{FREE} the Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature

THE BLANK SLATE: THE MODERN DENIAL OF HUMAN NATURE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Share This Paper. Peter Harrison Saving Original Sin from the Secularists. Coleman Beyad, Farshad Roshnavand Supplemental Videos. Steven Pinker: Blank Slate. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Homo Religiosus : Linnaeus and Beyond with. Research Feed. View 2 excerpts, cites background. 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. View all 8 comments. Jul 05, Jen rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites. 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? 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. 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. Well, this whole thing started off way more belligerent and frankly insane than I expected or wanted it to. 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. 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. 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. 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! View all 16 comments. Jan 19, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: international-relations-classics , top-books , books-of 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 appro In some ways, this book is both a tragedy and an inspiration. 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. 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 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. Jul 14, Daniel rated it it was ok Shelves: general-nonfiction. 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? Each of us there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce 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. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. 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. 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. 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? View all 7 comments. 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 ob "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. 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 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno , 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. 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. Dec 17, David rated it it was amazing Shelves: politics , biology , philosophy , science , nonfiction. 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. The subject is not finished, though. It is NOT correlated with home life or parental upbringing. It seems to be a combination of peer influences, and fickle fate. Apr 18, L. Duncan rated it it was ok. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful! 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. Nov 14, Owlseyes rated it really liked it Shelves: behavioral-genetics , b-f-skinner-was-a-blank-slater , noble-savage , psychology , human-nature , pinker-likes-cartoons , complex-human-nature , any-spirituality-gene-included , ghost-in-the-machine , dreams-of-social-engineering. Steven Pinker in Oporto, on the 11th of November My photo. Even the moral sense. Ergo: there are innate responses: man is not devoid of a certain type of make-up at birth. Those political fears are meant to be refuted. The singularity is at hand at any moment. 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 deny refute a God Gene gene? It's, really, no monkey business. I've got to grab that magazine again. View all 3 comments. Jul 13, Sundus rated it really liked it. Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely resp Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! 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. Jun 26, Ezra rated it it was ok. THAT kind of crap. Dec 29, Gendou rated it it was amazing Shelves: non-fiction , philosophy , biology. 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 h Pinker argues cleanly and decisively against the theory of the Blank Slate and its corollary, the Noble Savage. 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. 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. 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. 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! Nov 13, Chuck McCabe rated it it was amazing. Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on an immense body of research in psychology and other social sciences, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Pinker makes the case for the natu Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. 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. 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. View 2 comments. Jul 21, David Redden rated it liked it. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. 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. View all 5 comments. Nov 12, Elenabot rated it really liked it. This book is not without its flaws. As others have pointed out, the picture here might just be a tad bit too simple. However, Pinker accomplishes one important feat in this book, and that is to point out that our theories of justice and morality are not hostage to the empirically falsifiable claim that there are no innate differences between individuals. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no This book is not without its flaws. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no way advanced by stifling scientific research that might reveal essential differences between individuals. In fact, Pinker argues that it is quite the contrary. He nicely shows how extreme postmodernist, social constructivist views share a disturbing commonality with totalitarian thinking, in that they both do violence to the natural tendencies and inclinations of individuals by making armchair prescriptions that ignore these. Instead, he argues that to respect individuals implies first and foremost to recognize and nurture their innate tendencies, whether through education, parenting, or through empirically-informed ethical practices and social policies. In contrast, what postmodern views tend to share is this social constructionist view that there are no essential properties that define who people are. Instead, people either: 1 "make" up their identities, ex-nihilo, whatever that means, and however that is supposed to work out in practice for embodied human agents who are constrained in the range of possible identities that they can adopt by virtue of their very embodiment , or 2 are passive