Author Steven Pinker Answers Your Questions

Photo credit: Rebecca Goldstein

Last week we solicited your questions for author and Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker on his new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. You responded quickly with more than 50 questions. Now, Pinker is back with his answers to 10 of them. The result is a fascinating discussion (exactly the kind we like to have around here) on the roots of violence, the rationale for wars of the past and what a decrease in violence says about modern society. As always, thanks to everyone for participating.

 

Q Any thoughts on the negative side effects of decreased violence? Overpopulation? More sedentary populations? Decreased role for survival of the fittest? Not to say that violence is preferable, just wondering about the downsides of peace. – BL1Y

A A hundred years ago most people would have thought that the answer to your question was obvious. Peace would lead to decadence, effeminacy, materialism, selfishness, and intellectual and artistic stagnation. War was necessary for men to develop courage, manliness, self-sacrifice, loyalty, solidarity, and obedience to authority. Many in the nineteenth-century positively gushed about how holy and thrilling war was, including Tocqueville, Zola, Ruskin, Hegel, Mann, Stravinsky, and Nietzsche.

World War I pretty much put an end to all that.

As far as I can see, there are no downsides to peace. Unless one thinks that it’s a good idea to control population size by machine-gunning and blowing up a random sample of the population, the moral harm of war will always outweigh any good it does in limiting population size. Also, except for truly horrendous wars, population size depends far more on birth rates and on deaths from disease and famine than it does on deaths in war. The “survival of the fittest” is also a dubious benefit of war. Not only does war kill pretty indiscriminately, but it makes no sense to think of Darwinian natural selection as a human good, unless we believe that pumping out the maximum number of babies, killing people who get in our way, and letting sick and weak people die are good things.

Q Is it possible this “Long Peace” is merely the calm before the storm? World War II happened less than a century ago and was by far the highest casualty war in recorded history (if Wikipedia is to be trusted, of course). I’ve been reading G. K. Chesterton lately, and he had some choice words about the false hope of progressive morality… and he was writing before both WWI and WWII. –Don

A It’s certainly possible that another horrendous war could break out; the observation that war has decreased a lot is not the same as the prediction that it will never happen again. But if you’re asking whether war is cyclical, or whether during periods of peace the urge for war inexorably builds up until it bursts, the answer is no. Statistical studies of war show no reliable cycles, and countries can remain at peace indefinitely. It’s not as if Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and other peaceable countries are getting itchier and itchier for war with every passing year.

Q I loved your TED lecture. You do an amazing job explaining how modernity has led to a precipitous decline in violence. What explains the relatively high level of violence in the United States compared to other developed nations? The U.S.’s intentional homicide rate is 3-4x most other developed nations in Western Europe, Australia, Japan. Guns? Frontier history? Income inequality? –vimspot

A Thanks! See here for a more recent lecture on the topic. You ask a good question about violence in the United States, though it’s in large part a question about the American south and west, and about African Americans—the homicide rates of northern states are not much greater than those of Europe. It isn’t just guns, because even if you subtract all the killings with firearms and count only the ones with rope, knives, lead pipes, wrenches, candlesticks, and so on, Americans still kill at a higher rate than Europeans.

Measures of inequality certainly correlate with homicide rates across nations, provinces, and states, though the reason is not clear. One possibility is that unequal societies beget more status competition, with marginalized men vesting all their self-worth in their reputation with their peers, leading them to retaliate violently against any insult or perceived maltreatment. But unequal societies also provide less schooling, medical care, and perhaps most important, policing to their lower classes.

My own guess is that Americans (particularly in the south and west) never really signed on to a social contract that gave government a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, as Europe did. Americans not only retain the right to bear arms but believe it is their responsibility, not the government’s, to deter harm-doers. With private citizens, flush with self-serving biases, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, body counts can pile up as trigger-happy vigilantes mete out rough justice. This may be a legacy of the long periods of anarchy in the mountainous south and frontier west, and of the historical failure of the police and courts to serve African American communities.

Q Other than writing best-selling books what can people do to help society at large resist the urge to think things are worse and worse and the world is less and less safe when this is manifestly not the case? –Joshua Northey

A A small portion of the population is willing to be reasoned with, but when I tell my reasonably intelligent sister that “children are probably safer today than at any time in human history” she scoffs at me as if I am telling her that cigarettes have nothing to do with lung cancer. She is so dismissive she won’t even read the few things I have given her about it, and her attitude is not uncommon.

