Four Books I Wish Everyone Would Read
Apr. 5th, 2022 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormsewerThere are four books I've read in the last five years or so that together have clarified and crystallized a lot for me. As a whole I'd say they constitute an excellent guide to making good choices, both as individuals and as societies, and I hope that someday, in some form, what they impart will be accepted as basic wisdom across our species. (Though I have no delusions that everyone will read or agree with them.)
The first two I would class under "User Manuals for Your Brain."
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. A rightfully famous book, it goes through many of the important ways humans make errors in judgment and how to get better at avoiding those errors. A high-level summary might be a quote from another behavioral scientist, Antonio Damasio: "You will be much more in control if you realize how much you are not in control."
Behave by Robert Sapolsky. The first half (which is honestly a bit dense) goes through all the different contributors to human behavior, from neurochemistry and hormones to cultural and evolutionary history. The second half discusses the salient characteristics of human behavior and how it might be improved. Basically, perhaps the most consequential behavioral quirk of our species is our habit of dividing people into Us and Them. Our best behaviors are directed at Us, and our worst behaviors are directed at Them. (In fact, the worst of the worst behaviors are directed at Thems seen as oppressors who have lost power and become vulnerable.) The line dividing Us from Them is fluid, however, and a better world (and, I would argue, a more fulfilling life) comes from broadening our concept of Us as much as possible.
The second two I would class under "How to Handle the Future."
Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. Makes a strong, data-driven case that just about every measure of human welfare you can think of has improved dramatically not just in the past few centuries but in the past few decades (though you wouldn't know that from the news), and that the cause is reason, science, and humanism. I found this book very energizing. It made me feel a lot better about where we are, and a lot more optimistic that current problems can be solved [1]. I think this book may have finally a cured me of my penchant for apocalyptic thinking, which is frankly a relief [2].
Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. I think this was originally sold to me as a fusion of modern science and indigenous wisdom. While that's not wrong, it's really an argument that if we are to transition to a civilization that is stable over the long term, we need to revive and reinvigorate certain aspects of the indigenous mindset. Specifically, we need to nurture an attitude of love, respect, and reciprocity towards the land on which we live and from which we take our living [3]. The book consists of practical advice on how to develop that mindset, and it's a gem.
Actually, I think Pinker and Kimmerer would view each other's ideas with some suspicion. Pinker is all "yay modernity," and Kimmerer is pretty skeptical of it (though as a member of a group that was steam-rolled on the way here, I think she has a right to be). We need some healthy skepticism to continue rooting out and solving problems, and we need to face up to the mistakes our culture has made and the problems that still exist in it if we are to continue to make it better. In that respect skeptics of progress are important. Despite their differences, I believe a fusion of the attitudes of Pinker and Kimmerer is our best hope for the future.
Notes
[1] In fact, this book told me what I want to hear to such an extent that it scared me. After finishing I went and read every critical article about it I could find. Some quibbled about minor details, some just seemed mad that Pinker criticized a group they consider themselves a part of (example: "Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves 'progressive' really hate progress."), some seemed to hostile to the very idea that data can be used to understand the world, and a surprising number appeared not to have even read the book, but ultimately I concluded that none made a real dent in its central theses.
[2] In tandem, the Sapolsky and Pinker books have led me to view history (in admittedly oversimplified terms) as a contest between those who find safety and meaning in exclusive group membership and are looking for a strong leader to advance the interests of that group at the expense of all others (i.e., those who like a small Us), and those who want to improve everyone's lot, regardless of what group they appear to belong to (i.e., those who like a big Us). For most of the history of civilization, the former group was indisputably dominant, but in the last few hundred years the latter has gained strength and is now arguably the dominant paradigm. (Fun fact from Enlightenment Now: As of 2015, two thirds of the world's population lives in a more-or-less functional democracy, and the majority of those who don't live in a single country, China.) There are still plenty of people who find comfort in the old model, which is far from dead, so the rest of us need to hold fast, since we know the old way only leads to war and oppression, and its adherents can do a lot of damage very fast. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a prime example. Frankly I've been heartened by the response to it thus far; we need to make sure that venture ends in failure. (The question of whether I'm making a Them of those who don't like a big Us is left as an exercise for the reader.)