receptacles of social "codes" that determine who they are, as well as being pawns of larger institutional forces that lack any agency and standing as responsible, autonomous individuals. Ultimately, both views hinge on the notion that there are no innate, natural constraints that might define what it is to be a functional human agent. This can be seen, for instance, in the second- and third-wave feminist dogma that biology is irrelevant to psychology, and that gender is entirely a social construct. Pinker rightly reminds us that this is an empirically falsifiable claim, and that we had better not build our ethical theories about gender equity on a claim that, he says, has been shown to be false by evolutionary neuropsychology. Moreover, he argues that this rejection of human nature is actually counterproductive when it comes to advancing the goals of social justice. This is because, by ignoring empirical evidence regarding the conditions that are conducive to human flourishing, it cannot possibly engage in practices that are likely to lead to such flourishing. So if we care about promoting the flourishing of, say, women, then what better guide to understanding what such flourishing might be could we have than a psychology that is as free from ideological policing as possible? To deem certain thoughts unthinkable because they are anathema according to our latest ideology e. Thus, he argues that we needn't fear that the scientific approach to understanding human nature will legitimize bigoted, unethical views. He seems to have a pretty firm conviction that the principles of ethics are universal and grounded independently of any kind of empirical considerations. This isn't to say that we can meaningfully apply these universal principles without empirical knowledge. If these principles are to apply to human beings, we had better have empirical data about what human beings are really like. Because individuals aren't just abstract, characterless units, but rather have innate characteristics that define them as the individuals that they are, equality cannot be sameness or interchangeability. Thus, for instance, second- and third-wave feminism needn't police biology and psychology in the fear that such sciences might uncover data showing that women on average exhibit cognitive differences from men. Should evidence of such innate differences appear, it would in no way undermine women's claim to equal human rights, since difference doesn't imply inferiority. Just because human individuals exhibit a vast degree of variation in aptitude and natural ability doesn't imply that some are to be accorded rights that others lack. Each one of us has capacities that others lack, while lacking capacities that others possess. Nevertheless, we already accord equal recognition to others despite these everyday, obvious differences. In addition, such ideological policing of science, and such a need to cover up in advance what the science might show, reveals too much about our own fears. We implicitly confess the weak foundations of our ethical principles every time we put restrictions on science ahead of time. Moreover, because humans are adapted to living interdependent lives as members of purposive groups, freedom cannot imply that individuals are to be seen as free-floating atoms, while groups are mere aggregates of such atoms. Rather, a great deal of our flourishing and thus of meaningful freedom depends on properly adjusting ourselves to others. Hence, freedom must be tempered with equality if human flourishing can be attained. Finding the right way of mutually constraining freedom and equality is the goal of political thinking, and Pinker argues that it cannot be achieved if we ignore the innate traits of individuals. View all 9 comments. Apr 27, Mehrsa rated it it was ok. 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 sl In which Pinker argues against a bunch of straw men without backing up his overly sweeping claims. It's one thing to say "we are not a blank slate. 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. Jan 22, Farha Crystal rated it really liked it Shelves: steven-pinker. Maybe, the arguments in this book can't be put any more eloquently than the quote of Anton Chekov. The book was both fun and terrible to encounter how supposed "liberals" experience the cognitive dissonance by having their assumptions and dogmas challenged. But, we have a choice about that. The choice is whether certain facts about humans, or topics, are to be considered taboos, forbidden knowledge, where we shouldn't go there because no good can come from it, or whether we should explore them honestly. We should remember that the versions of "is" do not automatically translate into "ought". To acknowledge human nature is not despairing but an incentive to embrace our common humanity. Maybe, wisdom consists in appreciating the preciousness and finiteness of our own existence, of being cognizant of what makes people everywhere tick, and therefore enhancing happiness and minimizing suffering optimally; of being alert to limitations and flaws in our own judgments and decisions and passions, and thereby doing our best to circumvent them How refreshing that S. Pinker abundantly refers to the vast trove of literary works, picking out gems of insight into human nature, in his elegant scientific analysis! Perhaps no surprise from a cognitive psychologist so implicated in the study of linguistics and language acquisition, but welcome all the same. Far from rendering his propos less scientific, his quotes from literary sources throughout the book, not limited to the chapter on the Arts give depth and relevance to his arguments, whic How refreshing that S. Far from rendering his propos less scientific, his quotes from literary sources throughout the book, not limited to the chapter on the Arts give depth and relevance to his arguments, which are anything but "warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately, Pinker has obliged himself to take great pains to explain, again and again throughout the book, that understanding some of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature selfishness, violence I would think that most readers already grasp this point without needing to be continually reminded of it, but I suppose he addresses himself to his detractors and potential deniers. I especially enjoyed chapters 8, "The Fear of Inequality" and 11 "The Fear of Nihilism", which are not only convincingly written, but full of humour as well. Ditto for the chapter on children. Any parent who has managed to raise children despite the continuous onslaught of conflicting childrearing advice by the "experts" can attest to Pinker's observations. Well-written, meticulously documented, and insightful; a good place to begin reading within the currents of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. Jun 24, Book rated it it was amazing Shelves: evolution. