The New School
The New School for Social Research based in New York City, offers master’s and doctoral programs in anthropology, economics, philosophy, politics, psychology, and sociology; interdisciplinary master’s programs in historical studies and liberal studies | http://www.newschool.edu/nssr
A conversation between two distinguished social researchers and commentators,Steven Pinker and Robert Jay Lifton, about whether we live in a more or less violent time. Pinker’s most recent book is The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined and Lifton is author of, most recently, Witness to an Extreme Century: A Memoir. This discussion follows from an exchange between Pinker and Lifton published recently in the New York Times, “Sunday Dialogue: Do We Live in a Less Deadly Time, or Not?”. William Hirst, Professor of Psychology in the New School for Social Research, will moderate. The event will close with audience Q&A.
Center for Public Scholarship | http://www.newschool.edu/cps
*location: John Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street Friday, March 23, 2012 6:00 pm
Source
Pinker argues convincingly, Lifton does not.
"The technology..
I'm more worried than you
The technology is
Well the technology
Tech
Worried, I'm more worried
The technology has become
I'm worried
Technology"
He's like a broken record
It seems to me that Lifton's arguments are tired and he has little to no data to back them up. Effortless fearmongering.
Lifton is an extraordinary scholar but not well versed at debate. Read any of his books to fully appreciate his voice.
pinker wins this one!
Even though Pinker controls the academic aspect of this discussion, which is the strict adherence to the established topic, Lifton expounds on some significant concerns regarding the interpretation of direct and indirect data.
I believe he "expounds" because he can't falsify Steven's conclusions; in so doing, he makes himself look like a rambling old man. You could see Steven losing patience with Lifton's babble…
I agree that Lifton was not very convincing in this debat, and since I haven't read any of his books, I'm not sure how good of a scholar he is. Unfortunately for him, the impression that I, and probably many others, are left with at the end of the debate, is the contrast between Steven's clarity and Lifton's rambling.
Lifton's focus on drone and nuclear technology to the exclusion of all else is tedious to listen to and it resulted in him never addressing Pinker's data in any significant way. His ineffectiveness allowed allowed Pinker's arguments to stand firm against his own droning even though he was allowed to speak at greater length. I felt that Pinker's restricted rebuttal diminished the quality of the discussion and he should have gotten more time to respond.
I really like both of these men. Pinker's recent book is a tour de force and documents an important trend with mountains of data; Lifton is a gifted thinker, orator, and writer, so well versed in the complexities of the human condition (imagine being as articulate and thoughtful as he is when you're 86…). Excellent program; thanks for posting.
I wonder how many times Lifton can make the same point.
Pinker is clear as always
last questioner was super annoying; why is it that when questions are allowed, some people just want to hear THEMSELVES talk? he even said "the other thing I want to say is…" – dude no one came to hear you, so keep it quick and keep it a question!
200 years from now Lifton could still be saying "so far." That's not an argument. He is concerned with what might happen and Pinker is concerned with what is happening and has happened.
Total deaths down, but nuclear arms still on standby to kill the world.
So, keep decommissioning ALL nuclear weapons.
And police the world of the crazies/terrorist cult people who try to get hold of or make the massively powerful world destroying weapons.
I thought we were doing this.
I'd like a New School talk of the progress of doing what is already likely going on and the current ups and downs of those efforts.
Pinker is great but he kind of blew it on the militarization of police question. He didn't address how the appearance of the police and the ramping up of equipment used can sometimes INCREASE the likelihood of confrontation and public distrust. He kind of poo pooed how this is somewhat of a problem in America. Hopefully, after Ferguson and other events he isn't so law enforcement centric. In a lot of these cases they shouldn't look and behave like they're invading Baghdad.
With regard to percentage count: if so happens that in a couple of centuries humans will inhabit some other planets too, and the 20-billion of humans on the planet Earth would be less than 5 percent of the total within the planetary system, would it count as progress or as regress on the aggression scale if one shoots the Earthers down in the nuclear interplanetary war?
Do Pinkers numbers hold up if one considers abortion numbers as "deaths"?
wow. what a load of horseshit. pinker is a biased asshole. he reminds me of that shitty professor you had in your undergrad, you know, the one who hadnt a single creative or original thought ever, used other peoples ideas and straight up stole them from his students, and just generally got by through exploiting and manipulating people. in other words, pinker is a psuedo-intellectual scammer
You keep saying that word "quantum." I do not think it means what you think it means.