I, too, have been confused about Pinker's not citing Wright.
He did, once — I have a clear memory that it was in one of his many TED talks, in which he quoted Wright as (humorously) saying "Among the reasons I do not want to United States to go to war with Japan is that they made my minivan". (But I also have a clear memory of looking for this quote, and not finding it, so...!)
Re: ChatGPT's thinking that Pinker would tsk-tsk Wright's eschatological end, I'd wager (but just a bit!) that the transcript of their conversation (some years ago) on Wright's (excellent) podcast was in its training data. Wright thinks that greater and greater intelligence is a consistent theme in evolution, while Pinker thinks that it's not.
...why do I know so much about this? My goodness. What have I been spending my hours on...
Thanks for this additional insight into their relationship, and I appreciate that the hours you have spent can be turned to some profitable use. Unlike my hours which are mostly wasted... ;)
From the little bit in your review of Carse, he reminds me of Martin Buber. I would say, subjectively, that Buber is about not winning. I see that in what he's trying to say, and also, his writing doesn't win. I.e., it's hard to pay attention to. Definitely true of Between Man and Man, maybe a little less true of I and Thou. I and Thou is his big book, in continental philosophy form, Between Man and Man covers similar territory in a more concrete way. I think I and Thou is harder to read but easier to try to read, if that makes sense.
Winning authors go in for the kill and get you to be interested or obsessed. I think that Pinker, Yudkowsky, and Dawkins are very much about Winning, and Rand, Thiel, and Taleb may be (don't know much about Kendi). Buber is different. I think Buber is basically good (with my rational and quietly intuitive self), but I find it hard to be obsessed by him. I think that many others are basically bad or at best mixed, but much easier to get obsessed with, and they have more cultural power.
I thought that Buber was a more or less forgotten name, because he didn't come up in the online circles that I've been part of (EA/rationalist, Christian but seemingly mostly Catholic or Calvinist rather than the others.) But someone told me that he's big in the therapy world, and I think he has been big in education and among pastors, not sure if he still is. Those are the Buber fans, and you can see how extending a conversation rather than winning would be their thing. People like them might like or even champion Carse.
Catholics, Calvinists, EAs, rationalists, (the Catholics/Calvinists who get in the same spheres as EAs and rationalists) may all be about society, structure, power, policies, the greater good, culture as a whole, etc. -- a fundamentally impersonal world, in terms of how a person relates to it. Whereas therapists, pastors, and teachers are more into individual people, or relatively small groups of people -- a fundamentally interpersonal world. Nonzero (from your review) sounds like it fits into the Big Impersonal world, while Buber (and maybe Carse) fits into the Small Interpersonal world.
You might very well be correct, and what you say makes sense. I'm trying to remember the specific context in which Carse was recommended to me, because my sense is that he was recommended a lot. As such it's possible that my expectations were too high. I expected a book that would blow me away and instead found a book that wasn't so much "in your face".
Nevertheless, I remaind baffled by the appeal and if there is someone out there who could explain things to me that would be great.
Yeah, I'm not sure what all possible appeals something like Carse or Buber could have for people. Not winning can be attractive if you need to make space for other people, or maybe as a prelude to reconciling, which might be more valuable in the long run than getting your way. Maybe also the agenda-less mode of thinking helps you see the truth better sometimes.
Secondary literature for philosophy exists, and maybe for Carse? Like walkthroughs for text adventures. But like text adventures, solving the puzzle yourself is a bit different experience than using the walkthrough. I think something like Buber is partly about learning a mindset or a vibe (right-brained?) rather than ideas (left-brained?).
I, too, have been confused about Pinker's not citing Wright.
He did, once — I have a clear memory that it was in one of his many TED talks, in which he quoted Wright as (humorously) saying "Among the reasons I do not want to United States to go to war with Japan is that they made my minivan". (But I also have a clear memory of looking for this quote, and not finding it, so...!)
Re: ChatGPT's thinking that Pinker would tsk-tsk Wright's eschatological end, I'd wager (but just a bit!) that the transcript of their conversation (some years ago) on Wright's (excellent) podcast was in its training data. Wright thinks that greater and greater intelligence is a consistent theme in evolution, while Pinker thinks that it's not.
...why do I know so much about this? My goodness. What have I been spending my hours on...
Thanks for this additional insight into their relationship, and I appreciate that the hours you have spent can be turned to some profitable use. Unlike my hours which are mostly wasted... ;)
From the little bit in your review of Carse, he reminds me of Martin Buber. I would say, subjectively, that Buber is about not winning. I see that in what he's trying to say, and also, his writing doesn't win. I.e., it's hard to pay attention to. Definitely true of Between Man and Man, maybe a little less true of I and Thou. I and Thou is his big book, in continental philosophy form, Between Man and Man covers similar territory in a more concrete way. I think I and Thou is harder to read but easier to try to read, if that makes sense.
Winning authors go in for the kill and get you to be interested or obsessed. I think that Pinker, Yudkowsky, and Dawkins are very much about Winning, and Rand, Thiel, and Taleb may be (don't know much about Kendi). Buber is different. I think Buber is basically good (with my rational and quietly intuitive self), but I find it hard to be obsessed by him. I think that many others are basically bad or at best mixed, but much easier to get obsessed with, and they have more cultural power.
I thought that Buber was a more or less forgotten name, because he didn't come up in the online circles that I've been part of (EA/rationalist, Christian but seemingly mostly Catholic or Calvinist rather than the others.) But someone told me that he's big in the therapy world, and I think he has been big in education and among pastors, not sure if he still is. Those are the Buber fans, and you can see how extending a conversation rather than winning would be their thing. People like them might like or even champion Carse.
Catholics, Calvinists, EAs, rationalists, (the Catholics/Calvinists who get in the same spheres as EAs and rationalists) may all be about society, structure, power, policies, the greater good, culture as a whole, etc. -- a fundamentally impersonal world, in terms of how a person relates to it. Whereas therapists, pastors, and teachers are more into individual people, or relatively small groups of people -- a fundamentally interpersonal world. Nonzero (from your review) sounds like it fits into the Big Impersonal world, while Buber (and maybe Carse) fits into the Small Interpersonal world.
You might very well be correct, and what you say makes sense. I'm trying to remember the specific context in which Carse was recommended to me, because my sense is that he was recommended a lot. As such it's possible that my expectations were too high. I expected a book that would blow me away and instead found a book that wasn't so much "in your face".
Nevertheless, I remaind baffled by the appeal and if there is someone out there who could explain things to me that would be great.
Yeah, I'm not sure what all possible appeals something like Carse or Buber could have for people. Not winning can be attractive if you need to make space for other people, or maybe as a prelude to reconciling, which might be more valuable in the long run than getting your way. Maybe also the agenda-less mode of thinking helps you see the truth better sometimes.
Secondary literature for philosophy exists, and maybe for Carse? Like walkthroughs for text adventures. But like text adventures, solving the puzzle yourself is a bit different experience than using the walkthrough. I think something like Buber is partly about learning a mindset or a vibe (right-brained?) rather than ideas (left-brained?).