What "major tenet" is rebutted? With all due respect, I beg to differ. In this article, Dr. Ronald W Pies, MD, a member of the profession that prescribes happy pills only to anyone who might "really" need one, maintains that Americans have good reason to be unhappy. Pies initially acknowledges the overwhelming amount of data that bolsters Pinker's case for a "glass half-full" worldview. He also states that he agrees with Pinker's worldview to the effect that "knowledge and reason can enhance human progress." And he grants that Pinker's position is convincing, but he qualifies this endorsement by stating that it's "only partially so."

Pies questions Pinker's optimism on the grounds that certain mortality and suicide data have recently trended downwards. For instance, while the suicide rate has remained stable since the 1940's, Pies asserts that Pinker didn't account for the fact that it has increased 24 percent in the past 15 years. In my view, this line of argument proves that Americans are unhappy. But it no more proves that they have good reason to be unhappy than the parricide who begs mercy from the court on the grounds that he's an orphan. Talk about chutzpah!

Another bit of data cited by Pies is a "sharp increase in psychopathology since 1938 among American college students," which he asserts is evidence that young people are unhappy and shows that something else may be causing their unhappiness. Why psychopathology renderes people unhappy he doesn't explain, but if only crazy people are unhappy, it would seem that the good Dr Pies is proving Pinker's case.

Pies acknowledges that life expectancy markedly increased worldwide from 1775 until 2015, but he notes that in the United States it dropped 0.1 from 2013 to 2014, and another 0.1 percent between 2014 and 2015. He speculates that this retrogression may be due in part to the opioid epidemic ravaging the land. I question whether this is a reason to be unhappy or to reject Pinker's thesis. It is, however, a good reason to cease abusing opioids.

Pies moves away from morbid data and enters the realm of social justice next when he refers to a study of wealthy/high income countries which seems to indicate that in rich countries people are less depressed than people in countries that have lower wealth gaps. He concurs with the study writers, who speculate that "at the individual level, the effects of income inequality on general health are likely to be primarily mediated through psychological stress.” I haven't read the study, which is authored by Vikram Patel et al. To my way of thinking, however, this study doesn't prove that wealth gaps cause depression. Envy does. And I prove it to myself every day because no matter how much less money I may have than Warren Buffet or Madonna, I don't let that get between myself and a good cheer.

I was about to add that perhaps I belong to a small cohort of unusually optimistic people who are unreasonably less miserable than the bulk of the right thinking people of this awesome land who are properly transfixed with despair at the unfairness of it all. But I won't do it. At least not at this time. In any event, I have reason for increased optimism: those who aren't persuaded by the incontrovertible avalanche of data marshaled by Pinker can seek solace from Pies.

Live long and prosper!

The whole field is still in it's infancy.

He spoke at the last FFRF convention. He followed some really heavy hitters as Maryam Namazie [maryamnamazie.com] All the speakers showed horrible pictures (she had people hanging from gallows because they denied Islam. and talked of all the injustices they are witnessing. And then comes along Stephen Pinker and basically says: 'don't worry, be happy'. Not exactly motivational. I saw a lot of people looking around and wondering why he was there.

Stephen Pinker is another Jordan Peterson type. It's always depressing when these two are paraded on this site as the next best thing.