What do you think?
Rate this book
Language and Human Nature Tetralogy #3
La tabla rasa: La negación moderna de la naturaleza humana
La concepción que podamos tener de la naturaleza humana afecta a todos los aspectos de nuestra vida, desde la forma en que educamos a nuestros hijos hasta las ideas políticas que defendemos. Sin embargo, en un momento en que la ciencia está avanzando espectacularmente en estos temas, muchas personas se muestran hostiles al respecto. Temen que los descubrimientos sobre los patrones innatos del pensar y el sentir se puedan emplear para justificar la desigualdad, subvertir el orden social, anular la responsabilidad personal y confundir el sentido y el propósito de la vida. En La tabla rasa, Steven Pinker explora la idea de la naturaleza humana y sus aspectos éticos, emocionales y políticos. Demuestra que muchos intelectuales han negado su existencia al defender tres dogmas entrelazados: la “tabla rasa� (la mente no tiene características innatas), el “buen salvaje� (la persona nace buena y la sociedad la corrompe) y el “fantasma en la máquina� (todos tenemos un alma que toma decisiones sin depender de la biología). Cada dogma sobrelleva una carga ética, y por eso sus defensores se obcecan en tácticas desesperadas para desacreditar a los científicos que los cuestionan. Pinker aporta calma y serenidad a estos debates al mostrar que la igualdad, el progreso, la responsabilidad y el propósito nada tienen que temer de los descubrimientos sobre la complejidad de la naturaleza humana. Con un razonamiento claro, sencillez en la exposición y ejemplos procedentes de la ciencia y la historia, el autor desmonta incluso las amenazas más inquietantes. Y demuestra que un reconocimiento de la naturaleza humana basado en la ciencia y el sentido común, lejos de ser peligroso, puede ser un complemento a las ideas sobre la condición humana que miles de miles de artistas y filósofos han generado. Todo ello aderezado con un estilo que, en sus obras anteriores, le sirvió para conseguir muchos premios y el aplauso internacional: ingenio, lucidez y agudeza en el análisis de todos los asuntos, sean grandes o pequeños.
704 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
2,708 people are currently reading
80.4k people want to read
About the author
Steven Pinker
66books10.3kfollowersSteven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of numerous books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, The Stuff of Thought, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and most recently, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
He was born in Canada and graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, then became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2004 and one of Prospect and Foreign Policy's 100 top public intellectuals in 2005. He has also received honorary doctorates from the universities of Newcastle, Surrey, Tel Aviv, McGill, and the University of Tromsø, Norway. He was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, in 1998 and in 2003. In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, whose comments about the gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. On May 13th 2006, Pinker received the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year award for his contributions to public understanding of human evolution.
In 2007, he was invited on The Colbert Report and asked under pressure to sum up how the brain works in five words � Pinker answered "Brain cells fire in patterns."
Pinker was born into the English-speaking Jewish community of Montreal. He has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969. His father, a trained lawyer, first worked as a traveling salesman, while his mother was first a home-maker then a guidance counselor and high-school vice-principal. He has two younger siblings. His brother is a policy analyst for the Canadian government. His sister, Susan Pinker, is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Sexual Paradox and The Village Effect.
Pinker married Nancy Etcoff in 1980 and they divorced 1992; he married Ilavenil Subbiah in 1995 and they too divorced. He is married to the novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, the author of 10 books and winner of the National Medal of the Humanities. He has no children.
His next book will take off from his research on "common knowledge" (knowing that everyone knows something). Its tentative title is: Don't Go There: Common Knowledge and the Science of Civility, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Taboo.
He was born in Canada and graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, then became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2004 and one of Prospect and Foreign Policy's 100 top public intellectuals in 2005. He has also received honorary doctorates from the universities of Newcastle, Surrey, Tel Aviv, McGill, and the University of Tromsø, Norway. He was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, in 1998 and in 2003. In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, whose comments about the gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. On May 13th 2006, Pinker received the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year award for his contributions to public understanding of human evolution.
In 2007, he was invited on The Colbert Report and asked under pressure to sum up how the brain works in five words � Pinker answered "Brain cells fire in patterns."
Pinker was born into the English-speaking Jewish community of Montreal. He has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969. His father, a trained lawyer, first worked as a traveling salesman, while his mother was first a home-maker then a guidance counselor and high-school vice-principal. He has two younger siblings. His brother is a policy analyst for the Canadian government. His sister, Susan Pinker, is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Sexual Paradox and The Village Effect.
Pinker married Nancy Etcoff in 1980 and they divorced 1992; he married Ilavenil Subbiah in 1995 and they too divorced. He is married to the novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, the author of 10 books and winner of the National Medal of the Humanities. He has no children.
His next book will take off from his research on "common knowledge" (knowing that everyone knows something). Its tentative title is: Don't Go There: Common Knowledge and the Science of Civility, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Taboo.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,178 reviews
June 5, 2008
I'm an atheist. I've always been and always will be (god willing). When I was a kid, I used to envy the religious folks who seemed to be having such deep meaningful fun all the time. It's not that I hate religion, or the idea of god, it's just that I can't really get my mind around it after a childhood devoid of spirituality. Newsflash: if you don't take a lot for granted, religious theory makes NO SENSE. The only place I've ever found deeper meaning is in biology and physics and neurology. SO...
reading this book is as close as I've come to a "religious experience". Reading about the evolution of the human mind, and how our basic drives--and the complex mechanisms we've developed to serve them--manifest themselves within culture, and simultaneously CREATE culture...it's just...positively uplifting. Thinking of human nature in this way makes me appreciate everything "human" in a much deeper sense. Music sounds better, machines are blowing my mind, babies are tiny geniuses! Hell, I may even read some poetry. How about THAT?
I would recommend this book to everyone I know. It's just thick enough that some paragraphs warrant a second going over, but just engaging enough that it won't leave you frustrated and bored.
reading this book is as close as I've come to a "religious experience". Reading about the evolution of the human mind, and how our basic drives--and the complex mechanisms we've developed to serve them--manifest themselves within culture, and simultaneously CREATE culture...it's just...positively uplifting. Thinking of human nature in this way makes me appreciate everything "human" in a much deeper sense. Music sounds better, machines are blowing my mind, babies are tiny geniuses! Hell, I may even read some poetry. How about THAT?
I would recommend this book to everyone I know. It's just thick enough that some paragraphs warrant a second going over, but just engaging enough that it won't leave you frustrated and bored.
March 16, 2012
I contend that there are two Steven Pinkers. Pinker 1 is an eloquent, witty, and insightful writer on the issues of cognitive psychology and linguistics who has the rare talent of making his subjects accessible and appealing to academic and lay audiences. Pinker 2 retains the writing ability, but instead uses it for pushing his pet theories, usually political in nature (cf. his most recent Better Angels of Our Nature). This book comes straight from the pen of Pinker 2.
There are really two main components of the book: Lengthy rants against his ideological opponents and an extended argument in favor of a watered-down hereditarian view of human nature. Pinker rightly notes that "nature vs. nurture" is a false dichotomy and then goes about ascribing enormous amounts of deterministic power to genes. He relies on a number of controversial and dubious sources as well as his own misinterpretations of some research, such as Bouchard's infamous twin studies.
Lacking actual examples of those who hold this "blank slate" view, Pinker dredges up some long dead academics to serve as a scarecrow. He rails against J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, even though his intellectual hero Noam Chomsky rebutted Skinner and behaviorism in general in the 1960s. Next he'll be telling us Lamarck was wrong about evolution! He also engages in some tired Margaret Mead-bashing typical of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology partisans by citing Derek Freeman's "debunking" of Mead. Pinker missed the memo that Freeman's work was subsequently discredited (see Paul Shankman's ).
Pinker astutely points out that proponents of environmental or cultural determinism do not associate these theories with the horrors of communism (Lysenko famously denounced genetics as a "bourgeois pseudoscience"), but they do associate biological theories with eugenics and Nazism. However, in general, Pinker unleashes a firestorm on a field of straw men. Some of his more contemporary "blank slaters" are so-called "gender feminists," whatever those are. (Everyone except Christina Hoff Sommers?) Demonstrating that he's willing to slurp up just about any "finding" in pop evolutionary psychology, he offers an extended defense of Thornhill and Palmer's . The defense parrots the authors' framing of the controversy, with Thornhill and Palmer as the hard-headed, rational scientists telling the cold hard truths versus the hordes of fluffy-headed, irrational, emotional, and "politically correct" feminists. Any mention of the scathing reviews the book met in the scientific press (see Cheryl Brown Travis's edited volume ) is omitted or given cursory treatment. Pinker uses pop evo psych in a number of other places as a means to club over the head the bogeywoman of gender feminism. This generally seems to involve projecting modern gender roles and stereotypes back into pre-history based on rank speculation. Simon Blackburn put it best: "Meet the Flintstones." (See, e.g., , or for critical overviews of current sex-difference research.)
I could go on about the technical shortcomings in this book, but Blackburn and H. Allen Orr have already done a much better job of it in their reviews than I could:
Pinker attempts to posture as a defender of science against the demons of unreason, but he is simply defending his own views and pet theories about science. He is pushing stealth hereditarianism under the banner of consilience, to borrow E.O. Wilson's term. "The blank slate" thus becomes an epithet to write off anyone who wants to say, "Hold on a moment, it's much more complicated than that!"
For those looking to get into evolutionary psychology: Skip this and pick up Laland and Brown's for a scholarly overview of fields studying evolution and human behavior and Buller's for a critical view of evolutionary psychology.
For those looking to read Pinker: Skip this and pick up something by Pinker 1, like or
There are really two main components of the book: Lengthy rants against his ideological opponents and an extended argument in favor of a watered-down hereditarian view of human nature. Pinker rightly notes that "nature vs. nurture" is a false dichotomy and then goes about ascribing enormous amounts of deterministic power to genes. He relies on a number of controversial and dubious sources as well as his own misinterpretations of some research, such as Bouchard's infamous twin studies.
Lacking actual examples of those who hold this "blank slate" view, Pinker dredges up some long dead academics to serve as a scarecrow. He rails against J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, even though his intellectual hero Noam Chomsky rebutted Skinner and behaviorism in general in the 1960s. Next he'll be telling us Lamarck was wrong about evolution! He also engages in some tired Margaret Mead-bashing typical of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology partisans by citing Derek Freeman's "debunking" of Mead. Pinker missed the memo that Freeman's work was subsequently discredited (see Paul Shankman's ).
Pinker astutely points out that proponents of environmental or cultural determinism do not associate these theories with the horrors of communism (Lysenko famously denounced genetics as a "bourgeois pseudoscience"), but they do associate biological theories with eugenics and Nazism. However, in general, Pinker unleashes a firestorm on a field of straw men. Some of his more contemporary "blank slaters" are so-called "gender feminists," whatever those are. (Everyone except Christina Hoff Sommers?) Demonstrating that he's willing to slurp up just about any "finding" in pop evolutionary psychology, he offers an extended defense of Thornhill and Palmer's . The defense parrots the authors' framing of the controversy, with Thornhill and Palmer as the hard-headed, rational scientists telling the cold hard truths versus the hordes of fluffy-headed, irrational, emotional, and "politically correct" feminists. Any mention of the scathing reviews the book met in the scientific press (see Cheryl Brown Travis's edited volume ) is omitted or given cursory treatment. Pinker uses pop evo psych in a number of other places as a means to club over the head the bogeywoman of gender feminism. This generally seems to involve projecting modern gender roles and stereotypes back into pre-history based on rank speculation. Simon Blackburn put it best: "Meet the Flintstones." (See, e.g., , or for critical overviews of current sex-difference research.)
I could go on about the technical shortcomings in this book, but Blackburn and H. Allen Orr have already done a much better job of it in their reviews than I could:
Pinker attempts to posture as a defender of science against the demons of unreason, but he is simply defending his own views and pet theories about science. He is pushing stealth hereditarianism under the banner of consilience, to borrow E.O. Wilson's term. "The blank slate" thus becomes an epithet to write off anyone who wants to say, "Hold on a moment, it's much more complicated than that!"
