What do you think?
Rate this book
Language and Human Nature Tetralogy #3
丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍: 丕賱廿賳賰丕乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞
賱賯丿 賰鬲亘 亘賳賰乇 賰鬲丕亘丕 噩賷丿丕 噩丿丕貙 賵丕囟丨丕貙 噩賷丿 丕賱毓乇囟貙 賲賳氐賮丕貙 賵丕爻毓 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賯賵賷丕貙 賳亘賷賴丕貙 廿賳爻丕賳賷丕貙 賵賲丨賮夭丕貙 兀賲賱 兀賳 賷丿乇爻賴 丕賱賳丕爻 亘丿賯丞 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷賳鬲賮囟賵丕 兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丕 囟丿賴 廿賳 賮毓賱賵丕 匕賱賰 賮廿賳賴賲 爻賷乇賵賳 兀賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賮賷賴丕 毓賷賵亘 賮胤乇賷丞貙 賱賰賳賴丕 胤亘賷毓丞 睾賳賷丞 亘卮賰賱 乇丕卅毓貙 賵賴賷 賯賵丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱禺賷乇 賱丕 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱亘卮乇.
賰賵賱賳 賲丕賰賵賷賳 - 丕賱賵丕卮賳胤賳 亘賵爻鬲
爻鬲賷賮賳 亘賳賰乇 匕賵 賲毓乇賮丞 賲賵爻賵毓賷丞貙 賵兀爻賱賵亘 賳賯丕卮 賯丕胤毓貙 賳賯丕卮賴 賮賷 - 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 - 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘貙 賵兀賳 賲毓馗賲 爻賷丕爻丕鬲賳丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲丨賰賵賲丞 - 廿賱賶 丨丿 賰亘賷乇 - 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 亘賳馗乇丞 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賮賷賴丕 毓賷賵亘 兀爻丕爻丕貙 賵兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲丿毓賵賲丞 賲賳 卮賷亍 賲丕 賷亘賱睾 丿乇噩丞 廿乇賴丕亘 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 (廿賳賴 賱賲 賷胤乇丨 賴匕丕 亘賯賵丞). 廿賳賳丕 爻賵賮 賳爻鬲賮賷丿 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 兀賰孬乇 賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賲賳 丕賱賲賲鬲毓 賯乇丕亍丞 毓乇囟 亘賳賰乇 賱兀賳賴 賵丕囟丨 亘卮賰賱 賷丨爻丿 毓賱賷賴貙 賮卮乇丨賴 賱賲爻兀賱丞 鬲賯賳賷丞 氐毓亘丞 賲孬賱 丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 賵丕賱廿賳鬲賰丕爻 賮賷 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賵丕卅賲貙 賱賳 鬲噩丿 卮乇丨丕 兀賮囟賱 賱賴丕貙 廿賳賴 賱丕 賷禺卮賶 廿爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賱睾丞 賯賵賷丞貙 賷囟丕賮 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 兀賳 兀噩夭丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲爻賱賷丞 鬲亘毓孬 丕賱爻乇賵乇.
噩賵賳 乇. 爻賷 鬲賷乇賳乇 - 丕賱賲賱丨賯 丕賱兀丿亘賷 賱氐丨賷賮丞 丕賱鬲丕賷賲夭
賷氐賵乇 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱乇丕賴賳丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲賱丕毓亘 賮賷 賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞貙 丕賯乇兀賴 賰賷 鬲賮賴賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 丕賱毓賲賶 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賵丕賱噩賲丕賱賷 賱丿賶 兀氐丿賯丕卅賰貙 亘賱 兀賷囟丕 賰賷 鬲賮賴賲 丕賱賲孬丕賱賷丞 丕賱賲囟賱賱丞 賱丿賶 丕賱兀賲賲貙 廿賳賴 毓賲賱 乇丕卅毓貙 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘.
賮丕賷 賵賷賱丿賵賳 - 丕賱丿賷賱賷 鬲賱睾乇丕賮
賰賵賱賳 賲丕賰賵賷賳 - 丕賱賵丕卮賳胤賳 亘賵爻鬲
爻鬲賷賮賳 亘賳賰乇 匕賵 賲毓乇賮丞 賲賵爻賵毓賷丞貙 賵兀爻賱賵亘 賳賯丕卮 賯丕胤毓貙 賳賯丕卮賴 賮賷 - 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 - 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘貙 賵兀賳 賲毓馗賲 爻賷丕爻丕鬲賳丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲丨賰賵賲丞 - 廿賱賶 丨丿 賰亘賷乇 - 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 亘賳馗乇丞 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賮賷賴丕 毓賷賵亘 兀爻丕爻丕貙 賵兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲丿毓賵賲丞 賲賳 卮賷亍 賲丕 賷亘賱睾 丿乇噩丞 廿乇賴丕亘 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 (廿賳賴 賱賲 賷胤乇丨 賴匕丕 亘賯賵丞). 廿賳賳丕 爻賵賮 賳爻鬲賮賷丿 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 兀賰孬乇 賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賲賳 丕賱賲賲鬲毓 賯乇丕亍丞 毓乇囟 亘賳賰乇 賱兀賳賴 賵丕囟丨 亘卮賰賱 賷丨爻丿 毓賱賷賴貙 賮卮乇丨賴 賱賲爻兀賱丞 鬲賯賳賷丞 氐毓亘丞 賲孬賱 丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 賵丕賱廿賳鬲賰丕爻 賮賷 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賵丕卅賲貙 賱賳 鬲噩丿 卮乇丨丕 兀賮囟賱 賱賴丕貙 廿賳賴 賱丕 賷禺卮賶 廿爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賱睾丞 賯賵賷丞貙 賷囟丕賮 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 兀賳 兀噩夭丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲爻賱賷丞 鬲亘毓孬 丕賱爻乇賵乇.
噩賵賳 乇. 爻賷 鬲賷乇賳乇 - 丕賱賲賱丨賯 丕賱兀丿亘賷 賱氐丨賷賮丞 丕賱鬲丕賷賲夭
賷氐賵乇 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱乇丕賴賳丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲賱丕毓亘 賮賷 賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞貙 丕賯乇兀賴 賰賷 鬲賮賴賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 丕賱毓賲賶 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賵丕賱噩賲丕賱賷 賱丿賶 兀氐丿賯丕卅賰貙 亘賱 兀賷囟丕 賰賷 鬲賮賴賲 丕賱賲孬丕賱賷丞 丕賱賲囟賱賱丞 賱丿賶 丕賱兀賲賲貙 廿賳賴 毓賲賱 乇丕卅毓貙 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘.
賮丕賷 賵賷賱丿賵賳 - 丕賱丿賷賱賷 鬲賱睾乇丕賮
590 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
2,703 people are currently reading
80.5k people want to read
About the author
Steven Pinker
66听books10.3k听followersSteven 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 Troms酶, 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 鈥� 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 Troms酶, 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 鈥� 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
Interesant铆simo libro con un tema tan pol茅mico como relevante, 驴existe una naturaleza humana?, 驴la existencia precede a la esencia o m谩s bien sucede al contrario? Es imposible resumir aqu铆 los argumentos que aporta Pinker en apoyo de la existencia de una naturaleza humana y de sus implicaciones, por lo que aqu铆 me limitar茅 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 relaci贸n con otras dos ideas centrales en el ideario colectivo de los 煤ltimos 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 teor铆as, la ciencia cognitiva, la neurociencia, la gen茅tica de la conducta y la psicolog铆a evolutiva.
Su postura es clara: 鈥渓a mente est谩 equipada con una bater铆a de sentimientos, impulsos y facultades para razonar y comunicarse, y que tienen una l贸gica com煤n en todas las culturas, son dif铆ciles de eliminar o de redise帽ar a partir de cero, fueron configuradas por la acci贸n de la selecci贸n natural en el transcurso de la evoluci贸n humana y deben algo de su dise帽o b谩sico (y algo de su variaci贸n) a la informaci贸n presente en el genoma.鈥�
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 eliminar铆a 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, deber铆amos aceptar como bueno todos esos comportamientos infames.
Otra de las implicaciones pol茅micas es todo lo que supone que 鈥渆n 煤ltima instancia no controlemos nuestras propias decisiones, pues estas est谩n predestinadas por el estado de nuestros cerebros鈥� 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 鈥淪i no somos m谩s que m谩quinas que permiten que los genes hagan copias de s铆 mismos, si nuestras alegr铆as y satisfacciones no son otra cosa que sucesos bioqu铆micos, si la vida no se cre贸 con alg煤n fin elevado ni se dirige hacia alguna noble meta.鈥�
Pero Pinker no solo se defiende, tambi茅n ataca destacando las implicaciones perversas que tambi茅n tendr铆a 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 teor铆as previamente adquiridas, simplemente se acumula en nuestro cerebro condicionando a su vez lo que percibiremos a posteriori. Por ejemplo, la ciencia solo ser铆a una forma de ver la realidad como cualquier otra, o cualquier moral y estructura de valores 茅ticos ser铆a igualmente v谩lida.
