Steven Pinker’s new book shows how he’s become a contradictory figure

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows



Steven Pinker (Allen Lane (UK); Scribner (US) Out 23 September)

Steven Pinker’s latest book encapsulates the contradictions in his public persona. While the text provides a clear and engaging exploration of a significant psychological phenomenon, it also reflects his often contentious stances on contemporary issues.

Pinker is a distinguished psychologist at Harvard University, celebrated for a series of popular science books. Some, like Words and Rules, draw heavily from his own research, while others, such as The Better Angels of Our Nature, present broader interpretations of societal trends, including a decline in violence over time.

While these works have achieved bestseller status, they have also prompted critiques positing that Pinker often overreaches outside his expertise. For instance, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, he faced the challenge of reconciling the decline of violence with the horrors of the 20th century—two world wars and the Holocaust—in response to which he selected data to suggest these events were historical anomalies.

This backdrop leads to a cautious approach towards his new publication. Will Pinker showcase the insightful psychologist, or the unwarranted pundit? The answer is both. The central theme of his work is “common knowledge,” the understanding that everyone knows something and knows that everyone else is aware of it. Pinker illustrates this concept through Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, highlighting how this shared awareness can incite collective action.

Pinker posits that common knowledge can initiate transformative change. He describes a hypothetical oppressed populace under an authoritarian regime. The success of rebellion hinges on whether sufficient numbers of individuals recognize the shared sentiment of discontent. Demonstrating common knowledge can embolden individuals to take collective action.

The initial chapters of the book thoughtfully elaborate on this concept, drawing from game theory and psychological research. With a graceful writing style, Pinker successfully navigates complex logic puzzles, even incorporating humor through a well-known exchange from the sitcom Friends: “They don’t know that we know they know we know!”

However, minor slips occur, such as when he describes a logic puzzle originating in the “politically innocent early 1950s,” a notably misleading characterization of an era rife with tension during the second Red Scare.

The tone shifts drastically in chapter eight, where Pinker discusses the psychological foundations of “cancel culture.” He contends that this phenomenon reflects a form of censorship stemming from the desire to prevent harmful ideas from permeating common knowledge. While he acknowledges this to be a legitimate concern, his treatment is limited and overly focused on the left. He overlooks examples from the right, such as the backlash faced by the Chicks (formerly the Dixie Chicks) for their anti-Iraq War stance.

Pinker’s exploration of cancel culture fails to adequately address instances where individuals are ‘canceled’ due to genuinely harmful actions. It reads as if he is presenting a one-sided view of a complex issue, akin to discussing the criminal justice system solely in the context of wrongful convictions.

The book concludes by examining how we determine when to share information publicly versus keeping it semi-private. Pinker suggests that the decision-making process is context-dependent, but the analysis feels unfulfilling and vague.

In moments where he sticks to empirical research, Pinker is undeniably captivating. It’s unfortunate that he often strays from this path.

Michael Marshall is a writer based in Devon, UK