For those looking to get into evolutionary psychology: Skip this and pick up Laland and Brown's for a scholarly overview of fields studying evolution and human behavior and Buller's for a critical view of evolutionary psychology.
For those looking to read Pinker: Skip this and pick up something by Pinker 1, like or
September 9, 2009
Steven Pinker takes on the old nature/nurture question, and does an excellent job of it. Are we the products of our genes or our upbringing? Pinker tells you in the first few pages what the new consensus is: both, but genes are probably more important.
He has some wonderful stories to back up the general points. Here's one that particularly appealed to me. During the 60s and 70s, you often heard that boys and girls are indoctrinated from an early age so as to conform to conventional gender roles. Without that conditioning, girls would e.g. be as likely to want to play with toy guns, or boys with dolls. It was just a theory, but it was one that many people believed.
So, says Pinker, how could we investigate the question scientifically? It's difficult. What you'd like to do, if you had the chance, would be to take a few dozen boys, castrate them at birth, surgically transform them into girls, and then raise them like other girls without ever telling them what you'd done. At various points in their development, you could compare them with a control group of biologically normal girls, and see if there were any significant differences.
Needless to say, no one would ever permit such an appallingly wicked experiment. Except that it's actually happened. Every year, it turns out that a small number of male infants do have to be castrated and turned into girls, most often as a result of botched circumcision operations. Historically, they've usually not been told what happened, since this was deemed to be in their best interests.
Studies on these unfortunate children show that they nearly always feel deeply conflicted, and quite different from other girls. They have all sorts of impulses which they feel are bizarre and wrong, and which can sometimes lead them to suicidal despair. In some cases, they have later been informed that they are actually male, and their reaction has typically been one of relief. They weren't weird after all. They were just male without knowing it.
Well, if you thought that story was interesting, he's got dozens more that are nearly as good. I loved this book.
He has some wonderful stories to back up the general points. Here's one that particularly appealed to me. During the 60s and 70s, you often heard that boys and girls are indoctrinated from an early age so as to conform to conventional gender roles. Without that conditioning, girls would e.g. be as likely to want to play with toy guns, or boys with dolls. It was just a theory, but it was one that many people believed.
So, says Pinker, how could we investigate the question scientifically? It's difficult. What you'd like to do, if you had the chance, would be to take a few dozen boys, castrate them at birth, surgically transform them into girls, and then raise them like other girls without ever telling them what you'd done. At various points in their development, you could compare them with a control group of biologically normal girls, and see if there were any significant differences.
Needless to say, no one would ever permit such an appallingly wicked experiment. Except that it's actually happened. Every year, it turns out that a small number of male infants do have to be castrated and turned into girls, most often as a result of botched circumcision operations. Historically, they've usually not been told what happened, since this was deemed to be in their best interests.
Studies on these unfortunate children show that they nearly always feel deeply conflicted, and quite different from other girls. They have all sorts of impulses which they feel are bizarre and wrong, and which can sometimes lead them to suicidal despair. In some cases, they have later been informed that they are actually male, and their reaction has typically been one of relief. They weren't weird after all. They were just male without knowing it.
Well, if you thought that story was interesting, he's got dozens more that are nearly as good. I loved this book.
December 11, 2024
Interesantísimo libro con un tema tan polémico como relevante, ¿existe una naturaleza humana?, ¿la existencia precede a la esencia o más bien sucede al contrario? Es imposible resumir aquí los argumentos que aporta Pinker en apoyo de la existencia de una naturaleza humana y de sus implicaciones, por lo que aquí me limitaré a resumir brevemente los temas que trata con la esperanza de que les despierte el gusanillo de la curiosidad.
Tras comentar los antecedentes de la idea de tabla rasa, idea atribuida a John Locke, y su relación con otras dos ideas centrales en el ideario colectivo de los últimos siglos, la idea del buen salvaje de Rousseau y la mente libre e independiente del cuerpo de Descartes, el autor da un repaso a los nuevos conocimientos que vienen a poner en tela de juicio a todas estas teorías, la ciencia cognitiva, la neurociencia, la genética de la conducta y la psicología evolutiva.
Su postura es clara: “la mente está equipada con una batería de sentimientos, impulsos y facultades para razonar y comunicarse, y que tienen una lógica común en todas las culturas, son difíciles de eliminar o de rediseñar a partir de cero, fueron configuradas por la acción de la selección natural en el transcurso de la evolución humana y deben algo de su diseño básico (y algo de su variación) a la información presente en el genoma.�
Tras ello, dedica una buena parte del libro a responder a aquellos que ven en esta naturaleza humana una idea peligrosa.
Entre esos peligros es especialmente relevante el hecho de que esa supuesta inmutabilidad de la naturaleza humana eliminaría toda esperanza de reforma, y, como corolario de ello, la falacia de que si supuestamente aceptamos que muchos de los rasgos negativos del comportamiento humano son naturales, y dado que supuestamente todo lo natural es bueno, deberíamos aceptar como bueno todos esos comportamientos infames.
Otra de las implicaciones polémicas es todo lo que supone que “en última instancia no controlemos nuestras propias decisiones, pues estas están predestinadas por el estado de nuestros cerebros� y, por tanto, hasta donde llega nuestra responsabilidad en los actos. Y junto a ello el peligro del nihilismo, de la imposibilidad de establecer una escala de valores “Si no somos más que máquinas que permiten que los genes hagan copias de sí mismos, si nuestras alegrías y satisfacciones no son otra cosa que sucesos bioquímicos, si la vida no se creó con algún fin elevado ni se dirige hacia alguna noble meta.�
Pero Pinker no solo se defiende, también ataca destacando las implicaciones perversas que también tendría una mente organizada como tabla rasa, como es el relativismo. Dado que no hay nada previo en el cerebro, lo que percibimos, siempre mediatizado por nuestras teorías previamente adquiridas, simplemente se acumula en nuestro cerebro condicionando a su vez lo que percibiremos a posteriori. Por ejemplo, la ciencia solo sería una forma de ver la realidad como cualquier otra, o cualquier moral y estructura de valores éticos sería igualmente válida.
Por último hace un repaso a las implicaciones que las dos concepciones de la mente, la tabula rasa y la existencia de una naturaleza innata, tienen sobre una serie de temas polémicos cómo la forma de organizarnos políticamente o qué políticas se deben adoptar frente a problemas sociales como la violencia o el trato a los delincuentes, las implicaciones que tienen el género de las personas en el comportamiento, el papel de la herencia en ese comportamiento�
January 19, 2018
In some ways, this book is both a tragedy and an inspiration.
How is it a tragedy? It's a tragedy because the book is responding to very ideologically-based, simple arguments for the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine that I think don't really need to be addressed. Many of the points in the book I was thoroughly convinced of before reading the book -- I knew that genetics played some role in determining personality and aptitude; I was convinced of the probabilistic approach to human behavior; and I was convinced that versions of "is" do not automatically translate into "ought". On top of that, much of the book is spent rehashing the very petty politics of what happens in university departments and on college campuses -- the politicization and tribalization of knowledge. It's a stark reminder that even in environments where people should be better and do better, they often give in to their worst instincts.
So, the book is tragic in that much of this material, in a more perfect world, could have just been skipped or ignored. The author could have begun this book from a different starting place where readers have no ideological axes to grind, open-minded examination of evidence and arguments take place, and we are all intellectually and emotionally ready to live in a world of nuance. But no, that is not the world we live in, so that is not the book we get. And that is tragic.
The book, though, is also an inspiration. Why? Because it attempts to lift the conversation to that place where nuance and evidence are grounded in a humanistic understanding of our role as scholars and thinkers. The author, through his exploration of the various themes and evidence, tries to make us all epistemic creatures -- people who can have beliefs and values but suspend them in order to explore counter-evidence, new theories, and hypotheses, and sharpen our values with our knowledge. As epistemic creatures, we would also be able to ask that all-important question: How do we know something?
In a moment in history where so much discourse is polluted by vulgarity, that is refreshing...but it's also tragic. Because in a world where we are all trained from a young age to have the epistemic and moral habits of scientists, this might have been a more nuanced and at once infinitely shorter book.
February 20, 2025
Do you believe that the human mind, at conception, is a Tabula Rasa? Because John Locke was completely out of his depth regarding the architecture of the brain and said something that sounded good? Well, here’s a Hobbesian Hammer to mangle the handsome features of your Rousseaian naïveté. Are you convinced that, despite evolution’s demonstrable power to produce a wide variety of phenotypic delights and inform the instinctual capacities of creatures big and small, it had nothing to say about the scaffolding of the human mind? If this isn’t sophistry in the service of ideology, I’ll eat a live dolphin. This is where I would normally trot out such tired qualifiers as:
Yes, of course, the human mind is malleable (to an extent), and the effects of cultural copulation are manifold and obv(invid)ious. No, the shackles of these behaviors are not made of adamantium (what clearer evidence of our power to chuck a spandrel into our deepest evolutionary drives than nutting into latex (or sheep skin, for those with allergies, or a Gatorade bottle for the desperate), or pharmaceutically tinkering with the baby oven, or, more terrible still - exercising abstinence), we have big frontal-loafs for a raisin. Damnit! I’m doing it again!
Socrates grant me Parrhesia so that I may slow the advance of utopian retrograde reasoning (technically that would mean my foe is receding from me, which puts me in (an) + alogized full nelson. Shit. ((Although, technically, the perceived retrograde motions of heavenly bodies were the result of systemic misunderstanding, so maybe there’s a way out of this. (((Although, if we’re just going by the literal definition, denuded of its historical context, then I suppose it does indicate a backwards motion,[although, specifically a backwards step!] ((((although, in this case, I’m referring to a mode of cognition which starts with a conclusion and reasons backwards from there, and that has little to say about the bodily kinesthetics of the army involved, except a perusal of history and human behavior so selective that the term malnourished would die of malnourishment in seeking to comprehend it. (((((May)(b)e 5(G)(Eye))((h)EAR))(if you (s(L)heep) with a bre(ache)k p(ad: for Colgate) (th)under yo(lk)ur pill(age)ow, it c(an)(tel(l)(lope) h(el(hel)p)elp attenuate these sinister frequencies. Alternatively, there are magnetic bracelets, one of which I just gave a jingle, and look at me, back to normal! So if 5G is indeed the source of your recalcitrant, retrograde-rectitude, you might look into that. Because the idea that we’re Blank Slates is about as goddamn plausible as feng shui’ing the furniture in your house into the shape of the regular convex polytopes using ONLY three dimensions in order to propitiate Azathoth who will then allow you to grow cotton candy in the abundant soil of human stupidity.
Well, this whole thing started off way more belligerent (and frankly insane) than I expected or wanted it to. But, I’m what you might charitably call a ‘discovery� writer. Which is why I can’t plot anything, (unless it’s revenge) and chose to major in numerical witchcraft. But I (being careful not to think about the mathematics of infinite sets this time) digress (carefully and without recursion)
Now this assertion should be uncontroversial to anyone who a.) does not deny the scientific fact of evolution, and b.) can do a perfect cartwheel.
We are the sum total of our amino acids pitching a fit and erecting a house of carbon capable of sheltering our nucleotide sequences long enough for us to mail them into the future via no holds barred (debatable. See; de Sade) body-karate. We are equipped with a mental lattice work which preferentially captured certain free floating rationale that reliably saved us from bad endings, and through inconceivable stretches of geometric time, crystallized these behaviors, via the non-random selection of random mutations, into sugar and phosphate ladders, twisted just so, that encode instructions for producing brains which have aptitudes calibrated to insure their manifestation in forms such as: Folk Newtonian physics for parabola’ing rocks and plague ridden cattle (catapult non-negotiable). The ease with which children acquire language. The fear of heights. The desire to flee screaming from serpents. The ease with which most of us submit to dominance hierarchies. Disgust reflexes involving poo, disease, creeping crud, mud elementals, kitsch, musicians who can’t properly apply corpse paint, the absence of double-kicks and blast beats in elevator music, imitation Oreos, asymmetrical saggin� asses, non-anime-incest. And so on. During the interim between awareness, sexual maturity, and Koital Kombat, our data is subject to outside forces which reconfigure it in ways that are bolded, italicized, and hyperlinked. Nature and nurture (as the wise among us say) are perennial fuck buddies.
