I don't know if your video shows that line, but it seems quite possible. Here's a video I took from(I think) within the zone of totality. The shadow moves differently, and seems to cover the sky and land more completely.
Re In praise of dumb questions - love this. It can be so powerful. In my career as a consultant, I was occasionally chided by clients for asking “dumb” questions. The implication being that I was hired for my experience / expertise and should know better. And I would then need to explain that it was the answer that was important / what I wanted to hear, not to display any supposed expertise. Over time, I adopted the practice of preempting those moments by warning at the start of projects that “I reserve the right to ask dumb questions “.
On the subject of the Supreme Court I read this in the economist and thought it was fascinating and worth sharing: “The us Supreme Court receives around 7,000 petitions each year, but only reviews 100 to 150 it deems of national relevance. Brazil’s received over 78,000 new cases in 2023, and made more than 15,000 judgements.” Wow!
You are the one who isn't representing the book accurately, I'm afraid.
1. Diminishing violence is one indicator of increasing civility, wouldn't you say? Incivility leads to more violence, right?
2. Pinker outlines the data on a lot more than violence. He does in fact write about indicators of civility - changing social norms, customs, expectations - perhaps without using the term 'civility'. E.g. people don't challenge each other to duels anymore. Catching someone committing adultery isn't an excuse for homicide anymore. Bullying in school is no longer tolerated... Many such examples of a more enlightened attitude nowadays.
It might be impressionistic, but it presents a clear picture.
So do you have a historically specific culture of civility in mind that you believe was substantively better than the present standard in public culture?
Do many journalists not also ask questions because they want to be seen asking about specific issues? Almost their own way of virtue signalling because they recognize they have a specific following and want this group to continue following. That is, they don’t really ask a question to get an answer for a specific purpose. Most often these are long questions with multiple clauses and issues that allow the person answering an even easier time in finding something to which they want to respond. And this tendency is re-enforced in a world where they are allowed only one question (no follow up) and any pretence of a norm that requires an answer to the actual intent of the question is long gone.
Clearly, civility waxes and wanes. But as Steven Pinker has documented in "The Better Angels of Our Nature," the overall general trend has been toward greater civility. We still shake hands as a greeting today because in the old times it was a demonstration of not carrying a knife.
But the general trend is far from a linear progression. That's why it is always child's play to cherry pick times and incidents from the past that "prove" civility is waxing of waning.
No. The assumption of good faith is no more valid than the assumption of bad faith. The wise person starts with agnosticism, and moves toward inferring good or bad faith based on the responses received. In the case of public figures with a long-established track record, assuming bad faith (or good faith) is reasonable. For example, what fool still assumes good faith on the part of Trudeau, or Trump?
With respect to your opening few paragraphs about the NYT piece on open letters and that author’s unsupported assertion that believing the past to have been more civil is a lie, you ask, “Does that even pass the smell test? … Does that seem even slightly plausible?”
Dumb question: do I need to wear a welding helmet to safely watch these videos?
I don't know if your video shows that line, but it seems quite possible. Here's a video I took from(I think) within the zone of totality. The shadow moves differently, and seems to cover the sky and land more completely.
https://x.com/TweetsCoffman/status/1779156749217337465
"I would rather have questions without answers than answers without questions." -Richard Feynman.
Re In praise of dumb questions - love this. It can be so powerful. In my career as a consultant, I was occasionally chided by clients for asking “dumb” questions. The implication being that I was hired for my experience / expertise and should know better. And I would then need to explain that it was the answer that was important / what I wanted to hear, not to display any supposed expertise. Over time, I adopted the practice of preempting those moments by warning at the start of projects that “I reserve the right to ask dumb questions “.
On the subject of the Supreme Court I read this in the economist and thought it was fascinating and worth sharing: “The us Supreme Court receives around 7,000 petitions each year, but only reviews 100 to 150 it deems of national relevance. Brazil’s received over 78,000 new cases in 2023, and made more than 15,000 judgements.” Wow!
You are the one who isn't representing the book accurately, I'm afraid.
1. Diminishing violence is one indicator of increasing civility, wouldn't you say? Incivility leads to more violence, right?
2. Pinker outlines the data on a lot more than violence. He does in fact write about indicators of civility - changing social norms, customs, expectations - perhaps without using the term 'civility'. E.g. people don't challenge each other to duels anymore. Catching someone committing adultery isn't an excuse for homicide anymore. Bullying in school is no longer tolerated... Many such examples of a more enlightened attitude nowadays.
It might be impressionistic, but it presents a clear picture.
So do you have a historically specific culture of civility in mind that you believe was substantively better than the present standard in public culture?
Do many journalists not also ask questions because they want to be seen asking about specific issues? Almost their own way of virtue signalling because they recognize they have a specific following and want this group to continue following. That is, they don’t really ask a question to get an answer for a specific purpose. Most often these are long questions with multiple clauses and issues that allow the person answering an even easier time in finding something to which they want to respond. And this tendency is re-enforced in a world where they are allowed only one question (no follow up) and any pretence of a norm that requires an answer to the actual intent of the question is long gone.
Clearly, civility waxes and wanes. But as Steven Pinker has documented in "The Better Angels of Our Nature," the overall general trend has been toward greater civility. We still shake hands as a greeting today because in the old times it was a demonstration of not carrying a knife.
But the general trend is far from a linear progression. That's why it is always child's play to cherry pick times and incidents from the past that "prove" civility is waxing of waning.
"The wise person starts by assuming good faith."
No. The assumption of good faith is no more valid than the assumption of bad faith. The wise person starts with agnosticism, and moves toward inferring good or bad faith based on the responses received. In the case of public figures with a long-established track record, assuming bad faith (or good faith) is reasonable. For example, what fool still assumes good faith on the part of Trudeau, or Trump?
With respect to your opening few paragraphs about the NYT piece on open letters and that author’s unsupported assertion that believing the past to have been more civil is a lie, you ask, “Does that even pass the smell test? … Does that seem even slightly plausible?”
To provide some compelling evidence that the answer to your question is yes, I offer you this article in the scientific journal Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06137-x), a synopsis of which was published in NYT Opinion last year (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/opinion/psychology-brain-biased-memory.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb)
(Sorry, I don’t know how to cleanly include links into text in the comments section)
That is a good video.