Rob Riemen: Steve Pinker, thanks mak­ing time to meet you here at Harvard, still the best uni­ver­si­ty in the world. Can you tell a lit­tle bit more about the inter­est of your schol­ar­ly work? What is it that you’re work­ing on and why?

Steven Pinker: I’m inter­est­ed in human nature, and for­tu­nate­ly that cov­ers many top­ics. I have writ­ten on every­thing from how to write well, to why lan­guages have irreg­u­lar verbs, to the his­tor­i­cal trends in war, peace, mur­der, and geno­cide, to visu­al cognition—how we form men­tal images, how we rec­og­nize shapes and faces. And one of the great advan­tages of being a psy­chol­o­gist is that you can write about all of these top­ics because they all have to do with human nature.

Riemen: And do you think that because you know, there are a few oth­er fields like philoso­phers or the­olo­gians, who claim also to know every­thing. What’s the difference?

Pinker: Well, phi­los­o­phy is very much relat­ed to psy­chol­o­gy, and of course it was philoso­phers who first raised ques­tions about the nature of human nature. I don’t think there’s a sharp divi­sion between the field of phi­los­o­phy and the field of psy­chol­o­gy. There are philo­soph­i­cal ques­tions and psy­cho­log­i­cal ques­tion. Philosophical ques­tions about the nature of ideas, how they’re log­i­cal­ly relat­ed to each oth­er. Psychological ques­tions are more empir­i­cal. How does the human brain come to think cer­tain kinds of thoughts and have cer­tain kinds of val­ues. But in my expe­ri­ence, they’ve all been close­ly related.

Riemen: You have been so extreme­ly kind to accept our invi­ta­tion to be one of the speak­ers of the Nexus Conference on November 12, What Will Save the World?” You’re world-famous, you’re very much in demand, you’re an extreme­ly busy man. Why did you accept the invi­ta­tion to come to Amsterdam, make time, and to be present and speak at that conference?

Pinker: Well, I like big ques­tions, and there could be no big­ger ques­tion that will save the world. I don’t think that any­thing will save the world in the sense of bring­ing Utopia to Earth. But I think the world could be improved, and that would be the ver­sion of the ques­tion that I’m very much inter­est­ed in. Because I think the world has improved, and can improve further.

Riemen: One of the most famous peo­ple in the world of psy­chol­o­gy, Sigmund Freud, was I guess much less opti­mistic. If I under­stand him well, he was espe­cial­ly inter­est­ed in the ques­tion, Why are things going wrong all the time?” We will also have reli­gious peo­ple, and prob­a­bly they will say, Well, it goes wrong because there’s some­thing like orig­i­nal sin.” On a sec­u­lar lev­el, Freud will point at the dark side of human nature. Why do you think it’s going wrong so often?

Pinker: Yes. Well, like Freud I do believe that human nature has a dark side. I believe that being a mem­ber of a civ­i­lized soci­ety involves com­pro­mis­es and dis­con­tents, as Freud so famous­ly put it. I think that aspects of human nature inevitably come into con­flict with the aspects of human nature in oth­er peo­ple. I don’t think that men and women want exact­ly the same thing. I don’t think that par­ents and chil­dren want exact­ly the same thing. Even close friends don’t always want the same thing. There’s always ten­sion, there’s always con­flicts of inter­est. That’s why there’s great lit­er­a­ture; that’s why there’s tragedy. 

On the oth­er hand, one com­po­nent of human nature is the abil­i­ty to pose and solve prob­lems, and to com­mu­ni­cate our solu­tions to oth­er peo­ple via lan­guage. Thanks to writ­ing, we can accu­mu­late good ideas. We can try out ways of improv­ing human life, keep the ones that work, dis­card the ones that don’t work. Learn from our mis­takes, learn from our tragedies. And bit by bit, fig­ure out ways in which we can min­i­mize the effect of human con­flict. And I think the data show that we’ve been doing it.

Another rea­son that Freud was so pes­simistic is that he was sit­u­at­ed in one of the worst times of human his­to­ry, the years fol­low­ing the First World War, which he lived through, and imme­di­ate­ly pre­ced­ing the Second World War. He lived to see the Anschluss. His daugh­ter was arrest­ed by the Nazis. He escaped from the Nazis just in time to spend the last year of his life in London. And so he saw the clouds gath­er­ing for one of the worst inter­ludes in human his­to­ry, the Second World War.

And indeed, if the world that Freud lived in had con­tin­ued, none of us should be an opti­mist, because those were dark days indeed. And of course there were pre­dic­tions after the Second World War that the two world wars were just the begin­ning of an esca­lat­ing series. World War III was inevitable. It would be even worse because of nuclear weapons.

We are now more than sev­en­ty years after the end of World War II and World War III did not hap­pen. No nuclear weapon has been used since Nagasaki. The world has become more demo­c­ra­t­ic, more afflu­ent, more free, more peace­ful, in these sev­en­ty years. That’s no guar­an­tee that it will con­tin­ue. No one can prophe­cy the future. I don’t have the gift of clair­voy­ance to be able to see into the future. But it shows that the kind of doom that many intel­lec­tu­als felt after World War II is not inevitable. There are actions that we can take that reduce the risks, and for­tu­nate­ly we have been tak­ing— [record­ing cuts short]

Further Reference

Nexus Conference 2016, "What Will Save the World?"


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.