Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

Steven Pinker (Goodreads Author)

3.86 · Rating details · 2,997 ratings · 384 reviews

A TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR 2021

In Rationality, Pinker rejects the cynical cliché that humans are simply an irrational species - cavemen out of time fatally cursed with biases, fallacies and illusions. After all, we discovered the laws of nature, lengthened and enriched our lives and set the benchmarks for rationality itself. Instead, he explains, we think in ways that suit t ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 432 pages

Published September 28th 2021 by Allen Lane

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Rationality, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Frontlines of Peace by Severine Autesserre

A Swim in a Pond in the Rain by George Saunders

Non-Fiction Published in Year: 2021

1,077 books — 214 voters

You Have More Influence Than You Think by Vanessa Bohns

The Elements of Choice by Eric J Johnson

Behavioral Scientist’s Notable Books of 2021

37 books — 4 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.86 ·

Rating details

· 2,997 ratings · 384 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

Nov 29, 2021 Yun rated it liked it

Shelves: arc-review-copy

I'd like to think I'm a rational being, but I also know that I'm prone to sporadic fits of irrationality, just like everyone else out there. So I when I came across this book, I knew I had to read it. I was hoping it would give me insight into myself, and also help me understand why it seems like a large portion of our population have lately given in to the irrational devils of our nature.

And this book did offer insight. In particular, the first and second to last chapters were riveting, approac I'd like to think I'm a rational being, but I also know that I'm prone to sporadic fits of irrationality, just like everyone else out there. So I when I came across this book, I knew I had to read it. I was hoping it would give me insight into myself, and also help me understand why it seems like a large portion of our population have lately given in to the irrational devils of our nature.

And this book did offer insight. In particular, the first and second to last chapters were riveting, approaching the discussion from psychological and sociological perspectives. The examples on how people end up making less than optimal choices are intriguing, and this book offers the most intuitive explanation of the Monty Hall problem I've ever come across. And the concluding discussion on personal knowledge being divided into two different zones, real and mythological, is absolutely fascinating as well as illuminating.

But that isn't the majority of this book. Rather, the focus of this book is how to use probability and statistics to understand numerical implications of different choices, including how to calculate their actual probabilities. I have nothing against the topics, but that isn't what I thought I signed up to read when I opened this book.

Because the topics covered are so technical, the majority of this book reads like a textbook. It doesn't help that they are often presented in a heavily pedantic style, with lots of terms and formulas, as well as philosophical musings. In fact, there is enough content in here to cover multiple university classes (I know because I had the joy of taking these exact ones back in college), so you can imagine trying to fit them into 300 pages makes the whole thing dense and dry.

When a book is so technical, it gets into a bit of a dilemma with its target audience. If you already know most of the topics covered, then you should have no trouble following along, but in that case, why are you reading this book? On the other hand, if you haven't seen the topics before and this is your first introduction, I think you'll have a lot of trouble understanding and retaining the information, especially as the later chapters build on concepts from the earlier ones.

Don't get me wrong, this is an interesting book, but I think it requires the reader to go in with the right expectations. The misleading title will have you think it's a psychological deep dive into rationality, but it isn't that. This is really a book on probability and statistics, and how to use them to make sense of our world. With that mindset, this book could offer a lot to the right audience.

My heartfelt thanks for the copy that was provided for my honest and unbiased review. ...more

flag 290 likes · Like · see review

Sep 29, 2021 BlackOxford rated it did not like it

Shelves: canadian, philosophy-theology, science

More Faerie Tales From Mary Poppins

“What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unus’d.
—Hamlet”

This epigraph from Shakespeare, which Pinker uses to preface his latest book, summarises his fundamental misunderstanding of the issue he addresses. For Pinker, Shakespeare seems to be saying ‘if you got it flaunt it.’ ‘ ...more

flag 171 likes · Like · see review

Oct 01, 2021 Clif Hostetler rated it liked it

Shelves: current-events

This book starts out with a review and discussion of logic, probability, and randomness. Proceeding from that foundation it explores ways in which people can be predictably led astray by following their intuition. The book then continues with a discussion of game theory and behavioral economics. Toward the end the book addresses the issues promised by the book’s subtitle; why rationality seems so scarce and why it’s important.

The book suggests that one reason humans are so poor at estimating exp This book starts out with a review and discussion of logic, probability, and randomness. Proceeding from that foundation it explores ways in which people can be predictably led astray by following their intuition. The book then continues with a discussion of game theory and behavioral economics. Toward the end the book addresses the issues promised by the book’s subtitle; why rationality seems so scarce and why it’s important.