This book is amazing.
Read it you bastards!
(It occurs to me that, somewhere within this review, I have failed to capture something parenthetically. It is like holding a sneeze in my heart.)
Yes, of course, the human mind is malleable (to an extent), and the effects of cultural copulation are manifold and obv(invid)ious. No, the shackles of these behaviors are not made of adamantium (what clearer evidence of our power to chuck a spandrel into our deepest evolutionary drives than nutting into latex (or sheep skin, for those with allergies, or a Gatorade bottle for the desperate), or pharmaceutically tinkering with the baby oven, or, more terrible still - exercising abstinence), we have big frontal-loafs for a raisin. Damnit! I’m doing it again!
Socrates grant me Parrhesia so that I may slow the advance of utopian retrograde reasoning (technically that would mean my foe is receding from me, which puts me in (an) + alogized full nelson. Shit. ((Although, technically, the perceived retrograde motions of heavenly bodies were the result of systemic misunderstanding, so maybe there’s a way out of this. (((Although, if we’re just going by the literal definition, denuded of its historical context, then I suppose it does indicate a backwards motion,[although, specifically a backwards step!] ((((although, in this case, I’m referring to a mode of cognition which starts with a conclusion and reasons backwards from there, and that has little to say about the bodily kinesthetics of the army involved, except a perusal of history and human behavior so selective that the term malnourished would die of malnourishment in seeking to comprehend it. (((((May)(b)e 5(G)(Eye))((h)EAR))(if you (s(L)heep) with a bre(ache)k p(ad: for Colgate) (th)under yo(lk)ur pill(age)ow, it c(an)(tel(l)(lope) h(el(hel)p)elp attenuate these sinister frequencies. Alternatively, there are magnetic bracelets, one of which I just gave a jingle, and look at me, back to normal! So if 5G is indeed the source of your recalcitrant, retrograde-rectitude, you might look into that. Because the idea that we’re Blank Slates is about as goddamn plausible as feng shui’ing the furniture in your house into the shape of the regular convex polytopes using ONLY three dimensions in order to propitiate Azathoth who will then allow you to grow cotton candy in the abundant soil of human stupidity.
Well, this whole thing started off way more belligerent (and frankly insane) than I expected or wanted it to. But, I’m what you might charitably call a ‘discovery� writer. Which is why I can’t plot anything, (unless it’s revenge) and chose to major in numerical witchcraft. But I (being careful not to think about the mathematics of infinite sets this time) digress (carefully and without recursion)
Now this assertion should be uncontroversial to anyone who a.) does not deny the scientific fact of evolution, and b.) can do a perfect cartwheel.
We are the sum total of our amino acids pitching a fit and erecting a house of carbon capable of sheltering our nucleotide sequences long enough for us to mail them into the future via no holds barred (debatable. See; de Sade) body-karate. We are equipped with a mental lattice work which preferentially captured certain free floating rationale that reliably saved us from bad endings, and through inconceivable stretches of geometric time, crystallized these behaviors, via the non-random selection of random mutations, into sugar and phosphate ladders, twisted just so, that encode instructions for producing brains which have aptitudes calibrated to insure their manifestation in forms such as: Folk Newtonian physics for parabola’ing rocks and plague ridden cattle (catapult non-negotiable). The ease with which children acquire language. The fear of heights. The desire to flee screaming from serpents. The ease with which most of us submit to dominance hierarchies. Disgust reflexes involving poo, disease, creeping crud, mud elementals, kitsch, musicians who can’t properly apply corpse paint, the absence of double-kicks and blast beats in elevator music, imitation Oreos, asymmetrical saggin� asses, non-anime-incest. And so on. During the interim between awareness, sexual maturity, and Koital Kombat, our data is subject to outside forces which reconfigure it in ways that are bolded, italicized, and hyperlinked. Nature and nurture (as the wise among us say) are perennial fuck buddies.
This book is amazing.
Read it you bastards!
(It occurs to me that, somewhere within this review, I have failed to capture something parenthetically. It is like holding a sneeze in my heart.)
November 20, 2008
The Blank Slate is Steven Pinker's ambitious attempt to close the gap between the conventionally accepted dogma that human beings come into this world free of innate characteristics, ready to be molded and shaped by society, and what science has begun to reveal about genetic predisposition.
Prior to reading this book, I had no idea that the origin of human nature was such a contentious topic amongst modern intellectuals. Seems that a lot of people think acknowledging that something like violence might have been evolutionarily adaptive is the same thing as condoning violence and excusing those who engage in it, or that admitting that men and women are genetically different justifies discrimination against women. Pinker spends a lot of time in this book carefully addressing these concerns while at the same time making a compelling argument that the current tendency to deny any genetic influence on society's more vexing ills only handicaps our ability to successfully deal with our most serious problems.
Pinker is not shy about tackling controversial topics as he makes his points. The chapter in which he pointed to evidence showing that a child's intelligence and personality are shaped far more by genes, peers and random influences than they are by parents got him an enormous amount of mail, as did the section in which he discussed genetic influences on our appreciation of the arts.
Despite the radical nature of many of the theories Pinker presents, I found myself having continuous "ah-ha!" moments as I read this book. At its core, the idea that we are shaped by our genes as well as our experiences fits far better with reality than the idea that we are all nothing but moldable blank slates. Though these theories may not intellectually fashionable, Pinker makes it clear that there are a wealth of benefits to be gained by accepting what science has to tell us about the true origins of human nature.
Prior to reading this book, I had no idea that the origin of human nature was such a contentious topic amongst modern intellectuals. Seems that a lot of people think acknowledging that something like violence might have been evolutionarily adaptive is the same thing as condoning violence and excusing those who engage in it, or that admitting that men and women are genetically different justifies discrimination against women. Pinker spends a lot of time in this book carefully addressing these concerns while at the same time making a compelling argument that the current tendency to deny any genetic influence on society's more vexing ills only handicaps our ability to successfully deal with our most serious problems.
Pinker is not shy about tackling controversial topics as he makes his points. The chapter in which he pointed to evidence showing that a child's intelligence and personality are shaped far more by genes, peers and random influences than they are by parents got him an enormous amount of mail, as did the section in which he discussed genetic influences on our appreciation of the arts.
Despite the radical nature of many of the theories Pinker presents, I found myself having continuous "ah-ha!" moments as I read this book. At its core, the idea that we are shaped by our genes as well as our experiences fits far better with reality than the idea that we are all nothing but moldable blank slates. Though these theories may not intellectually fashionable, Pinker makes it clear that there are a wealth of benefits to be gained by accepting what science has to tell us about the true origins of human nature.
October 6, 2020
كتاب الصفحة البيضاء لستيفن بنكر دا مستفز فوق الوصف، سلاسة ونعومة وبساطة جميلة جدا، طرح أفكار وتأصيل تاريخي لها مع التركيز على دلالة اللغة واهميتها (النقطة دي كانت مبهرة بشكل خيالي)، وللأسف الكتب الحلوة اللي زي دي بتخليني اتمنى اني كنت اقراه بلغته الأم وفي نفس الوقت بيخليني الاحظ اكتر للفجوة المرعبة بين الترجمات العربي والمقابل لها في الاصول والترجمات الانجليزية مثلا، فارق معرفي مهول في الحجم والتأثير، في حين الترجمات العربي محكومة بمجهودات اغلبها له شروط تجارية او حتى مش مهتم بنقل معرفة ما، والمشاريع الحكومية بتكون غير مضمونة الجودة.
August 3, 2008
Louis Menand has written a typically excellent piece on Pinker's arrogance:
I found this book simultaneously interesting and exasperating, because the author is obviously a highly educated, well-read man who thinks he knows everything about every subject. There is a whole class of these public intellectuals (the late Carl Sagan, Richard Dawins, et al) who play this game: they use the public authority they have gained by virtue of (at least modest) academic accomplishment in one field to pronounce authoritatively on every damn thing under the sun. (Most of his scholarly journal output is in psychology and language, according to his cv; his PhD is in experimental psychology.) And maybe Pinker has figured it all out, but don't you think he could cut those of us a break who still think we exist? "Cognitive neuroscientists have not only exorcised the ghost but have shown that the brain does not even have a part that does exactly what the ghost is supposed to do: review all the facts and make a decision for the rest of the brain to carry out. Each of us there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce..." And with that he dismisses the idea that you and I exist at all; there is no "you" there, only a collection of atoms with some remarkable properties (observable by other lumps of atoms). Wow, I am glad that's all settled. More generally, it's good to know there's no need for a field like philosophy. Pinker has a footnote to support his claim that the brain has no "I," but one of his sources (predictably) is Daniel Dennett, the Tufts philosopher and enemy of the mind (and Anything Else Immaterial). Elsewhere Pinker claims Hitler thought he was doing God's will (footnote to some article in an atheist magazine I looked up -- check out Free Inquiry, Volumbe 19, Issue 2, and judge for yourself whether you would *ever* cite this source in a serious academic inquiry) and that the Catholic Church teaches that 'ensoulment' takes place at the moment of conception. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. I'm guessing Pinker has spent little time in Catholic churches or reading Catholic books or magazines, so I can see why he thinks a statement like "the catholic church teaches ______" is an easy one to make. To those of us who have done some of those things, though, it is not so trivial. Sure, in broad strokes, one can formulate simple statements with confidence (e.g., that God exists or Jesus is the Son of God or even abortion is wrong), but his assertion is packed with some things that are far harder to disentangle. Most importantly, he uses the word "ensoulment" -- and this is central to his argument at this point in the book -- implying that the Church firmly teaches this concept that he is upset about. I do not know that the RCC says much (currently, anyway) dogmatically about the philosophical underpinnings of a word like "ensoulment." What I do know is that I am familiar with the phrase Ghost in the Machine (one of Pinker's bogeymen in this book) from Catholic authors who, like the late JPII, were critical of Cartesian dualism. So, I am being long-winded, but I am trying to get across that Pinker has these convenient cartoon notions of what other people say and because he is so frightfully intelligent he assumes he has it all figured out. If he would just say to himself, "It is possible that there is one thing I think I know that I do not," I believe his tone would be far more congenial and the book much improved. But then again, there is no self for him to say it to, so what's the point?
I found this book simultaneously interesting and exasperating, because the author is obviously a highly educated, well-read man who thinks he knows everything about every subject. There is a whole class of these public intellectuals (the late Carl Sagan, Richard Dawins, et al) who play this game: they use the public authority they have gained by virtue of (at least modest) academic accomplishment in one field to pronounce authoritatively on every damn thing under the sun. (Most of his scholarly journal output is in psychology and language, according to his cv; his PhD is in experimental psychology.) And maybe Pinker has figured it all out, but don't you think he could cut those of us a break who still think we exist? "Cognitive neuroscientists have not only exorcised the ghost but have shown that the brain does not even have a part that does exactly what the ghost is supposed to do: review all the facts and make a decision for the rest of the brain to carry out. Each of us there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce..." And with that he dismisses the idea that you and I exist at all; there is no "you" there, only a collection of atoms with some remarkable properties (observable by other lumps of atoms). Wow, I am glad that's all settled. More generally, it's good to know there's no need for a field like philosophy. Pinker has a footnote to support his claim that the brain has no "I," but one of his sources (predictably) is Daniel Dennett, the Tufts philosopher and enemy of the mind (and Anything Else Immaterial). Elsewhere Pinker claims Hitler thought he was doing God's will (footnote to some article in an atheist magazine I looked up -- check out Free Inquiry, Volumbe 19, Issue 2, and judge for yourself whether you would *ever* cite this source in a serious academic inquiry) and that the Catholic Church teaches that 'ensoulment' takes place at the moment of conception. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. I'm guessing Pinker has spent little time in Catholic churches or reading Catholic books or magazines, so I can see why he thinks a statement like "the catholic church teaches ______" is an easy one to make. To those of us who have done some of those things, though, it is not so trivial. Sure, in broad strokes, one can formulate simple statements with confidence (e.g., that God exists or Jesus is the Son of God or even abortion is wrong), but his assertion is packed with some things that are far harder to disentangle. Most importantly, he uses the word "ensoulment" -- and this is central to his argument at this point in the book -- implying that the Church firmly teaches this concept that he is upset about. I do not know that the RCC says much (currently, anyway) dogmatically about the philosophical underpinnings of a word like "ensoulment." What I do know is that I am familiar with the phrase Ghost in the Machine (one of Pinker's bogeymen in this book) from Catholic authors who, like the late JPII, were critical of Cartesian dualism. So, I am being long-winded, but I am trying to get across that Pinker has these convenient cartoon notions of what other people say and because he is so frightfully intelligent he assumes he has it all figured out. If he would just say to himself, "It is possible that there is one thing I think I know that I do not," I believe his tone would be far more congenial and the book much improved. But then again, there is no self for him to say it to, so what's the point?