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. This excellent page-book is composed of the following six parts: Part I. Hum The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. Know Thyself, Part V. Hot Buttons, and Part VI. The Voice of the Species. Positives: 1. Steven Pinker the well known Professor of Psychology at Harvard University writes thought-provoking, well-researched books and this book is no different. Professor Pinker goes after the doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine and does so with gusto and a mountain of scientific evidence. The fallacy of behaviorists. The theory of mind explained. Great quotes with conviction. The three great outrages of self-love. Evolution is central to the understanding of life. Culture defined. Evolutionary biology used to explain the complex cognitive and behavioral adaptations. The religious opposition to evolution and its intended corruption of American science education. The religious opposition to neuroscience. The exorcism of the human soul. I would love a whole book on just this topic! Debunking the four fears over the anxiety of human nature. The fact that all species harbor genetic variability, but our species is among the less variable ones. Racial differences being among them. The disposal of eugenics, discrimination, and Social Darwinism. The fallacies of Nazism and Marxism. Nazism with races and the Marxists with classes. Homosexuality in its proper form. The compatibility of human nature with social and moral progress. The debunking of environmental determinism. The Blank Slate The Modern Denial of Human Nature – Third Age Matrix

Pinker addresses each of these fears in tum to show that the logic behind each assumption is wrong. He further asserts that denying the essence of human nature can be more dangerous than accepting it, since it leads to false conclusions and ineffective public policy. For example, he forcefully argues that, while much of the variance in certain traits and behaviors of individuals is biologically or genetically determined, much of this variance is not determined this way; thus, neither extreme determinism nor extreme environmental behaviorism is valid. He supports his arguments by citing nearly 30 pages of publications. In defending the view that human beings have different gifts but that all of humanity is inherently flawed, The Blank Slate has much to offer Christian ethicists. However, the author forcefully decries both the Christian and intelligent design explanations for human nature. Although raised in a Canadian Jewish community, Pinker is an atheist who strongly supports the theory of evolution. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Shari Falkenheimer. I loved this book. View all 11 comments. Sep 27, Lena rated it really liked it Shelves: how-the-brain-works , non-fiction , skepticism. 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 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. 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! 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. View all 8 comments. Jul 05, Jen rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites. 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? 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. 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. Well, this whole thing started off way more belligerent and frankly insane than I expected or wanted it to. 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. 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. 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. 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! View all 16 comments. Jan 19, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: international-relations-classics , top-books , books-of 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 appro In some ways, this book is both a tragedy and an inspiration. 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. 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 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. Jul 14, Daniel rated it it was ok Shelves: general-nonfiction. 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? Each of us there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce 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. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. 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. 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. 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? View all 7 comments. 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 ob "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. 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 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno , 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. 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. Dec 17, David rated it it was amazing Shelves: politics , biology , philosophy , science , nonfiction. 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. The subject is not finished, though. It is NOT correlated with home life or parental upbringing. It seems to be a combination of peer influences, and fickle fate. Apr 18, L. Duncan rated it it was ok. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful! 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. Nov 14, Owlseyes rated it really liked it Shelves: behavioral-genetics , b-f-skinner-was-a-blank-slater , noble-savage , psychology , human-nature , pinker-likes-cartoons , complex-human-nature , any-spirituality-gene-included , ghost-in-the-machine , dreams-of-social-engineering. Steven Pinker in Oporto, on the 11th of November My photo. Even the moral sense. Ergo: there are innate responses: man is not devoid of a certain type of make-up at birth. Those political fears are meant to be refuted. The singularity is at hand at any moment. 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 deny refute a God Gene gene? It's, really, no monkey business. I've got to grab that magazine again. View all 3 comments. Jul 13, Sundus rated it really liked it. Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely resp Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! 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. Jun 26, Ezra rated it it was ok. THAT kind of crap. Dec 29, Gendou rated it it was amazing Shelves: non-fiction , philosophy , biology. 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 h Pinker argues cleanly and decisively against the theory of the Blank Slate and its corollary, the Noble Savage. 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. 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. 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. 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! Nov 13, Chuck McCabe rated it it was amazing. Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on an immense body of research in psychology and other social sciences, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Pinker makes the case for the natu Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. 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. 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. View 2 comments. Jul 21, David Redden rated it liked it. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. 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. View all 5 comments. Nov 12, Elenabot rated it really liked it. This book is not without its flaws. As others have pointed out, the picture here might just be a tad bit too simple. However, Pinker accomplishes one important feat in this book, and that is to point out that our theories of justice and morality are not hostage to the empirically falsifiable claim that there are no innate differences between individuals. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no This book is not without its flaws. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no way advanced by stifling scientific research that might reveal essential differences between individuals. In fact, Pinker argues that it is quite the contrary. He nicely shows how extreme postmodernist, social constructivist views share a disturbing commonality with totalitarian thinking, in that they both do violence to the natural tendencies and inclinations of individuals by making armchair prescriptions that ignore these. Instead, he argues that to respect individuals implies first and foremost to recognize and nurture their innate tendencies, whether through education, parenting, or through empirically-informed ethical practices and social policies. In contrast, what postmodern views tend to share is this social constructionist view that there are no essential properties that define who people are. Instead, people either: 1 "make" up their identities, ex-nihilo, whatever that means, and however that is supposed to work out in practice for embodied human agents who are constrained in the range of possible identities that they can adopt by virtue of their very embodiment , or 2 are passive receptacles of social "codes" that determine who they are, as well as being pawns of larger institutional forces that lack any agency and standing as responsible, autonomous individuals. Ultimately, both views hinge on the notion that there are no innate, natural constraints that might define what it is to be a functional human agent. This can be seen, for instance, in the second- and third-wave feminist dogma that biology is irrelevant to psychology, and that gender is entirely a social construct. Pinker rightly reminds us that this is an empirically falsifiable claim, and that we had better not build our ethical theories about gender equity on a claim that, he says, has been shown to be false by evolutionary neuropsychology. Moreover, he argues that this rejection of human nature is actually counterproductive when it comes to advancing the goals of social justice. This is because, by ignoring empirical evidence regarding the conditions that are conducive to human flourishing, it cannot possibly engage in practices that are likely to lead to such flourishing. So if we care about promoting the flourishing of, say, women, then what better guide to understanding what such flourishing might be could we have than a psychology that is as free from ideological policing as possible? To deem certain thoughts unthinkable because they are anathema according to our latest ideology e. Thus, he argues that we needn't fear that the scientific approach to understanding human nature will legitimize bigoted, unethical views. He seems to have a pretty firm conviction that the principles of ethics are universal and grounded independently of any kind of empirical considerations. This isn't to say that we can meaningfully apply these universal principles without empirical knowledge. If these principles are to apply to human beings, we had better have empirical data about what human beings are really like. Because individuals aren't just abstract, characterless units, but rather have innate characteristics that define them as the individuals that they are, equality cannot be sameness or interchangeability. Thus, for instance, second- and third-wave feminism needn't police biology and psychology in the fear that such sciences might uncover data showing that women on average exhibit cognitive differences from men. Should evidence of such innate differences appear, it would in no way undermine women's claim to equal human rights, since difference doesn't imply inferiority. Just because human individuals exhibit a vast degree of variation in aptitude and natural ability doesn't imply that some are to be accorded rights that others lack. Each one of us has capacities that others lack, while lacking capacities that others possess. Nevertheless, we already accord equal recognition to others despite these everyday, obvious differences. In addition, such ideological policing of science, and such a need to cover up in advance what the science might show, reveals too much about our own fears. We implicitly confess the weak foundations of our ethical principles every time we put restrictions on science ahead of time. Moreover, because humans are adapted to living interdependent lives as members of purposive groups, freedom cannot imply that individuals are to be seen as free-floating atoms, while groups are mere aggregates of such atoms. Rather, a great deal of our flourishing and thus of meaningful freedom depends on properly adjusting ourselves to others. Hence, freedom must be tempered with equality if human flourishing can be attained. Finding the right way of mutually constraining freedom and equality is the goal of political thinking, and Pinker argues that it cannot be achieved if we ignore the innate traits of individuals. View all 9 comments. Apr 27, Mehrsa rated it it was ok. 