The book suggests that one reason humans are so poor at estimating exponential growth is because it wasn’t part of the natural environment during human evolution (i.e. in nature exponential growth is capped by limited resourses). Mention of exponential growth attracts my attention because economist seem to believe that it's possible to go on forever.

Concepts explored in the heart of the book includes beliefs/evidence, risk/reward, and alarm/response. One reason economics is such an inexact science is because people can’t be counted on to make rational choices. There seems to be no end to ways in which human nature seems to lead us astray. Sometimes it’s a matter of what comes to mind first, so that’s the event guessed to be most likely to occur. Other times we forget how common—or uncommon—an event is when confronted with a clue pointing in a certain direction which then leads to incorrect guesses at probabilities.

Pinker provides a long discussion about the scarcity of rationality and why it matters, but I found the explanation given by The Enigma of Reason by Mercier and Sperber to be more succinct and convincing. Pinker acknowledges their work, but continues to explore other explanations.

Pinker insists that humans can always learn, and if you look close everyone possesses the powers of reason. After all, they have enough rationality to keep food on the table.

Below is an excerpt that is an example of “base-rate neglect” which involves giving too little weight to the original probability of an event in the face of new information. This excerpt also shows how wording of the problems can make a difference in recognition of the solution. I guess one reason I've included it here is because I didn't get the correct answer in the first instance.

Suppose that the prevalence of breast cancer in the population of women is 1 percent. Suppose that the sensitivity of a breast cancer test (its true-positive rate) is 90 percent. Suppose that its false-positive rate is 9 percent. A woman tests positive. What is the chance that she has the disease?

The most popular answer from a sample of doctors given these numbers ranged from 80 to 90 percent. Bayes's rule allows you to calculate the correct answer: 9 percent. That's right, the professionals whom we entrust with our live flub the basic task of interpreting a medical test, and not by a little bit. They think there's almost a 90 percent chance she has cancer, whereas in reality there's a 90 percent chance she doesn't. (p150)

If this same question is worded differently it becomes easier to intuitively arrive at the correct answer.

Forget the generic "a woman"; think about a sample of a thousand women. Out of every 1,000 women, 10 have breast cancer (that's the prevalence, or base rate). Of these 10 women who have breast cancer, 9 will test positive (that's the test's sensitivity). Of the 990 women without breast cancer, about 89 will nevertheless test positive (that's the false-positive rate). A woman tests positive. What is the chance that she actually has breast cancer?" It's not that hard: 98 of the women test positive in all, 9 of them have cancer; 9 divided by 98 is around 9 percent—there's our answer. When the problem is framed in this way, 87 percent of doctors get it right (compared with about 15 percent for the original wording), as do a majority of 10-year-olds. (p169)

So what's the lesson here? Is it important that people be able to answer questions like this correctly?

By tapping preexisting intuitions and translating information into mind-friendly formats, it's possible to hone people's statistical reasoning. Hone we must. Risk literacy is essential for doctors, judges, policymakers, and others who hold our lives in their hands. And since we all live in a world in which God plays dice, fluency in Bayesian reasoning and other forms of statistical competence is a public good that should be a priority in education. The principles of cognitive psychology suggest that it's better to work with the rationality people have and enhance it further than to write off the majority of our species as chronically crippled by fallacies and biases. (p171)

Here's a quote that verifies my own observation of today's political divide.

We are not...living in a "post truth" society. The problem is that we are living in a myside society. The sides are the left and the right, and both sides believe in the truth but have incommen-surable ideas of what the truth is. The bias has invaded more and more of our deliberations. The spectacle of face masks during a respiratory pandemic turning into political symbols is just the most recent symptom of the polarization. (p295-p296)

...more

flag 41 likes · Like · see review

Sep 30, 2021 Ryan Boissonneault rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites

Rationality can be defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” You don’t get credit for rationality if you attain a goal simply by chance; rather, your beliefs must be true, rather than false, and justified, rather than random. Whether the goal is theoretical (proving the truth of an idea) or practical (achieving some tangible outcome), to be rational simply means using knowledge (justified true belief) to attain the stated goal.

Reason also has the unique characteristic of being Rationality can be defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” You don’t get credit for rationality if you attain a goal simply by chance; rather, your beliefs must be true, rather than false, and justified, rather than random. Whether the goal is theoretical (proving the truth of an idea) or practical (achieving some tangible outcome), to be rational simply means using knowledge (justified true belief) to attain the stated goal.

Reason also has the unique characteristic of being non-negotiable, in that if you argue against its use—by employing reasons—you’ve already lost the argument. Since reason is non-negotiable and necessary for any intelligent and socially beneficial behavior, we all ought to take the time to learn how to use it better, especially since we did not evolve to handle the types of abstract mathematical, logical, and statistical problems we face in the modern world. We have to explicitly learn how to solve these higher-order problems; the skills to do so unequivocally do not come naturally.