April 19, 2013
So here's a case where you have a book about how much of our personalities and, well, nature is innate, rather than nurtured into us by our parents or our environment. If The Blank Slate were two hundred pages and focused just on brain science, it'd be one thing. The trouble is that it ends up reading as if Pinker gathered every single study that seemed to support his position and threw it into a blender, and then threw in a number of screeds against groups he has a bone to pick with. The result is a somewhat uneven and contradictory book where one chapter asserts that women don't go into math because they are innately unlikely to like it, and another chapter asserts that no one is innately good at complex math, which is why we have school to pound it into kids' little heads. Pinker's insistence on environment and parenting having minimal influence is sometimes undercut by the studies he presents and his own conclusions. Pinker is quick to say that differences between men and women are innate, whether it's emotional, a difference in a bell curve intelligence spread, or in general interests, but he'll attribute differences between races and ethnic groups to environment or oppression, forces he largely dismisses otherwise. Or we can note that Pinker asserts first that women are better caretakers then men, then secondly asserts that parenting is fairly irrelevant (as long as there's a man to look up to, no comments on where women fall on this influence spectrum), and then thirdly asserts that how well kids get along with parents is predictive of their overall success, which would suggest . . . parenting isn't irrelevant? He also tends to reduce complex issues, such as art or culture or rule of law to biological imperatives, which is a bit odd when he also asserts human individuality and specialness (as long as they also fall within the Norman the Normy Norms that define actual human nature, I suppose). He'll say art has no influence on anyone, really, so everyone hates modernism and post-modernism because it deconstructs art, which no one needs, because everyone knows art isn't real. And by the by, prejudices/stereotypes are often innate and have some good sense and 100% reliable statistics behind them, and these prejudices can't be strongly messed with by media or culture, although of course we should treat everyone with respect, even if they're low IQ and will never amount to anything or. Except that human nature is so violent (at least, if you're a man) and suspicious that of course we will never treat everyone with respect and don't you dare Big Brother us into doing so.
... I got carried away. But the book is absolutely exhausting, wheeling from one conclusion to the next in a mixture of hopeless pessimism, wide-eyed futurism, white-knuckled warnings about not screwing up the status quo, and sudden naivete. I also find many of the absolutely-certain-claims somewhat suspect, as if statistics/brain scans from this or that study and some anecdotes and did you know tribal people actually kill each other?? are absolute proof of what a human is. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful!" often exaggerate or segment the truth without making it impossible not to notice that nothing, even studies or statistics, exists in cold, objective isolation. I'm not being post-modern here. I'm saying that the very fact I know more about Pinker from this book than I do about human nature is par for the course. Does any of this matter? Does it matter to a childless female engineer that she's some kind of biological anomaly (and is she?). Is anything helped by positing that men are naturally violent and competitive, and ignoring the uncountable exceptions, or ignoring that women also compete against other women, for mates and otherwise? Is IQ, like, this magic statistic that determines human worth in society? Are you sure you aren't a supporter of eugenics? Etc, etc, etc. We can all agree that people are not meant to be programmed, that we should not force people who want to be poets to become mathematicians to fill a quota, and we should treat people well even when they're not like us. All right? All right.
... I got carried away. But the book is absolutely exhausting, wheeling from one conclusion to the next in a mixture of hopeless pessimism, wide-eyed futurism, white-knuckled warnings about not screwing up the status quo, and sudden naivete. I also find many of the absolutely-certain-claims somewhat suspect, as if statistics/brain scans from this or that study and some anecdotes and did you know tribal people actually kill each other?? are absolute proof of what a human is. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful!" often exaggerate or segment the truth without making it impossible not to notice that nothing, even studies or statistics, exists in cold, objective isolation. I'm not being post-modern here. I'm saying that the very fact I know more about Pinker from this book than I do about human nature is par for the course. Does any of this matter? Does it matter to a childless female engineer that she's some kind of biological anomaly (and is she?). Is anything helped by positing that men are naturally violent and competitive, and ignoring the uncountable exceptions, or ignoring that women also compete against other women, for mates and otherwise? Is IQ, like, this magic statistic that determines human worth in society? Are you sure you aren't a supporter of eugenics? Etc, etc, etc. We can all agree that people are not meant to be programmed, that we should not force people who want to be poets to become mathematicians to fill a quota, and we should treat people well even when they're not like us. All right? All right.
December 15, 2017
In which Pinker argues against a bunch of straw men without backing up his overly sweeping claims. I don't disagree with his basic thesis, but I do disagree with his cartoonish characterizations of his opponents, namely, feminists, the left, social scientists, etc. If you're going to write a book in which you are right and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should at least make sure you support your huge thesis with unassailable facts. He did not. It's one thing to say "we are not a blank slate." Totally fine. But quite another to say parenting and environment make no difference whatsoever, that women are not in fact under-represented in the sciences (that one made me the most mad), and that art is now crap (why is he even qualified to critique modern art?). Anyway, I'm sure it's not his fault--his biology made him that arrogant.
July 25, 2017
"I'm only human
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes"
--The Human League, Human
Most of us instinctively feel the acquisition of scientific knowledge follows a linear path, first operating from a solid factual base, and then modifying itself as it goes along in an objective fashion. Ultimately, a common agreeance on a certain topic will be reached, and the findings will translate into well-considered policy.
Ideally, that is how it should work, with scientists serving as neutral observers, freely informing us, the public, on whatever findings they come across, whatever the implications. This is not always what actually happens, of course. Not by a long shot. Ironically - also tellingly -, when it comes to the in-depth study of the human animal, there is active, hostile opprobrium by (a certain school of) social scientists and ideologically motivated activists alike. Scientists who try to find biological causations for certain human behaviours or perceived inequalities are frequently ostracised, pelted by slurs, and made pariah's in their own fields. The sober truth is that the scientific community is not free at all from anti-intellectualism and bullying tactics.
It seems nothing much has changed since the 2002 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno 2016, the social sciences in Western academia are still infested with social constructivist thinking, with no sign of it abating any time soon. In fact, it might even have reached its zenith, having entrenched itself even further. It's not difficult to make an analogy with creationists. This exemplifies how far we still have to go as a species to attain a higher level of rational thinking, which means being willing to demolish some of our most cherished beliefs. Ego investment still is riding high, it seems.
Biological innateness. Determinism. These terms observably evoke unpleasant feelings in many. However, in order to come face to face with the homo sapiens which, during its brutal evolutionary process, has acquired certain survival - often nasty -instincts, one should let go of such reservations . Funnily enough, it was some of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau) who introduced the blank slate theory. But are we blank slates, almost solely informed by the culture that surrounds us? Hardly, as Pinker shows us -with the aid of a plethora of immensely interesting case studies - in this intellectually dense, yet highly accessible book. Genes and our biological make-up determine our behaviour to a far greater extent than culture or our upbringing ever will. Pinker even goes as far as saying that parental influence on their child(ren)'s formation is pretty much negligible. Peer group interaction is a far more important determining factor.
However, Pinker deftly reasons that even with the ever-expanding, confronting knowledge of the human coming from the exciting fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, there is no need for us to defeatedly resort to fatalism or nihilism. On the contrary, an intimate, unsentimental understanding of what we are will help us enormously in developing a truly humanistic ethos and thus in crafting a pragmatic society which can be beneficial to all of us.
The utopian vision, with its aim to 'mould' the human psyche (social constructivism), the 20th century has adequately shown to only lead us into disaster.
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes"
--The Human League, Human
Most of us instinctively feel the acquisition of scientific knowledge follows a linear path, first operating from a solid factual base, and then modifying itself as it goes along in an objective fashion. Ultimately, a common agreeance on a certain topic will be reached, and the findings will translate into well-considered policy.
Ideally, that is how it should work, with scientists serving as neutral observers, freely informing us, the public, on whatever findings they come across, whatever the implications. This is not always what actually happens, of course. Not by a long shot. Ironically - also tellingly -, when it comes to the in-depth study of the human animal, there is active, hostile opprobrium by (a certain school of) social scientists and ideologically motivated activists alike. Scientists who try to find biological causations for certain human behaviours or perceived inequalities are frequently ostracised, pelted by slurs, and made pariah's in their own fields. The sober truth is that the scientific community is not free at all from anti-intellectualism and bullying tactics.
It seems nothing much has changed since the 2002 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno 2016, the social sciences in Western academia are still infested with social constructivist thinking, with no sign of it abating any time soon. In fact, it might even have reached its zenith, having entrenched itself even further. It's not difficult to make an analogy with creationists. This exemplifies how far we still have to go as a species to attain a higher level of rational thinking, which means being willing to demolish some of our most cherished beliefs. Ego investment still is riding high, it seems.
Biological innateness. Determinism. These terms observably evoke unpleasant feelings in many. However, in order to come face to face with the homo sapiens which, during its brutal evolutionary process, has acquired certain survival - often nasty -instincts, one should let go of such reservations . Funnily enough, it was some of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau) who introduced the blank slate theory. But are we blank slates, almost solely informed by the culture that surrounds us? Hardly, as Pinker shows us -with the aid of a plethora of immensely interesting case studies - in this intellectually dense, yet highly accessible book. Genes and our biological make-up determine our behaviour to a far greater extent than culture or our upbringing ever will. Pinker even goes as far as saying that parental influence on their child(ren)'s formation is pretty much negligible. Peer group interaction is a far more important determining factor.
However, Pinker deftly reasons that even with the ever-expanding, confronting knowledge of the human coming from the exciting fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, there is no need for us to defeatedly resort to fatalism or nihilism. On the contrary, an intimate, unsentimental understanding of what we are will help us enormously in developing a truly humanistic ethos and thus in crafting a pragmatic society which can be beneficial to all of us.
The utopian vision, with its aim to 'mould' the human psyche (social constructivism), the 20th century has adequately shown to only lead us into disaster.
January 30, 2019
يتحدث ستيفن بينكر –عال� النفس اللغوي في هارفارد- في كتابه (الصفحة البيضاء) عن معتقد شديد الشيوع في القرون الأخيرة، وهو الاعتقاد بأن الإنسان يولد "صفحة بيضاء"، لا يحمل بنية فطرية سابقة، وأن المؤثر الأساسي في تشكيل الإنسان يعود للوالدين، والمجتمع. يهاجم بينكر هذا المعتقد بشدة، وهو يرى أنه يمثّل "الدين العلماني للحياة الثقافية المعاصرة"، وأن هذا المعتقد ساهم في رسم بعض أجندات العلوم الاجتماعية والإنسانية في القرن المنصرم.