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 sl In which Pinker argues against a bunch of straw men without backing up his overly sweeping claims. It's one thing to say "we are not a blank slate. 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. Jan 22, Farha Crystal rated it really liked it Shelves: steven-pinker. Maybe, the arguments in this book can't be put any more eloquently than the quote of Anton Chekov. The book was both fun and terrible to encounter how supposed "liberals" experience the cognitive dissonance by having their assumptions and dogmas challenged. But, we have a choice about that. The choice is whether certain facts about humans, or topics, are to be considered taboos, forbidden knowledge, where we shouldn't go there because no good can come from it, or whether we should explore them honestly. We should remember that the versions of "is" do not automatically translate into "ought". To acknowledge human nature is not despairing but an incentive to embrace our common humanity. Maybe, wisdom consists in appreciating the preciousness and finiteness of our own existence, of being cognizant of what makes people everywhere tick, and therefore enhancing happiness and minimizing suffering optimally; of being alert to limitations and flaws in our own judgments and decisions and passions, and thereby doing our best to circumvent them How refreshing that S. Pinker abundantly refers to the vast trove of literary works, picking out gems of insight into human nature, in his elegant scientific analysis! Perhaps no surprise from a cognitive psychologist so implicated in the study of linguistics and language acquisition, but welcome all the same. Far from rendering his propos less scientific, his quotes from literary sources throughout the book, not limited to the chapter on the Arts give depth and relevance to his arguments, whic How refreshing that S. Far from rendering his propos less scientific, his quotes from literary sources throughout the book, not limited to the chapter on the Arts give depth and relevance to his arguments, which are anything but "warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately, Pinker has obliged himself to take great pains to explain, again and again throughout the book, that understanding some of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature selfishness, violence I would think that most readers already grasp this point without needing to be continually reminded of it, but I suppose he addresses himself to his detractors and potential deniers. I especially enjoyed chapters 8, "The Fear of Inequality" and 11 "The Fear of Nihilism", which are not only convincingly written, but full of humour as well. Ditto for the chapter on children. Any parent who has managed to raise children despite the continuous onslaught of conflicting childrearing advice by the "experts" can attest to Pinker's observations. Well-written, meticulously documented, and insightful; a good place to begin reading within the currents of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. Jun 24, Book rated it it was amazing Shelves: evolution. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. This excellent page-book is composed of the following six parts: Part I. Hum The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. Know Thyself, Part V. Hot Buttons, and Part VI. The Voice of the Species. Positives: 1. Steven Pinker the well known Professor of Psychology at Harvard University writes thought-provoking, well-researched books and this book is no different. Professor Pinker goes after the doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine and does so with gusto and a mountain of scientific evidence. The fallacy of behaviorists. The theory of mind explained. Great quotes with conviction. The three great outrages of self-love. Evolution is central to the understanding of life. Culture defined. Evolutionary biology used to explain the complex cognitive and behavioral adaptations. The religious opposition to evolution and its intended corruption of American science education. The religious opposition to neuroscience. [PDF] The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature | Semantic Scholar

Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. EMBED for wordpress. Want more? Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! If the human mind is a blank slate completely formed by the environment, then ruthlessly and totally controlling every aspect of the environment will create perfect minds. 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. 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 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. Jul 14, Daniel rated it it was ok Shelves: general-nonfiction. 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? Each of us there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce 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. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. 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. 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. 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? View all 7 comments. 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 ob "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. 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 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno , 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. 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. Dec 17, David rated it it was amazing Shelves: politics , biology , philosophy , science , nonfiction. 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. The subject is not finished, though. It is NOT correlated with home life or parental upbringing. It seems to be a combination of peer influences, and fickle fate. Apr 18, L. Duncan rated it it was ok. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful! 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. Nov 14, Owlseyes rated it really liked it Shelves: behavioral-genetics , b-f-skinner-was-a-blank-slater , noble-savage , psychology , human-nature , pinker-likes-cartoons , complex-human-nature , any-spirituality-gene-included , ghost-in-the-machine , dreams-of-social- engineering. Steven Pinker in Oporto, on the 11th of November My photo. Even the moral sense. Ergo: there are innate responses: man is not devoid of a certain type of make-up at birth. Those political fears are meant to be refuted. The singularity is at hand at any moment. 