Por 煤ltimo 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 pol茅micos c贸mo la forma de organizarnos pol铆ticamente o qu茅 pol铆ticas se deben adoptar frente a problemas sociales como la violencia o el trato a los delincuentes, las implicaciones que tienen el g茅nero de las personas en el comportamiento, el papel de la herencia en ese comportamiento鈥�
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鈥檚 a Hobbesian Hammer to mangle the handsome features of your Rousseaian na茂vet茅. Are you convinced that, despite evolution鈥檚 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鈥檛 sophistry in the service of ideology, I鈥檒l 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鈥檓 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鈥檚 a way out of this. (((Although, if we鈥檙e 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鈥檓 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鈥檙e Blank Slates is about as goddamn plausible as feng shui鈥檌ng 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鈥檓 what you might charitably call a 鈥榙iscovery鈥� writer. Which is why I can鈥檛 plot anything, (unless it鈥檚 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鈥檌ng 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鈥檛 properly apply corpse paint, the absence of double-kicks and blast beats in elevator music, imitation Oreos, asymmetrical saggin鈥� 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鈥檓 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鈥檚 a way out of this. (((Although, if we鈥檙e 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鈥檓 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鈥檙e Blank Slates is about as goddamn plausible as feng shui鈥檌ng 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鈥檓 what you might charitably call a 鈥榙iscovery鈥� writer. Which is why I can鈥檛 plot anything, (unless it鈥檚 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鈥檌ng 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鈥檛 properly apply corpse paint, the absence of double-kicks and blast beats in elevator music, imitation Oreos, asymmetrical saggin鈥� 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
賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 賱爻鬲賷賮賳 亘賳賰乇 丿丕 賲爻鬲賮夭 賮賵賯 丕賱賵氐賮貙 爻賱丕爻丞 賵賳毓賵賲丞 賵亘爻丕胤丞 噩賲賷賱丞 噩丿丕貙 胤乇丨 兀賮賰丕乇 賵鬲兀氐賷賱 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賴丕 賲毓 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賶 丿賱丕賱丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賴賲賷鬲賴丕 (丕賱賳賯胤丞 丿賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲亘賴乇丞 亘卮賰賱 禺賷丕賱賷)貙 賵賱賱兀爻賮 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱丨賱賵丞 丕賱賱賷 夭賷 丿賷 亘鬲禺賱賷賳賷 丕鬲賲賳賶 丕賳賷 賰賳鬲 丕賯乇丕賴 亘賱睾鬲賴 丕賱兀賲 賵賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲 亘賷禺賱賷賳賷 丕賱丕丨馗 丕賰鬲乇 賱賱賮噩賵丞 丕賱賲乇毓亘丞 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丕鬲 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賵丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丕氐賵賱 賵丕賱鬲乇噩賲丕鬲 丕賱丕賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賲孬賱丕貙 賮丕乇賯 賲毓乇賮賷 賲賴賵賱 賮賷 丕賱丨噩賲 賵丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇貙 賮賷 丨賷賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丕鬲 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賲丨賰賵賲丞 亘賲噩賴賵丿丕鬲 丕睾賱亘賴丕 賱賴 卮乇賵胤 鬲噩丕乇賷丞 丕賵 丨鬲賶 賲卮 賲賴鬲賲 亘賳賯賱 賲毓乇賮丞 賲丕貙 賵丕賱賲卮丕乇賷毓 丕賱丨賰賵賲賷丞 亘鬲賰賵賳 睾賷乇 賲囟賲賵賳丞 丕賱噩賵丿丞.
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
賷鬲丨丿孬 爻鬲賷賮賳 亘賷賳賰乇 鈥撠关з勝� 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱賱睾賵賷 賮賷 賴丕乇賮丕乇丿- 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 (丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍) 毓賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 卮丿賷丿 丕賱卮賷賵毓 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞貙 賵賴賵 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷賵賱丿 "氐賮丨丞 亘賷囟丕亍"貙 賱丕 賷丨賲賱 亘賳賷丞 賮胤乇賷丞 爻丕亘賯丞貙 賵兀賳 丕賱賲丐孬乇 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷毓賵丿 賱賱賵丕賱丿賷賳貙 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓. 賷賴丕噩賲 亘賷賳賰乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 亘卮丿丞貙 賵賴賵 賷乇賶 兀賳賴 賷賲孬賾賱 "丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕賳賷 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞"貙 賵兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 爻丕賴賲 賮賷 乇爻賲 亘毓囟 兀噩賳丿丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲賳氐乇賲.
丕亘鬲丿兀 兀賵賱丕賸 亘鬲賯氐賷 賲賳丕亘毓 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞貙 賲賳匕 乇賵爻賵 賵賴賵亘夭 賵丿賷賰丕乇鬲貙 孬賲 卮乇毓 賮賷 鬲賯賵賷囟 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 毓亘乇 兀乇亘毓丞 賲噩丕賱丕鬲: 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞貙 賵毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀毓氐丕亘貙 賵丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲貙 賵丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱鬲胤賵乇賷丞. 賮賳賾丿 亘賷賳賰乇 丕賱賲禺丕賵賮 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲賳毓 賲賳 廿孬亘丕鬲 亘賳賷丞 賮胤乇賷丞 兀賵 胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 爻丕亘賯丞貙 賵賴賷 兀賳 丕賱廿賯乇丕乇 亘胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 賲丕 賷亘乇賾乇 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷貙 賵兀賳 廿孬亘丕鬲 賲賷賵賱 睾賷乇 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 (賰丕賱毓賳賮) 賷噩賱亘 丕賱鬲卮丕丐賲貙 賵賷丿賲乇 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱丨乇丞貙 賵賷丨胤賲 賲毓賳賶 丕賱丨賷丕丞.鈥┵堌Ｘ娯必з� 毓賯丿 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮氐賵賱丕賸 毓丿賷丿丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱賮胤乇賷丞/丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丐孬乇丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 賳賵丕夭毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵禺賷丕乇丕鬲賴 賮賷 :鈥�
[1] 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賵賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮 賵兀孬亘鬲 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨賲賱 賲賷賵賱丕賸 賮胤乇賷丞 賱賱毓賳賮貙 賵兀卮丕乇 賱丿乇丕爻丞 賳卮乇鬲 毓丕賲 2000賲 兀孬亘鬲鬲 兀賳 賳氐賮 丕賱匕賰賵乇 丕賱匕賷賳 鬲噩丕賵夭丕 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 丕賳禺乇胤賵丕 賮賷 丕賱囟乇亘 賵丕賱毓囟 賵丕賱乇賮爻貙 賵賯丕賱鬲 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 兀賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱氐丨賷丨 賱賷爻 賴賵: 賰賷賮 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍責 亘賱: 賰賷賮 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓丿賲 丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍責!.鈥�
[2] 丕賱賮乇賵賯 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳貙 賵兀孬亘鬲 賮乇賵賯丕賸 噩賵賴乇賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丕賸 賵丕賳鬲賯丿 亘毓囟 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賮囟 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賮乇賵賯貙 賵鬲乇賶 亘兀賳賴丕 賲氐賳賵毓丞 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賱賷爻 賱賴丕 兀爻丕爻 毓囟賵賷貙 賵丿丕賮毓 毓賳 兀胤乇賵丨丞 孬乇賵賳賴賷賱 賵亘丕賱賲乇 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴賲丕 丕賱卮賴賷乇 "丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 賱賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘" 丕賱氐丕丿乇 毓丕賲 2000賲貙 丕賱匕賷 賷賳賯囟 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱賯丕卅賱丞 亘兀賳 丕賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘 賴賵 噩乇賷賲丞 毓賳賮 賵賳鬲賷噩丞 賱賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿 賱賱賳爻丕亍 賵賱賷爻 爻亘亘賴 丿賵丕賮毓 噩賳爻賷丞 乇丕爻禺丞 賮賷 鬲賰賵賷賳 丕賱匕賰乇 毓囟賵賷丕賸/亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丕賸.
