Rating: 
Summary: An enlightening look at the foibles of the social scientists
Review:
I found this book very enlightening; especially the historical look at the "great thinkers" of sociology who came up with the so-called blank slate and "Noble Savage" theories, thus denying the sociobiological implications, including the implicit denial of genetic influences, individually and collectively.
In layman's terms the blank slate theory as elucidated by Steven Pinker, apparently espouses the idea that mentally all human beings, regardless of race, are equally capable of developing into mathematicians, poets, painters, or scientists; everything depends upon the environment in which they are nurtured, and the culture which establishes their values, and genetics plays no role at all. It is clear that Pinker does not agree with that view, but it is the model generally accepted by the vast majority of social scientists today. Such a view is in denial of the real world surrounding us all to which, like religious cultists, these professionals close their minds because it does not agree with their accepted paradigm. They are apparently willing to accept the innate physical differences of the various races: the oriental eye-fold of the Asian, the longer limbs and typical steatopygia of the African, and the various skin color differences--and probably they will even acknowledge the undeniable genetically generated athletic prowess of African, but--heaven forbid!--one should never acknowledge that there may be racial mental propensities as well! Pinker points out that both nature and nurture come into play in forming the individual human being, as well as the culture within which he dwells. The social "sciences" ignore the formative realities of human existence because it is "politically incorrect" to do so these days. A pseudo-scientific version of "All men are created equal," which in the Declaration of Independence related to their position in the eyes of God, not their physical or mental capacities, which would have been an asinine assumption. In so doing they are blind to the facts, and even distort them purposely on occasion, as did Margaret Mead in her "studies" of Pacific Islanders in which she clearly falsified their sexual and child-rearing practices to make her point, as has been demonstrated in more recent studies of the same peoples, and verified by some of the very subjects of her work, who laughed at her statements. Until the social sciences clean up their act and face reality, their hopes for status as a true science will never be established, and they will continue to be viewed with amusement, not only by practitioners of the true sciences, who measure and are able to replicate their theories, but by the well-informed layman as well. Joseph Pierre
Rating: 
Summary: Can you say over simplify?
Review: ... Dr. Pinker would do well to present a more balance view of human nature. To NOT dot his is to discrdit his own main thesis. He is a master of caricatures, poking to poke and not to illuminate. As a geneticist and a neurobiologist I can tell you he oversimplifies to a shameless degree and -- in the process -- ignores large chunks of reality. I support his aim, wholeheartedley, but he does harm to valuable ideas by presenting a grossly lop-sided view, so anxious is he to bulldoze the opponent. It's just cheap. His understanding of many importnat thinkers is also bodering on childish. Lacking in balance and perspective and it's a darn shame. Not for adult audiences.
Rating: 
Summary: Nature vs. Nurture, a profoundly stupid question
Review: The nature vs. nurture question reminds me of the lawyer who asks the man on the stand if it is true that he has recently stopped beating his wife. The questions all but precludes the consideration of possible truths which are highly likely. It is, simple put, a rpfoundly bad question.
First, evey social scientist should study one simple genetic circuit, such as the lactose operon of bacteria. The lac operon is a simple circuit that regulates the metabolic response of a bacterial cell to the presense of sugars in its environment. This genetic circuit determines possible states (responses) by the bacteria and these are indeed limited by the gentic make- up of the bacteria. On the other hand, the actual outcome at any given moment is determined by the environment the bacteria is in. So, even at the simplest level of a bacteria metabolozing sugar, we have a complex interplay of genetics and environment. To put in Pinkerian terms, bacteria never tap dance when presented with sugar (that's a weak kind of genetic detrminism for sure) but how they do respond depends on the environment and this is the half of the equation Pinker wants to all but ignore. One example Pinker loves to pull out is a study done on MIT ungdergards where individuals approach members of the opposite sex and offer to have sex with them. Pinker recounts the amusing differences in response between men and women. But what is amazing is that Pinker assumes the difference is ENTIRLY DUE TO BIOLOGICAL/GENETIC differences. In fact, there is a huge amount of evidence that the response of men and women to such questions is profoundly affected by cultural norms and expectations. For example, about five years ago, a large sex survey was done in this country and one question asked of men and women was how many opposite sex partmers they had had in a lifetime. The men reported an average of 5 and the women reported an average of 2!! Given that there are nearly equal numbers of men and women the mathemtaical fact is that the two numbers should be nearly identical (imagine an orgy with 10 men and 10 women, let your imagine go wild and then do the math--if you can remember to and remember how and you will see this is true). Almost certainly the large reported difference is due to cultural ideas each sex has about their own sexuality since it cannot be based on actual behavior. As a neurobiologist, I am sympathetic with Pinkers goal to elucidate our basic nature, but he gives such ludicrously simple examples he hurts his own cause. Here's another example from social science (though I am not blaming Pinker for it), it may seem to make evolutionary sense that women should have a "desire for children" or a "maternal instinct" but if we examine the biological assumptions this idea is based on we find the notion has no basis. There is no evolutionary need a desire for children or a maternal instinct in women who do not have children. The presense of a sex drive will ensure (at least before the days of birth control when we were evolving) that children will happen. Biologically or evolutionarily speaking, women only need to feel "maternal" AFTER they actually have the child. Differences between the sexes in desire for not yet existant children may thus be largely be due to cultural attitudes. (Also instincts are not a mandate for behavior. They are not hard-wired and non-surrmountable. This is a grave misconception people seem to have when they hear "instinct", they hear "can't be helped" when that it not the case.) What is amazing is that the average man on the street seems to understand, more than the academics do, that human behavior is due to a complex interplay of biology with environment. If you ask any American to explain the conduct of other members of their community the answers will range from "He's like his granddady" or "it's in his blood" to things like "he was beaten as a child" or "he was hit in the head with a baseball bat at the age of 6". Average people seem to understand that both genetcis and environment interact in complex ways to produce an output. So why do allegedly educated social scientists (they never actually study genetcis or neuroscience to get a deeper understanding of what they are talking about) still think it's nature vs. nurture? No one believes the blank slate one reviewer said and I tend to agree. Pinker is fighting a straw man. It is a worthy goal to draw attention to our genetic tendancies and the fact that there is such a things as "human nature" but when it is done in a slipshod, intellectually careless way, that worthy goal is actually harmed. One doesn't want to pose ridiculoous dichotomies that appear to give us false alternatives. Genetic determinism is as nonsensical as the blank slate as I should hope Pinker knows. But his presentation is so biased that it simply fuels this ridiculous nature/nurture controvery (whether he intends to or not). In short, a much more thoughtful presentation would do more to further an understanding of the limits of human nature and help us adopt social policies that were senisible.