ابتدأ أولاً بتقصي منابع هذه المعتقد التاريخية، منذ روسو وهوبز وديكارت، ثم شرع في تقويض المعتقد عبر أربعة مجالات: العلوم العقلية الحديثة، وعلوم الأعصاب، والجينات، والأطروحات التطورية. فنّد بينكر المخاوف الثقافية التي تمنع من إثبات بنية فطرية أو طبيعة بشرية سابقة، وهي أن الإقرار بطبيعة بشرية ما يبرّر التمييز العنصري، وأن إثبات ميول غير أخلاقية (كالعنف) يجلب التشاؤم، ويدمر فكرة الإرادة الحرة، ويحطم معنى الحياة. وأخيرا� عقد المؤلف فصولاً عديدة لمناقشة الأسس الفطرية/الطبيعة المؤثرة في تشكيل نوازع الإنسان وخياراته في :�
[1] السياسة، وفي العنف وأثبت أن الإنسان يحمل ميولاً فطرية للعنف، وأشار لدراسة نشرت عام 2000م أثبتت أن نصف الذكور الذين تجاوزا سن الثانية انخرطوا في الضرب والعض والرفس، وقالت الدراسة أن السؤال الصحيح ليس هو: كيف يتعلم الأطفال الاعتداء؟ بل: كيف يتعلم الأطفال عدم الاعتداء؟!.�
[2] الفروق بين الجنسين، وأثبت فروقاً جوهرية بين الجنسين بيولوجياً وانتقد بعض الأطروحات النسوية التي ترفض الاعتراف بهذه الفروق، وترى بأنها مصنوعة من قبل المجتمع وليس لها أساس عضوي، ودافع عن أطروحة ثرونهيل وبالمر في كتابهما الشهير "التاريخ الطبيعي للاغتصاب" الصادر عام 2000م، الذي ينقض الأطروحة النسوية القائلة بأن الاغتصاب هو جريمة عنف ونتيجة للنظام الأبوي المضطهد للنساء وليس سببه دوافع جنسية راسخة في تكوين الذكر عضوياً/بيولوجياً.
[3] وفيما يتعلق بالأطفال، هاجم بقوة الأفكار التربوية والنفسية والاجتماعية التي ترى بأن الأطفال يمكن تشكيلهم كما يشكّل الطين أو الصلصال، وتلك التي تبالغ في دور الآباء والمعلمين وتحملهم فوق ما يحتملون، وذلك في فصل هام يجدر بالمهتمين بالتربية الاطلاع عليه.
كما تحدث في غير ذلك من المجالات كالفنون.�
فكرة الكتاب الأساسية مهمة جداً، وهي أقرب للتصور الديني من نظرية "الصفحة البيضاء"، فالإنسان في التصور الإسلامي لا يولد صفحة بيضاء بل (كل مولود يولد على الفطرة)، مع ملاحظة أن بينكر ملحد، ولا يؤسس أطروحته على أية مستندات دينية.�
أما الترجمة فهي ركيكة في العموم، والعناية بالنواحي الفنية والهوامش سيئة جداً. يقع الكتاب في 550 صفحة، وصدر عن دار الفرقد ٢٠١٨.�
ابتدأ أولاً بتقصي منابع هذه المعتقد التاريخية، منذ روسو وهوبز وديكارت، ثم شرع في تقويض المعتقد عبر أربعة مجالات: العلوم العقلية الحديثة، وعلوم الأعصاب، والجينات، والأطروحات التطورية. فنّد بينكر المخاوف الثقافية التي تمنع من إثبات بنية فطرية أو طبيعة بشرية سابقة، وهي أن الإقرار بطبيعة بشرية ما يبرّر التمييز العنصري، وأن إثبات ميول غير أخلاقية (كالعنف) يجلب التشاؤم، ويدمر فكرة الإرادة الحرة، ويحطم معنى الحياة. وأخيرا� عقد المؤلف فصولاً عديدة لمناقشة الأسس الفطرية/الطبيعة المؤثرة في تشكيل نوازع الإنسان وخياراته في :�
[1] السياسة، وفي العنف وأثبت أن الإنسان يحمل ميولاً فطرية للعنف، وأشار لدراسة نشرت عام 2000م أثبتت أن نصف الذكور الذين تجاوزا سن الثانية انخرطوا في الضرب والعض والرفس، وقالت الدراسة أن السؤال الصحيح ليس هو: كيف يتعلم الأطفال الاعتداء؟ بل: كيف يتعلم الأطفال عدم الاعتداء؟!.�
[2] الفروق بين الجنسين، وأثبت فروقاً جوهرية بين الجنسين بيولوجياً وانتقد بعض الأطروحات النسوية التي ترفض الاعتراف بهذه الفروق، وترى بأنها مصنوعة من قبل المجتمع وليس لها أساس عضوي، ودافع عن أطروحة ثرونهيل وبالمر في كتابهما الشهير "التاريخ الطبيعي للاغتصاب" الصادر عام 2000م، الذي ينقض الأطروحة النسوية القائلة بأن الاغتصاب هو جريمة عنف ونتيجة للنظام الأبوي المضطهد للنساء وليس سببه دوافع جنسية راسخة في تكوين الذكر عضوياً/بيولوجياً.
[3] وفيما يتعلق بالأطفال، هاجم بقوة الأفكار التربوية والنفسية والاجتماعية التي ترى بأن الأطفال يمكن تشكيلهم كما يشكّل الطين أو الصلصال، وتلك التي تبالغ في دور الآباء والمعلمين وتحملهم فوق ما يحتملون، وذلك في فصل هام يجدر بالمهتمين بالتربية الاطلاع عليه.
كما تحدث في غير ذلك من المجالات كالفنون.�
فكرة الكتاب الأساسية مهمة جداً، وهي أقرب للتصور الديني من نظرية "الصفحة البيضاء"، فالإنسان في التصور الإسلامي لا يولد صفحة بيضاء بل (كل مولود يولد على الفطرة)، مع ملاحظة أن بينكر ملحد، ولا يؤسس أطروحته على أية مستندات دينية.�
أما الترجمة فهي ركيكة في العموم، والعناية بالنواحي الفنية والهوامش سيئة جداً. يقع الكتاب في 550 صفحة، وصدر عن دار الفرقد ٢٠١٨.�
July 17, 2010
What an impressive book! I have been reading a number of Steven Pinker's books, and they are all excellent. I was particularly interested in how politics and social activists have worked to slow down the progress of science. The concept of a "blank slate", though socially attractive, has held back science and our understanding of human nature.
The chapter on children was especially interesting. Pinker rightly gives much credit to Judith Harris' excellent book . The subject is not finished, though. Pinker shows that while 50% of the variance in human nature is due to genetics, the remaining 50% of the variance is still in question. It is NOT correlated with home life or parental upbringing. It seems to be a combination of peer influences, and fickle fate.
The chapter on children was especially interesting. Pinker rightly gives much credit to Judith Harris' excellent book . The subject is not finished, though. Pinker shows that while 50% of the variance in human nature is due to genetics, the remaining 50% of the variance is still in question. It is NOT correlated with home life or parental upbringing. It seems to be a combination of peer influences, and fickle fate.
October 5, 2020
چرا ذات انسان را انکار میکنیم�
مقدم
انسان محصول تربیتا� است یا محصول طبیعتاش� آموزش است که خصوصیات انسانه� را رقم میزن� یا سرشت ذاتیشان� تحیقیقات نشان میدهن� که هر دوی این عوامل اثرگذاران�. اما عموم مردم زمانه� ما سهم طبیعت و سرشت انسان را بسیار کمتر از آنچه هست میگیرن�. گویی عصر ما با ذاتباوری� یعنی با این ایده که ذات، سرشت و ژنتیک ما بسیاری از خصوصیاتمان را تعیین میکند� سر عناد دارد. دوست داریم همهچی� را در تربیت و آموزش خلاصه ببینیم. وقتی بحث تفاوتها� مردان و زنان میشو� فورا میگویی� نحوه� تربیت باعث این تفاوته� شده است. وقتی کودک با ادبی میبینی� شیوه� تربیتی پدر و مادرش را تحسین میکنی�. اما آیا امکان ندارد که تفاوت بین زن و مرد ریشه در ذات ما داشته باشد؟ آیا امکان ندارد که علت خوشرفتار� یک کودک، ذات سربهراه� باشد؟ تحقیقات اخیر تاثیر ذات و ژنتیک را به خوبی اثبات کردهان�. مثلاً نشان داده شده که حتی گرایش به بزهکاری تا حد زیادی به سرشت و ژنتیک ما مرتبط است. با این وجود، چرا ما هنوز اثر طبیعت را بیدرن� رد میکنی� و همه چیز را به پای تربیت مینویسیم� چرا ذاتگرای� منفور است و سرشت ذاتی انسان نادیده گرفته میشود�
یک. برابری خواهی
یکی از دلایل بیاعتنای� به سرشت انسان رواج برابریخواه� است. دغدغه� برابریخواه� چنان بالا گرفته و اهمیت یافته که هر سخنی که بوی نابرابری بدهد نشنیده رد میشود� از جمله و خصوصاً سخن ذاتگرایا�. ایده� برابری� از کلیدیتری� باورهای زمانه� ماست؛ پایه و اساس حقوق و ارزشها� ماست. مثلاً قانون اساسی آمریکا بر شالوده� همین ایده� برابری انسانه� بنا شده است. بیرون کشیدن این خشت زیرین همان و فروریختن کل عمارت آمریکا همان. خبر بد آنکه این خشت مدتی� است که لق شده. قانون اساسی آمریکا برابری انسانه� را به دین گره میزن�. میگوی� انسانه� برابرند چون خدا آنها را برابر میبین�. اما حالا که خدا و دین خود زیر سوال رفتهاند� ایده� برابری بیتکیهگا� مانده، و به تلنگری بند است. با این تفاسیر، این نگرانی که مبادا ذاتگرای� تلنگر نهایی را وارد کند قابل فهم است
و فراموش نکنیم که ذاتباوری� یا بهتر بگوییم فهم غلطی از ذاتباوری� سابقه� جنایت در پروندها� دارد. نازیسم هیتلر با توصل به برداشت تحریفشدها� از ذاتباور� بود که کشتارهای نژادپرستانها� را توجیه میکر�. نازیسم این حرف را در دهان ذاتگرای� گذاشت که نژاد آریایی ذاتاً برتر است و نژادهای یهودی و اسلاو ذاتاً پستتر� و به این بهانه خون آنها را حلال کرد. این جنایتها� نازیسم امروزه به پای ذاتگرای� نوشته میشو�. پس جای تعجب نیست که ترس از تکرار شدن این نوع جنایته� باعث شده ایده� سرشت انسان به همراه هیتلر و افکارش در زبالهدا� تاریخ انداخته شو�. خصوصاً که در شهرهای چندملیتی امروز، که انسانهای� از چندین و چند قوم و نژاد را کنار هم آورده، نژادپرستی میتوان� فاجعها� بهمرات� عظیمت� بیافریند. این است که ما از بیم آنکه خامی چند نظریات ذاتباور� را بد بفهمند، یا عدها� فرصتطل� آن را عامدانه مصادره به مطلوب کنند، نفی حکمت میکنی� و درست و غلط ذاتگرای� را یکجا از صفحات کتابه� و صفحه� ذهن آدمه� پاک میکنی�. حقیقت را فدای مبارزه با تبعیض نژادی میکنی�
شاخها� از جنبش فمیینیسم هم، مثل جنبش مبارزه با نژاد پرستی، با نیت خیر به میدان آمد اما متاسفانه علیه ذاتگرای� شمشیر کشید. جنبش فمینیسم برای به دست آوردن حقوق برابر با مردان، نیاز دارد نشان دهد که مردان و زنان برابراند. بنابراین بر شباهتها� زنان و مردان انگشت تاکید میگذار�. اما یک شاخه� افراطی تا آنجا پیش رفته که هر تفاوت سرشتی بین مرد و زن را مطلقاً نفی میکند� و وقتی هم که تفاوته� عیان و انکارناپذیر باشند، آنها را یکسره محصول تربیت و محیط میدان�. مثلاً حتی گرایش جنسی را هم برساختها� اجتماعی، و بیتأثی� از سرشت انسان میدان� و معتقد است دگرجنسگرای� یا همجنسگرای� را میتوا� با آموزش در افراد نهادینه کرد. از این باور افراطی که بگذریم، باورهای معمولیت� اما رایجت� مثل نفی خصوصیات و خلقیات زنانه و مردانه، ذاتگرای� را به حاشیه راندهان�. به عنوان مثال دیگر کسی جرأت نمیکن� بگوید فلان شغل به سرشت زنانه نزدیکت� است، یا فلان خصوصیت ذاتاً در مردان پررنگت� است. چنین اظهار نظرهایی—� گویندگانشان—بیدرن� انگ تبعیض جنسی میخورن� و رد میشون�
بیمناسب� نیست اشاره کنیم که مقبول افتادن یک اندیشه بیش از آنکه به درستی و قوتا� مرتبط باشد، به صد نکته� دیگر وابسته است. خصوصاً به شرایط زمانه. در هر عصری یک دیدگاه کلی حاکم است، و هر ایده� موافق با آن دیدگاه رو میآی� و هر ایده� مخالف دور انداخته میشو�. دور از حقیقت نیست اگر بگوییم ایدهه� نیز مثل لباسه� مد میشون� و از مد میافتن�. بعدها که به مدهای امروز نگاه کنی� خندهما� میگیرد� و تعجب میکنی� که چنین چیز بدقواره و زشتی چطور آنهم� بدیع و زیبا به نظر میرسی�. اندیشهها� رایج امروز هم، از جمله ضدیت با ذاتباوری� چه بسا فردا خندهدا� و بیاسا� بنمایند
دو. میل به تسلط
یکی دیگر از دلایل انکار سرشت انسان میل ما به در دست داشتن کنترل همه� امور است. ما دلمان میخواه� دنیا رام ما باشد. این به ما احساس قدرت میده�. از آن طرف، از هر چیزی که به ما احساس ناتوانی بدهد و حقارت و ناچیزیما� را به رویمان بیاورد بیزاریم. فراموش نکنیم که قدرت از دغدغهها� اساسی انسان مدرن است. انسان مدرن پس از شنیدن ندای نیچه که خدا مرده است، کوشید خود به جای خدا بنشیند. و به لطف علم و تکنولوژی تا حد زیادی موفق شد فرمانروای عالم شود. سفر به ماه و درمان بیماریها� پیشتر لاعلاج و این قبیل دستاوردها انسان را به این باور کشاند که کار نشد ندارد؛ انسان اگر بخواهد میتوان� از خود خدا بسازد