The problem is, most books on rationality or critical thinking narrowly focus on biases and fallacies and simply list all the ways humans make stupid decisions. But as Pinker points out, humanity’s greatest achievements (discovering the age of the universe, mapping the human genome, etc.) cannot be explained by noting all the ways in which we confuse ourselves. There’s a better way to learn the rules of rationality; namely, by covering the wider variety of cognitive tools we’ve developed over the millennia to enhance our natural rational powers.

Pinker covers critical thinking and logic, statistics and probability, Bayesian reasoning, risk and reward, game theory, and more, collecting in one volume the diverse range of cognitive tools we’ve developed over the course of our history to think better. And unlike other bad faith actors who pretend that being “rational” guarantees the truth of their beliefs, Pinker (as a cognitive psychologist) actually understands the subject matter well enough to note the nuances, exceptions, and complexities that make rationality an inexact science. This excerpt from the book is worth quoting in full:

“Now, arguments for truth, objectivity, and reason may stick in the craw, because they seem dangerously arrogant: ‘Who the hell are you to claim to have the absolute truth?’ But that’s not what the case for rationality is about. The psychologist David Myers has said that the essence of monotheistic belief is: (1) There is a God and (2) it’s not me (and it’s also not you). The secular equivalent is: (1) There is objective truth and (2) I don’t know it (and neither do you). The same epistemic humility applies to the rationality that leads to the truth. Perfect rationality and objective truth are aspirations that no mortal can ever claim to have attained. But the conviction that they are out there licenses us to develop rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually.”

The rules of rationality—critical thinking, logic, probability, empirical reasoning—are employed to circumvent our biases, avoid common fallacies, and get ever closer to the elusive objective truth (without ever getting there for certain). Pinker adeptly reviews these tools, comments on real-world examples of fallacious thinking, and even presents new research and thinking that shows that some commonly perceived fallacies are not actually fallacies at all (e.g., the “hot hand” fallacy in basketball). The reader will have to be patient in some sections as the material is not always easy to follow, but the payoff (better critical thinking skills) will be well worth the effort.

Of course, learning the rules of rationality is not necessarily sufficient. There’s a strong case to be made for the idea that we evolved, not to be rational and to engage in the disinterested pursuit of truth, but to use reason to simply win arguments in favor of our preferred beliefs. Because of the uncertainty of knowledge, it’s all too easy to use motivated reasoning to “confirm” beliefs we wish to be true and to ignore all contradictory evidence. For this reason, intellectual integrity and humility are far harder to teach than even the rules of rationality itself. But if you do have them, you’ll benefit greatly from this book. ...more

flag 38 likes · Like · see review

Oct 16, 2021 Morgan Blackledge rated it it was amazing

Steven Pinker is a firebrand.

And that in itself is a kind of a mystery to me.

Only because I find his basic arguments to be (for lack of a better word) reasonable.

His message is (essentially):

The current state of affairs is obviously concerning.

But if you look at the human condition over the long term, a lot of things are improving.

According to Pinker.

Science, technology, rule of law and liberal democracy have liberated billions of humans from poverty, miserable servitude, disease and political ...more

flag 40 likes · Like · see review

Oct 06, 2021 Alexander rated it really liked it

Shelves: decision-making, categorised-general

Are all maps equally useful?

Suppose that you are lost in the Himalayas but only have a map of the Pyrenees. Is this map helpful? Sure, it is viable as fuel for fire but not as a map to navigate the territory. Maps correspond to the territory as our beliefs correspond to reality. Are all beliefs about reality equally accurate? Are all beliefs about how to achieve a goal equally conducive?

You cannot make an accurate map of a city by sitting at home with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper ...more

flag 34 likes · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2022 David Rubenstein rated it it was amazing

Shelves: psychology, economics, religion, nonfiction

I have read all of Steven Pinker's books, and enjoyed this one as well. Before reading this one, though, I thought that it might be somewhat boring. After all, how interesting could this subject be?

Boy, was I wrong! Pinker has written a truly engaging book. Every page is fascinating. In addition, this is the most humorous book that Pinker has written. For example, this quote from comedian George Carlin:

“Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast major ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Oct 07, 2021 Nilesh rated it it was ok

Shelves: good-non-fiction

Rationality spends most of the book length covering elementary concepts from a collection of subjects. Even when it comes to pulling them together for something original in conclusions, the book fails equally abjectly.

