The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.11 You Save: $6.89 (43%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.99 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Book Review: A mess
Summary: 2 Stars
This charmless, even bitter survey of the admittedly overwhelming evidence against purely behaviorist theories of human development is greatly weakened by Pinker's too frequent appeals to the authority of those he agrees with -- sometimes he literally just gives the names of a half-dozen colleagues who agree with him!-- and by his nearly total lack of sympathy for opposing views. As another reviewer wrote, it feels as if Pinker is paying back a few grudges he's been nursing since grad school.
Pinker's knowledge of cognitive psychology is of course immense, and the endnotes and bibliography provide an excellent guide to the literature, but as history of science this is naive at best. I would suggest that anyone interested in arguments for innatism begin with Judith Rich Harris, who sticks to what she knows, and writes far better than Pinker does here.
Book Review: Swimming in the shallow end of the thought pool.
Summary: 3 Stars
Steven Pinker's book is an extended attack against Rousseau's "blank slate" [never defined or explained] and in favor of "human nature" [never defined or described]. It is disappointingly not a study of the biological basis of human nature, which I and perhaps other unwary readers may have been lead to expect. Instead, Mr. Pinker uses the standard debater's trick of erecting straw men by focusing on the most extreme of statements purportedly supporting what he considers its antithesis: "the blank slate", and then easily jousting against them via witty observations. He then feels free to insinuate that this some how refutes those who have admired Mr. Rousseau.
I suggest that those of us disappointed by the lack of fairness or of the limited reach of his arguments [eg, somehow he never sees the need to discuss David Hume, who may have had something to say about human nature] and who do wish a more profound investigation of "human nature" continue to seek it out in the traditional domains of the humanities, where we continue to receive satisfaction and increased understanding in great works of literature which, astonishingly enough in this electronic age, continue to be produced today.
Book Review: Nature/Nurture, What Debate?
Summary: 5 Stars
Those who are falling on either side of this so-called nature versus nurture debate must eventually come to the conclusion that duality is the prevailing constant in our universe, and most likely exists in order to "propel" our very evolution. Steven Pinker has brilliantly summarized all the disciplines of science into a cohesive operational theory of humans and their place in this world, with no candy-coating and no apologies, explaining the light and dark sides of behavior which are both programmed and random. A lifetime of study has come full-circle for me through this marvelous work on the "denial of human nature".Book Review: A little less politics, please
Summary: 4 Stars
This book is about the idea that the brain is sort of a Swiss Army knife of cognitive functions. The alternative idea is that there is some form of pure reason which exists in brains - and maybe computers too - that has reached critical mass in humans.
(There is also the idea that our souls are "shards of the Creator" split off at conception, or the breath of life, or reincarnated cows, or fallen angels, or something, but none of that is handled here.)
The idea of critical mass of pure reason is very widely accepted. It is the basis of Behavioralism, and it is widely cited by sci-fi authors & naive AI fans. A good example of the latter is Raymond Kurzweil's (truly awful) book, "The Age of Spiritual Machines". Kurzweil claims that when individual computers get as big as huaman brains, they will automatically start saying "I am lonely and bored; please keep me company."
Pinker has argued convincingly in his other pop sci books that this is not going to happen - you need some kind of specific mechanism to get complex behavior like loneliness, not just lots of transistors. This is the emerging science of neuropsychology. As the ability to observe the brain's behavior in real time improves, neuropsychology will get more and more interesting.
"The Blank Slate" fights what I regard to be a rearguard action against Postmodernism. Postmodernism is firmly in the "critical mass" camp. For example, there are feminists that claim that there is absolutely no difference between boy and girl brains, and that all behavioral differences between the sexes are cultural artefacts. Such talk obviously drives Pinker nuts, and "The Blank Slate" is his answer.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not a rearguard action. But when I read popular science, I want to be wowed by cool ideas, not embroiled in effete academic disputes. So I give the book three stars, and recommend you read some of Pinker's other stuff.
Book Review: An excellent book
Summary: 5 Stars
I see that there are many positive reviews of this book and I would like to add my own brief review. First, I must say that I passionately hate postmodernism and have hated it after being exposed to it in university and being forced to spew its nonsense out in essays.
Pinker explains the conceptual origins of modern (or should I say "postmodern") ideas on the nature of humanity, especially the "noble savage" and the "blank slate." In great detail, Pinker exposes the evidence contradicting the arguments used by postmodern "intellectuals" to support their ideas about humanity. Then, Pinker offers good reason for us to open-mindedly accept and contemplate a scientific view of human nature.
I fundamentally agree with Pinker's sentiment that it is dangerous to ignore human nature and even more dangerous to defend doctrines about human nature. As he eloquently shows, doctrines of human nature have led to the Orwellian nightmares of the 20th century. Thus, one should read Pinker's book and contemplate the factual evidence supporting the various views of human nature presented.
Pinker does not opt to present us with one view of who we are, but presents us with the facts and then discusses the possible interpretations of those facts. His style of writing is much in line with his attitude towards the relationship between morality and science: we determine our moral attitudes (science does not do it for us, which he reminds us of constantly by alluding to the dangers of making the naturalistic fallacy). Science can only help clarify moral issues.
Pinker's point in the end is excellent and convincing: we do not have a definitive understanding of human nature, but The Blank Slate and Noble Savage are obsolete and clearly false. We shouldn't fear discussing, openly, all of the information we have available to us about what makes us human. This book, in many ways, is a great inspiration for guiding moral thought in the context of scientific knowledge.
I like how Pinker can instill a sense of moral outrage in the reader (I guess I should speak for myself . . .) by illustrating the ridiculous responses to totally reasonable hypotheses to human nature: for example, one person was called "racist" because they asserted that blacks and whites have the same facial expressions.
If you feel that the world needs a new perspective on (for example) how to rationally deal with social and moral problems, then I would recommend this book to you. If you need a boost because of the ridiculous infiltration of postmodernists in the social sciences (or in any sphere of reasonable discourse) then this is also the book for you.