اما ذاتباور� با نشان دادن ویژگیها� بعضاً پست و اغلب تغییرناپذیر انسانی، تصویر قدرقدرتی که انسان از خود ساخته را ویران میکند� و نشان میده� که کنترل ما بر امور خیلی کمتر از آن است که تصور میکردی�. ذاتباور� نشان میده� که خیلی از خصوصیات ما به ژنتیکما� وابسته است، و تربیت و آموزش، اگرچه اثرگذارند، به هیچ وجه بازیگر اصلی نیستند. مثلاً دوقلوهایی که در بدو تولد از هم جدا شدند، با اینکه در دو خانواده� و دو محیط متفاوت بزرگ شدهاند� شخصیت بسیار مشابهی یافتهان�. ذاتباور� نشان میده� که خیلی از علایق و سلایق ما بر خلاف باور رایج حاصل انتخاب شخصی و از سر اختیار نیستند بلکه عمیقاً ریشه در سرشت ژنتیکی ما دارند. مثلاً جهتگیریها� سیاسی ما هم تا حد زیادی به سرشتما� مرتبط است. گویا آنقدر هم که فکر میکردی� بر خود مسلط نیستیم. این پیام به مذاق ما خوش نمیآی�. همانطور که شاهان پیک بدخبر را به سیاهچال� میانداختند� ما هم ذاتگرایا� را که خبر از نقصه� و کاستیها� انسان آوردهان� به جرم سیاهانگار� طرد میکنی�. ما نمیخواهی� بپذیریم که نه تنها پادشاه جهان نیستیم بلکه سخت در چنگ نیروهای طبیعت که سرشت ما را رقم زدهان� اسیریم
سه. دین
ضدیت دین با داروینیسم هم در غفلت از سرشت انسان دخیل بوده است. داروینیسم و ذاتباور� در هم تنیدهان�. نمیشو� از ذات و سرشت انسان صحبت کرد ولی نامی از تکامل نبرد، یا از تکامل گفت ولی اشارها� به سرشت انسان نکرد. دین با کنار گذاشتن بحث داروینیسم و تکامل عملاً نمایندگان ذاتگرای� را هم خفه کرده است. این نوع سانسور البته در حکومتها� مذهبی پررنگت� است. اما حتی آنجا که دولت� غیر مذهبی است و دست به سانسور نمیبرد� تعصبات مذهبی خود مردم مانع از پا گرفتن و جا افتادن یافتهها� علم تکامل و سخنان ذاتگرایا� میشو�. به تعبیر برتراند راسل مردم ترجیج میدهن� فرشتگانی سقوط کرده باشند تا بوزینگانی تکامل یافته؛ از این جهت به مذهب علاقهمندتران� تا به علم
چهار. فلسفه
مقصر بعدی اتکای بیش از اندازه� ما به فلسفه است. دین با کنار گذاشتن تکامل و بیولوژی و سایر علوم از میزگرد شناخت انسان، صحنه را برای خودنمایی فلسفه خالی کرد، اما فلسفه هم متاسفانه اعتنایی به سرشت انسان نکرد. در واقع تقصیر هم به گردن فلسفه است، و هم به گردن ما. ما مقصریم از این بابت که شناخت انسان را به فلسفه سپردیم. به این بهانه که فلسفه همیشه منزلت و اعتبار فراوان داشته، و چون مرجع دیگری برای پاسخ گویی نمانده بود، به همان تختهپاره� فلسفه در اقیانوس نادانی چسبیدیم، و به آن دل بستیم. حال آنکه پرسش از ماهیت انسان پرسشی نیست که فلسفه قادر به پاسخ گفتنش باشد. این پرسش مطالعات آزمایشگاهی و میدانی میطلب�. فیلسوف از پشت میز کارش چطور میتوان� پاسخش را بیابد؟ و فلسفه هم مقصر است از این بابت که در تحلیل انسان و نسخه پیچیدن برای زندگی انسان، بدن را به کلی نادیده گرفت و او را چون روحی خالص تصور کرد. با حذف شدن بدن از صورت مسئله، هر آنچه مربوط به سرشت انسان بود از قلم افتاد
یه منبر هم بریم
مسلماً اینکه بخواهیم همه چیز را به ذات انسان تقلیل دهیم اشتباه است. اما این تصور که چیزی به نام ذات انسانی اساساً وجود ندارد نیز به همان اندازه غلط است. شاید درستت� این باشد که آنچه را طبیعت در ذات ما سرشته بپذیریم، و اختیاراتی را هم که به ما داده بشناسیم. پذیرش سرشت انسان به معنای وادادن به نیروهای طبیعت نیست، بلکه گام نخست برای رشدی واقعبینان� است
پینوش� یک: آنچه آمد تنها یکی از موضوعات کتاب است. ضمناً مطالبی خارج از این کتاب را هم شامل میشو�
پینوش� دو: کتاب مطالب خیلی خوبی رو میگه� ولی مطالبش رو خوب نمیگ�
September 20, 2023
(Steven Pinker in Oporto, on the 11th of November 2017. My photo.)
"Nature, Mr Allnut , is what we are put in this world to rise above" Katherine Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen
"Hillary Clinton may have advanced the dumbest explanation in the history of psychobabble, but she does not deserve the charge of trying to excuse the president's [husband] behavior"
Pinker makes the case against a man who gets his formation/make up only from the outer forces of parenting, education, etc. He seems to defend the conception of a man who is not a “blank slate� upon which experience writes on.
He invokes genetic arguments (based on fraternal and identical twins� studies) to back his thesis. He also approaches brain analysis and anthropological studies to justify the existence of some “universals� (for instance in the art domain). Even the moral sense. Ergo: there are innate responses: man is not devoid of a certain type of make-up at birth.
He, sort of, denounces the political appeal of a “blank slate “human being to justify the fears of inequalities and certain types of interventions. Those political fears are meant to be refuted. Thomas Jefferson meant “equality “of rights.
Nevertheless, he seems to be a bit cautious about Noam Chomsky’s ideas of an “innate circuitry�, or a universal grammar/plan. He points to the works of Jean Piaget and others, consisting of “personal ideas�.
As for the fear of machines, thinking machines, running “amok�, Pinker thinks it’s a “waste of energy�. I really don’t agree. The singularity is at hand at any moment. We’ve witnessed one such an episode on Facebook*, quite recently.
Again, this is truly a case against empiricism, against those like John Stuart Mill and John Watson, who were proponents of a major role of experience in Psychology. The book of Pinker is a huge amalgamation of proof that psychopathology, personality traits, as well as love, consciousness and will, are biologically determined.
Well, I know Pinker is an atheist and a lover of the beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution. He's so hopeful regarding the completion of the Human Genome Project, one which may uncover the roots of the intellect and emotion.
I think a few years ago I've bought that Time magazine issue. So much so for a biological determinism, I wonder how would Pinker
I've got to grab that magazine again.
*
Interesting review here:
UPDATE
Pinker on Covid19:
"With coronavirus, it’s genuinely hard to know whether surfaces are potential vectors, whether six feet is enough or not enough, whether masks help or don’t help�
Does he wear mask?
In:
December 29, 2013
Pinker argues cleanly and decisively against the theory of the Blank Slate (and its corollary, the Noble Savage). You might say he wipes the Blank Slate clean. Or that he breaks it over his knee.
He examines how motivations for wanting to believe in a Blank Slate come from four fears of human nature:
1. The Fear of Inequality: if people are innately different, oppression and discrimination (like sexism and racism) would be justified. But people are, in fact, different. Ignoring this fact doesn't help address the real cause of discrimination, which is to judge people as a member of their group, instead of as an individual. It also opens up rational against discrimination to attack by any evidence against the blank slate.
2. The Fear of Imperfectibility: if people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile. Ignoring human nature doesn't make people any less likely to commit crimes. When they do, it doesn't help us decide when and how harshly to punish them. Ignoring human nature is especially foolish in the case of rape. Denying that rape is a sexual crime, and insisting that it's only a violent crime (which it is, also) isn't going to deter any would-be rapists, who, as it happens, are motivated by sexual urges, not the urge to commit violence.
3. The Fear of Determinism: if people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.
4. The Fear of Nihilism: if people are products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.
He attacks proponents of the Blank Slate like Stephen Jay Gould, parts of the political left, some feminists, etc.
He draws an important distinction between gender and equity feminism.
He draws an interesting distinction between the Utopian vs. Tragic vision, and how these influence political leanings.
He even calls out modern and post-modern art for their philosophical denial of human nature!
He examines how motivations for wanting to believe in a Blank Slate come from four fears of human nature:
1. The Fear of Inequality: if people are innately different, oppression and discrimination (like sexism and racism) would be justified. But people are, in fact, different. Ignoring this fact doesn't help address the real cause of discrimination, which is to judge people as a member of their group, instead of as an individual. It also opens up rational against discrimination to attack by any evidence against the blank slate.
2. The Fear of Imperfectibility: if people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile. Ignoring human nature doesn't make people any less likely to commit crimes. When they do, it doesn't help us decide when and how harshly to punish them. Ignoring human nature is especially foolish in the case of rape. Denying that rape is a sexual crime, and insisting that it's only a violent crime (which it is, also) isn't going to deter any would-be rapists, who, as it happens, are motivated by sexual urges, not the urge to commit violence.
3. The Fear of Determinism: if people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.
4. The Fear of Nihilism: if people are products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.
He attacks proponents of the Blank Slate like Stephen Jay Gould, parts of the political left, some feminists, etc.
He draws an important distinction between gender and equity feminism.
He draws an interesting distinction between the Utopian vs. Tragic vision, and how these influence political leanings.
He even calls out modern and post-modern art for their philosophical denial of human nature!
