My latest essay is on Steven Pinker’s latest book. I once was in a book club that read Daniel Pink’s Free Agent Nation and then Pinker’s The Blank Slate. A participant suggested that for our next book we needed to find an author named Pinkest.
My latest essay is on Steven Pinker’s latest book. I once was in a book club that read Daniel Pink’s Free Agent Nation and then Pinker’s The Blank Slate. A participant suggested that for our next book we needed to find an author named Pinkest.
I guess I’m the only one that has always found Pinker overrated?
Example:
The Bell Curve + The Nurture Assumption
What new ground did The Blank Slate break several years after the two books above were published? Honest question.
Very little knowledge is *really* new. But putting it together in a way that makes sense for people and is easy to understand can be a very big contribution. That’s how I see The Blank Slate.
https://www.amazon.com/Paulette-Pinkest-Puppy-Thomas-Nelson/dp/1782359745
Lol. Anyone interested in a book club for this one?
A while back you mentioned how there were a lot of epistemology / rationality books coming out at once. It looks like most of them are falling flat. Any thoughts on why that is?
What exactly are you seeking to understand that you don’t already know? What are the unknown unknowns that I might be missing?
Here are three books from 2021 that basically explain everything for right now:
Facing Reality
The Genetic Lottery
San Fransicko
I’m sure that there will also be some virus books at some point.
We are helplessly divided between red and blue. All of the epistemology in the world probably won’t solve this when both sides are attached to various irrational positions.
***
Progressives claimed they knew how to solve homelessness, inequality, and crime. But in cities they control, progressives made those problems worse.
https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities-ebook/dp/B08SMFSL5M/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=1Z9F2XIXCNRZC&dchild=1&keywords=san+fransicko&qid=1633026373&sprefix=san+frans&sr=8-3
Homelessness is easy to solve.
A) Universal basic dorms for the poor but otherwise normal adults of sound mind.
B) Mandatory institutionalization for adults with severe mental health issues who are found living on the street.
Crime is easy to reduce.
A) Mandatory long sentences for serious crimes, particularly violent crime.
B) Penalties and prosecution for even small offenses, like shoplifting and graffiti, though not incarceration. Fines, public shaming, long periods of community service, etc.
C) Readjust the welfare system to favor nuclear families with fathers.
D) Decriminalize most drugs, with penalties for public use while driving while using, rather than manufacture & distribution. In essence, you can buy heroin at your local pharmacy, but if you shoot it up in the park, you get a citation and a $500 fine.
Inequality isn’t a huge issue and it’s really solvable. If you raise the minimum wage to $20/hr and eliminate 99% of Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth, there’s still a crazy amount of inequality between him and the minimum wage worker.
Rather than focus on inequality, focus on three issues:
1) Ensure that there’s a decent minimum beneath which you cannot easily fall (universal basic dorms, employer of last resort jobs).
2) Ensure that men in particular can get a decent living so as to be attractive to women, allowing them to get married and have families. This is a hard one, outside of direct subsidies to men, the only thing I can think of is state owned enterprises that employ men specifically at good salaries.
3) Reduce the power of the oligarchs to set and guide policy. A lot can be done here, though it’s hard to say what would be best.
Meant to say inequality is really *not* solvable.