Pinker, as always from what I've read of his work, uses an awful lot of words to say not very much. I listened to the audiobook, mostly while driving, so I was denied the abilty to skim the truly ridiculous number of lists of examples for what seemed like every issue raised. The most egregious of these was the point where he said he wouldn't like to spend any time in a torture museum, and then proceeded, with what felt a lot like glee, to reel off an extensive list of its contents and how they were used. I got the impression that someone who read the manuscript must have made a similar observation, because he felt the need to justify its inclusion. I understand the inclusion - showing the brutality of the past without the rose-tinted spectacles of nostalgia - what I object to is the length, the detail, the seeming relish, and the impression it was done to bulk up a work that was, overall, a bit light on conclusions.

I've seen this recommended in a few places lately. I expected it to be better.