Talk:Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny

I would like to comment on this book, in particular, the issue of directionality and how to fix it up. I don't think Wright has it quite right the way it stands in the book. Is this an appropriate issue to add to the article about the book? Montalvo 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. you can't insert your own thoughts into the article. That's Original Research. Now, if you found a book review that cited concerns that are similar to yours, or if someone else has made a similar criticism, then you can certainly cite those authors' words in this article. Or write your criticism on your own website and link to it in the "external links" section. --goethean ॐ 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Goethean. The issue of directionality, especially, is disputed perhaps more than any other topic in the book, and a substantial number of people have written about the subject, so you probably wouldn't need to look hard to find published work in alignment with your views. Personally, I found Steven Pinker's criticism to be the most succinct response I had encountered, and that's why I included it when writing the article--and because several of the major opponents to directionality (or at least Wright's view of it) are dead (i.e. Stephen Jay Gould) and are not available to counter Wright. Unfortunately, and this is my biggest problem with the article, I don't find Pinker's opposition of Wright to be entirely genuine, and I wonder if he's really just playing devil's advocate. Pinker is a leader in the field and his criticism powerful, but I think the article would benefit if additional quotes were included from other noted academics who more severely dispute Wright's thesis, or offer a more elaborate interpretation. -A AlexRowland 02:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Moral Animal[edit]

Any Wright fans that can start an article on The Moral Animal?

--1000Faces 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Article[edit]

I think this is a horrible article. I came here wanting to know, "What's in the book, Non-zero?" Who is it, who wrote it, what are the ideas in it, what has it's role been in society?

Instead, I see what appears to be an argument between N faceless people, masquerading as an encyclopedia article about a book.

Worse, the first comment on this page is someone saying, "Hey, I want to argue against the ideas in the book; Is this a good place to do it?" Of course it's not!

Can someone just write an article about the book Non-Zero?

Do you all know that this isn't a place for fans or opposition, but rather, to collaboratively make encyclopedia articles?

Irritated, LionKimbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Lots of WP:POV here, and WP:OR. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations[edit]

While reading the article, I wondered whether International Relations theory should be mentioned in this article, since the whole idea of the nonzero sum game has been researched and discussed extensively in International Relations. There are whole schools of theories stemming from this idea, so why not alert the average user that Mr. Wright wasn't the first one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.62.107.134 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]