The idea behind this program is fascinating, which I guess why I watched it - has violence dropped over time? Why?
In practice the program presents individual bits of interesting science / history, but connects them in nonsensical ways. For example we learn that testosterone levels in human males have dropped over the past 200,000 years, as demonstrated by changes in facial structure. Only a minute or so later we're looking at a graph showing how US homicides have dropped between 1990 and 2015, but the narrator seems to be trying to get us to link the two data points as 'violence dropping over time'. This problem of conflating processes happening over wildly different timescales is present throughout the program, and there's very little attempt to bring the historical data we see presented in dribs and drabs together.
We then have a range of diversionary investigations into little case studies such as 'violence interruptors' in Baltimore, or bringing people together through sport. While these are sometimes interesting, and assert things about violence, they really aren't linked in to any overall coherent argument or narrative.
There is also basically no discussion of possible differences in factors leading to violence at individual, local, or national levels.
Basically, this is a program that started with an interesting idea, but then decided to throw a few factoids and case studies at the wall to see what stuck. Doesn't really address what it sets out to, and felt very unscientific.
Also, despite using his name as a draw to this programme, Steven Pinker really has a very minor role, and the majority of it is not presented or narrated by him.
Disappointing.