Rating: 
Summary: This Author reminds me of someone
Review: I read this book and it had elements in it of my favorite writer. It was philisophical in some cases. Scientific in others. And even at times spiritual. In essence it is a socioligical study of human nature and it's evolution. Our children start out as blank slates. And we can grow and learn, or not, depending on what we write on that slate. This Author reminds me of the same Author who wrote "I Talked To God And He Wants To Talk To Me" in the sense that he too explores the sociological evolution of man's belief system, only in more spiritual terms.
Rating: 
Summary: Justified, rewarding and stimulating
Review: The most obvious grounds for reservation about this book are twofold. One is that it is flogging a dead horse in that the idea under attack (the relative insignificance or even non-existence of innate human nature) has been largely relinquished. The other is that the author's skill as a creator of rhetorical prose will result in his delivering a exercise in polemics.In my view Steven Pinker addresses both these concerns. As a previous reviewer has stated, he addresses the first concern in the opening paragraph of the book. He makes it clear that he is addressing all scholars and educated people, not merely acdemic specialists in the disciplines central to the Darwin Wars. If the annecdotes (some very recent) that he retails are not sufficient to establish the need for this book, then the content of some of the negative reviews below adds to their force. The first quarter of the book is a forensic examination of the various, related but distinct, strands of the mindset which he seeks to undermine. Where he is indignant, his ire is always directed at identified instances of dubious scholarly behaviour rather than at generalised, `socially responsible', caution towards the idea of innate human nature. Equally valuable in this portion of the book, is the clarity with which Pinker demonstrates that much hostile incomprehension towards the new biology arises from a confusion between proximate and ultimate causes. In particular, on reading his identification of a tendency to conflate Dawkins' metaphor of the Selfish Gene with vulgarised Freudian pschodynamics as the root of the hostility that Dawkins arouses, I was amazed that this point has not been more extensively explored by those who have previously undertaken to chronicle the Darwin Wars (for example Andrew Brown). As the reader approaches the core of the book, the sound of knives being sharpened does grow louder, but Pinker's style, though robust, never leaves one feeling sullied. The fine details of particular analyses offered by Pinker may be debated, but the evidence that he marshalls is persuasive and is more than adequate to refute those who sought (and still seek) to deny the legitimacy of science addressing the questions at issue.
As previous reviewers have pointed out, the one place where Pinker appears to take pains with his readers' sensibilities is in the issue political balance as calibrated on a traditional left/right spectrum. Strategically, this is understandable: Pinker's book is one of advocacy and he has every reason to avoid reducing the scope of his audience. In detail, he makes a virtue of this necessity by explaining in terms of human nature (and its variation) the links between the issues that define a leftwinger or a rightwinger where these are logically tenuous but sociologically entrenched. In itself, this treatment of political ambidexterity is a worthwhile addition to previous commentaries such as that of Alan Sokal. More generally it suffers from a practical assymmetry of which Pinker fights shy. His barb towards the right that contemporary Conservatives echo Marx ``that religion is the opiate of the masses' (thank God)' is hardly news: the explicitness of this point in Leo Strauss's writing was explored by Stephen Holmes in `The Anatomy of Antiliberalism'. Pinker contrasts Throne and Altar Conservatives such as Strauss, and his disciple Allan Bloom, with the `Secular Right' even though in his treatment of the different demands on the institution of the nuclear family of innately different male and female natures he can sound uncannily reminiscent of `The Closing of the American Mind'. Once Pinker has adopted his apparent euphemism for Neo Liberals he fails to articulate any substantial point of disagreement with them leaving the bulk of his political exhortation devoted to the familiar `struggle to save the left from itself'. The reaction of a rightwinger to this would recall Harold Wilson's quip on the divisions of the British Conservative Part of his day that `he never intruded into private grief'. Given that the left wing political program that Pinker derives calls for a restoration to welfare policy of the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor, and the restatement of the logic of deterrence in criminal justice policy (in detail the abandonment of the claim that punishment of the individual for the social purpose of deterrence is inadmissibly illiberal state instrumentalism), it seems likely that left wing reaction would be less intemperate. The book is not without flaws. Despite his insistence on the physical origin of consciousness, Pinker fails to refer to Douglas Hofstadter's `Godel Escher Bach' which represented an enormous effort to bridge the intuitive gap in credibility for this notion. There are a number of passages that are synergistic with this source. Pinker's choice of the Dred Scott case in expounding the difference between strict constructionism and judicial activism is unreferenced, and a glance into James McPherson's `Battle Cry of Freedom' shows that this interpretation is so back-to-front as to undermine, rather than reinforce, his point. Pinker might have made a fist of his case by citing Strader vs Graham (1850), but would have been better advised to have steered clear of the history of slavery altogerth in this context. Finally, though Pinker may find it too obvious to labour the point once again, he could have pointer more clearly to the confusion of proximate and ultimate causes in his refutation of the critics of Thorhhill's work on rape.
