I'm not wild about the genre of the likes of Pinker and Harari where they misinterpret and cherry pick scientific data to fit their philosophical ideas. Bregman seems to be doing this from the left, which I appreciate because this is how I see the world and because it offers pushback to their sort of pessimistic view of human nature as selfish and how systems operate as something we can't change and shouldn't try. So while I don't know that he's any more correct than any of the others, I certainly think Bregman offers more hope and should be added to any list of this sciencey philosophy genre. 

A note of mine from reading the first few pages: He quotes Emma Goldman and is coming at this seeing the good in humanity from a more leftist POV, reminds me of the Jane Goodall book some. I think it'll be uplifting...and help me mitigate my inner cynic? 

I really enjoyed all his debunkings of Lord of the Flies, Stanford Prison Experiment, Easter Island, Robbers Cave Experiment and several more. I believe those were his examples to counter the humans are selfish by nature argument. In some, we learned the wrong lesson or didn't listen to the corrections that came out. It was nice to revisit these things. 

On contact theory near the end, I think he misses some key bits. His examples are conflict zones but he doesn't really address inequality, so it's rather simplistic. Though in general, he's right, contact theory isn't not a horrible concept. We need to get out of our bubbles. He doesn't mention, as Jamil Zaki does in War for Kindness, studies on how the oppressed group vs the priveliged group were affected - IF there is a power imbalance. If all things are equal, sure, contact is all that's needed and each group can learn more about the other and be better for it. Zaki mentions the fact that often the oppressed group will be worse off because having had to get by in the priveliged folks' world, they know those facts already, and it just grinds them down more to hear it explained again by someone else without having their inequality or whatever issue acknowledged or injustice or imbalance addressed - while the priveliged group generally learn a bit and feels better. 

I do like how he points out that compassion is maybe better than empathy and how reason makes us human and understanding at a rational level is a skill you can learn. All good stuff. 

There is a list at the end. I do love a list. It's not a terrible one. 

But I'm going to have to disagree on the don't punch a Nazi point. I think nonviolence is important but often cannot be the only prong of attack against injustice. They can be large and popular and that's great. Slavery, colonial rule, apartheid, racial injustice - those types of things aren't ended by nonviolence alone (historically speaking), though there have been some very large and helpful nonviolent actions and movements. 

His tenth point is be realistic - change the definition of realism from cynical to more trusting/generous. So in the end, I do like the premise even if I take issue with some things.