鈥3] 賵賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱兀胤賮丕賱貙 賴丕噩賲 亘賯賵丞 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲乇亘賵賷丞 賵丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賶 亘兀賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲卮賰賷賱賴賲 賰賲丕 賷卮賰賾賱 丕賱胤賷賳 兀賵 丕賱氐賱氐丕賱貙 賵鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘丕賱睾 賮賷 丿賵乇 丕賱丌亘丕亍 賵丕賱賲毓賱賲賷賳 賵鬲丨賲賱賴賲 賮賵賯 賲丕 賷丨鬲賲賱賵賳貙 賵匕賱賰 賮賷 賮氐賱 賴丕賲 賷噩丿乇 亘丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賷賴.
賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷 睾賷乇 匕賱賰 賲賳 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 賰丕賱賮賳賵賳.鈥�
賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賲賴賲丞 噩丿丕賸貙 賵賴賷 兀賯乇亘 賱賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賲賳 賳馗乇賷丞 "丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍"貙 賮丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賮賷 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 賱丕 賷賵賱丿 氐賮丨丞 亘賷囟丕亍 亘賱 (賰賱 賲賵賱賵丿 賷賵賱丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮胤乇丞)貙 賲毓 賲賱丕丨馗丞 兀賳 亘賷賳賰乇 賲賱丨丿貙 賵賱丕 賷丐爻爻 兀胤乇賵丨鬲賴 毓賱賶 兀賷丞 賲爻鬲賳丿丕鬲 丿賷賳賷丞.鈥�
兀賲丕 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賴賷 乇賰賷賰丞 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲貙 賵丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 亘丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 丕賱賮賳賷丞 賵丕賱賴賵丕賲卮 爻賷卅丞 噩丿丕賸. 賷賯毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 550 氐賮丨丞貙 賵氐丿乇 毓賳 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿 佗贍佟侉.鈥�
丕亘鬲丿兀 兀賵賱丕賸 亘鬲賯氐賷 賲賳丕亘毓 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞貙 賲賳匕 乇賵爻賵 賵賴賵亘夭 賵丿賷賰丕乇鬲貙 孬賲 卮乇毓 賮賷 鬲賯賵賷囟 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 毓亘乇 兀乇亘毓丞 賲噩丕賱丕鬲: 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞貙 賵毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀毓氐丕亘貙 賵丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲貙 賵丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱鬲胤賵乇賷丞. 賮賳賾丿 亘賷賳賰乇 丕賱賲禺丕賵賮 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲賳毓 賲賳 廿孬亘丕鬲 亘賳賷丞 賮胤乇賷丞 兀賵 胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 爻丕亘賯丞貙 賵賴賷 兀賳 丕賱廿賯乇丕乇 亘胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 賲丕 賷亘乇賾乇 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷貙 賵兀賳 廿孬亘丕鬲 賲賷賵賱 睾賷乇 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 (賰丕賱毓賳賮) 賷噩賱亘 丕賱鬲卮丕丐賲貙 賵賷丿賲乇 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱丨乇丞貙 賵賷丨胤賲 賲毓賳賶 丕賱丨賷丕丞.鈥┵堌Ｘ娯必з� 毓賯丿 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮氐賵賱丕賸 毓丿賷丿丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱賮胤乇賷丞/丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丐孬乇丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 賳賵丕夭毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵禺賷丕乇丕鬲賴 賮賷 :鈥�
[1] 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賵賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮 賵兀孬亘鬲 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨賲賱 賲賷賵賱丕賸 賮胤乇賷丞 賱賱毓賳賮貙 賵兀卮丕乇 賱丿乇丕爻丞 賳卮乇鬲 毓丕賲 2000賲 兀孬亘鬲鬲 兀賳 賳氐賮 丕賱匕賰賵乇 丕賱匕賷賳 鬲噩丕賵夭丕 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 丕賳禺乇胤賵丕 賮賷 丕賱囟乇亘 賵丕賱毓囟 賵丕賱乇賮爻貙 賵賯丕賱鬲 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 兀賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱氐丨賷丨 賱賷爻 賴賵: 賰賷賮 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍責 亘賱: 賰賷賮 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓丿賲 丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍責!.鈥�
[2] 丕賱賮乇賵賯 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳貙 賵兀孬亘鬲 賮乇賵賯丕賸 噩賵賴乇賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丕賸 賵丕賳鬲賯丿 亘毓囟 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賮囟 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賮乇賵賯貙 賵鬲乇賶 亘兀賳賴丕 賲氐賳賵毓丞 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賱賷爻 賱賴丕 兀爻丕爻 毓囟賵賷貙 賵丿丕賮毓 毓賳 兀胤乇賵丨丞 孬乇賵賳賴賷賱 賵亘丕賱賲乇 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴賲丕 丕賱卮賴賷乇 "丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 賱賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘" 丕賱氐丕丿乇 毓丕賲 2000賲貙 丕賱匕賷 賷賳賯囟 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱賯丕卅賱丞 亘兀賳 丕賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘 賴賵 噩乇賷賲丞 毓賳賮 賵賳鬲賷噩丞 賱賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿 賱賱賳爻丕亍 賵賱賷爻 爻亘亘賴 丿賵丕賮毓 噩賳爻賷丞 乇丕爻禺丞 賮賷 鬲賰賵賷賳 丕賱匕賰乇 毓囟賵賷丕賸/亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丕賸.
鈥3] 賵賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱兀胤賮丕賱貙 賴丕噩賲 亘賯賵丞 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲乇亘賵賷丞 賵丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賶 亘兀賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲卮賰賷賱賴賲 賰賲丕 賷卮賰賾賱 丕賱胤賷賳 兀賵 丕賱氐賱氐丕賱貙 賵鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘丕賱睾 賮賷 丿賵乇 丕賱丌亘丕亍 賵丕賱賲毓賱賲賷賳 賵鬲丨賲賱賴賲 賮賵賯 賲丕 賷丨鬲賲賱賵賳貙 賵匕賱賰 賮賷 賮氐賱 賴丕賲 賷噩丿乇 亘丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賷賴.
賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷 睾賷乇 匕賱賰 賲賳 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 賰丕賱賮賳賵賳.鈥�
賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賲賴賲丞 噩丿丕賸貙 賵賴賷 兀賯乇亘 賱賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賲賳 賳馗乇賷丞 "丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍"貙 賮丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賮賷 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 賱丕 賷賵賱丿 氐賮丨丞 亘賷囟丕亍 亘賱 (賰賱 賲賵賱賵丿 賷賵賱丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮胤乇丞)貙 賲毓 賲賱丕丨馗丞 兀賳 亘賷賳賰乇 賲賱丨丿貙 賵賱丕 賷丐爻爻 兀胤乇賵丨鬲賴 毓賱賶 兀賷丞 賲爻鬲賳丿丕鬲 丿賷賳賷丞.鈥�
兀賲丕 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賴賷 乇賰賷賰丞 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲貙 賵丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 亘丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 丕賱賮賳賷丞 賵丕賱賴賵丕賲卮 爻賷卅丞 噩丿丕賸. 賷賯毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 550 氐賮丨丞貙 賵氐丿乇 毓賳 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿 佗贍佟侉.鈥�
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
趩乇丕 匕丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丕賳讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚�
賲賯丿賲赖
丕賳爻丕賳 賲丨氐賵賱 鬲乇亘蹖鬲鈥屫ж� 丕爻鬲 蹖丕 賲丨氐賵賱 胤亘蹖毓鬲鈥屫ж簇� 丌賲賵夭卮 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 乇賯賲 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 蹖丕 爻乇卮鬲 匕丕鬲蹖鈥屫簇з嗀� 鬲丨蹖賯蹖賯丕鬲 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵蹖 丕蹖賳 毓賵丕賲賱 丕孬乇诏匕丕乇鈥屫з嗀�. 丕賲丕 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屰� 賲丕 爻賴賲 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賵 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 亘爻蹖丕乇 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 賴爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀�. 诏賵蹖蹖 毓氐乇 賲丕 亘丕 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂屫� 蹖毓賳蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴 讴賴 匕丕鬲貙 爻乇卮鬲 賵 跇賳鬲蹖讴 賲丕 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲賲丕賳 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 爻乇 毓賳丕丿 丿丕乇丿. 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖賲 賴賲賴鈥屭嗃屫� 乇丕 丿乇 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賵 丌賲賵夭卮 禺賱丕氐賴 亘亘蹖賳蹖賲. 賵賯鬲蹖 亘丨孬 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲乇丿丕賳 賵 夭賳丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賮賵乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭堐屰屬� 賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 亘丕毓孬 丕蹖賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏� 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賵賯鬲蹖 讴賵丿讴 亘丕 丕丿亘蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屬� 卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 鬲乇亘蹖鬲蹖 倬丿乇 賵 賲丕丿乇卮 乇丕 鬲丨爻蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�. 丕賲丕 丌蹖丕 丕賲讴丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘蹖賳 夭賳 賵 賲乇丿 乇蹖卮賴 丿乇 匕丕鬲 賲丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿責 丌蹖丕 丕賲讴丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 毓賱鬲 禺賵卮鈥屫辟佖ж臂� 蹖讴 讴賵丿讴貙 匕丕鬲 爻乇亘賴鈥屫必з囏� 亘丕卮丿責 鬲丨賯蹖賯丕鬲 丕禺蹖乇 鬲丕孬蹖乇 匕丕鬲 賵 跇賳鬲蹖讴 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 丕孬亘丕鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賲孬賱丕賸 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 丨鬲蹖 诏乇丕蹖卮 亘賴 亘夭賴讴丕乇蹖 鬲丕 丨丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 賵 跇賳鬲蹖讴 賲丕 賲乇鬲亘胤 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿貙 趩乇丕 賲丕 賴賳賵夭 丕孬乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 乇丕 亘蹖鈥屫辟嗂� 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 賵 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫驰屬呚� 趩乇丕 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 賲賳賮賵乇 丕爻鬲 賵 爻乇卮鬲 匕丕鬲蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