Rating:
Summary: A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING
Review: How can we understand ourselves if we don't get a grasp on human nature? This book is a deep exploration of just that. I found it helped me to understand my kids, my husband, and that person in the mirror. Great book. Another book that helped me in this manner that I recommend is "The Little Guide To Happiness".
Rating:
Summary: A Hearty "Well Done!" To Steven Pinker
Review: "The Blank Slate" is reminiscent of the venerable John Locke's "Some Thoughts Concerning Education: On Politics And Education". Steven Pinker gives us an intellectually scholarly discussion of this subject. Readers might also like to know, after reading "The Blank Slate", that Norman Thomas Remick's book, "West Point: Character Leadership Education..", also picks up on Locke's philosophies very nicely, but put into easy-to-understand terms. "The Blank Slate" is a must read for anyone interested in this subject. In fact, this subject is a must read for anyone who is a thinking person. A hearty "well done!" to Steven Pinker.
Rating:
Summary: No mo po mo
Review: A straight forward look at how the sciences of the mind explode the social "sciences'" standard view of the mind. He also lays into the fraud that is post-modernism. Certain to outrage the lit-crit pond-scum crowd, who will however simply ignore the science. For the rest of us its mostly just common sense.
Rating: 
Summary: Confusing history and evolution
Review: A basic confusion in most evolutionary theories lies in their tacit mixing of domains, and their inability to either unify or contrast history and evolution. The result is the chronic ideological factor, left and right, in the collation of historical and evolutionary theory. All parties seem oblivious to the absurdity of political point arguments using assumptions of Darwinian adaptationism, and selectionist speculation. Pinker's new work on evolutionary psychology is remarkable in its direct and yet, remarkably, unwitting muddle of these domains. The weak position of the typical 'blank slate' position which Pinker nimbly criticizes distracts attention from the sheer audacity of the clearly conservatizing gesture, in the lineage of E.O. Wilson.
Let us breathe a sign of relief. It is highly unlikely there is or could be a 'science' of human nature. Thus our only problem is to wake up the proponents of each new brand of scientism in this regard. Controlling by definition or science the nature of 'human nature' is a dangerous business. We might well recall the short work the original Rousseau made of such nonsense (granting the equal nonsense sometimes made of his own views). We need a theory that can show how man's actions in history evolve in relation to values, and this in relation to possible scenarios of the Paleolithic. Darwin's theory is stillborn and unable to provid that transitional mixture and nosedives into its 'slow change' conservatism applied to modern politics (the left is often no better). It is obsessed with its improperly verified selectionist claims.
Such things ought to be embarassing but instead they pass as science. Darwinism especially suffers this problem as the 'mechanism of natural selection' as emergentist process is misapplied to value issues, speculation restated as fact, and the result is the bedlam of ideological entanglement in the 'blank slate/human nature' debate as this betrays its ideological character at every point, starting with the now archetypical 'Rousseau bashing' of the sociobiologists who have missed the point about the Noble Savage. The genetic revolution, however, is still a work in progress, so what's in fact is the point?