For some strange reasons, the author recounts the topics well covered in hundreds of books from the fields of probability theory, statistics, game theory, logic, behavioral sciences, and the likes. These discussions are staggeringly unoriginal in their conclusions and the details - Rationality spends most of the book length covering elementary concepts from a collection of subjects. Even when it comes to pulling them together for something original in conclusions, the book fails equally abjectly.

For some strange reasons, the author recounts the topics well covered in hundreds of books from the fields of probability theory, statistics, game theory, logic, behavioral sciences, and the likes. These discussions are staggeringly unoriginal in their conclusions and the details - say in the examples or illustrations used, descriptions, or explanations of the formulas. These chapters form almost 90% of the book; they are without a single aha moment for those even somewhat familiar.

When one finally reaches the most anticipated part - something even the author pens in as many words to start the section - the disappointment compounds with the banality of the postamble. Rather than spending any more time about the book's content, the reviewer is jotting down his thoughts sparked by the book - not necessarily original but undoubtedly personal.

Nothing is entirely rational, or everything is, because of the massive range of issues that impact any rational analysis. A deployment of rational concepts and tools for human brains - even those straightforward ones in math and logic - requires immense training. Behavioral finance is replete with examples of how our intuitions crumble in various reasonably objective settings. At the same time, other psychological fields prove our mental inadequacies in dealing with situations that require intricate interplays.

In real life, many factors that go into rational-conclusion-throwing-cauldron are highly subjective. What one decides as a rational course of action is dependent on the highly subjective utility functions, ethics, and personal histories. Circumstances and experiences play additional random roles in what the person doing the analysis prioritizes as the primary goal at a specific time point while relegating the other discordant types.

All of the above does not count the role played by norms and expectations. The book shows well through discussions on taboos, the societies and communities around us erect artificial bounds on rational tools, methods, analysis, and conclusions available to us.

One of the key conclusions the book fails to draw despite coming close is the circularities involved in rational thinking because of the concepts like Bayesian priors. Priors are those critical irrationals - call them axioms, beliefs, superstitions, assumptions, or whatever else – at the root of most real-life rational analysis. Like in Newton Method in calculus, and actually far worse, the results of a supposedly rational exercise are utterly dependent on the initial assumptions for which there is often no obvious agreement.

Say my faith in what I hear from my ancestors makes me believe that there is almost a hundred percent probability of the existence of black swans, even if extremely rare. Let's say that while I meet a hundred who consider me a looney, I also meet a believer who claims that he spotted a black swan in the dark of the night recently. The others may consider this person delusional, but given my priors, I would not only give higher credence to such one-off data points but use them to increase my overall conviction levels.

One can replace Black Swan with a ghost or a unicorn or a particular type of god or even geocentric views at the times of Galileo to see how what is deemed irrational by one may not be irrational at all in the contexts of the highly subjective priors one starts with. And all this is not factoring in limits of rationality most cleverly exposed in game theory situations but more realistically observed in people with differing goals. In practical life, it often pays - "rationally" - to be irrational.

What is rational is not a zero-one game, but it is not even a scale where at one end you have things as true as 2 and 2 equals four, with the opposite having the claims of the same as five. Rationality is a multi-dimensional landscape shaped by the above and more - like rules, laws, generally accepted objective facts, etc.

Any conclusions veering towards the paucity of absolutes for a field searching for the truths would leave almost everyone unhappy, including the most liberals. Clearly, many with specific input parameters would rationally decide to be intolerant of anyone who does not subscribe to their views. Even a few in any mix would create those game theory situations where it is rationally better for all to become intolerant of dissenting groups.

With such extreme analysis, rationality turns out to be not just axiomatic (and almost irrational or faith-based) but also nihilistic. Or in other words, it does not pay to overthink rationality! ...more

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

Feb 24, 2022 Maria Espadinha rated it really liked it

What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more…

https://youtu.be/N7RYRs9nuXI ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Oct 07, 2021 Ietrio rated it it was ok

Shelves: junk

Sweet irony! A call to rationality from a white old male who is dominated by his irrational fears: Muslims, Covid, anything that might threaten his dominant status. And, like the Christian preachers he despises, whomever doesn't care about his important issues, they are irrational, a white way to say Haram. ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Dec 19, 2021 Andrés Astudillo rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: People who wanna learn or improve on critical thinking

Objective of the book: 5
Certain arguments: 3

So, to sum up:

-Trump is a stupid asshole
- We are a rational species that can trigger stupidity at whole other levels
This part is ok. I mean, this book explains some of the reasons why we can be really, really stupid. There are not just fallacies in logic (ad hominem, ad verecundiam, conjunction, genetic, sunk-cost, straw man and a hundred more), but there are also psychological biases (confirmation, cognitive, and many, many more) that really fuck up o ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Aug 29, 2021 shinminmetroskyline added it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Wouldn’t have read it if i hadn’t received it for free, and it wasn’t pre publication.
If i disagree with this book its because of its aesthetic, or lack thereof. Ugly book.
It also violates my taboo against reality mathematics, and in particular morality mathematics.
I does provide a workout though, and throws into focus the failing of my mind. I failed the nearly all of the logic problems.

