Why Steven Pinker Wins, or Why You Need to be a Public Expert
In 2011, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote a book called “The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes.” In it, Pinker argued that the incidence of physical violence worldwide (wars, terrorism, various assaults) has been trending downward over the past several thousand years — and precipitously so since the Enlightenment.
We think the world is supremely violent, Pinker argues, but that’s actually a perceptual distortion fueled by media coverage. No era has been as peaceful.
That simple and (to many) seductively counterintuitive idea launched Pinker to heights of public recognition seldom reached by academics. It’s not an exaggeration to say “Better Angels” helped define the 2010s in ideas. Bill Gates called it “the most inspiring book I have ever read.” In a 2019 informal poll of students in elite colleges he was addressing, New York Times columnist David Brooks discovered the person most of the students wanted to be like was…Steven Pinker. For many, especially after the publication of his subsequent book, “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker became a leading avatar of those who want to take a scientific, rationalist, optimistic approach to affairs. He was a rock star intellectual.
Pinker already had tons of cultural authority before “Better Angels.” People trusted him. He has always translated his expertise very effectively for non-experts. He is exceptionally good at being a public expert.
Keep in mind: Pinker isn’t a historian. He’s a cognitive psychologist and linguist. So he’s not a certified expert in the history of violence. It’s not what he studies for a living.
But “Better Angels” and “Enlightenment Now” did have strong POVs; compelling, counterintuitive arguments that grabbed attention; convincingly marshaled research; and a lot of goodwill banked from Pinker’s previous thought leadership.
RELATED
The New School historian on when to turn down a media opportunity, why corporations need historians on staff, how she preps for a podcast and why female scholars need to own their ideas publicly ASAP.
Pinker had published five books before “Better Angels,” including the best-sellers “Blank Slate” and “How the Mind Works.” He speaks well, writes fluidly, fields questions in TV and live interviews with aplomb, and has authored many op-eds and articles.
In other words, Pinker already had tons of cultural authority before “Better Angels.” People trusted him. He has always translated his expertise very effectively for non-experts. He is exceptionally good at being a public expert.
Was Pinker Wrong? Research Alone Couldn’t Start That Conversation
But what if Pinker’s thesis about a historical decline in violence were wrong? Who would tell us?
A group of historians tried in 2018. They got together and published a special issue in the journal Historical Reflections that argued Pinker’s read of the literature and the data on violence throughout history are “seriously, if not fatally, flawed.”
Some of the article titles in this special issue: “Getting Medieval on Steven Pinker: Violence and Medieval England.” “Whitewashing History: Pinker’s (Mis)Representation of the Enlightenment and Violence.” “What Pinker Leaves Out.”
In the introduction, the editors of the special issue wrote they were worried that a “Pinker Thesis” was spreading globally, being “elevated into a founding statement in the historiography of human violence.”
But their arguments got zero traction.
Almost all the articles were paywalled — so no one knew about them except those few with journal access.
RELATED
You're 'The Central Place' Now
Pick yourself and the ones who want to talk to you.
Their views didn’t receive any English-language news coverage. They weren’t prominent on Twitter. Pinker doesn’t even deal with them in his online FAQ on the book.
The meme that Pinker initiated—that “violence has been declining throughout the modern era”—has continued to dominate conversations about whether the world is getting better or worse.
To be crude: Pinker might have wildly distorted historical trends in violence. But his meme is winning.
That’s because Pinker is a public expert. Yes, his opponents are experts. But in their battle against Pinker, they had no public weight or standing, no pre-established trust with a community outside of academia that would carry their arguments forward. This—as much as the inaccessibilty of their arguments because of paywall—guaranteed their responses to Pinker would have no traction.
Experts vs. Public Experts
It’s essential for all sorts of reasons that our public experts actually be experts. If Pinker was wrong about the long trend of violence but a majority of people bought his arguments because he’s won their trust in other realms, that’s not healthy for society.
On the other hand, it’s also less than ideal when society can’t access the best ideas, solutions, framings and arguments of its experts. Not just because those assets are behind a paywall—but also because those experts don’t have the skills and habits to be effective in public.
In science and research, expertise—i.e., specialized skill or knowledge—is certified, based on standards set by the expert community. Once you earn it, it’s yours.
Public experts are really good at winning and holding authority. Expertise is often a key marker of authority — but usually and increasingly, it isn’t enough by itself.
Being a public expert, on the other hand, refers to a set of skills, a willingness to use those skills to put your expertise forward, and a communal dynamic that finds value in that expertise. Public expertise isn’t just being good with the media anymore: It rests on trust and authority, which the MacMillan Dictionary defines as ”the power to influence other people because they respect your opinions or knowledge.” Authority requires two parties: one to trust, and one to earn that trust. Authority has to be cultivated and maintained.
RELATED
Just Expertise Alone Isn't Trustworthy
The US public consistently lacks high levels of trust in scientists. Scientists need to realize that science alone doesn't automatically yield public trust.
Public experts are really good at winning and holding authority. Expertise is often a key marker of authority — but usually and increasingly, it isn’t enough by itself. Public experts win it through persuasive argument, compelling storytelling, association with a brand-name institution or paradigm we admire, and the approval of others in our community we trust.
If you’d rather do an edited volume than mount a sustained public ideas campaign with opinion pieces, social media, and media and podcast outreach, you’re not going to win the argument.
Authority eats expertise every time. See: climate change communications.
Is all this unfair? Wrong question, I think.
Better question: Why aren’t more experts also doing the work of becoming authorities?
Because you can be both. +