蹖讴. 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 禺賵丕賴蹖
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 亘蹖鈥屫ж关嗀й屰� 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵丕噩 亘乇丕亘乇蹖鈥屫堌з囒� 丕爻鬲. 丿睾丿睾賴鈥屰� 亘乇丕亘乇蹖鈥屫堌з囒� 趩賳丕賳 亘丕賱丕 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丕賴賲蹖鬲 蹖丕賮鬲賴 讴賴 賴乇 爻禺賳蹖 讴賴 亘賵蹖 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 亘丿賴丿 賳卮賳蹖丿賴 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 賵 禺氐賵氐丕賸 爻禺賳 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屫з�. 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 亘乇丕亘乇蹖鈥� 丕夭 讴賱蹖丿蹖鈥屫臂屬� 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屰� 賲丕爻鬲貨 倬丕蹖賴 賵 丕爻丕爻 丨賯賵賯 賵 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 賲丕爻鬲. 賲孬賱丕賸 賯丕賳賵賳 丕爻丕爻蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 亘乇 卮丕賱賵丿賴鈥屰� 賴賲蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘賳丕 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘蹖乇賵賳 讴卮蹖丿賳 丕蹖賳 禺卮鬲 夭蹖乇蹖賳 賴賲丕賳 賵 賮乇賵乇蹖禺鬲賳 讴賱 毓賲丕乇鬲 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 賴賲丕賳. 禺亘乇 亘丿 丌賳讴賴 丕蹖賳 禺卮鬲 賲丿鬲蹖鈥� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賱賯 卮丿賴. 賯丕賳賵賳 丕爻丕爻蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 丿蹖賳 诏乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀�. 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘乇丕亘乇賳丿 趩賵賳 禺丿丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘乇丕亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗀�. 丕賲丕 丨丕賱丕 讴賴 禺丿丕 賵 丿蹖賳 禺賵丿 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 乇賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 亘蹖鈥屫┷屬団€屭з� 賲丕賳丿賴貙 賵 亘賴 鬲賱賳诏乇蹖 亘賳丿 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲賮丕爻蹖乇貙 丕蹖賳 賳诏乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲亘丕丿丕 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 鬲賱賳诏乇 賳賴丕蹖蹖 乇丕 賵丕乇丿 讴賳丿 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 丕爻鬲
賵 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賳讴賳蹖賲 讴賴 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂屫� 蹖丕 亘賴鬲乇 亘诏賵蹖蹖賲 賮賴賲 睾賱胤蹖 丕夭 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂屫� 爻丕亘賯賴鈥屰� 噩賳丕蹖鬲 丿乇 倬乇賵賳丿賴鈥屫ж� 丿丕乇丿. 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 賴蹖鬲賱乇 亘丕 鬲賵氐賱 亘賴 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 鬲丨乇蹖賮鈥屫簇団€屫й� 丕夭 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 亘賵丿 讴賴 讴卮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴鈥屫ж� 乇丕 鬲賵噩蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┴必�. 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 丕蹖賳 丨乇賮 乇丕 丿乇 丿賴丕賳 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 诏匕丕卮鬲 讴賴 賳跇丕丿 丌乇蹖丕蹖蹖 匕丕鬲丕賸 亘乇鬲乇 丕爻鬲 賵 賳跇丕丿賴丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿蹖 賵 丕爻賱丕賵 匕丕鬲丕賸 倬爻鬲鈥屫必� 賵 亘賴 丕蹖賳 亘賴丕賳賴 禺賵賳 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 丨賱丕賱 讴乇丿. 丕蹖賳 噩賳丕蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 丕賲乇賵夭賴 亘賴 倬丕蹖 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 倬爻 噩丕蹖 鬲毓噩亘 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 鬲乇爻 丕夭 鬲讴乇丕乇 卮丿賳 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 噩賳丕蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賵 丕賮讴丕乇卮 丿乇 夭亘丕賱賴鈥屫з� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 鈥屫促堌�. 禺氐賵氐丕賸 讴賴 丿乇 卮賴乇賴丕蹖 趩賳丿賲賱蹖鬲蹖 丕賲乇賵夭貙 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 丕夭 趩賳丿蹖賳 賵 趩賳丿 賯賵賲 賵 賳跇丕丿 乇丕 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 丌賵乇丿賴貙 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賮丕噩毓賴鈥屫й� 亘賴鈥屬呚必ж� 毓馗蹖賲鈥屫� 亘蹖丕賮乇蹖賳丿. 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕 丕夭 亘蹖賲 丌賳讴賴 禺丕賲蹖 趩賳丿 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 乇丕 亘丿 亘賮賴賲賳丿貙 蹖丕 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 賮乇氐鬲鈥屫焚勜� 丌賳 乇丕 毓丕賲丿丕賳賴 賲氐丕丿乇賴 亘賴 賲胤賱賵亘 讴賳賳丿貙 賳賮蹖 丨讴賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 賵 丿乇爻鬲 賵 睾賱胤 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 乇丕 蹖讴噩丕 丕夭 氐賮丨丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏� 賵 氐賮丨賴鈥屰� 匕賴賳 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 倬丕讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�. 丨賯蹖賯鬲 乇丕 賮丿丕蹖 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 鬲亘毓蹖囟 賳跇丕丿蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�
卮丕禺賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 噩賳亘卮 賮賲蹖蹖賳蹖爻賲 賴賲貙 賲孬賱 噩賳亘卮 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 賳跇丕丿 倬乇爻鬲蹖貙 亘丕 賳蹖鬲 禺蹖乇 亘賴 賲蹖丿丕賳 丌賲丿 丕賲丕 賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 毓賱蹖賴 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 卮賲卮蹖乇 讴卮蹖丿. 噩賳亘卮 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 亘乇丕蹖 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賵乇丿賳 丨賯賵賯 亘乇丕亘乇 亘丕 賲乇丿丕賳貙 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 賳卮丕賳 丿賴丿 讴賴 賲乇丿丕賳 賵 夭賳丕賳 亘乇丕亘乇丕賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 亘乇 卮亘丕賴鬲鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丕賳 賵 賲乇丿丕賳 丕賳诏卮鬲 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�. 丕賲丕 蹖讴 卮丕禺賴鈥屰� 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 鬲丕 丌賳噩丕 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲賴 讴賴 賴乇 鬲賮丕賵鬲 爻乇卮鬲蹖 亘蹖賳 賲乇丿 賵 夭賳 乇丕 賲胤賱賯丕賸 賳賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賵賯鬲蹖 賴賲 讴賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏� 毓蹖丕賳 賵 丕賳讴丕乇賳丕倬匕蹖乇 亘丕卮賳丿貙 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 蹖讴爻乇賴 賲丨氐賵賱 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賵 賲丨蹖胤 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 賲孬賱丕賸 丨鬲蹖 诏乇丕蹖卮 噩賳爻蹖 乇丕 賴賲 亘乇爻丕禺鬲賴鈥屫й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 賵 亘蹖鈥屫Ｘ屫� 丕夭 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丿诏乇噩賳爻鈥屭必й屰� 蹖丕 賴賲鈥屫嗀斥€屭必й屰� 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘丕 丌賲賵夭卮 丿乇 丕賮乇丕丿 賳賴丕丿蹖賳賴 讴乇丿. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 讴賴 亘诏匕乇蹖賲貙 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 賲毓賲賵賱蹖鈥屫� 丕賲丕 乇丕蹖噩鈥屫� 賲孬賱 賳賮蹖 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲 賵 禺賱賯蹖丕鬲 夭賳丕賳賴 賵 賲乇丿丕賳賴貙 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 乇丕 亘賴 丨丕卮蹖賴 乇丕賳丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲孬丕賱 丿蹖诏乇 讴爻蹖 噩乇兀鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘诏賵蹖丿 賮賱丕賳 卮睾賱 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 夭賳丕賳賴 賳夭丿蹖讴鈥屫� 丕爻鬲貙 蹖丕 賮賱丕賳 禺氐賵氐蹖鬲 匕丕鬲丕賸 丿乇 賲乇丿丕賳 倬乇乇賳诏鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 趩賳蹖賳 丕馗賴丕乇 賳馗乇賴丕蹖蹖鈥斮� 诏賵蹖賳丿诏丕賳卮丕賳鈥斬ㄛ屸€屫辟嗂� 丕賳诏 鬲亘毓蹖囟 噩賳爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屫堌辟嗀� 賵 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�
亘蹖鈥屬呝嗀ж池ㄘ� 賳蹖爻鬲 丕卮丕乇賴 讴賳蹖賲 讴賴 賲賯亘賵賱 丕賮鬲丕丿賳 蹖讴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 亘賴 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賵 賯賵鬲鈥屫ж� 賲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賴 氐丿 賳讴鬲賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 禺氐賵氐丕賸 亘賴 卮乇丕蹖胤 夭賲丕賳賴. 丿乇 賴乇 毓氐乇蹖 蹖讴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 讴賱蹖 丨丕讴賲 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴乇 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賲賵丕賮賯 亘丕 丌賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 賵 賴乇 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賲禺丕賱賮 丿賵乇 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丿賵乇 丕夭 丨賯蹖賯鬲 賳蹖爻鬲 丕诏乇 亘诏賵蹖蹖賲 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賳蹖夭 賲孬賱 賱亘丕爻鈥屬囏� 賲丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 丕夭 賲丿 賲蹖鈥屫з佖嗀�. 亘毓丿賴丕 讴賴 亘賴 賲丿賴丕蹖 丕賲乇賵夭 賳诏丕賴 鈥屭┵嗃屬� 禺賳丿賴鈥屬呚з� 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 鬲毓噩亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 讴賴 趩賳蹖賳 趩蹖夭 亘丿賯賵丕乇賴 賵 夭卮鬲蹖 趩胤賵乇 丌賳鈥屬囐呝� 亘丿蹖毓 賵 夭蹖亘丕 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖鈥屫必驰屫�. 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 乇丕蹖噩 丕賲乇賵夭 賴賲貙 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 囟丿蹖鬲 亘丕 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂屫� 趩賴 亘爻丕 賮乇丿丕 禺賳丿賴鈥屫ж� 賵 亘蹖鈥屫ж池ж� 亘賳賲丕蹖賳丿
丿賵. 賲蹖賱 亘賴 鬲爻賱胤
蹖讴蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 丕賳讴丕乇 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖賱 賲丕 亘賴 丿乇 丿爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賳 讴賳鬲乇賱 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賲賵乇 丕爻鬲. 賲丕 丿賱賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 丿賳蹖丕 乇丕賲 賲丕 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖賳 亘賴 賲丕 丕丨爻丕爻 賯丿乇鬲 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丕夭 丌賳 胤乇賮貙 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕 丕丨爻丕爻 賳丕鬲賵丕賳蹖 亘丿賴丿 賵 丨賯丕乇鬲 賵 賳丕趩蹖夭蹖鈥屬呚з� 乇丕 亘賴 乇賵蹖賲丕賳 亘蹖丕賵乇丿 亘蹖夭丕乇蹖賲. 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賳讴賳蹖賲 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丕夭 丿睾丿睾賴鈥屬囏й� 丕爻丕爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳 丕爻鬲. 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳 倬爻 丕夭 卮賳蹖丿賳 賳丿丕蹖 賳蹖趩賴 讴賴 禺丿丕 賲乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 讴賵卮蹖丿 禺賵丿 亘賴 噩丕蹖 禺丿丕 亘賳卮蹖賳丿. 賵 亘賴 賱胤賮 毓賱賲 賵 鬲讴賳賵賱賵跇蹖 鬲丕 丨丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 賲賵賮賯 卮丿 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖 毓丕賱賲 卮賵丿. 爻賮乇 亘賴 賲丕賴 賵 丿乇賲丕賳 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖鈥屬囏й� 倬蹖卮鬲乇 賱丕毓賱丕噩 賵 丕蹖賳 賯亘蹖賱 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 讴卮丕賳丿 讴賴 讴丕乇 賳卮丿 賳丿丕乇丿貨 丕賳爻丕賳 丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賴丿 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 禺賵丿 禺丿丕 亘爻丕夭丿
丕賲丕 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 亘丕 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 賵蹖跇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 亘毓囟丕賸 倬爻鬲 賵 丕睾賱亘 鬲睾蹖蹖乇賳丕倬匕蹖乇 丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賯丿乇賯丿乇鬲蹖 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 禺賵丿 爻丕禺鬲賴 乇丕 賵蹖乇丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 讴賳鬲乇賱 賲丕 亘乇 丕賲賵乇 禺蹖賱蹖 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必屬�. 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲 賲丕 亘賴 跇賳鬲蹖讴鈥屬呚з� 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賵 丌賲賵夭卮貙 丕诏乇趩賴 丕孬乇诏匕丕乇賳丿貙 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 丕氐賱蹖 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 賲孬賱丕賸 丿賵賯賱賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘丿賵 鬲賵賱丿 丕夭 賴賲 噩丿丕 卮丿賳丿貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿乇 丿賵 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屸€� 賵 丿賵 賲丨蹖胤 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘夭乇诏 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 卮禺氐蹖鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲卮丕亘賴蹖 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀�. 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 毓賱丕蹖賯 賵 爻賱丕蹖賯 賲丕 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 亘丕賵乇 乇丕蹖噩 丨丕氐賱 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 卮禺氐蹖 賵 丕夭 爻乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 亘賱讴賴 毓賲蹖賯丕賸 乇蹖卮賴 丿乇 爻乇卮鬲 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖 賲丕 丿丕乇賳丿. 賲孬賱丕賸 噩賴鬲鈥屭屫臂屸€屬囏й� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賲丕 賴賲 鬲丕 丨丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲鈥屬呚з� 賲乇鬲亘胤 丕爻鬲. 诏賵蹖丕 丌賳賯丿乇 賴賲 讴賴 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必屬� 亘乇 禺賵丿 賲爻賱胤 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲. 丕蹖賳 倬蹖丕賲 亘賴 賲匕丕賯 賲丕 禺賵卮 賳賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 卮丕賴丕賳 倬蹖讴 亘丿禺亘乇 乇丕 亘賴 爻蹖丕賴鈥屭嗀з勝� 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀ж嗀� 賲丕 賴賲 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屫з� 乇丕 讴賴 禺亘乇 丕夭 賳賯氐鈥屬囏� 賵 讴丕爻鬲蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賳爻丕賳 丌賵乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 亘賴 噩乇賲 爻蹖丕賴鈥屫з嗂ж臂� 胤乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�. 賲丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з囒屬� 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲 讴賴 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 倬丕丿卮丕賴 噩賴丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲 亘賱讴賴 爻禺鬲 丿乇 趩賳诏 賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖 胤亘蹖毓鬲 讴賴 爻乇卮鬲 賲丕 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕爻蹖乇蹖賲
爻賴. 丿蹖賳
囟丿蹖鬲 丿蹖賳 亘丕 丿丕乇賵蹖賳蹖爻賲 賴賲 丿乇 睾賮賱鬲 丕夭 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿禺蹖賱 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿丕乇賵蹖賳蹖爻賲 賵 匕丕鬲鈥屫ㄘз堌臂� 丿乇 賴賲 鬲賳蹖丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕夭 匕丕鬲 賵 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 氐丨亘鬲 讴乇丿 賵賱蹖 賳丕賲蹖 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 賳亘乇丿貙 蹖丕 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 诏賮鬲 賵賱蹖 丕卮丕乇賴鈥屫й� 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 賳讴乇丿. 丿蹖賳 亘丕 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘丨孬 丿丕乇賵蹖賳蹖爻賲 賵 鬲讴丕賲賱 毓賲賱丕賸 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏丕賳 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屰� 乇丕 賴賲 禺賮賴 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 爻丕賳爻賵乇 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿乇 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲匕賴亘蹖 倬乇乇賳诏鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 丨鬲蹖 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲鈥� 睾蹖乇 賲匕賴亘蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 丿爻鬲 亘賴 爻丕賳爻賵乇 賳賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 鬲毓氐亘丕鬲 賲匕賴亘蹖 禺賵丿 賲乇丿賲 賲丕賳毓 丕夭 倬丕 诏乇賮鬲賳 賵 噩丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 毓賱賲 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 爻禺賳丕賳 匕丕鬲鈥屭必й屫з� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘賴 鬲毓亘蹖乇 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱 賲乇丿賲 鬲乇噩蹖噩 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賮乇卮鬲诏丕賳蹖 爻賯賵胤 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 鬲丕 亘賵夭蹖賳诏丕賳蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱 蹖丕賮鬲賴貨 丕夭 丕蹖賳 噩賴鬲 亘賴 賲匕賴亘 毓賱丕賯賴鈥屬呝嗀扁€屫з嗀� 鬲丕 亘賴 毓賱賲
趩賴丕乇. 賮賱爻賮賴