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Aug 25, 2021 Jessica - How Jessica Reads rated it really liked it

Shelves: misc-nonfiction, 2021, 2021-nonfiction

Honestly, some of this was a little over my head, ha. But I liked a lot of what he had to say, and I kept saving quotable bits.

"Three quarters of Americans believe in at least one phenomenon that defies the laws of science, including psychic healing (55 percent), extrasensory perception (41 percent), haunted houses (37 percent), and ghosts (32 percent)— which also means that some people believe in houses haunted by ghosts without believing in ghosts."

"And a special place in Journalist Hell is r ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Dec 16, 2021 Fares rated it it was amazing

Shelves: improvement, humanities, non-fiction, books-based-on-authors-research, favorites, evolution, philosophy-psychology-mind

Brilliant! Very well structured, which is not easy for a book on rationality. Very well researched, great resources cited. Very highly recommended!

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Oct 16, 2021 Kathryn Bashaar rated it liked it

This book can be tough going. Pinker condenses into just a few hundred pages what would surely be a full 3-credit Logic course at a university. It gets a little hard to follow. But there's a payoff.

I think of myself as very rational. But I fell for the fallacious answer to several of the questions that Pinker poses. Here's an example. On the game show Let's Make a Deal, let's say you chose Door #1. If the host reveals that the big prize is NOT behind Door #3, should you change your choice to Do ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Nov 20, 2021 Alan Johnson added it · review of another edition

Shelves: a-rhe-reference, a-rhg-reference, philosophers, reason-and-critical-thinking, philosophy-scholars, ethics

I agree with many things in this book. However, I disagree with some of Pinker's basic principles and a few of his specific statements. For example, Pinker follows Hume and other moderns in arguing that reason/rationality applies to means, not ends. Ends are, according to Hume and Pinker, postulated by our emotions, our desires, our feelings. If so, then Hitler was rational to the extent that his war machine was rationally designed to achieve his end of world conquest and tyranny. He was irratio I agree with many things in this book. However, I disagree with some of Pinker's basic principles and a few of his specific statements. For example, Pinker follows Hume and other moderns in arguing that reason/rationality applies to means, not ends. Ends are, according to Hume and Pinker, postulated by our emotions, our desires, our feelings. If so, then Hitler was rational to the extent that his war machine was rationally designed to achieve his end of world conquest and tyranny. He was irrational when he made emotional decisions about his war machine that were not conducive to his ends. Pinker acknowledges an exception when our ends are in conflict with each other. Then, somehow, we must use reason to adjudicate among our conflicting ends. He does not discuss how reason is involved when a person's conflicting ends are all unethical. (See Rationality, 45–56, 70, 175, and 329, Kindle edition.)

At the end of the book, however, Pinker apparently advocates, if only implicitly, the importance of reason as part of the conception of good ends.

In contrast to the modern consensus, Plato showed how Socrates used rational dialectic to identify proper ends (Republic, especially Book I). Similarly, Aristotle held that correct reasoning should be applied both to the ascertainment of ends and to the formulation of means (Nicomachean Ethics 6.1.1138b18–35, 6.2.1139a21–27, 6.5.1140b5–7, 6.13.1144b1–1145a11; see also Daniel C. Russell, Practical Intelligence and the Virtues [Oxford: Clarendon, 2009], part 1). I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Russell on this issue.

Pinker also argues that rationality requires, among other things, “mastery of cognitive tools like formal logic and mathematical probability” (Rationality, 324). He thereby implicitly consigns the majority of the human species to irrationality. In contrast, I think it is possible for people even without such mathematical and quasi-mathematical (symbolic notation) training to be rational about both ends and means. This is what I understand to be the thought behind the movement for informal logic and critical thinking. The discipline of “formal logic” involves abstract (symbolic) philosophical, mathematical, computational, or linguistic propositions that ignore questions about correct reasoning in ordinary human decisions and actions, whereas “informal logic” and “critical thinking” address the actual content of human thought and communication.

I elaborate my own views on these matters in my work-in-progress Reason and Human Ethics.

(edited November 21, 2021) ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Oct 31, 2021 Sid Nuncius rated it really liked it

The message of this book is important and timely and I am wholly in agreement with its arguments and analyses. However, I did find it a bit of a slog.

