Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQDca1iI1GgcMwBl65XRvJaAnZOv6sCjmAamy_7cioVMV4U_VnBksgZrIKTe5P4aneEXtion1ZA7iPe/pubhtml#

by matnessme • 8 years ago

166 40 8 years ago

docs.google.com

matnessme• 8 years ago

Here is a "commentable" copy of the sheet. (also easier to make a copy of)

http://bit.do/pinker-fav-books

sascha_sl• 8 years ago

Why the non-https URL shortener?

Noumenon72• 8 years ago

For me there's a giant green orb covering the bottom right quadrant of the screen. I didn't investigate it.

no_news_is• 8 years ago

Thanks, that was a step towards what I would have liked to see. Here's the same link without the url shortner.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...

Not sure if this link will work without going through the proper method, but here's a direct XLSX download link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...

adamnemecek• 8 years ago

Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.

wodenokoto• 8 years ago

You could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.

iainmerrick• 8 years ago

Unless you have training and experience in the specific topic area, you probably won’t get much out of a “real” science book. We all need pop science.

(There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)

hsitz• 8 years ago

Well, it would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that he is only, or even primarily, a pop-science writer. If you take a look at his CV you see that he is clearly an expert in his field with plenty of work directed at scientific audience:

https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/cv_steven_pinker...

sfsylvester• 8 years ago

Idk why people say they like Lolita.

Why not read the pdf Pinker linked to then [0]. It's a very interesting psycho-analysis of a fictional character.

[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y1c9mbe8x1v51y/Brown%20Lolita%20R...

freddie_mercury• 8 years ago

He includes a link explaining why he likes Lolita. The only reason you don't know is because you didn't click the link and try to learn.

Or is "idk" your considered reply to the 7 page review?

FabHK4• 8 years ago

There's an annotated version of Lolita that might help you understand its richness [1].

FWIW, Wikipedia states (with source) that "Many authors consider it the greatest novel of the 20th century".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-679-7272...

zby• 8 years ago

Wonderfull! If only he added dates of release. Some of them are maybe truly timeless - but still.

MaxBarraclough3• 8 years ago

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures).

In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done.

Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken?

Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.

FabHK4• 8 years ago

I recently re-read it and didn't find it dated. I suppose if you've taken in its lessons, then it over-emphasises its point a bit, but consider that (as Pinker points out) "its main point still needs to be made 40+ years later. Most journalists, psychologists, and intellectuals commenting on natural selection still write as if it acts for the good of the group or the species, without even realizing they have said anything problematic or contentious."

Also, the stuff on evolutionary stable strategies is very insightful and lucidly explained.

juskrey• 8 years ago

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

FabHK4• 8 years ago

I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.

Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

nabla93• 8 years ago

The Novak et al. paper was heavily rebutted.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...

http://ped.fas.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature09836.pdf

amadeuspagel• 8 years ago

What unit of selection other then the gene is there?

sarosh2• 8 years ago

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...

theoh2• 8 years ago

It's only a pity if you can't be bothered to Google "pinker dennett" and find multiple recordings of the pair in conversation.

MaxBarraclough3• 8 years ago

You can spare me the snark next time, but thanks. I'd assumed it didn't exist as, from what I can tell, Dennett isn't usually one for that kind of thing.

trukterious• 8 years ago

I read Dawkins before Darwin, which made sense. Just as, if I wanted to learn relativity, I wouldn't go to Einstein's papers first.

empath75• 8 years ago

They’re actually fairly readable as an introduction. Remember they were written for an audience for whom this was a radically new idea.

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1...

Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

Related Stories