Steven Pinker's: 'The Blank Slate'

Amon

Steven Pinker's: 'The Blank Slate'
Just started to read this highly controversial but so far outstanding book. Wondering if anyone else here has read it and what did they think?
In case your not sure what it's about or just haven't heard anything about it, it's a book which basically disects the behaviourist's and popular sociologist theory of "The Blank Slate" which basically states that all people are born a "blank slate" onto which the mannerisms, characteristics e.t.c of their persona are written by experiences, lifestyle in childhood, environment, parentage e.t.c. Pinker is a Geneticist so people immediately considered it to be a Nazi spin-off when in fact it is far from that and the people who wont read it (or cant understand it so dont bother) because of that prejudice (i.e dope-smokers/ communists/ socialists/ unemployed wasters) are the biggest fascists of them all and deserve a good smiting for their ignorance.
Anyway, sorry about that rather impromptu rant; basically I'd highly recommend it and anyone who has read it please feel free to give your opinions/comments. I've only just started it so can't argue too much on it's premise just yet.

DadaKopf

I haven't a clue what Pinker's position is in 'The Blank Slate' but the impression I get from your post is that he rejects the sociologists' 'nurture' argument too much and puts too much faith in the geneticists' 'nature' position.

There's an emerging area of research called 'Evolutionary Psychology' which attempts to answer this whole question. Working off the developmental systems theory, its basic position holds that there's a highly complex interactive relationship between nature and nurture. While still placing the emphasis on biological systems, EP explores the ways in which biological systems are physically altered by environment, whether that environment is physical or cultural.

For example, a committed geneticist may hold that Man's ability to communicate through language is innate and that (following Chomsky) syntax itself is therefore innate. However, it's easy to think of a situation where a human can grow up and not develop language (like Mowgli or something). Environment is vital: the brain does have the pre-programmed ability to develop language but it won't necessarily develop unless a condusive enironment is present. Furthermore, the biological structure of the talker's brain (modular mind/brain) will be physically different to the non-talker's brain. While the difference may be slight, and not genetically coded, it nevertheless proves an interactive relationship between nature and nurture. Other studies have shown that the nervous system of a patient suffering certain neuroses/psychoses will have developed differently than that of a 'normal' person.

The language instinct is not open to rapid genetic change and, rather than calling it innate, the evolutionary psychologists prefer to call it 'developmentally robust'. EP asserts that genetic change in the body's biological systems modify out of a need to solve environmental problems (eg. sickle cell anaemia). Biological systems can also alter due to problems interacting with other biological systems. This, of course, happens extremely slowly but the evidence indicates that environment is essential not just to how our bodies function but how our minds function.

This position attempts to overcome the dichotomous nature/nurture debate waged between the sociologists and biologists. It's too simple, and empirically incorrect, to place all (or most) of the emphasis on conditioning (behaviourist psychology) or culture (sociology) and it's equally incorrect for the geneticist to place all the emphasis on either genetic pre-programming. The jury's still out on EP but one thing it does highlight is the realisation that any explanation is going to be significantly more complex than we could ever imagine. Just think of all the interactions that occur in your brain every second...

I'd be interested to see what Pinker's exact position it. All this stuff is really fascinating.

[The official EP website is here]

Amon

It's too simple, and empirically incorrect, to place all (or most) of the emphasis on conditioning (behaviourist psychology) or culture (sociology) and it's equally incorrect for the geneticist to place all the emphasis on either genetic pre-programming

Thus far this seems to be Pinker's position exactly. I've only read the first 40 pages and the basic idea behind the book so far has been to disect both the extreme geneticist point of view and the extreme sociologist/behaviourist point of view. (e.g the 18th century Danish writer Jespersen's views that one can judge a race and the strength of it by the structure of their language, for example he considered English far superior to, for example, Hawaiian people due to the fact that words in the Hawaiian language end mostly in vowels, in contrast to Nordic languages which end in consonants mostly. He put this down to the hardship of lifestyles faced by the peoples and their ancestors in trying to survive.) However, as the book title suggests he would, Pinker 'goes to town' more on the strictly external behaviourist theories and the purely ignorant sociologist theories.

The book costs EUR40 in Waterstones, as far as I can remember, and I believe it is only being sold in Hardback form. I'd highly recommend you to get it Dadakopf as it seems you already have a good ground knowledge on the issue and you have the interest. It is the definitive book on human nature as it is as unbiased as they tend to generally come.

Ajnag

prejudice (i.e dope-smokers/ communists/ socialists/ unemployed wasters)

That raised an eyebrough, to accuse others of Ignorance, while sterotyping wildly.Iv met some of the most right wing types on smoking websites.Some of Historys Communists seem to have had more in common with Facism the marxist theory.

Knowledge is Knowledge, Science is Science, If this guys theorys have any merit, then they will be taken as such.

DadaKopf

Knowledge is power. Science is knowledge. Therefore science is power.

If I remember correctly, Pinker is a supporter of John Searle (which in my world is a bad thing) and has made a career out of popularising everyone else's hard work and taking all the credit for it.

I could be wrong, though.

shotamoose

If I remember correctly, Pinker is a supporter of John Searle (which in my world is a bad thing) and has made a career out of popularising everyone else's hard work and taking all the credit for it.

I've only read the Language Instinct, in which he quotes and cites other people's work fairly comprehensively. If there's an instance where he did 'popularise without credit' I'm not aware of it, but I'm open to correction.

I've not read The Blank Slate, but from what I know of it it seems to build upon a portion of How The Mind Works in which he talks about psychology as a means of explaining behaviour and how this affects our understandings of free will and causation. IIRC his position was very similar to the one DadaKopf describes as Evolutionary Psychology.

DadaKopf

Aye, How the Mind Works is in the house alright. But I'd much rather read Dennett. He's got a great beard.

I didn't mean Pinker popularises without crediting, just that he's made a good career out of synthesising other people's work for popular consumption. Or at least that's my impression. Correct me if I'm wrong.

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I didn't mean Pinker popularises without crediting, just that he's made a good career out of synthesising other people's work for popular consumption.

Indeed he has, but without 'taking all the credit for himself'

Amon

Indeed he does quote other peoples work quite a bit and it does indeed becomes tedious, but in no way at all have I seen him take credit for their work, rather he has taken their arguments apart and/or shown what is scientifically correct or incorrect about it. However, I guess you could derive that, in a round-about way, that is taking some "credit" for their work.