Pinker argues clearly and passionately that rationality and reason are vital and that their current abandonment by a worrying number of people is dangerous. He looks at the role of rationality and the essential part it plays in maintaining a civilised society and also attempts to analyse why some people reject it in favour of irrationality, conspir The message of this book is important and timely and I am wholly in agreement with its arguments and analyses. However, I did find it a bit of a slog.

Pinker argues clearly and passionately that rationality and reason are vital and that their current abandonment by a worrying number of people is dangerous. He looks at the role of rationality and the essential part it plays in maintaining a civilised society and also attempts to analyse why some people reject it in favour of irrationality, conspiracy theories, evidence-free fantasies and so on. This includes some good analysis of why scientific data can be messy and a clear explanation o why that doesn’t mean that it can simply be ignored.

All of this is commendable but I had some reservations. Firstly, although Pinker has a reputation for brilliant, readable writing, I found the prose quite hard going in places. It is dense, unalleviated by much in the way of light relief and burdened by his tendency to use obscure words where ordinary ones will do just as well – “patrimony,” for example where “inheritance” would make at least as much sense and make for a far easier read.

Secondly, I wasn’t really sure that Pinker was saying much that was new. The book, he explains, grew out of a course he taught and that makes it, for me, a restatement of pretty well rehearsed arguments and ideas. Important, certainly, and a useful restatement of arguments but not all that stimulating.

And thirdly, I kept getting a strong feeling that he is preaching to the converted. This is a book aimed at and surely read by those who, like me, already believe strongly in rationality. It may strengthen our stance, but will it change what really needs to be changed?

I don’t want to be too harsh; this is a good, important book. However, for me Robin Ince’s recent, very enjoyable and equally important book The Importance Of Being Interested said much the same thing in a far more readable and witty way, which may do a better job of reaching the people it needs to. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Oct 16, 2021 Richard Thompson rated it it was ok

Shelves: psychology

There's nothing new here for anyone who has a basic knowledge of logic, statistics, game theory and behavioral economics. Still, it's a good recap of basic concepts, and Mr. Pinker does a good job of describing current academic thinking about our departures from rationality and why things that seem like departures may really only be issues of context and point of view that are not necessarily irrational at all. I generally agree with everything that is in this book, so why did I come away from i ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2021 Anandpreet Singh rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Down the rabbit hole I went again. We live in a world where we highly prioritize being rational. But why? And how can we define someone as rational? What is Irrational? By doing this aren't we dividing the world in black and white instead of seeing it as grey?

"We should not be surprised that what people take away from science education is a syncretic mishmash, where gravity and electromagnetism coexist with psi, qi, karma, and crystal healing."

There's been a huge rise in behavioral economics in ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 07, 2021 Steve rated it liked it

3.5 stars I guess. I really loved Pinker’s earlier books about linguistics and psychology. There’s certainly some good stuff in this book, but I don’t think he covered the topic all that well. There were reminders of his good sense of humor and his good writing, but not so much. I’m happy that he uses interesting words, but he may have gone a little overboard in using obscure terminology.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Oct 27, 2021 David D. Knapp, Ph.D. rated it it was ok

Shelves: 2021

This is the third book by Pinker that I've started, with "Enlightenment Now" and "The Better Angels of Our Nature" being the other two. But it is the first one I've finished...and it wasn't easy.

Pinker's work is frustrating to me. On one hand, he writes about topics about which I care deeply (rationality, critical thinking, overcoming biases and fallacies...). So, I WANT to read his books.

However, he writes about these topics in a dense, academic style that I graphically refer to as "academic ma This is the third book by Pinker that I've started, with "Enlightenment Now" and "The Better Angels of Our Nature" being the other two. But it is the first one I've finished...and it wasn't easy.

Pinker's work is frustrating to me. On one hand, he writes about topics about which I care deeply (rationality, critical thinking, overcoming biases and fallacies...). So, I WANT to read his books.

However, he writes about these topics in a dense, academic style that I graphically refer to as "academic masturbation" (egotistical and intellectual language and overall style designed to illustrate one's intelligence with the ultimate goal of self-pleasure, rather than for the enjoyment of the reader). We know you're an expert in these topics, Dr. Pinker, so you don't have to prove it by writing about them in a practically impenetrable fashion.

Seriously, I have taken numerous Ph.D.-level courses in these topics. I have taught these topics both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. And, yet, I struggled mightily to get through Pinker's coverage of them in this book.