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 deny refute a God Gene gene? It's, really, no monkey business. I've got to grab that magazine again. View all 3 comments. Jul 13, Sundus rated it really liked it. Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely resp Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!! 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. Jun 26, Ezra rated it it was ok. THAT kind of crap. Dec 29, Gendou rated it it was amazing Shelves: non-fiction , philosophy , biology. 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 h Pinker argues cleanly and decisively against the theory of the Blank Slate and its corollary, the Noble Savage. 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. 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. 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. 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! Nov 13, Chuck McCabe rated it it was amazing. Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on an immense body of research in psychology and other social sciences, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Pinker makes the case for the natu Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the midth century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. 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. 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. View 2 comments. Jul 21, David Redden rated it liked it. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. 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. View all 5 comments. Nov 12, Elenabot rated it really liked it. This book is not without its flaws. As others have pointed out, the picture here might just be a tad bit too simple. However, Pinker accomplishes one important feat in this book, and that is to point out that our theories of justice and morality are not hostage to the empirically falsifiable claim that there are no innate differences between individuals. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no This book is not without its flaws. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no way advanced by stifling scientific research that might reveal essential differences between individuals. In fact, Pinker argues that it is quite the contrary. He nicely shows how extreme postmodernist, social constructivist views share a disturbing commonality with totalitarian thinking, in that they both do violence to the natural tendencies and inclinations of individuals by making armchair prescriptions that ignore these. Instead, he argues that to respect individuals implies first and foremost to recognize and nurture their innate tendencies, whether through education, parenting, or through empirically-informed ethical practices and social policies. In contrast, what postmodern views tend to share is this social constructionist view that there are no essential properties that define who people are. Instead, people either: 1 "make" up their identities, ex-nihilo, whatever that means, and however that is supposed to work out in practice for embodied human agents who are constrained in the range of possible identities that they can adopt by virtue of their very embodiment , or 2 are passive receptacles of social "codes" that determine who they are, as well as being pawns of larger institutional forces that lack any agency and standing as responsible, autonomous individuals. Ultimately, both views hinge on the notion that there are no innate, natural constraints that might define what it is to be a functional human agent. This can be seen, for instance, in the second- and third-wave feminist dogma that biology is irrelevant to psychology, and that gender is entirely a social construct. Pinker rightly reminds us that this is an empirically falsifiable claim, and that we had better not build our ethical theories about gender equity on a claim that, he says, has been shown to be false by evolutionary neuropsychology. Moreover, he argues that this rejection of human nature is actually counterproductive when it comes to advancing the goals of social justice. This is because, by ignoring empirical evidence regarding the conditions that are conducive to human flourishing, it cannot possibly engage in practices that are likely to lead to such flourishing. So if we care about promoting the flourishing of, say, women, then what better guide to understanding what such flourishing might be could we have than a psychology that is as free from ideological policing as possible? To deem certain thoughts unthinkable because they are anathema according to our latest ideology e. Thus, he argues that we needn't fear that the scientific approach to understanding human nature will legitimize bigoted, unethical views. He seems to have a pretty firm conviction that the principles of ethics are universal and grounded independently of any kind of empirical considerations. This isn't to say that we can meaningfully apply these universal principles without empirical knowledge. If these principles are to apply to human beings, we had better have empirical data about what human beings are really like. Because individuals aren't just abstract, characterless units, but rather have innate characteristics that define them as the individuals that they are, equality cannot be sameness or interchangeability. Thus, for instance, second- and third-wave feminism needn't police biology and psychology in the fear that such sciences might uncover data showing that women on average exhibit cognitive differences from men. Please note that the tricks or techniques listed in this pdf are either fictional or claimed to work by its creator. We do not guarantee that these techniques will work for you. Some of the techniques listed in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature may require a sound knowledge of Hypnosis, users are advised to either leave those sections or must have a basic understanding of the subject before practicing them. DMCA and Copyright : The book is not hosted on our servers, to remove the file please contact the source url. If you see a Google Drive link instead of source url, means that the file witch you will get after approval is just a summary of original book or the file has been already removed.