賲賯氐乇 亘毓丿蹖 丕鬲讴丕蹖 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丕賳丿丕夭賴鈥屰� 賲丕 亘賴 賮賱爻賮賴 丕爻鬲. 丿蹖賳 亘丕 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 亘蹖賵賱賵跇蹖 賵 爻丕蹖乇 毓賱賵賲 丕夭 賲蹖夭诏乇丿 卮賳丕禺鬲 丕賳爻丕賳貙 氐丨賳賴 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿賳賲丕蹖蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 禺丕賱蹖 讴乇丿貙 丕賲丕 賮賱爻賮賴 賴賲 賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 丕毓鬲賳丕蹖蹖 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 賳讴乇丿. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賴賲 亘賴 诏乇丿賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴賲 亘賴 诏乇丿賳 賲丕. 賲丕 賲賯氐乇蹖賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕亘鬲 讴賴 卮賳丕禺鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 賮賱爻賮賴 爻倬乇丿蹖賲. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 亘賴丕賳賴 讴賴 賮賱爻賮賴 賴賲蹖卮賴 賲賳夭賱鬲 賵 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 賮乇丕賵丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 賵 趩賵賳 賲乇噩毓 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 倬丕爻禺 诏賵蹖蹖 賳賲丕賳丿賴 亘賵丿貙 亘賴 賴賲丕賳 鬲禺鬲賴鈥屬矩ж辟団€屰� 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 丕賯蹖丕賳賵爻 賳丕丿丕賳蹖 趩爻亘蹖丿蹖賲貙 賵 亘賴 丌賳 丿賱 亘爻鬲蹖賲. 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 倬乇爻卮 丕夭 賲丕賴蹖鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 倬乇爻卮蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賮賱爻賮賴 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 倬丕爻禺 诏賮鬲賳卮 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖賳 倬乇爻卮 賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲 丌夭賲丕蹖卮诏丕賴蹖 賵 賲蹖丿丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫焚勜ㄘ�. 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丕夭 倬卮鬲 賲蹖夭 讴丕乇卮 趩胤賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 倬丕爻禺卮 乇丕 亘蹖丕亘丿責 賵 賮賱爻賮賴 賴賲 賲賯氐乇 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕亘鬲 讴賴 丿乇 鬲丨賱蹖賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 賳爻禺賴 倬蹖趩蹖丿賳 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳貙 亘丿賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴賱蹖 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲 賵 丕賵 乇丕 趩賵賳 乇賵丨蹖 禺丕賱氐 鬲氐賵乇 讴乇丿. 亘丕 丨匕賮 卮丿賳 亘丿賳 丕夭 氐賵乇鬲 賲爻卅賱賴貙 賴乇 丌賳趩賴 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賵丿 丕夭 賯賱賲 丕賮鬲丕丿
蹖賴 賲賳亘乇 賴賲 亘乇蹖賲
賲爻賱賲丕賸 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴蹖賲 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 匕丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 鬲賯賱蹖賱 丿賴蹖賲 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵乇 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 匕丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕爻丕爻丕賸 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賳蹖夭 亘賴 賴賲丕賳 丕賳丿丕夭賴 睾賱胤 丕爻鬲. 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇爻鬲鈥屫� 丕蹖賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 丌賳趩賴 乇丕 胤亘蹖毓鬲 丿乇 匕丕鬲 賲丕 爻乇卮鬲賴 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲貙 賵 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇丕鬲蹖 乇丕 賴賲 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕 丿丕丿賴 亘卮賳丕爻蹖賲. 倬匕蹖乇卮 爻乇卮鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕丿丕丿賳 亘賴 賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 诏丕賲 賳禺爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 乇卮丿蹖 賵丕賯毓鈥屫ㄛ屬嗀з嗁� 丕爻鬲
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 蹖讴: 丌賳趩賴 丌賲丿 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲. 囟賲賳丕賸 賲胤丕賱亘蹖 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賴賲 卮丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 丿賵: 讴鬲丕亘 賲胤丕賱亘 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘蹖 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭囏� 賵賱蹖 賲胤丕賱亘卮 乇賵 禺賵亘 賳賲蹖鈥屭�
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 鈥渂lank slate鈥� upon which experience writes on.
He invokes genetic arguments (based on fraternal and identical twins鈥� studies) to back his thesis. He also approaches brain analysis and anthropological studies to justify the existence of some 鈥渦niversals鈥� (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 鈥渂lank slate 鈥渉uman being to justify the fears of inequalities and certain types of interventions. Those political fears are meant to be refuted. Thomas Jefferson meant 鈥渆quality 鈥渙f rights.
Nevertheless, he seems to be a bit cautious about Noam Chomsky鈥檚 ideas of an 鈥渋nnate circuitry鈥�, or a universal grammar/plan. He points to the works of Jean Piaget and others, consisting of 鈥減ersonal ideas鈥�.
As for the fear of machines, thinking machines, running 鈥渁mok鈥�, Pinker thinks it鈥檚 a 鈥渨aste of energy鈥�. I really don鈥檛 agree. The singularity is at hand at any moment. We鈥檝e 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鈥檚 genuinely hard to know whether surfaces are potential vectors, whether six feet is enough or not enough, whether masks help or don鈥檛 help鈥�
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, 鈥淸P]eople鈥檚 ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious, deliberate reasoning.鈥� 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 鈥渢he blank slate鈥� and 鈥渢he noble savage鈥� 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, 鈥淚n 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.鈥� This represents a brash oversimplification of history, cognitive science, social psychology; an underestimation of the influence of dumb luck; and an overestimation of humans鈥� ability to accurately evaluate the merits of other humans. It suggests that while Pinker鈥檚 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鈥檚 still a compelling read. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. I鈥檓 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鈥檚 good. He carefully defines positions, quoting authorities from multiple disciplines to make his points, so he鈥檚 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, 鈥淸P]eople鈥檚 ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious, deliberate reasoning.鈥� 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 鈥渢he blank slate鈥� and 鈥渢he noble savage鈥� 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, 鈥淚n 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.鈥� This represents a brash oversimplification of history, cognitive science, social psychology; an underestimation of the influence of dumb luck; and an overestimation of humans鈥� ability to accurately evaluate the merits of other humans. It suggests that while Pinker鈥檚 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鈥檚 still a compelling read. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. I鈥檓 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鈥檚 good. He carefully defines positions, quoting authorities from multiple disciplines to make his points, so he鈥檚 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 鈥淪teven Pinker鈥�. 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 鈥淪teven Pinker鈥�. 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鈥檛 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 鈥渢he individuals who ensure the long-term survival of our species by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion鈥�, 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
Poderos铆simo libro que rompe todas las concepciones sociopol铆ticas previas que se pudieran tener, usando la Psicolog铆a, la Estad铆stica y las ciencias de la evoluci贸n biol贸gica 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 rom谩ntica 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, m谩s libre; lo malo, que es de esas libertades que duelen.
El autor expone, a modo de decimon贸nica refutaci贸n a terceras obras, que la sociedad se sustenta sobre falsos pilares que sujetan un entramado que dif铆cilmente da lugar a conclusiones v谩lidas porque est谩n 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 manipulaci贸n de masas, y nunca nos hab铆amos planteado con profundidad hasta d贸nde llegaban esas mentiras. Sospech谩bamos que era as铆 porque a veces todo es muy oscuro y no correlacionaban teor铆as y pr谩cticas; 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 caracter铆sticas. 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 intenci贸n 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 dec铆a, ideas poderosas que hay que rumiar, y un libro que deber铆an leer los que conducen nuestros carros. Seguro que personas m谩s inteligentes que yo se ven con capacidad de refutarlo, pero que es alimento para el cerebro no me lo podr谩 negar nadie.