One necessity is greater statistical literacy among the population and especially among journalists. People need to think in terms of proportions rather than salient examples, to appreciate orders of magnitudes (ten thousand deaths versus ten million deaths), to distinguish random blips from systematic trends, and to be aware of—and thereby discount—their own cognitive biases. When Harvard revamped its undergraduate curriculum a few years ago, I lobbied (unsuccessfully) for a statistical and analytic thinking requirement.

Also, journalists have to rethink their policy of featuring only gory events and terrifying threats. Tensions that fizzle out (e.g, remember how a decade ago India and Pakistan were allegedly on the verge of nuclear war?), wars that sputter to a halt, “war-torn” countries that are no longer torn by war, and other happy events and non-events should be just as newsworthy as things t
hat go bang. A good example is UN peacekeeping, which Joshua Goldstein shows (in his new book Winning the War on War) is demonstrably effective at preventing wars from flaring up—not always, but far more often than not. People read about the failures (e.g., Bosnia), but no one reports the successes, or tabulates what proportion of peacekeeping missions are successful.

Q I am curious to hear his thoughts about the following alternate hypotheses. The decrease in violence could be attributed to a decrease in the number of political actors (or perhaps decrease in the number of viable, competitive actors given massive power imbalances). Or, it could be attributed to a period of temporary economic prosperity.

I’m sure both of these factors have been internalized into many of our political institutions. But I am curious to hear his thoughts about the causal mechanisms for the decrease in violence, and, relatedly, what reasons we have for thinking those institutional changes will persist if material factors start changing. (i.e. what if we start experiencing shortages of vital resources?) –Anthony Kammer

A Yes, the decrease in the number of political actors is one of the historical developments that has reduced the number of wars. Europe went from 5,000 political units in the 15th century to 500 in the 17th and about 30 in the 1950s. And holding territory constant, countries have fewer civil wars within their boundaries than interstate wars which cross them, since governments, armies, and police can keep their own citizens from each others’ throats. So fewer jurisdictions meant fewer wars.

The connection with prosperity is more tenuous. Today civil wars are more certainly more common among countries at the very bottom of the economic scale, but the relationship quickly levels off as GDP per capita increases. In the past lots of rich countries waged war, often with each other, and some periods of economic growth (like the 1960s) had far more violence, both international and domestic, than periods of recession, like the 2000s. Surprisingly few wars are fought over control of resources—they are far more often fought over glory, honor, insult, influence, ideology, emotion, security, and other intangibles.

Q The countryside here in Ireland is dotted with the ruins of castles and Iron Age “forts”. I wondered sometimes if this is evidence that ancient or early medieval Ireland was very insecure and violent, considering that today we live in houses that can be easily invaded through the glass windows.

I’m not sure if I am missing other evidence, however. Are the highly defensive dwellings of the past good indicators of the insecurity and violence of that age? –Shane

A Yes; the castles really do reflect the fact that Iron-Age and medieval Europe was more violent than early modern Europe—as Barbara Tuchman wrote, medieval knights fought their private wars “with furious gusto and a single strategy, which consisted in trying to ruin the enemy by killing and maiming as many of his peasants and destroying as many crops, vineyards, tools, barns, and other possessions as possible.”

Q Does the recent history of violence within a society have any near-term predictive value with respect to future violence? That is to say, would a spike in violence due to a revolution or civil war portend a period of less violence, or of more violence? –David

A The timing of interstate wars is completely random (a Poisson process). That is, the outbreak of war does not make the next one more or less likely. There is some evidence that a country that hosts a genocide has an elevated probability of having a recurrence, but it’s tenuous.

Q What about domestic violence? Is that also less so than in the past? And violence towards women in general. –OK

A Yes, spousal abuse, spousal killings, and rape have all substantially decreased in the past few decades.