August 9, 2008
The Blank Slate was an informative, thought-provoking and polemic book designed to refute ordinary conceptions and intellectual arguments which cut against a sociobiological understanding of humans and human society. I detected a couple instances in which the author, Stephen Pinker, overstated scientific conclusions, leading me to doubt the accuracy of his other scientific evidence. I also have reservations about the rational-actor lens through which he interprets human nature. On the other hand, the writing is good and many of his points are well taken. In sum, this book amounts to an interesting point of view that, while not entirely accurate, helps us see human society in a different light.
First the bad. In the couple areas of social science with which I'm somewhat familiar, he sometimes overstates the scientific research he uses as support. For instance, he briefly qualifies research suggesting inheritable differences between male and female brains but then proceeds to lay it all out as unqualified fact. All of this research was done on adults, which means that some of the differences might be hereditary, but this is far from established fact. The same charge has been laid against his sister Susan, which, interestingly enough, may support some of his other arguments about intra-family similarity in tendencies. His hypothesis about hereditary differences between male and female brains may in fact be true, and it definitely matches up with most peoples' intuitive observations of their own children. In any case I agree with him that it should make no difference when it comes to placing value on males or females, but none of this excuses the fact that he overstates the scientific conclusions.
In Chapter 12, Pinker similarly runs roughshod over stereotypical associations. He proclaims, “[P]eople’s ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious, deliberate reasoning.� While researchers have shown that thinking carefully about an individual's characteristics can dampen the effect of stereotypical associations, it doesn't reduce their effect to nil. In fact, subsequent studies suggest otherwise, because stereotypical associations effect more than just memory recall; they effect perception, interpretation and memory encoding. Academic social psychologists who profess otherwise are mostly legal defense experts and corporate human resource consultants. I doubt that Pinker cherry-picked or intentionally misrepresented the science, leaving me with the conclusion that he again overstated scientific conclusions.
As another minor but related point, Pinker might be misusing quotes, taking them out of context or reading too much into them. He quotes several intellectuals and researchers to prove that the philosophical ideas of “the blank slate� and “the noble savage� are broadly represented in academia. This may all be true, but after catching him overstating scientific conclusions I started to notice that many of these quotations could contain different, more nuanced meanings than Pinker squeezes out of them.
Pinker tips his hand most revealingly in Chapter 18, in which he writes, “In a cutthroat market, any company stupid enough to overlook qualified women or to overpay unqualified men would be driven out of business by a more meritocratic competitor.� This represents a brash oversimplification of history, cognitive science, social psychology; an underestimation of the influence of dumb luck; and an overestimation of humans� ability to accurately evaluate the merits of other humans. It suggests that while Pinker’s erudition is broad, he makes up for its sometimes lack of depth by looking only as far as required to confirm his preconceived vision of rational actors in a rational society, which he in turn derives from the apparent rationality of evolution. The idea that we inexorably act rationally is not a necessary conclusion from our status as products of a mercilessly rational evolutionary process, but I understand how this can be a reassuring conclusion for people uncomfortable with ambiguity.
With all these faults, it’s still a compelling read. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. I’m satisfied by his assertion that we are creatures with inherited tendencies and skills, one of which is the ability to not allow our tendencies to rule tyrannically over us. He made me feel more confident and justified about my loose, respectful, loving relationship with my children, which others might see as too permissive for my children’s good. He carefully defines positions, quoting authorities from multiple disciplines to make his points, so he’s either very well read, has a number of well read research assistants, or perhaps both. His prose was confident like most polemics, but stops short of the patronization that ruins so many of the others.
Overall, The Blank Slate was entertaining, interesting, and informative, but I strongly recommend that you read it with both an open and critical mind.
First the bad. In the couple areas of social science with which I'm somewhat familiar, he sometimes overstates the scientific research he uses as support. For instance, he briefly qualifies research suggesting inheritable differences between male and female brains but then proceeds to lay it all out as unqualified fact. All of this research was done on adults, which means that some of the differences might be hereditary, but this is far from established fact. The same charge has been laid against his sister Susan, which, interestingly enough, may support some of his other arguments about intra-family similarity in tendencies. His hypothesis about hereditary differences between male and female brains may in fact be true, and it definitely matches up with most peoples' intuitive observations of their own children. In any case I agree with him that it should make no difference when it comes to placing value on males or females, but none of this excuses the fact that he overstates the scientific conclusions.
In Chapter 12, Pinker similarly runs roughshod over stereotypical associations. He proclaims, “[P]eople’s ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious, deliberate reasoning.� While researchers have shown that thinking carefully about an individual's characteristics can dampen the effect of stereotypical associations, it doesn't reduce their effect to nil. In fact, subsequent studies suggest otherwise, because stereotypical associations effect more than just memory recall; they effect perception, interpretation and memory encoding. Academic social psychologists who profess otherwise are mostly legal defense experts and corporate human resource consultants. I doubt that Pinker cherry-picked or intentionally misrepresented the science, leaving me with the conclusion that he again overstated scientific conclusions.
As another minor but related point, Pinker might be misusing quotes, taking them out of context or reading too much into them. He quotes several intellectuals and researchers to prove that the philosophical ideas of “the blank slate� and “the noble savage� are broadly represented in academia. This may all be true, but after catching him overstating scientific conclusions I started to notice that many of these quotations could contain different, more nuanced meanings than Pinker squeezes out of them.
Pinker tips his hand most revealingly in Chapter 18, in which he writes, “In a cutthroat market, any company stupid enough to overlook qualified women or to overpay unqualified men would be driven out of business by a more meritocratic competitor.� This represents a brash oversimplification of history, cognitive science, social psychology; an underestimation of the influence of dumb luck; and an overestimation of humans� ability to accurately evaluate the merits of other humans. It suggests that while Pinker’s erudition is broad, he makes up for its sometimes lack of depth by looking only as far as required to confirm his preconceived vision of rational actors in a rational society, which he in turn derives from the apparent rationality of evolution. The idea that we inexorably act rationally is not a necessary conclusion from our status as products of a mercilessly rational evolutionary process, but I understand how this can be a reassuring conclusion for people uncomfortable with ambiguity.
With all these faults, it’s still a compelling read. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. I’m satisfied by his assertion that we are creatures with inherited tendencies and skills, one of which is the ability to not allow our tendencies to rule tyrannically over us. He made me feel more confident and justified about my loose, respectful, loving relationship with my children, which others might see as too permissive for my children’s good. He carefully defines positions, quoting authorities from multiple disciplines to make his points, so he’s either very well read, has a number of well read research assistants, or perhaps both. His prose was confident like most polemics, but stops short of the patronization that ruins so many of the others.
Overall, The Blank Slate was entertaining, interesting, and informative, but I strongly recommend that you read it with both an open and critical mind.
June 27, 2008
so. steven pinker got a lot of press out of this thing. it is essentially a sustained and detailed case for the predominance of genetic factors in determing human behavior. mr pinker is (if i recall) mainly a developmental neuroscientist (if that's a legitimate description...?). he provides a tremendous and very enjoyable welath of case studies and background for the various psychological, philosophical, sociological and biological problems which he subjects to the peculiar dialectical lens of nature/nurture. if you're like me, this seems sort of arbitrary and anachronistic; thomas hobbes is long dead (ideologically and otherwise), skinnerism is not so popular, etc... my problem with pinker and the rest of the current mature crop of pop-science meega-pundits (thinking kurzweil, dawkins, wolfram...), is that they have all this incredible data, and a good number of intelligent conclusions, but some impulse (hubris? frustration? hunger for fame?) drives them to waaay overstep the bounds of what is interesting or relevant about their research, seeing jingoistc intellectual bogeymen in every pop culture shadow, and turning their work into extended rants about their pet theoretical controversy that no sane person wuld care about. it's good entertainment, i suppose, if entertainment requires epic struggles of will, and this must be motivating the editors... anyays, in pinker's case i was pretty perturbed by his opening statements (declaration of war against all "blank slate" dogmas... i kinda drew a blank myself on that one), and then i procceeded to be thoroughy engrossed for many chapters, in which pinker used his considerable erudition (which seems both fairly deep and fairly broad) to lay out a really intense survey of all kids of topics that might have to do with the "nature/nurture" controversy: lots of great data on twin studies, baby studies, language studies, archeological studies... it's about 70% quotations for a while, and it's great.
then, at some point, for some reason, mr pinker decides to take it upon himself to attack feminism, postmodern philosophy, and experimental art, in the name of genetic determinism. it's an incredibile reversal: this accomplished scientist, high on his case studies, suddenly ripping into minor intellectual figures in disciplines he clearly knows jack shit about. it is presumptuous, elitist, ridiculous. perhaps it is the hidden form of his particular nerd-autism, blinding him to the incredbile, stereotypical flatulence of the harvard neuroscientist confidently and patiently xplaining that humans are not genetically constructed to appreciate non-figural art, that women are unhappy because feminism is forcing them to be away from home too much... THAT kind of crap. naturally, i wanted to rip his smug white face off...
so, in conclusion: if i had my own copy of this book, i might rip out the introduction and the last couple chapters and feel okay about it. maybe just keep the bibliography, though....
then, at some point, for some reason, mr pinker decides to take it upon himself to attack feminism, postmodern philosophy, and experimental art, in the name of genetic determinism. it's an incredibile reversal: this accomplished scientist, high on his case studies, suddenly ripping into minor intellectual figures in disciplines he clearly knows jack shit about. it is presumptuous, elitist, ridiculous. perhaps it is the hidden form of his particular nerd-autism, blinding him to the incredbile, stereotypical flatulence of the harvard neuroscientist confidently and patiently xplaining that humans are not genetically constructed to appreciate non-figural art, that women are unhappy because feminism is forcing them to be away from home too much... THAT kind of crap. naturally, i wanted to rip his smug white face off...
so, in conclusion: if i had my own copy of this book, i might rip out the introduction and the last couple chapters and feel okay about it. maybe just keep the bibliography, though....
July 13, 2017
Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!!
This is my first read by this author “Steven Pinker�. He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. In The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature he refuted the widely held belief that the human mind at birth is a tabula rasa /blank slate to which the environment (nurture) gives form and substance.
He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely responsible for determining a person's behavior instead; individuals are created by a combination of both innate human nature and the conditions of upbringing and environment.
A must read for those who want to be introduced to the nature-nurture debate by examining scientific evidence.
Some of my favorite parts from the book:
This is my first read by this author “Steven Pinker�. He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. In The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature he refuted the widely held belief that the human mind at birth is a tabula rasa /blank slate to which the environment (nurture) gives form and substance.
He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely responsible for determining a person's behavior instead; individuals are created by a combination of both innate human nature and the conditions of upbringing and environment.
A must read for those who want to be introduced to the nature-nurture debate by examining scientific evidence.
Some of my favorite parts from the book:
There are different kinds of truth for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.
As technology accumulates and people in more parts of the planet become interdependent, the hatred between them tends to decrease, for the simple reason that you can't kill someone and trade with him too.
The Darwin Awards, given annually to “the individuals who ensure the long-term survival of our species by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion�, almost always go to men.
Much of what is today called "social criticism" consists of members of the upper classes denouncing the tastes of the lower classes (bawdy entertainment, fast food, plentiful consumer goods) while considering themselves egalitarians.
January 13, 2017
Poderosísimo libro que rompe todas las concepciones sociopolíticas previas que se pudieran tener, usando la Psicología, la Estadística y las ciencias de la evolución biológica y los estudios sociales. Terminas de leerlo y, si has dejado que pase por ti, no sales siendo la misma persona. Esto, aplicable de manera romántica a cualquier libro, es una certeza con este: tras asimilar lo que expone, es obligatorio que no sea el mismo que era antes de leerlo. Lo bueno es que soy, inevitablemente, más libre; lo malo, que es de esas libertades que duelen.