Consequently, he has limited the impact of his potentially powerful writing by exclusively targeting other intellectual readers who probably also engage in "academic masturbation" when they write. How about "dumbing it down a little" - for lack of a better phrase - so that readers who really need to contemplate and learn about these topics can follow your thoughts on them? (For example, I think Jay Heinrichs has done a marvelous job of this very thing in the various editions of his "Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion.")

Anyway...

I'm not sure I'll try to fight my way through any other works by Pinker - unless he miraculously changes his approach to writing (which is highly unlikely). And that's a shame. Because I truly believe I could learn a lot from this brilliant man...if only he wouldn't keep trying to constantly remind me how brilliant he is.

...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 17, 2021 Hugh rated it did not like it

I haven't read any of Pinker's other books. Don't think I'll be seeking them out after this one.

If arguing on the internet is your jam then this is a book for you. Most of the book is Pinker explaining what cognitive biases are and how we should be thinking about probabilities and data, and it oscillates between an overly complex Wikipedia article and a dull lecture.

He sprinkles in some poorly reasoned (or not reasoned) analysis of:

Why deplatforming people is bad

A bad faith connection between t ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 01, 2021 Weronika rated it liked it

It is a solid compilation book. No new research, however (I should have expected this, though, Pinker has been writing compilation books with no original input for some time). I liked the chapter on formal logic and thought for a moment whether the book would be a good fit for students, for an interpretation/critical thinking class, but there are better options. The references to current political events mean that the book will date quickly. I would have opted for a wider range of cultural and p ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 09, 2021 Anna rated it it was amazing

Good and modern recap of the basics

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2021 Pete rated it liked it

Shelves: nonfiction

Rationality : What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (2021) by Steven Pinker is the celebrity Harvard Psychologist’s latest work. In Rationality Pinker uses the content of a course he teaches at Harvard about how to reason better.

Most of the book is used to instruct the reader on logic, probability, Bayesian Reasoning, Expected Utility, Further Statistics, Game Theory and Correlation and Causation. In the final two chapters Pinker describes what he sees as being wrong with people and fi Rationality : What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (2021) by Steven Pinker is the celebrity Harvard Psychologist’s latest work. In Rationality Pinker uses the content of a course he teaches at Harvard about how to reason better.

Most of the book is used to instruct the reader on logic, probability, Bayesian Reasoning, Expected Utility, Further Statistics, Game Theory and Correlation and Causation. In the final two chapters Pinker describes what he sees as being wrong with people and finally states why he believes he Rationality matters so much.

Pinker knows his subject and his very widely read and writes really well. Pinker has read and understood Hume and includes Hume’s statements about causality and that notably, ‘reason is the slave of the passions’. Pinker writes very well about Kahneman and Tversky and also includes Gerd Gigerenzer’s critiques of their work. At times the combination of lessons in logic and psychology is very interesting.

The didactic content of Rationality on reason would be better presented as a course than a book. The sections on what’s wrong with people and Pinker’s justification of Reason are not substantial enough. Pinker does make the worthwhile point that people are rational in their own lives and careers but then tend to believe in many strange things regarding politics. But he doesn’t explore that enough. Also Pinker fails to engage much with the concept that smart, very numerate and logical people come to wildly different conclusions on important subjects. Economics provides many examples of this.

Pinker’s treatment of statistics is quite good, but Tim Harford’s work with the More or Less podcast and his book ‘The Data Detective” are better. Pinker also acknowledges and writes about ‘myside’ bias but his answers to that are not as good as those provided by Julia Galef’s book ‘The Scout Mindset’. Bryan Caplan’s ‘The Myth of the Rational Voter’ also has interesting things to say about why people vote, and believe things about the world that they do.

Rationality isn’t a bad book, but it’s not Pinker’s best. Pinker gives the book a tremendous task but fails to deliver. The lessons in reasoning aren’t bad but aren’t really extensive enough and the summary of the importance and the reasons for people’s irrationality are not sufficiently well developed. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2021 James Foster rated it it was amazing

I wish I could write like Pinker. He has an argument to make: being rational is hard, but you can do it, and it’s important to try to do so. His definition of “rational” is much more sensible than acting like Mr. Spock or some automaton. Rationality means beliefs and acting in a way that one can justifiably expect to get us closer to our goals in most circumstances. It doesn’t speak to what those goals are. The great contribution of the Enlightenment, according to Pinker, is that it taught us to I wish I could write like Pinker. He has an argument to make: being rational is hard, but you can do it, and it’s important to try to do so. His definition of “rational” is much more sensible than acting like Mr. Spock or some automaton. Rationality means beliefs and acting in a way that one can justifiably expect to get us closer to our goals in most circumstances. It doesn’t speak to what those goals are. The great contribution of the Enlightenment, according to Pinker, is that it taught us to expect rationality to work. Empirically, it’s hard to disagree.

