Rating: 
Summary: This is a very good book.
Review: If you have ever witnessed human denial in the way that reveals human self preservation not just that individual, you can grasp at Steven Pinkers theme, but only the tip of it. This is absolutely a fascinating book which in fact is a character builder if you're willing to accept anything in this wonderful philosophy that is as close to fact as possible. Do not be fooled by my short review, Steven has a pronged approach that is built on solid evidense, no shortcuts are taken in this detailed read. On human nature, yes, but this book truly moves us forward into a desire for a much more civil way. That is what is pleasing to me, Steven, in my opinion is a valuable contributor in that he wishes humans to advance. I have that desire after reading this. Other authors are also coming forward with this similar desire, I recommend reading Mad Light, by Maddox
Rating: 
Summary: Achieves its goals and then wanders
Review: This book explores an important topic, the concept that human beings exist without any biologically deterministic viewpoints and thus can be shaped completely by the "correct" ideas from society itself, but when it leaves firm science falls into the very system of thought that it laments.Pinker explores the history of biological determinism, and dissects the major arguments against it, effectively proving his point by page 223; however, from that point onward, he discusses the "positive" applications of his research from a progressivist, scientistic, and individualistic viewpoint, thus affirming the very belief systems that gave rise to his much-detest concept of the "Blank Slate." While the first half of this book is thus insightful and politically controversial research, the second half is the kind of social platitudes that one might expect from a professor who teaches introductory creative writing, not a lucid mind. However, the book remains important for its comprehensive and diligent tackling of what is perhaps the greatest pseudo-scientific mythos of our time.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly politicized, non-scientific book
Review: I have been an avid reader of Steven Pinker's books but found this one non-scientific, political garbage. Instead of concentrating on the science, he seems to dedicate his efforts to bashing scientists who don't share his (and his friends) opinions. Highly dissappointing.
Rating:
Summary: very good
Review: This book presents the overwhelming evidence against the popular doctrines of the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage and shows their invalidity. Mr. Pinker writes well, the language is neither simplistic or too difficult for the average senior highschool student, and this book has just the amount of 'entertaining' additions (like quotes and anecdotes)for my taste. I like (I am mentioning this so that any customers might guess their liking of this book based on my taste and my obvious loving of it) information, arguments and detail and get annoyed and bored with constant anecdotes that act as poor evidence and redundancy in general.
Do not think that this book is dense or dull, though. Mr. Pinker is an excellent writer and obviously knows how to appeal to the mainstream reader.
In addition to the actual presentation of the evidence, the study of the Blank Slate's immense popularity in spite of its obvious falsity would be immensely interesting for those of you who seek to understand human nature. My favourite parts of this book are the discussions of the relation of the Blank Slate doctrine to specific 'hot button' issues like gender politics, violence and political affiliation.
I highly recommend this book. !
Rating:
Summary: A remarkable book
Review: Pinker's book is a remarkably well-written refutation of the so-called "blank slate" theory. In terms of style and language, I rate him in the same category as Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley. In terms of content, the voyage that Pinker took me on is truly unforgettable. The book does not underplay the mind's complexity, rather on the contrary. Pinker demonstrates how science can enable us to better understand human nature, without thereby falling into the trap of either "nature" or "nurture". This is a balanced account of the condition we are all in. I disagree with The Economist's "Books of the year 2002" [issue December 12th 2002] where it is said that "his jokes, his quarrelsomeness and his weakness for digression are a drawback". But I do endorse its claim that the book's main argument, when the author sticks to it, is well made.
| 