El autor expone, a modo de decimonónica refutación a terceras obras, que la sociedad se sustenta sobre falsos pilares que sujetan un entramado que difícilmente da lugar a conclusiones válidas porque están sesgadas de origen. Teniendo estopa para todos, reparte contra los autoritarismos y los libertarianismos (europeos y americanos), contra las izquierdas y las derechas, contra muchas cosas que creemos porque nos las han repetido nuestros padres, nuestros educadores y nuestros medios de manipulación de masas, y nunca nos habíamos planteado con profundidad hasta dónde llegaban esas mentiras. Sospechábamos que era así porque a veces todo es muy oscuro y no correlacionaban teorías y prácticas; ahora ya se ve todo mejor.
La mentira que supone la igualdad entre las personas. La de que las razas y los sexos tienen, generalmente, las mismas características. La de que hay estados naturales del ser humano civilizado que son incontestables. Estas y otras muchas son las dianas a las que el autor dispara para abrirnos los ojos a un estado superior de consciencia, con la sana intención de que el futuro no tenga su base en ideas falsas y que la tolerancia no surja de cuentos de hadas repetidos ad nauseam, sino de la creencia de que debemos respetarnos unos a otros a pesar de nuestras evidentes diferencias.
Como decía, ideas poderosas que hay que rumiar, y un libro que deberían leer los que conducen nuestros carros. Seguro que personas más inteligentes que yo se ven con capacidad de refutarlo, pero que es alimento para el cerebro no me lo podrá negar nadie.
El autor expone, a modo de decimonónica refutación a terceras obras, que la sociedad se sustenta sobre falsos pilares que sujetan un entramado que difícilmente da lugar a conclusiones válidas porque están sesgadas de origen. Teniendo estopa para todos, reparte contra los autoritarismos y los libertarianismos (europeos y americanos), contra las izquierdas y las derechas, contra muchas cosas que creemos porque nos las han repetido nuestros padres, nuestros educadores y nuestros medios de manipulación de masas, y nunca nos habíamos planteado con profundidad hasta dónde llegaban esas mentiras. Sospechábamos que era así porque a veces todo es muy oscuro y no correlacionaban teorías y prácticas; ahora ya se ve todo mejor.
La mentira que supone la igualdad entre las personas. La de que las razas y los sexos tienen, generalmente, las mismas características. La de que hay estados naturales del ser humano civilizado que son incontestables. Estas y otras muchas son las dianas a las que el autor dispara para abrirnos los ojos a un estado superior de consciencia, con la sana intención de que el futuro no tenga su base en ideas falsas y que la tolerancia no surja de cuentos de hadas repetidos ad nauseam, sino de la creencia de que debemos respetarnos unos a otros a pesar de nuestras evidentes diferencias.
Como decía, ideas poderosas que hay que rumiar, y un libro que deberían leer los que conducen nuestros carros. Seguro que personas más inteligentes que yo se ven con capacidad de refutarlo, pero que es alimento para el cerebro no me lo podrá negar nadie.
November 14, 2007
Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the mid-18th century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. The "blank slate" underlies the nurture pole of the nature/ nurture debate and looms huge in political and social policies. Drawing on an immense body of research in psychology and other social sciences, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Pinker makes the case for the nature pole, arguing that it is now apparent that the human brain is not a blank slate, but in fact bears powerful imprints of our evolutionary past that in effect hardwire us to feel, respond, and behave in specific ways. The denial of this human nature is now an impediment to solving many problems that are now plaguing Western democracies. -- This is an exciting read for anyone interested in contemporary social and political issues. It powerfully summarizes a huge body of knowledge that is forcing us to rethink who we are and how we ought to organize our collective behaviors.
April 10, 2017
Second reading.
January 11, 2022
يعد ستيفن بينكر واحدا من أهم المفكرين المعاصرين انطلاقا من دراساته النفسية والعصبية وقدرته على تبسيط العلوم. في هذا الكتاب يبرهن بينكر خطأ نظرية (الصفحة الفارغ) والتي تقول بأن الإنسان يأتي لهذه الحياة بريئا كصفحة فارغة، لكن الحياة (بما فيها من تجارب وأحداث وتربية…إل�) هي ما تملأ هذه الصفحة وتجعله كما هو عليه.. يقول بينكر أن هذا غير صحيح.
في هذا الكتاب يستعرض بينكر العديد من النظريات والأبحاث بطريقة شيقة، ليرينا كيف أن الإنسان يأتي للحياة مجهزا مسبقا بالكثير من لآليات الذهنية التي لها دور كبير في صياغة سلوكه.. وأن الفطرة ليست بريئة بالضرورة.. للبيئة دور في تشكيل الإنسان بالطبع، لكنه ليس الوحيد كما كان الفلاسفة يظنون قديما. فعلى الإنسان مغالبة فطرته كثيرا كي يصبح متحضرا...
الكتاب مليء بالدراسات الشيقة لدراسة التوائم مثلا، و كذلك من من الممتع متابعة تسلسل أفكار بينكر وطريقة عرضه لأفكاره بشكل سلس..
يستعرض الكتاب حقيقة الرنسان كما هي من منظور بيولوجي ونفسي.. لا ما نتمنى له أن يكون.. لأن هذه أولي خطوات التعامل مع أنفسنا ومغالبة قصورها الطبيعي وبدائية تكوينها النفسي
September 23, 2017
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
NOTE: What an ironically lame review of a book that is legitimate genius! In retrospect, I must not have had the time/wherewithal to write the review this amazing book deserves.
It had (and still has) a HUGE influence on my thinking and way of seeing the world. How many books can you say that about?
Clichés like ‘transformative� or ‘monumental� or ‘important� come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that’s honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I’m left where I started.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
NOTE: What an ironically lame review of a book that is legitimate genius! In retrospect, I must not have had the time/wherewithal to write the review this amazing book deserves.
It had (and still has) a HUGE influence on my thinking and way of seeing the world. How many books can you say that about?
Clichés like ‘transformative� or ‘monumental� or ‘important� come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that’s honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I’m left where I started.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
July 24, 2022
Преди да прочета тази книга не знаех, че формирането на човешката природа е толкова спорен въпрос в интелектуалните среди.
Изгледа, много хора смятат, че например насилието е болестно, несвойствено за човека състояние - и да се каже, че склонността към насилие всъщност е еволюционна адаптация за справяне с определени ситуации е същото, като оправдаване на насилието. Също според тях, откритието, че съществуват известни вродени разлики в начина на мислене и в емоциите на мъжете и жените, породени от различия в мозъка и хормоните им - е подтикване към дискриминация към жените.
Понеже книгата е изключително обемна и разглежда широк кръг въпроси, позволявам си да преведа част от описанието и от издателството, което според мен успява отлично и накратко да я представи:
"В книгата си, Пинкър разглежда идеята на т.н. "човешка природа" и нейното морално, емоционално и политическо значение. Той показва как много интелектуалци отричат съществуването на каквито и да е вродени характеристики у човека и вместо това догматично приемат три постулата:
- Tabula rasa: човешкият ум няма каквито и да е вродени характеристики, таланти, наклонности и т.н. - всичко това зависи и се формира от средата, в която човек израства;
- Благородният дивак: хората се раждат добри и невинни и биват "покварени" от обществото, на което се дължат всякакви лоши техни черти и поведение;
- Духовен свят: човек има душа, която мисли и чувства независимо от биологията на тялото, което обитава.
Всяка от тия три догми носи своя морален и исторически багаж и техните защитници прибягват до понякога отчаяни тактики, за да дискредитират учените, които ги отхвърлят."
Доста по-интересно е, отколкото успявам да опиша. Сори.
Изгледа, много хора смятат, че например насилието е болестно, несвойствено за човека състояние - и да се каже, че склонността към насилие всъщност е еволюционна адаптация за справяне с определени ситуации е същото, като оправдаване на насилието. Също според тях, откритието, че съществуват известни вродени разлики в начина на мислене и в емоциите на мъжете и жените, породени от различия в мозъка и хормоните им - е подтикване към дискриминация към жените.
Понеже книгата е изключително обемна и разглежда широк кръг въпроси, позволявам си да преведа част от описанието и от издателството, което според мен успява отлично и накратко да я представи:
"В книгата си, Пинкър разглежда идеята на т.н. "човешка природа" и нейното морално, емоционално и политическо значение. Той показва как много интелектуалци отричат съществуването на каквито и да е вродени характеристики у човека и вместо това догматично приемат три постулата:
- Tabula rasa: човешкият ум няма каквито и да е вродени характеристики, таланти, наклонности и т.н. - всичко това зависи и се формира от средата, в която човек израства;
- Благородният дивак: хората се раждат добри и невинни и биват "покварени" от обществото, на което се дължат всякакви лоши техни черти и поведение;
- Духовен свят: човек има душа, която мисли и чувства независимо от биологията на тялото, което обитава.
Всяка от тия три догми носи своя морален и исторически багаж и техните защитници прибягват до понякога отчаяни тактики, за да дискредитират учените, които ги отхвърлят."
Доста по-интересно е, отколкото успявам да опиша. Сори.
January 6, 2020
Reading this book has been a transformative experience for me, and I just happened to read it at the perfect time, a time where I was having trouble verbalising my moral convictions as a scientist.
It was as if Pinker read my mind and listed my ideas, only in a more eloquent, well structured manner.
He argues that the acceptance of innate differences and tendencies between members of our species, a result of genetic make-up, should not be detrimental to our moral reasoning, but rather the opposite. Acknowledging such truths, and using reason and logic to transcend our innate limitations, would allows us to make more informed decisions within many realms of society, including politics, bioethics and education.
Pinker's argument resonates well with that of Rakitin in Dostoevsky's "The Karamazov Brothers", when he says: "Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue, even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity."
And what a wonderful thought that is.
It was as if Pinker read my mind and listed my ideas, only in a more eloquent, well structured manner.
He argues that the acceptance of innate differences and tendencies between members of our species, a result of genetic make-up, should not be detrimental to our moral reasoning, but rather the opposite. Acknowledging such truths, and using reason and logic to transcend our innate limitations, would allows us to make more informed decisions within many realms of society, including politics, bioethics and education.
Pinker's argument resonates well with that of Rakitin in Dostoevsky's "The Karamazov Brothers", when he says: "Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue, even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity."
And what a wonderful thought that is.
June 5, 2014
Not that I was convinced by all the arguments presented in this book, but it is an incredible joy to discover a single book that echoes so many thoughts that have been percolating in my mind, and to hear the same things I have been trying to say, argued and articulated so well.
With age I have come to dislike the idea of an ideology, any ideology. Anything that compels us to think that something is correct or good because it ought to be correct. Reality does not care how any of us feel about it. Also accepting something to be true does not in any way imply that I have to like it or support it. So often we see these things mixed up in our modern intellectual mindset, and if anyone suffers from such distractions then this book is a must read for them.
With age I have come to dislike the idea of an ideology, any ideology. Anything that compels us to think that something is correct or good because it ought to be correct. Reality does not care how any of us feel about it. Also accepting something to be true does not in any way imply that I have to like it or support it. So often we see these things mixed up in our modern intellectual mindset, and if anyone suffers from such distractions then this book is a must read for them.
September 24, 2017
"Once again a Pinker book changed my world view."
The book really opened my eyes about how we learn and become who we are. I had previously just accepted the various interpretations of the the noble savage, the ghost in the machine and the blank slate. Pinker demolishes and demonstrates why those interpretations are misleading, and you will realize why Pinker is called one of the only linguists who can write in prose.
The book really opened my eyes about how we learn and become who we are. I had previously just accepted the various interpretations of the the noble savage, the ghost in the machine and the blank slate. Pinker demolishes and demonstrates why those interpretations are misleading, and you will realize why Pinker is called one of the only linguists who can write in prose.
December 4, 2017
4,5
Estaría bien que, pasados ya 15 años desde su aparición, Pinker publicase una puesta al día y ampliación. Puerta de entrada para aquellos interesados en la psicología basada en la biología y la teoría de la evolución y la
selección natural.
Estaría bien que, pasados ya 15 años desde su aparición, Pinker publicase una puesta al día y ampliación. Puerta de entrada para aquellos interesados en la psicología basada en la biología y la teoría de la evolución y la
selección natural.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,178 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.