Q Hello Steven. Given that violence and the tendency towards violence is partly inherited, do you think that public policy should reflect this more? For instance if two parents have a history of violent offending, should their child – without having committed a crime – be given more attention in terms of public policy, than the child of parents who are peaceful non violent hippies. –Luke Allum

A There are many statistical predictors of violence that we choose not to use in our decision-making for moral and political reasons, because the ideal of fairness trumps the ideal of cost-effectiveness. A rational decision-maker using Bayes’ theorem would say, for example, that one should convict a black defendant with less evidence than one needs with a white defendant, because these days the base rates for violence among blacks is higher. Thankfully, this rational policy would be seen as a moral abomination. I suspect that the same sentiments would prevent any policy from pre-judging a child based on the behavior of his parents, whether one thinks the connection is due to genes or to parenting.

Q In The Blank Slate you seemed to touch on this topic- calling it the “Noble Savage.” I would assume this book extends this work greatly. If violence played a big role in our EEA, what problems do you see arising in the future due to this, now that we can seemingly control our environments so well? –Ryan

A Yes, I present extensive statistics showing the non-state peoples (hunter-gatherers, hunter-horticulturalists, pastoralists, and others living outside the control of states) have far higher rates of violence than modern states, even at their worst. I think this very long prehistory of life under anarchy probably selected for motives that can continue to lead to violence today, particularly dominance and revenge, both of which are adaptive in a state of anarchy but not in societies with well-functioning systems for nonviolent dispute resolution. This does not mean that we harbor a thirst for blood which must periodically be discharged—even the most bellicose societies modulate their violence, and can live for decades in peace. Evolution gave us motives that impel us to violence, such as greed, dominance, revenge, and the urge to mete out moralistic punishment, but it also gave us motives that undermine or control the violent inclinations, such as self-control, empathy, and reason—the better angels of our nature.

 


Ricardo

This is a great discussion. It takes me back to the book "The 3rd Chimpanzee", by Jared Diamond, where we can have a glimpse of just how violent our stone age past was. Good to know mankind is still making progress (becoming more civilized). Hope is good, but when backed up by statistics it is better.

Ryan Ham

Q Does the recent history of violence within a society have any near-term predictive value with respect to future violence? That is to say, would a spike in violence due to a revolution or civil war portend a period of less violence, or of more violence? -David

A The timing of interstate wars is completely random (a Poisson process). That is, the outbreak of war does not make the next one more or less likely. There is some evidence that a country that hosts a genocide has an elevated probability of having a recurrence, but it’s tenuous.

In "The Bottom Billion," Paul Collier reports that the greatest predictor of whether a bottom billion country will fall into civil war is if they have recently emerged from a civil war. He calls this the conflict trap, and it seems an important factor in holding these countries back from economic growth. Is there some good news on this front, then? Is the picture not as bad now as it once seemed?

Read more...

Eric M. Jones

A contribution:

Since this is loosely an economics site, perhaps we should consider the history of "War Chests". These were not metaphorical, but were actually chests full of gold and silver (etc.) needed to buy the supplies, armaments and pay the troops for the adventure.

It's amazing how little effort you can get from your troops if you don't pay them anything. Booty added to the "War Chests", but protracted static battle lines were effectively impossible after the "War Chest" was empty.

Even WWII was funded partly by contributions, war bonds, etc. They were still asking for contributions to pay off the war when I was in primary school.

Carrying wars forward "Off the Budget" was impossible.

`robyn'blue

I don't know what you want from me. Is it to say that I discovered the `unity' of physics at the tender age of 12. Well, I did! That and 2 cents will not get me even on the subway these days.

It is in my book The Essentials of Sociology, in a paper that I wrote for Joseph Bensman and in the copyrighted book of Recalling Sociology 2003. It may even be in my dissertation, but frankly I am just to busy to look it up. So I guess it is already copyrighted, but, as a scientist, I still have my doubt.

Robyn Ann Goldstein. All rights reserved.

JBP

I find your books and ideas very interesting and pretty compelling, but the following clearly reveals a profound ignorance about violent encounters: "With private citizens, flush with self-serving biases, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, body counts can pile up as trigger-happy vigilantes mete out rough justice."