The Blank Slate - Wikipedia

Much depends on our theory of human nature. In our private lives we use it to win friends and influence people, to manage our relationships, to bring up our children, and to control our own behavior. Its assumptions about learning guide our policies in education; its assumptions about motivation guide our policies in law and politics. Pinker argues that the influential blank slate doctrine is flawed on many levels and gives rise to the modern denial of human nature. The long-standing Judeo-Christian theory of human nature, based on a fundamentalist interpretation of biblical events, was replaced in the 20th century by a secular theory of human nature grounded in three doctrines, commonly referred to as the blank slate , the noble savage , and the ghost in the machine. The first doctrine, the blank slate, is generally associated with the English philosopher John Locke. It posits that we all are born with nothing more than a few basic instincts wired into our brains, and the rest of our nature is determined by experience. It implied that dogmas, such as the divine right of kings, could not be treated as self-evident truths that just grew out of the structure of the brain, but had to be justified by experiences that people share, and hence can debate. And by the same token, it undermined the institution of slavery by holding that slaves could not be considered innately inferior or subservient. The second doctrine, the noble savage, is commonly associated with the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that nothing could be more gentle than man in his primitive state. Much depends on which of these armchair anthropologists is right. The noble savage certainly is the more appealing doctrine and, like the blank slate, continues to be influential. The ghost in the machine, however, also has considerable appeal. Machines, we like to think, are insensate and have some workaday purpose, such as grinding corn or sharpening pencils. Humans, in contrast, are sentient, and have some higher purpose, such as love, worship, and the pursuit of knowledge and beauty. Machines follow the ineluctable laws of physics, whereas human behavior is freely chosen. With choice comes optimism about the possibilities for the future, and with choice also comes responsibility—the power to hold others accountable for their actions. Finally, if the mind is entirely separate from the body, that holds out the hope that the mind can survive the death of the body, an idea whose appeal is all too obvious. There are serious problems with each of these doctrines, beginning with the blank slate. No one can deny the central importance of learning, culture, and socialization in all aspects of human experience. The question is, how do they work? Today the sciences of human nature have threatened the blank slate by trying to delineate what has to be present in the mind for learning to occur in the first place. The cognitive sciences have tried to explicate the innate mechanisms that have to be in place to do the learning that obviously gets done. Studies of identical twins separated at birth and then tracked down and tested in adulthood show that they often have astonishing similarities. My favorite example is the pair of twins, one of whom was brought up as a Catholic in a Nazi family in Germany, the other of whom was brought up by a Jewish father in Trinidad. Nonetheless, when they met each other in a laboratory in their 40s, both walked in wearing identical navy blue shirts with epaulets. Both of them kept rubber bands around their wrists. Both of them, it turned out on questioning, flushed the toilet before using it as well as after and liked to pretend to sneeze in crowded elevators to watch the other people jump. But the extent of similarities between identical twins is rarely, if ever, found in fraternal twins who were separated at birth, and it has been corroborated by numerous studies using quantitative psychological tests, which show that identical twins separated at birth are highly correlated in measures of intelligence and personality, and in quantifiable behavior as well, such as the likelihood of getting divorced or being a smoker, the number of hours of television watched, and political attitudes. This leads to what behavioral geneticists call the First Law of Behavioral Genetics: that all behavioral traits are partially heritable. The doctrine of the noble savage has also been threatened by findings in the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution. Behavioral genetics has shown that among the heritable traits are an antagonistic personality, a tendency toward violent crime, and a lack of conscience, or psychopathy. Neuroscience has identified brain mechanisms associated with aggression, and evolutionary psychology and anthropology have underscored the ubiquity of conflict in human affairs—as one would expect from the outcome of a Darwinian process. Cognitive science has shown that emotions, motives, and goals can be understood in cybernetic terms as mechanisms of feedback and control. Neuroscience has shown that all our experiences, thoughts, feelings, yearnings, and emotions consist of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. We know that the mind runs on electrical impulses, as can be seen by our increasing ability to record the electrophysiological signatures of thought and emotion, and by the fact that if you stimulate the exposed brain during neurosurgery, the person will have a vivid experience indistinguishable from reality. We know that the brain is also a chemical organ, as demonstrated by the effects on personality of psychoactive drugs, both recreational and therapeutic. We know that the brain has a staggering complexity—a hundred billion neurons interconnected by a hundred trillion synapses—which is fully commensurate with the staggering complexity of thought and behavior. And we have every reason to believe that when the physiological activity of the brain stops, the person ceases to exist. It is essential to look carefully at the serious moral and political issues that scientific discoveries raise. Saving Original Sin from the Secularists. Coleman Beyad, Farshad Roshnavand Supplemental Videos. Steven Pinker: Blank Slate. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Homo Religiosus : Linnaeus and Beyond with. Research Feed. View 2 excerpts, cites background. View 1 excerpt, cites background. Related Papers.

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4636914/normal_601f9674478e0.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/3e11c9ac-4bf0-4523-a191-3d20ca61a9d2/kein-herz-ohne-splitter-678.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9592832/UploadedFiles/75DEB3AC-154C-0E06-EE45-6C9C0C3A7152.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4643423/normal_6020aabb1d73e.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644184/normal_601f02dc0e6ec.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/136f8e9d-11a5-47c7-84a6-72236440caaa/beweisverwertungsverbote-im-besteuerungsverfahren-867.pdf