But one can only say good riddance to such an extreme view as the Blank Slate in its straw man version, and shrug at the suggestion that something like a 'human nature' has a genetic component, mindful that for all its flaws the blank slate stance was a justified caution near the catastrophic abuse of Darwinian racism characteristic of this century. This field is dangerous, and has a criminal record, and Pinker's indignation at our caution is not really justified. Having declared in part for human nature, we should ask who can define it, and how, and how did its definition become outright political football? The basic issue is the inadequacy of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Without that mechanism, reask the question, What is human nature, please? Millennia of men, for example, have held beliefs in the soul, and the technocratic definition of man,which Rousseau foresaw with dread, and speaking oneself as a secularist, is simply presumptuous in the extreme if it thinks that Darwinian selectionism can settle this issue in the negative. The crackpot secularism thinking it has Darwinian grounds to outlaw these 'superstitions' will end in a collision. The question is not even spiritual in its Buddhist version, the material soul being an aspect of quite another 'evolutionary psychology', fully atheist and materialist, as seen in the ancient Jainism. By the way, how and when did such commonsensical evolutionary psychologies evolve themselves, to be visible at such an early date? The point is that we know virtually nothing about the full scope of the true version of the Descent of Man. These are the fatal limits of Darwinism. We should not be confusing the theory of how things evolved, especially if their evidence is inadequate, with how things should be now and in the future, or the result is the flaunting of wretched whiggery so evident in Pinker's denial of ideology, with its standard debunking of the 'utopian nonsense'. Reviewing books on evolution can become repetitive: it is always the same problem, natural selection run riot as an explanatory device of theory. Thus it is tempting to join the fray on particulars, but this results in chaotification of discourse, a characteristic of the Blank Slate proponents, now in retreat, seemingly, in the genetic revolution. Since the technocratic redefinition of man has succeeded in imposing this Darwinian belief system, with insufficient evidence, one feels a sense of helplessness in joining the fray. One can only say, be wary. The nature of man, and his human nature, cannot be determined properly with Darwin's theory. Since this point can no longer be defended properly in public, one simply goes underground like a Buddhist.
In general, the assault on ethical evolution with reductionist methods, as with group or kin selection models, are continually presented and promoted as 'fait accompli', already proven, when in fact they are simply speculative extensions trying to save basic Darwinian assumptions. Student in broader humanistic fields are not under any obligation to take them as established. These confusions are as old as the nineteenth century, and the legacy of positivism. They spring from a refusal or blindness near the limits of theory. Their complexity is mesmerizing, and that makes their flaws difficult to see. Don't be fooled into thinking such things are really science. They serve an agenda. It is very doubtful if there is a 'science' of human nature. Beware of those who claim such, left or right.
Rating:
Summary: If you read one book in your life, read "The Blank Slate."