[3] This obviously pushes back against the idea that the natural world should be exploited however we see fit, which I associate with the Right, but it also pushes back against an idea I associate with the Left, namely that humans should withdraw from the natural world and leave it to its own devices. The idea of reciprocity is to treat the natural world like a garden: if we take care of it, it will take care of us.
The first two I would class under "User Manuals for Your Brain."
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. A rightfully famous book, it goes through many of the important ways humans make errors in judgment and how to get better at avoiding those errors. A high-level summary might be a quote from another behavioral scientist, Antonio Damasio: "You will be much more in control if you realize how much you are not in control."
Behave by Robert Sapolsky. The first half (which is honestly a bit dense) goes through all the different contributors to human behavior, from neurochemistry and hormones to cultural and evolutionary history. The second half discusses the salient characteristics of human behavior and how it might be improved. Basically, perhaps the most consequential behavioral quirk of our species is our habit of dividing people into Us and Them. Our best behaviors are directed at Us, and our worst behaviors are directed at Them. (In fact, the worst of the worst behaviors are directed at Thems seen as oppressors who have lost power and become vulnerable.) The line dividing Us from Them is fluid, however, and a better world (and, I would argue, a more fulfilling life) comes from broadening our concept of Us as much as possible.
The second two I would class under "How to Handle the Future."
Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. Makes a strong, data-driven case that just about every measure of human welfare you can think of has improved dramatically not just in the past few centuries but in the past few decades (though you wouldn't know that from the news), and that the cause is reason, science, and humanism. I found this book very energizing. It made me feel a lot better about where we are, and a lot more optimistic that current problems can be solved [1]. I think this book may have finally a cured me of my penchant for apocalyptic thinking, which is frankly a relief [2].
Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. I think this was originally sold to me as a fusion of modern science and indigenous wisdom. While that's not wrong, it's really an argument that if we are to transition to a civilization that is stable over the long term, we need to revive and reinvigorate certain aspects of the indigenous mindset. Specifically, we need to nurture an attitude of love, respect, and reciprocity towards the land on which we live and from which we take our living [3]. The book consists of practical advice on how to develop that mindset, and it's a gem.
Actually, I think Pinker and Kimmerer would view each other's ideas with some suspicion. Pinker is all "yay modernity," and Kimmerer is pretty skeptical of it (though as a member of a group that was steam-rolled on the way here, I think she has a right to be). We need some healthy skepticism to continue rooting out and solving problems, and we need to face up to the mistakes our culture has made and the problems that still exist in it if we are to continue to make it better. In that respect skeptics of progress are important. Despite their differences, I believe a fusion of the attitudes of Pinker and Kimmerer is our best hope for the future.
Notes
[1] In fact, this book told me what I want to hear to such an extent that it scared me. After finishing I went and read every critical article about it I could find. Some quibbled about minor details, some just seemed mad that Pinker criticized a group they consider themselves a part of (example: "Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves 'progressive' really hate progress."), some seemed to hostile to the very idea that data can be used to understand the world, and a surprising number appeared not to have even read the book, but ultimately I concluded that none made a real dent in its central theses.
[2] In tandem, the Sapolsky and Pinker books have led me to view history (in admittedly oversimplified terms) as a contest between those who find safety and meaning in exclusive group membership and are looking for a strong leader to advance the interests of that group at the expense of all others (i.e., those who like a small Us), and those who want to improve everyone's lot, regardless of what group they appear to belong to (i.e., those who like a big Us). For most of the history of civilization, the former group was indisputably dominant, but in the last few hundred years the latter has gained strength and is now arguably the dominant paradigm. (Fun fact from Enlightenment Now: As of 2015, two thirds of the world's population lives in a more-or-less functional democracy, and the majority of those who don't live in a single country, China.) There are still plenty of people who find comfort in the old model, which is far from dead, so the rest of us need to hold fast, since we know the old way only leads to war and oppression, and its adherents can do a lot of damage very fast. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a prime example. Frankly I've been heartened by the response to it thus far; we need to make sure that venture ends in failure. (The question of whether I'm making a Them of those who don't like a big Us is left as an exercise for the reader.)
[3] This obviously pushes back against the idea that the natural world should be exploited however we see fit, which I associate with the Right, but it also pushes back against an idea I associate with the Left, namely that humans should withdraw from the natural world and leave it to its own devices. The idea of reciprocity is to treat the natural world like a garden: if we take care of it, it will take care of us.
