started out on the right foot. Maybe Rob Wiblin could have him on the 80,000 Hours podcast? Enlightenment Now wasnât perfect, even outside this chapter, but I think Pinker is (mostly) on our side.
----
*That said, while it isnât charitable or warm enough to work as public communication, I do think itâs an excellent essay about anti-X-risk fallacies in general. I especially appreciate Torresâ efforts to track down original sources for quotes that were taken out of context. People who arenât as well-intentioned as Steven Pinker will make the same arguments for decades to come, and it seems good to have a collection of strong, well-sourced counterarguments.
I agree that this isnât the ideal format for engaging with someone like Pinker, who seems capable of recognizing his mistakes without needing them spelled out to quite this degree.*
Based on my experience as a journalist, conversations Iâve had with journalists, and materials Iâve read from journalists and other writers (essays, interviews, etc.), thereâs often a lot of pressure, when publishing for a broad audience, to make a strong argument with few qualifications. Itâs possible that Pinker gradually removed nuance from this chapter during the editing process. Itâs also possible that he decided to write something forcefully one-sided to counteract what he sees as a heavily skewed public conversation.
(Finally, Iâll note that itâs probably really difficult to write a nuanced 500-page book about twenty different topics on a publisherâs deadline when you are also a famous professor with a number of other commitments.)
Even if none of my suppositions are true, I still think heâd be open to a more balanced discussion of X-risk if it started out on the right foot. Maybe Rob Wiblin could have him on the 80,000 Hours podcast? Enlightenment Now wasnât perfect, even outside this chapter, but I think Pinker is (mostly) on our side.
----
*That said, while it isnât charitable or warm enough to work as public communication, I do think itâs an excellent essay about anti-X-risk fallacies in general. I especially appreciate Torresâ efforts to track down original sources for quotes that were taken out of context. People who arenât as well-intentioned as Steven Pinker will make the same arguments for decades to come, and it seems good to have a collection of strong, well-sourced counterarguments.