Wow, that's one of the most egregious and intricately constructed straw man attacks I've ever seen. It's above and beyond the New Yorker's ordinary standard of belittlement and misrepresentation. Thank you. <Edit>Heh. I just noticed the other commenter who added a link to a description of the tu quoque falacy, which is brilliant. I agree that Pinker can often be a bit facile, and he does tend to caricaturize his opponents (although invariably using their own words to do it). But this takedown piece attributes ideas and attitudes to Pinker that are not only not in evidence, but which are frankly and directly contradicted in the actual text of the book.</edit>
Care to elaborate, or are we just going to trade claims of logical fallacies all day (please kill me first)? Pinker is the prime exponent of a field (evolutionary psychology) widely regarded by other scientists as a pseudo-science. When I had him as a lecturer, his own TAs would ridicule the shoddy claims he made in lecture behind his back (e.g. that old one about how men prefer blondes because it reminds them of the savannah, I kid you not) and encouraged us to think critically about them.
Pinker is a great writer, and he's exposed a lot of people to new ideas. Many of those ideas are extremely bad and have little basis in evidence. He's also in dangerous territory alongside assholes like Charles Murray and the Thornhills.
"To say that music is the product of a gene for “art-making,” naturally selected to impress potential mates—which is one of the things Pinker believes." No, it's not. "Pinker doesn't care much for art, though." Assumes facts not in evidence. "It's O.K. to rewire people's “natural” sense of a just price or the movement of a subatomic particle, in other words, but it's a waste of time to tinker with their untutored notions of gender difference." Snidely misrepresents Pinker's thesis, which is simply that gender differences are real, are a product of evolution, and that an assumption that gender differences are social constructs is dangerous and wrong. "He argues, for example, that democracy, the rule of law, and women's reproductive freedom are all products of evolution." No, he doesn't. Would anyone? That's all in just a few lines. I don't really have the time or intestinal fortitude to give you a whole line-by-line refutation. Maybe just read what Pinker wrote, instead of this hatchet job?
A final note, as I think we're both growing bored with this, but if you find accusations of logical fallacy so tedious, perhaps avoid making statements like "He's also in dangerous territory alongside assholes like Charles Murray and the Thornhills."
The idea that people can't be forced to arbitrary behaviour is not the same as the idea that people's minds are rigid. Also modern war is not what it used to. You need huge organization, funds and convincing people to risk their lives.
Except maybe in the USA, that patriotic feeling is no longer prevalent in first world countries. And that with professional armies. What happened last time you had forced draft? Was it Vietnam?
You'd need a huge amount of money for propaganda that would fire back anyway. A sensible percentage of population sees the (usually economic) interests through the justifications.
An existential threat would hcange that in short order. Terrorism involving the destruction of planes, trains, or individual buildings makes people angry and afraid, but if an actual state were to launch a conventional war I think you'd have no problem re-instituting a draft even in democracies. Of course in many countries a sufficiently serious attack would raise the prospect of nuclear retaliation; a nuclear capability is an economic substitute for conscription.