There are so many ways that the facts contradict this that I don't know were to start. Violent encounters are not rife with ambiguity. People don't have a hard time discerning if they are being attacked. Most of the time when a gun is drawn the other party quickly backs down due to fear. This is a good thing because most of the time, the victim is so affected by fear that he or she is unable to even fire the gun. There are a few people who can function in such an environment, but they are not may. One of the main reasons for the dominance of the US military is that our military traditions inadvertently developed a systems for teaching soldiers to be able to function in such an environment.

I could go on, but I have work to do.

BTW: as someone who is intelligent about statistics don't confuse technological advancement with non-violence. For example, a statistician had determined that our murder rate would be 30 times higher if we had the same level of medical technology. This is not to say that the long term trend has been towards less violence—any serious student of history cannot deny it. But comparing a hunter-gather society or the old west with modern murder rates can be very tricky and misleading. Yes, the west had a murder rate that was possibly five, maybe six, times higher than today, but then again, a person who suffered a gunshot was 30 times as likely to die of the wound. So the gunshot rate may have been lower.

Personally, I think it is evolutionary. 100,000 years ago evolution selected for people who were good at violence. With the rise of civilization, violent people tend to kill each other off at a greater rate than peaceful people and the state tends to kill or imprison violent people. Thus, evolution has done an about face and now selects against violent tendencies.

Read more...

Min

"BTW: as someone who is intelligent about statistics don’t confuse technological advancement with non-violence. For example, a statistician had determined that our murder rate would be 30 times higher if we had the same level of medical technology. This is not to say that the long term trend has been towards less violence—any serious student of history cannot deny it. But comparing a hunter-gather society or the old west with modern murder rates can be very tricky and misleading. Yes, the west had a murder rate that was possibly five, maybe six, times higher than today, but then again, a person who suffered a gunshot was 30 times as likely to die of the wound. So the gunshot rate may have been lower."

Hm, that's an interesting point that I never thought about. Perhaps part of the murder statistical difference between other developed countries and the US can be explained by the difference in quality of health services, particularly for the less affluent?

Read more...

Adam

"Q. - Is it possible this “Long Peace” is merely the calm before the storm? World War II happened less than a century ago and was by far the highest casualty war in recorded history (if Wikipedia is to be trusted, of course). I’ve been reading G. K. Chesterton lately, and he had some choice words about the false hope of progressive morality… and he was writing before both WWI and WWII. "

- Maybe we are all aren't thinking about it, but War is constant. Just because we haven't declared world war doesn't mean this is the calm before the storm. Besides, it seems in the US, it's all relative to what we see and hear. The Middle East has been at war... well, thousands of years. Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Russia (Cold War - and yes, plenty of deaths occurred during this period), Afghanistan, Latin America, African Civil Wars along with skirmishes to achieve independence throughout the 20th century from France and Britain, Cuba - why not throw in the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" while we're at it. And let's not forget the constant war on "Prevention" of war itself. Oh, and Libya. Sometimes we all need to really ask ourselves "What is war?" and then consider is this really a calm period?

All of those instances (plus many more) include violence to some degree. Measuring death is certainly a key statistic for war, but the true loss that is immeasurable is how the survivors of those lost and the survivors of each of the above are adversely affected. The loss of democracy and education in some areas. Dictatorships imposed after the loss of a war along with many other issues. All of these contribute, though long after the "end" of a war, to loss of human capital in society - and in my view, can be directly attributable to casualties of war.

Read more...

casualty

No one likes dominance (Simmel) - the vain people leave out the results of those who came before them, the ones with integrity do not. But I must admit this- if Joseph Bensman were alive today, he would have cited me by name. That is something of which I am certain of. So as far as the norm of science, I see no point to just publishing the results so as not to perish. They really need to be demonstrated and that takes time. If that makes me a revolutionary or disturber of the peace or creater of a new one in science- Alls, well and good. I attended a lecture by Peter Gay a long time ago. It was on the subject of certain people who disturb the peace. I prefer non-violence i.e., the ideal-type method of approach of understanding as an approach to gaining knowledge. Have been using it from the beginning. Just did not know it til Prof. Bensman called my approach to my attention.

PS. I am no hoarder. I have my own standards that I live up to. Always have, always will.. I throw papers away when I am done with them. And I am almost done with the last or first chapter so things are looking up. Four+ chapters of editing/organizing/clean-up to go. But at least, they are separately filed.

