[grzm]

It's because it was just published. You see the same thing with many books, or movies. It's partly deliberate marketing, and partly because there are people excited about it. For that matter, there's been plenty of noise from people who disagree as well. But it all surrounds the fact that it was just released.

[maxniederhofer]

I think there's more to it than that. The book proposes a return to a classical rational-modern worldview with typical liberal values ("Enlightenment"). That optimistic view of the future would be one way out of the tribalist identity politics that, fueled by fear, are ruining Western society. There are big power interests, both financial and cultural, that are interested in stability. Pushing Pinker's book is more than just marketing.

[User23]

Tribalist identity politics are inevitable in all multicultural societies. You can bemoan human nature, but you can't change it.

That's not to say multicultural societies can't be successful, with discipline and genius it can be done. For example Lee Kuan Yew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew) did a great job with Singapore.

[sambull]

Then it just becomes secular identity politics.

[edanm]

So that we understand you better - what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book? Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book? Or that are directly tied, but since they are "power interests" or some such, they are trying harder than they do marketing other books?

I mean, I think you're wrong. But more than that, I think you're not saying something well-defined. What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing? Who exactly is doing this? Is this coordinated? Is this more than just "some people like this book so are talking about it", which is a much more innocuous way to phrase that?

[maxniederhofer]

what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book?

> slating for reviews, inclusion on top lists, discussions on television shows, interviews with author etc.

Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book?

> yes

since they are "power interests" or some such

> Are you suggesting that power is not a legitimate criterion of social analysis? Just to understand the quotations

What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing?

> It means they are doing it because they don't care about the sales, they care about the message being spread widely.

I'm not saying it's coordinated. I'm not saying it's some sort of conspiracy. But yeah, it's clearly more than "some people like this book"

[edanm]

The quotes around "power interests" is because you used the term and I was quoting you directly, it's not a phrase I would personally use.

Assuming it's not coordinated or a conspiracy, how is it different than "some people like this book"? I mean this sincerely - I really don't understand why people liking this book and talking about it doesn't completely explain what we're seeing. That's what explains pretty much every other book that people talk about a lot, which is a lot of books.

Meta: This is just an FYI, but I'm pretty sure the standard way of quoting and answering a previous comment is to put the original text after the ">", and the reply or whatever else you want to write without the ">". The way you did it is the reverse of this, and kinda makes your comment hard to parse.