Stephen Pinker’s New Book Reveals His Journey into Contradiction

When Everyone Knows What Everyone Knows
Stephen Pinker (Allen Lane (UK); Scribner (US) September 23rd

Stephen Pinker’s latest book offers a thorough exploration of his evolving persona. It features insightful discussions on significant psychological concepts, while also revealing his perspectives on contemporary issues.

Pinker, a Harvard University Psychologist and author known for his contributions to popular science, has penned thought-provoking works such as Words and Rules. His research-driven approach is commendable, although some of his broader assertions, such as those made in Better Angels of Our Nature, which claims a longstanding reduction in violence, have sparked debate.

While books like the latter have enjoyed commercial success, they have also faced criticism for their oversights. For instance, in Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker grappled with the stark realities of violence in the 20th century—two world wars, the Holocaust, and more. Critics argue that his selective use of statistics downplayed these events in favor of a narrative that praises progress.

Approaching Pinker’s latest work, I wondered which version of him would emerge: the reflective psychologist or the brash commentator? Both traits surface throughout the text. The theme focuses on “common knowledge,” highlighting the idea that when a critical mass is aware of an issue, change is possible. Pinker draws parallels to Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes, illustrating how a child’s honest observation can lead to collective acknowledgment and action.

Pinker emphasizes that widespread awareness can empower the oppressed to challenge authoritarian regimes. However, the hidden fear of isolation can deter individuals from joining protests, even when they recognize the regime’s brutality.

Pinker elaborates on this theme in the initial seven chapters, utilizing examples from game theory and psychology. His writing style is engaging and adept, effectively navigating through complex logical puzzles, even integrating comics and notable dialogues.

Occasionally, he digresses. For instance, he refers to the early publication of logic puzzles as a peculiar “political innocuous sin” of the 1950s. However, these instances are minor distractions.

In Chapter 8, which discusses the psychological underpinnings of “cancel culture,” the narrative falters. Pinker argues that cancel culture serves as a censorship mechanism, driven by the aim to prevent certain ideas from becoming widely acknowledged. He posits that while holding prejudicial views about an ethnic group may be personally acceptable, public acknowledgment could foster discrimination, prompting efforts to silence such views.

While Pinker offers insights into the motivations behind cancel culture, his analysis falls short due to the poor quality of the debate surrounding it. Many of his examples stem from left-wing perspectives, while right-wing cases remain overlooked. His discussion of the Chick-fil-A controversy—a response to arguments against the 2003 Iraq invasion—illustrates this bias. He neglects to address instances where individuals face cancelation due to genuine harm they caused, echoing the earlier quote about judicial narratives that focus solely on miscarriages of justice.

The final chapter attempts to guide readers on whether to keep certain beliefs private or share them publicly, concluding that context matters. Thank goodness he retains an interest in psychological studies. It’s disappointing that he veers off course at times.

Michael Marshall is a writer based in Devon, UK

New Scientist Book Club

If you enjoy reading, join our welcoming community of book enthusiasts. Every six weeks, we explore exciting new titles, providing members with free access to excerpts, author articles, and video interviews.