“Rationality” begins by discussing that rationality is and what it isn’t. It then presents tools one can use to be more rational, such as logic, adjusting one’s beliefs appropriately when given evidence, and comparing the likely expected benefits of alternative actions. Along the way, Pinker discusses some of the reasons why this isn’t easy. There are common errors people make, such as failing to account for background probabilities and mistaking correlation for causation. The easy way can get you closer to your goals sometimes, but it doesn’t differ much from blind luck. The tools of rationality are much more likely to work. This is not an article of faith. Considerable empirical evidence backs it up (see my review of “Enlightenment Now”, by Pinker).

The last two chapters of the book are particularly important. If you choose not to read the whole book, check them out in your local library. In the penultimate chapter, “Wha’s Wrong with People,” Pinker argues people are not irrational because they are stupid, or because they are on Facebook too much. There are known traps that we all fall into, such as motivated reasoning and bias toward the familiar. He describes a useful dichotomy between beliefs about things around us and those with which we do not have immediate experience, the “reality” and “mythological” mindsets. Both types of belief can be rational. Mythological beliefs may be demonstrably false, but still we might reasonably expect them to get us closer to some goals. For example, careful studies show that in general prayer does not heal diseases. But prayer can make our community more cohesive, and it can make us more compassionate.

The last chapter, “Why Rationality Matters,” reminds us that rationality has given us an objectively better world. It’s easy to forget when we’re bombarded with bad news. But it’s true. Also, many of the moral advances that we take for granted (anti-slavery, anti-child abuse, anti-animal-cruelty, anti-discrimination, etc.) began as rational arguments. Many of our moral assumptions have become so ingrained that we treat them as self-evident. But they are almost never that. Civilization often bends toward morality because reason pushes it that way. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 10, 2021 D.L. Morrese rated it liked it

The title poses some very good questions, but does the book answer them? Well...

Steven Pinker is undoubtedly a brilliant fellow, and I loved his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, but Rationality reads more like a textbook on probability than a clear explanation of reason and critical thinking. Rather than introducing the subject in layman's terms using specific examples, it starts off with definitions of rules of logic, graphs, and diagrams. That's all well and goo ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 15, 2021 Eric Shaffer rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Hey, Jen, since you are the one who most predictably reads my reviews, I thought I would say, "Happy Holidays to you, and to all, and to all, how about rasher of rationality?"

Your review of this book tipped me to the fact that this book was out, so thanks for that, too.

This is another great book by Steven Pinker. I recommend this book just for what became for me a detailed introduction to fallacies and reasoning that I wish I had encountered and studied long ago. Excellent writing and reasonable ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 08, 2021 Allie Fowler rated it it was ok

Hold up.

Mr Pinker, did you just say "sudden adoption of a radical academic doctrine called Critical Race Theory?"

Critical Race Theory literally calls for the teaching of ACTUAL US HISTORY, rather than the whitewashed fiction that passes in schools even still today. Even a casual mention that yes, the Tulsa bombing massacre of entire Black neighborhoods occurred as well as the numerous coup d'etats of democratically elected Black governments. Things I was never taught as a white person growing up ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 04, 2021 Anthony rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Not what I expected but in sum, rationality is mathematical.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Psychology

189 users

Nonfiction

180 users

Science

145 users

Philosophy

110 users

Politics

34 users

Sociology

27 users

Audiobook

15 users

Social Science

13 users

Self Help

12 users

History

9 users

See top shelves…

About Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker

8,942 followers

Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Repu ...more

Books by Steven Pinker

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

More…

Articles featuring this book

7 Great Books Hitting Shelves This Week

Need another excuse to treat yourself to a new book this week? We've got you covered with the buzziest new releases of the day. To create our...

Trivia About Rationality: What...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Rationality: What...

“Disagreement is necessary in deliberations among mortals. As the saying goes, the more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us is right.” — 4 likes

“And as excellent as our cognitive systems are, in the modern world we must know when to discount them and turn our reasoning over to instruments—the tools of logic, probability, and critical thinking that extend our powers of reason beyond what nature gave us. Because in the twenty-first century, when we think by the seat of our pants, every correction can make things worse, and can send our democracy into a graveyard spiral.” — 4 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Rationality by Steven Pinker

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Steven Pinker

Books by Steven Pinker

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About Rationality: What...

Quotes from Rationality: What...

See a Problem?

Preview — Rationality by Steven Pinker

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Steven Pinker

Books by Steven Pinker

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About Rationality: What...

Quotes from Rationality: What...

new topic
Discuss This Book