El autor expone, a modo de decimon贸nica refutaci贸n a terceras obras, que la sociedad se sustenta sobre falsos pilares que sujetan un entramado que dif铆cilmente da lugar a conclusiones v谩lidas porque est谩n 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 manipulaci贸n de masas, y nunca nos hab铆amos planteado con profundidad hasta d贸nde llegaban esas mentiras. Sospech谩bamos que era as铆 porque a veces todo es muy oscuro y no correlacionaban teor铆as y pr谩cticas; 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 caracter铆sticas. 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 intenci贸n 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 dec铆a, ideas poderosas que hay que rumiar, y un libro que deber铆an leer los que conducen nuestros carros. Seguro que personas m谩s inteligentes que yo se ven con capacidad de refutarlo, pero que es alimento para el cerebro no me lo podr谩 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
賷毓丿 爻鬲賷賮賳 亘賷賳賰乇 賵丕丨丿丕 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇賷賳 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕 賲賳 丿乇丕爻丕鬲賴 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱毓氐亘賷丞 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 鬲亘爻賷胤 丕賱毓賱賵賲. 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷亘乇賴賳 亘賷賳賰乇 禺胤兀 賳馗乇賷丞 (丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱賮丕乇睾) 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵賱 亘兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷兀鬲賷 賱賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 亘乇賷卅丕 賰氐賮丨丞 賮丕乇睾丞貙 賱賰賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 (亘賲丕 賮賷賴丕 賲賳 鬲噩丕乇亘 賵兀丨丿丕孬 賵鬲乇亘賷丞鈥ωベ勜�) 賴賷 賲丕 鬲賲賱兀 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丨丞 賵鬲噩毓賱賴 賰賲丕 賴賵 毓賱賷賴.. 賷賯賵賱 亘賷賳賰乇 兀賳 賴匕丕 睾賷乇 氐丨賷丨.
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 亘賷賳賰乇 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 亘胤乇賷賯丞 卮賷賯丞貙 賱賷乇賷賳丕 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷兀鬲賷 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賲噩賴夭丕 賲爻亘賯丕 亘丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 賱丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱匕賴賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱賴丕 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 氐賷丕睾丞 爻賱賵賰賴.. 賵兀賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞 賱賷爻鬲 亘乇賷卅丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞.. 賱賱亘賷卅丞 丿賵乇 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 亘丕賱胤亘毓貙 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賰賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賷馗賳賵賳 賯丿賷賲丕. 賮毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲睾丕賱亘丞 賮胤乇鬲賴 賰孬賷乇丕 賰賷 賷氐亘丨 賲鬲丨囟乇丕...
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賱賷亍 亘丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱卮賷賯丞 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱鬲賵丕卅賲 賲孬賱丕貙 賵 賰匕賱賰 賲賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賲鬲毓 賲鬲丕亘毓丞 鬲爻賱爻賱 兀賮賰丕乇 亘賷賳賰乇 賵胤乇賷賯丞 毓乇囟賴 賱兀賮賰丕乇賴 亘卮賰賱 爻賱爻..
賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱乇賳爻丕賳 賰賲丕 賴賷 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 賵賳賮爻賷.. 賱丕 賲丕 賳鬲賲賳賶 賱賴 兀賳 賷賰賵賳.. 賱兀賳 賴匕賴 兀賵賱賷 禺胤賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 兀賳賮爻賳丕 賵賲睾丕賱亘丞 賯氐賵乇賴丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 賵亘丿丕卅賷丞 鬲賰賵賷賳賴丕 丕賱賳賮爻賷
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?
Clich茅s like 鈥榯ransformative鈥� or 鈥榤onumental鈥� or 鈥榠mportant鈥� come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that鈥檚 honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I鈥檓 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?
Clich茅s like 鈥榯ransformative鈥� or 鈥榤onumental鈥� or 鈥榠mportant鈥� come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that鈥檚 honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I鈥檓 left where I started.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
July 24, 2022
袩褉械写懈 写邪 锌褉芯褔械褌邪 褌邪蟹懈 泻薪懈谐邪 薪械 蟹薪邪械褏, 褔械 褎芯褉屑懈褉邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 褔芯胁械褕泻邪褌邪 锌褉懈褉芯写邪 械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褋锌芯褉械薪 胁褗锌褉芯褋 胁 懈薪褌械谢械泻褌褍邪谢薪懈褌械 褋褉械写懈.
袠蟹谐谢械写邪, 屑薪芯谐芯 褏芯褉邪 褋屑褟褌邪褌, 褔械 薪邪锌褉懈屑械褉 薪邪褋懈谢懈械褌芯 械 斜芯谢械褋褌薪芯, 薪械褋胁芯泄褋褌胁械薪芯 蟹邪 褔芯胁械泻邪 褋褗褋褌芯褟薪懈械 - 懈 写邪 褋械 泻邪卸械, 褔械 褋泻谢芯薪薪芯褋褌褌邪 泻褗屑 薪邪褋懈谢懈械 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 械 械胁芯谢褞褑懈芯薪薪邪 邪写邪锌褌邪褑懈褟 蟹邪 褋锌褉邪胁褟薪械 褋 芯锌褉械写械谢械薪懈 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈 械 褋褗褖芯褌芯, 泻邪褌芯 芯锌褉邪胁写邪胁邪薪械 薪邪 薪邪褋懈谢懈械褌芯. 小褗褖芯 褋锌芯褉械写 褌褟褏, 芯褌泻褉懈褌懈械褌芯, 褔械 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪褌 懈蟹胁械褋褌薪懈 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褉邪蟹谢懈泻懈 胁 薪邪褔懈薪邪 薪邪 屑懈褋谢械薪械 懈 胁 械屑芯褑懈懈褌械 薪邪 屑褗卸械褌械 懈 卸械薪懈褌械, 锌芯褉芯写械薪懈 芯褌 褉邪蟹谢懈褔懈褟 胁 屑芯蟹褗泻邪 懈 褏芯褉屑芯薪懈褌械 懈屑 - 械 锌芯写褌懈泻胁邪薪械 泻褗屑 写懈褋泻褉懈屑懈薪邪褑懈褟 泻褗屑 卸械薪懈褌械.
袩芯薪械卸械 泻薪懈谐邪褌邪 械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢薪芯 芯斜械屑薪邪 懈 褉邪蟹谐谢械卸写邪 褕懈褉芯泻 泻褉褗谐 胁褗锌褉芯褋懈, 锌芯蟹胁芯谢褟胁邪屑 褋懈 写邪 锌褉械胁械写邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 芯锌懈褋邪薪懈械褌芯 懈 芯褌 懈蟹写邪褌械谢褋褌胁芯褌芯, 泻芯械褌芯 褋锌芯褉械写 屑械薪 褍褋锌褟胁邪 芯褌谢懈褔薪芯 懈 薪邪泻褉邪褌泻芯 写邪 褟 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁懈:
"袙 泻薪懈谐邪褌邪 褋懈, 袩懈薪泻褗褉 褉邪蟹谐谢械卸写邪 懈写械褟褌邪 薪邪 褌.薪. "褔芯胁械褕泻邪 锌褉懈褉芯写邪" 懈 薪械泄薪芯褌芯 屑芯褉邪谢薪芯, 械屑芯褑懈芯薪邪谢薪芯 懈 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔械褋泻芯 蟹薪邪褔械薪懈械. 孝芯泄 锌芯泻邪蟹胁邪 泻邪泻 屑薪芯谐芯 懈薪褌械谢械泻褌褍邪谢褑懈 芯褌褉懈褔邪褌 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 泻邪泻胁懈褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉懈褋褌懈泻懈 褍 褔芯胁械泻邪 懈 胁屑械褋褌芯 褌芯胁邪 写芯谐屑邪褌懈褔薪芯 锌褉懈械屑邪褌 褌褉懈 锌芯褋褌褍谢邪褌邪:
- Tabula rasa: 褔芯胁械褕泻懈褟褌 褍屑 薪褟屑邪 泻邪泻胁懈褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉懈褋褌懈泻懈, 褌邪谢邪薪褌懈, 薪邪泻谢芯薪薪芯褋褌懈 懈 褌.薪. - 胁褋懈褔泻芯 褌芯胁邪 蟹邪胁懈褋懈 懈 褋械 褎芯褉屑懈褉邪 芯褌 褋褉械写邪褌邪, 胁 泻芯褟褌芯 褔芯胁械泻 懈蟹褉邪褋褌胁邪;
- 袘谢邪谐芯褉芯写薪懈褟褌 写懈胁邪泻: 褏芯褉邪褌邪 褋械 褉邪卸写邪褌 写芯斜褉懈 懈 薪械胁懈薪薪懈 懈 斜懈胁邪褌 "锌芯泻胁邪褉械薪懈" 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 褋械 写褗谢卸邪褌 胁褋褟泻邪泻胁懈 谢芯褕懈 褌械褏薪懈 褔械褉褌懈 懈 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械;
- 袛褍褏芯胁械薪 褋胁褟褌: 褔芯胁械泻 懈屑邪 写褍褕邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 屑懈褋谢懈 懈 褔褍胁褋褌胁邪 薪械蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯 芯褌 斜懈芯谢芯谐懈褟褌邪 薪邪 褌褟谢芯褌芯, 泻芯械褌芯 芯斜懈褌邪胁邪.
