A journey through history and the human mind to explore violence, and how a more peaceful world can be achieved.A journey through history and the human mind to explore violence, and how a more peaceful world can be achieved.A journey through history and the human mind to explore violence, and how a more peaceful world can be achieved.
Photos
Keith David
- Narrator
- (voice)
Marta Lahr
- Self - University of Cambridge
- (as Marta Mirazón Lahr)
Carlos Bustamante
- Self - Stanford University
- (as Carlos D. Bustamante)
Tiffiny Tung
- Self - Vanderbilt University
- (as Tiffiny A. Tung)
Storyline
Featured review
It's a miss. Half of the main violence research is ignored.
Lots of pseudoscience mixed in with the good social science Pinker actually uses in his books. Not sure why they had a need to include all these extra hypotheses that are in the outskirts of social science or even just wrong.
Unfortunately PBS still uses ideological talking heads and they still mess up their documentaries by including flimsy evidence and guesswork. I don't recommend any talking heads PBS documentaries at all anymore until they fix this issue. Their 90's docs are mostly good but since around 2015 they have started to let the people they interview decide what to tell and when it's mediocre researchers it can ruin a story. They just don't make sure to avoid quacks for their interviews. Pinker only has a few minutes in the documentary. After that you have a mixture of political activists, laymen and young researchers who don't really understand the data or maybe don't even know about it.
Some of the things mentioned as "facts" here are so preposterous and unrealistic that I was waiting for counter-claims. But no, once someone says something the documentary tries to follow it up with some video of an event supporting the claim. For example, one female social worker said that "crime is caused by people who are hungry". She was largely explaining why black Americans commit crime, they supposedly want money for food to survive. That's not science, it's her opinion based on no evidence. Yet the documentary just supports her claim by having a few follow up scenes and interviews kinda supporting her. With zero evidence presented at any point here. This is not how to present social science research. You stay humble. You introduce data then very carefully make a few hypotheses based on the data. You don't claim that crime is caused by hunger without evidence. That's not science.
Another female professor/social scientist said that testosterone only causes men to be more violent than women because they as fetuses experienced a higher degree of it. She doesn't even explain how it works or what happens to whom and how. Yet according to her differences in violence between some people are explained by this loose assumption that is not even presented. So testosterone anyone may experience in adulthood is supposedly not influencing anything. Which then would mean that no one would use it for anything as it couldn't increase your strength in adulthood. This is counter to the evidence we have on the area. It's not a placebo drug it's banned in competitions for a very good reason: it works.
There are a ton of these pseudo claims in the doc. Another claim is that if you read about other people you will become less violent and this is how you make societies nonviolent. No other explanation is brought up by this researcher. This is her full theory about violence without any buts or ifs. Again I'm perplexed by these talking heads just stating things as facts without any evidence and without being careful about their assumptions. At least some men at the very start presented some charts and actually showed evidence and didn't present any huge theory about why violence declined. Yet later a lot of researchers without any evidence seemed to understand the world fully. We know that heritable traits like IQ and personality predict crime. We also know that most theories about training a trait is often pseudoscience blank slate thinking, which I'm sure Pinker wouldn't support. At least make sure to show that no heritable trait creates this reading and nonviolence correlation. If you don't show that then we may as well use Occam's Razor and just assume it's some heritable trait instead of some larger unexplained effect. It's not a bad hypothesis, it's just something that we already can explain by several heritable traits yet the doc doesn't even mention IQ or OCEAN. It's a doc that's not really exploring pretty much 80% of research on the area and instead largely uses social workers to make pseudo claims.
Near the end they also have some anti-gun hypotheses where gun-bans are assumed to cause a decline in violence overall. This seems weird as they made a huge deal out of saying that terror attacks are rare. Yet they are fearmongering about school shootings and showing crying teens on screen to tell us that school shootings are extreme violence and something we all should fear so we must ban guns. They don't understand that this is exactly like terrorist attacks - rare events. I also feel like a gun ban case is something PBS should do in documentaries about that specific topic. They constantly put these liberal political ideas into all their docs. I'm not saying they are all bad ideas. A gun ban is for sure an interesting topic. But it's politics, not science, and you shouldn't mix this stuff.
Unfortunately PBS still uses ideological talking heads and they still mess up their documentaries by including flimsy evidence and guesswork. I don't recommend any talking heads PBS documentaries at all anymore until they fix this issue. Their 90's docs are mostly good but since around 2015 they have started to let the people they interview decide what to tell and when it's mediocre researchers it can ruin a story. They just don't make sure to avoid quacks for their interviews. Pinker only has a few minutes in the documentary. After that you have a mixture of political activists, laymen and young researchers who don't really understand the data or maybe don't even know about it.
Some of the things mentioned as "facts" here are so preposterous and unrealistic that I was waiting for counter-claims. But no, once someone says something the documentary tries to follow it up with some video of an event supporting the claim. For example, one female social worker said that "crime is caused by people who are hungry". She was largely explaining why black Americans commit crime, they supposedly want money for food to survive. That's not science, it's her opinion based on no evidence. Yet the documentary just supports her claim by having a few follow up scenes and interviews kinda supporting her. With zero evidence presented at any point here. This is not how to present social science research. You stay humble. You introduce data then very carefully make a few hypotheses based on the data. You don't claim that crime is caused by hunger without evidence. That's not science.
Another female professor/social scientist said that testosterone only causes men to be more violent than women because they as fetuses experienced a higher degree of it. She doesn't even explain how it works or what happens to whom and how. Yet according to her differences in violence between some people are explained by this loose assumption that is not even presented. So testosterone anyone may experience in adulthood is supposedly not influencing anything. Which then would mean that no one would use it for anything as it couldn't increase your strength in adulthood. This is counter to the evidence we have on the area. It's not a placebo drug it's banned in competitions for a very good reason: it works.
There are a ton of these pseudo claims in the doc. Another claim is that if you read about other people you will become less violent and this is how you make societies nonviolent. No other explanation is brought up by this researcher. This is her full theory about violence without any buts or ifs. Again I'm perplexed by these talking heads just stating things as facts without any evidence and without being careful about their assumptions. At least some men at the very start presented some charts and actually showed evidence and didn't present any huge theory about why violence declined. Yet later a lot of researchers without any evidence seemed to understand the world fully. We know that heritable traits like IQ and personality predict crime. We also know that most theories about training a trait is often pseudoscience blank slate thinking, which I'm sure Pinker wouldn't support. At least make sure to show that no heritable trait creates this reading and nonviolence correlation. If you don't show that then we may as well use Occam's Razor and just assume it's some heritable trait instead of some larger unexplained effect. It's not a bad hypothesis, it's just something that we already can explain by several heritable traits yet the doc doesn't even mention IQ or OCEAN. It's a doc that's not really exploring pretty much 80% of research on the area and instead largely uses social workers to make pseudo claims.
Near the end they also have some anti-gun hypotheses where gun-bans are assumed to cause a decline in violence overall. This seems weird as they made a huge deal out of saying that terror attacks are rare. Yet they are fearmongering about school shootings and showing crying teens on screen to tell us that school shootings are extreme violence and something we all should fear so we must ban guns. They don't understand that this is exactly like terrorist attacks - rare events. I also feel like a gun ban case is something PBS should do in documentaries about that specific topic. They constantly put these liberal political ideas into all their docs. I'm not saying they are all bad ideas. A gun ban is for sure an interesting topic. But it's politics, not science, and you shouldn't mix this stuff.
helpful•33
- JurijFedorov
- Sep 30, 2020
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content