Review: This is the book I've been waiting for all my life. "The Blank Slate" is an utterly brilliant work. Its science is unassailable, its conclusions are astounding, and its implications for the future of both science and the humanities are enormous. Like Samson toppling the temple of Dagon, Pinker casts down three of the major pillars of modern political and academic debate: the Blank Slate (the view that the mind is infinitely malleable, and is shaped entirely by parents and/or the media), the Noble Savage (the view that indigenous peoples of the world are far more peaceable and enlightened than the citizens of modern societies, and, consequently, that modern civilization itself is the root of all social ills), and the Ghost in the Machine (the belief that the human "soul" is made up of some magical material somehow separate from the operation of the human brain). This book builds a desperately-needed bridge between the sciences and the humanities. It presents a worldview that is simultaneously pragmatic, moral, ethical, scientifically defensible, and unflinchingly moderate. In the process, Pinker brilliantly smashes many of the most extreme intellectual and political fallacies of our day -- the intellectually bankrupt social constructionism of academia, the racist theories of modern Nazism, the fallacious social-engineering ideals of modern Marxism, the absurd relativism of modern gender feminism, and the sanctimonious moralistic paranoia of modern religious conservatism. I should note that a few reviewers inaccurately complain that "Nobody believes in the blank slate any more." This is a gross mischaracterization. Pinker's book is not intended for the scientific community, which has generally accepted the facts and conclusions presented in this book for decades. The Blank Slate is intended for a much broader audience. The arts, the media, the humanities, and the political extremes of both the right and the left frequently behave as though the doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine were self-evident truths. As science continues to shovel dirt onto the graves of these fallacies, much of modern political and intellectual debate continues as though they still lived. This book has the potential to radically transform our shared worldview. We as a society desperately need to heal these mischaracterizations of the human mind and learn from the discoveries of modern science. I for one will be rereading this book for a long time to come. I cannot recommend any book more highly.
Rating:
Summary: nice surprise
Review: although i didn't expect it, i very much enjoyed the book. the reason that i didn't expect is the same one that many people here raise: its main point is obvious, trite, trivial. the reason i liked it a lot are the implications of it that pinker worked out in later chapters. i truly wish he didn't exclude other "hot buttons" (education, race, mental illness), perhaps at the cost of excluding a long and for probably many of his readers already well understood material in the introductory chapters. i noticed that some people here object that in some cases empirical evidence is equivocal, and that pinker is selective about reporting it. of course he is - that is why the book is so exciting, enthusiastic, humane, unlike sholarly papers that carefully weigh and qualify all the messy data. this is not the book to substitute for reading primary literature, but it is a book with vision, great ideas and important implications for everyday life. the book made me laugh many times, and, in chapter on children, cry. i do have some objections, though. the first one is to pinker's continuous reluctance to take dennett's explanation of consciousness seriously. although he proclaims that the ghost in the machine is an unacceptable doctrine, he still clings to the supposed existence of qualia and is relucatant to part with metaphysical free will. (perhaps the reason for this is a political one - the last thing that you want in a book full of controversial ideas is yet another very controversial idea.) the second one is his overcommitment to specialization of mental modules. it is an empirical question, and for as far as i know, it has not been clearly resolved so far, nor does it have to be in order for most of his points to work. finally, i think that pinker should direct his research time (or whatever is left of it) to social psychology. it is a part of psychology that is, i think, much more interesting to his readers than vision and language, and is in desparate need of unifying theory. many of the great ideas in chapters on arts and politics (e.g. veblen's) appear to be speculative, and yet could easily be tested with traditional social psychology tools.
Rating:
Summary: Essential look at the fear of human nature
Review: As far as I'm concerned, the most important book in the last five years (I'm a practicing evolutionary psychologist, so I care about these things more than most people). Pinker is brilliant, a great communicator, and obviously truly enthusiastic about ev psych. He believes that ev psych theory can help us see the truth about human nature and the innate structure of the brain. And his enthusiasm is not that of some dogmatic close-minded partisan, it's that of a scientist who has applied ev psych theories, seen their effectiveness, and actually acquired objective knowledge as a result of this process. The book concentrates less on reviwing ev psych research (for that, see his 1997 book How the Mind Works), and more on analyzing why so many social scientists and people in general continue to be so frightened by the prospect that natural selection might affect neural tissue in the same way it that it affects every other kind of organismal tissue. Many people loathe the idea that there is a human nature, that behavior is the product of a brain that evolved by natural selection. Why are people so scared? Read this excellent book and find out.
Rating:
Summary: NICE BOOK
Review: This book is an excellent study of human nature. It is practicle, insightful, useful information that helps us better understand ourselves and others. Another book I would like to recommend in the genre that is exceptional is "The Little Guide To Happiness".
|