袙褋褟泻邪 芯褌 褌懈褟 褌褉懈 写芯谐屑懈 薪芯褋懈 褋胁芯褟 屑芯褉邪谢械薪 懈 懈褋褌芯褉懈褔械褋泻懈 斜邪谐邪卸 懈 褌械褏薪懈褌械 蟹邪褖懈褌薪懈褑懈 锌褉懈斜褟谐胁邪褌 写芯 锌芯薪褟泻芯谐邪 芯褌褔邪褟薪懈 褌邪泻褌懈泻懈, 蟹邪 写邪 写懈褋泻褉械写懈褌懈褉邪褌 褍褔械薪懈褌械, 泻芯懈褌芯 谐懈 芯褌褏胁褗褉谢褟褌."
袛芯褋褌邪 锌芯-懈薪褌械褉械褋薪芯 械, 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 褍褋锌褟胁邪屑 写邪 芯锌懈褕邪. 小芯褉懈.
袠蟹谐谢械写邪, 屑薪芯谐芯 褏芯褉邪 褋屑褟褌邪褌, 褔械 薪邪锌褉懈屑械褉 薪邪褋懈谢懈械褌芯 械 斜芯谢械褋褌薪芯, 薪械褋胁芯泄褋褌胁械薪芯 蟹邪 褔芯胁械泻邪 褋褗褋褌芯褟薪懈械 - 懈 写邪 褋械 泻邪卸械, 褔械 褋泻谢芯薪薪芯褋褌褌邪 泻褗屑 薪邪褋懈谢懈械 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 械 械胁芯谢褞褑懈芯薪薪邪 邪写邪锌褌邪褑懈褟 蟹邪 褋锌褉邪胁褟薪械 褋 芯锌褉械写械谢械薪懈 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈 械 褋褗褖芯褌芯, 泻邪褌芯 芯锌褉邪胁写邪胁邪薪械 薪邪 薪邪褋懈谢懈械褌芯. 小褗褖芯 褋锌芯褉械写 褌褟褏, 芯褌泻褉懈褌懈械褌芯, 褔械 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪褌 懈蟹胁械褋褌薪懈 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褉邪蟹谢懈泻懈 胁 薪邪褔懈薪邪 薪邪 屑懈褋谢械薪械 懈 胁 械屑芯褑懈懈褌械 薪邪 屑褗卸械褌械 懈 卸械薪懈褌械, 锌芯褉芯写械薪懈 芯褌 褉邪蟹谢懈褔懈褟 胁 屑芯蟹褗泻邪 懈 褏芯褉屑芯薪懈褌械 懈屑 - 械 锌芯写褌懈泻胁邪薪械 泻褗屑 写懈褋泻褉懈屑懈薪邪褑懈褟 泻褗屑 卸械薪懈褌械.
袩芯薪械卸械 泻薪懈谐邪褌邪 械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢薪芯 芯斜械屑薪邪 懈 褉邪蟹谐谢械卸写邪 褕懈褉芯泻 泻褉褗谐 胁褗锌褉芯褋懈, 锌芯蟹胁芯谢褟胁邪屑 褋懈 写邪 锌褉械胁械写邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 芯锌懈褋邪薪懈械褌芯 懈 芯褌 懈蟹写邪褌械谢褋褌胁芯褌芯, 泻芯械褌芯 褋锌芯褉械写 屑械薪 褍褋锌褟胁邪 芯褌谢懈褔薪芯 懈 薪邪泻褉邪褌泻芯 写邪 褟 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁懈:
"袙 泻薪懈谐邪褌邪 褋懈, 袩懈薪泻褗褉 褉邪蟹谐谢械卸写邪 懈写械褟褌邪 薪邪 褌.薪. "褔芯胁械褕泻邪 锌褉懈褉芯写邪" 懈 薪械泄薪芯褌芯 屑芯褉邪谢薪芯, 械屑芯褑懈芯薪邪谢薪芯 懈 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔械褋泻芯 蟹薪邪褔械薪懈械. 孝芯泄 锌芯泻邪蟹胁邪 泻邪泻 屑薪芯谐芯 懈薪褌械谢械泻褌褍邪谢褑懈 芯褌褉懈褔邪褌 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 泻邪泻胁懈褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉懈褋褌懈泻懈 褍 褔芯胁械泻邪 懈 胁屑械褋褌芯 褌芯胁邪 写芯谐屑邪褌懈褔薪芯 锌褉懈械屑邪褌 褌褉懈 锌芯褋褌褍谢邪褌邪:
- Tabula rasa: 褔芯胁械褕泻懈褟褌 褍屑 薪褟屑邪 泻邪泻胁懈褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褉芯写械薪懈 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉懈褋褌懈泻懈, 褌邪谢邪薪褌懈, 薪邪泻谢芯薪薪芯褋褌懈 懈 褌.薪. - 胁褋懈褔泻芯 褌芯胁邪 蟹邪胁懈褋懈 懈 褋械 褎芯褉屑懈褉邪 芯褌 褋褉械写邪褌邪, 胁 泻芯褟褌芯 褔芯胁械泻 懈蟹褉邪褋褌胁邪;
- 袘谢邪谐芯褉芯写薪懈褟褌 写懈胁邪泻: 褏芯褉邪褌邪 褋械 褉邪卸写邪褌 写芯斜褉懈 懈 薪械胁懈薪薪懈 懈 斜懈胁邪褌 "锌芯泻胁邪褉械薪懈" 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 褋械 写褗谢卸邪褌 胁褋褟泻邪泻胁懈 谢芯褕懈 褌械褏薪懈 褔械褉褌懈 懈 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械;
- 袛褍褏芯胁械薪 褋胁褟褌: 褔芯胁械泻 懈屑邪 写褍褕邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 屑懈褋谢懈 懈 褔褍胁褋褌胁邪 薪械蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯 芯褌 斜懈芯谢芯谐懈褟褌邪 薪邪 褌褟谢芯褌芯, 泻芯械褌芯 芯斜懈褌邪胁邪.
袙褋褟泻邪 芯褌 褌懈褟 褌褉懈 写芯谐屑懈 薪芯褋懈 褋胁芯褟 屑芯褉邪谢械薪 懈 懈褋褌芯褉懈褔械褋泻懈 斜邪谐邪卸 懈 褌械褏薪懈褌械 蟹邪褖懈褌薪懈褑懈 锌褉懈斜褟谐胁邪褌 写芯 锌芯薪褟泻芯谐邪 芯褌褔邪褟薪懈 褌邪泻褌懈泻懈, 蟹邪 写邪 写懈褋泻褉械写懈褌懈褉邪褌 褍褔械薪懈褌械, 泻芯懈褌芯 谐懈 芯褌褏胁褗褉谢褟褌."
袛芯褋褌邪 锌芯-懈薪褌械褉械褋薪芯 械, 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 褍褋锌褟胁邪屑 写邪 芯锌懈褕邪. 小芯褉懈.
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
Estar铆a bien que, pasados ya 15 a帽os desde su aparici贸n, Pinker publicase una puesta al d铆a y ampliaci贸n. Puerta de entrada para aquellos interesados en la psicolog铆a basada en la biolog铆a y la teor铆a de la evoluci贸n y la
selecci贸n natural.
Estar铆a bien que, pasados ya 15 a帽os desde su aparici贸n, Pinker publicase una puesta al d铆a y ampliaci贸n. Puerta de entrada para aquellos interesados en la psicolog铆a basada en la biolog铆a y la teor铆a de la evoluci贸n y la
selecci贸n natural.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,178 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.