All this frivolity is fun, but of what use is it. I guess, everyone needs a break from time to time. Mine is/are blogging and dancing. For fantastic music, see Cesaria Evora (Angola)- I could dance all night!

Robyn Ann Goldstein

Read more...

James

"Peace would lead to decadence, effeminacy, materialism, selfishness, and intellectual and artistic stagnation."

And so today we arguably live in a world of decadence, effeminacy, materialism, selfishness, and intellectual (except in science & technology, which are pursued only by a handful of us geeks) and artistic stagnation.

robin who?

Peace (of the sort that dreams of a paradise) (Weber) would....., but `peace' won't. So Rich-ardo, I do somewhat agree with your "geek" reference as in "fool, from Low German geck." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.)

Enter your name...

I suspect that the lack of violence correlates with the declining birth rates. It seems like it would be easier to get people to risk one boy out of half a dozen offspring than to risk 100% of their offspring. As a result, the invention of reliable pregnancy prevention methods might be one of the most significant contributors to declining state violence.

George

Why isn't Pinker's book available on Kindle!? They let me pre-order it but now it's not available. *bitter tears*

lcriv

I had a thought about this concept that a student made me ponder in class (I am a teacher in CA). They said that fewer people are joining up with gangs in our area, and participating in illegal and destructive activity, because they are playing many more hours of video games. We then went on to discuss that time is a limited resource and tie the concept to opportunity cost and cost benefit analysis in general i.e. if they are playing video games they can't be committing robberies, tagging etc. An opportunity for research perhaps.

Ian M

I always thought calculus was the most important math in science and engineering (and was lead to believe so). Wrong! I have found, in the 13 years since graduation, that statistics is clearly as important or more important. I wish I had put more effort into it.

round robin

Dear Ian;

It may well be that statistics seems more important than algebra these days.

However, in so far as 1) there is a rigorous (as in relatively rational side to the unity that we can ascribe to Mathematics, and 2) it is the unity of understanding that what divides Mathematics is what unites Mathematics with every other science; it may be claimed 3) that the difficulty of establishing the relationship between the concrete and the abstract sides of Mathematics (plural) is of understanding that there isn’t a connection or whole of which one can be absolutely certain i.e., only relatively so as far as the individual understanding that the problem of the divide between quantity and quality is only a bit (but not completely)surmountable and 4) that neither one of the perspectives is really more important than the other.

In other words, the `unity' of understanding that stands as the highest level of real philosophical perfection that is attainable in any science is the unity that Kant and Descartes were seeking, but that (as it seems) they did not find (but that Braithwaite, Popper and Kuhn's were aiming for someone to establish (make clear and obvious) as I have here and now.

Copyright Robyn Goldstein. All Rights Reserved 2003. No part (two words) of this text may be used without permission of the author.

Read more...

B Warden

Hey Mr/Mrs Non Sequitor, please stop posting random po-mo nonsense. Your comments have nothing to do w/ Pinkers book or the topic of this q&a. I realize that you consider yourself insightful/intelligent/etc. but you're not; you're just annoying.

Clancy

"It isn’t just guns, because even if you subtract all the killings with firearms and count only the ones with rope, knives, lead pipes, wrenches, candlesticks, and so on, Americans still kill at a higher rate than Europeans"

What if we account for murders that take place in the kitchen, lounge, ballroom, conservatory, billiard room, etc.?

AaronS

The study of statistics and analytics will almost certainly do nothing to change things. Why? Because unless a person's brain is wired to comprehend the magnitude of a billion or a trillion, then saying "There's only a one in billion chance that your child will be abducted and killed" means "There is a chance your child will be abducted and killed."

Yes, by all means we should seek to know more, but I am convinced that the "mathematical brain" understands these things far more than the (let's call it) "literary brain." So will you may allow your children to walk alone to school, knowing and comprehending the odds, some of us would never allow that. Not because we can't repeat the statistical chances for harm, but because our minds do not truly grasp how safe our kids are.

When I go to the beach and am told there is a better chance of me being hit by lightning than being bit by a shark, I'm thinking, "You know, it wouldn't be very hard for me to get hit by lightning."

Read more...

Ryan

I think its pretty cool that steven responded to my question.