Rating:
Summary: A rampant polemicist
Review: A previous review, dougrhon,wrote: "The ultimate conclusion of the theory that society creates personality is that society can re-make personalities as it sees fit. Pinker shows how this has led to disastrous experimentation on children and adults alike. In its worst manifestation, it leads to the mass murder of a Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung." How about if we rephrased it thus: "The ultimate conclusion of the theory that genes create personality is that we can re-make personalities as we see fit. Pinker doesn't show how this has led to disastrous experimentation on children and adults alike. In its worst manifestation, it leads to the mass murders of a Hitler."
Rating: 
Summary: The battle of truth vs. ideology
Review: The Blank Slate What makes people behave the way we do? How do our personality traits emerge? Is it in our genes? Is it in our environment? Is it a combination of both? Are characteristics ingrained in our species? Or are we blank slates? These are the questions tackled by MIT Psychologist Steven Pinker in this wonderful and voluminous book. From the start, Pinker makes it clear that his purpose is to promote and support the view that human traits, that is to say human nature, is carried in our genes, that we are not blank slates molded by our environments. His further purpose is to expose and destroy the arguments of those who reject the truth about human nature on political rather than scientific grounds. He is very convincing in his arguments. In the first part of the book, Pinker presents a basic history of the philosophy and theories of human nature. What emerges is that the philosophers we think of as "liberal" such as Hobbes, Locke and Machievelli, believe in an inherent human nature which society can temper through laws while the utopians do not believe in any inborn traits, that people can be molded in any way society sees fit. As Pinker demonstrates, in the academic world, the liberal idea which formed much of the basis of the western enlightenment has been largely superceded by counter-intuitive ideas that people are either "noble savages" or "blank slates." In the next part of the book, Pinker demonstrates the discoveries science has made into how the mind works. In an easy to read manner, he shows how many human tendencies are rooted in evolutionary selection and are controlled by inherited genes. Pinker's real purpose in writing this book, however, is not to present a history of the development of evolutionary psychology. Rather his purpose is to show how the intrusion of political ideology of both the right and left has infected this academic discipline, rendering pursuit of scientific truth secondary to justification of a series of pre-ordained conclusion. For this reason, the "Blank Slate" is among the most important books of recent years. As Pinker demonstrates, there are real consequences to the savaging of any scientist whose conclusions do not meet with the accepted theory that human beings are blank slates to be molded as society sees fit. The book is filled with examples of accepted dogma that does not fit with scientific evidence. Pinker not only demolishes some of these dogmatic beliefs that defy logic and factual analysis, he demonstrates the moral and philosophical foolishness of such beliefs. As Pinker demonstrates, the accepted dogma is that criminal tendencies are acquired, not inborn. But the argument the proponents of the blank slate seem to make is that if a behavior is inborn it cannot be immoral or otherwise wrong. Therefore, since criminal behavior is wrong, it cannot be inborn. As Pinker convincingly argues, this line of reasoning is not only fallacious but dangerous. The proponents of the blank slate have left themselves no moral wiggle room if and when their argument is proven false. If traits are truly proven to be inborn, then the blank slate proponents would have no choice but to argue that such behavior is not wrong. Pinker avoids this twisted reasoning because, as he rightly asserts, just because a tendency is inborn does MEAN that acting on that tendency is appropriate or anything other than immoral. Morality is defined by society or God, if you like, not by our genetics. The ultimate conclusion of the theory that society creates personality is that society can re-make personalities as it sees fit. Pinker shows how this has led to disastrous experimentation on children and adults alike. In its worst manifestation, it leads to the mass murder of a Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung. This book is part science, part philosophy and part political/social criticism. It is always entertaining and hugely informative. If I have any criticism of the book at all, it is Pinker's complete lack of a discussion, even superficial, over the role played by social and environmental factors in overcoming genetically based traits and tendencies. However, the complex interplay between the genetic markers which pre-determine many human tendencies and the environmental factors which influence those tendencies is clearly a subject for a different book. Pinker's goal here is to demolish the dogmatists. In this he succeeds. Any reader who values truth over dogma will enjoy and appreciate it.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling Analysis-Thought Provoking Presentation
Review: This is a balanced and thoughtful exploration of recent developments in evolutionary biology and genetics and their imlications with respect to social policy. Pinker does a good job of providing scientific and rational discussions related to some controversial topics, providing insights into the science and rationale behind his beliefs. It is obviously the work of a brilliant mind. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions (I found I agreed with about 90%) it was enjoyable just following his thought processes.
Rating:
Summary: As good as it gets
Review: First-rate scholarship, first-rate thinking, first-rate prose. A modern work of art. Psychology will never be the same. It goes without saying that the book will have its detractors, as the "straw man" still has a multitude of adherents. What a pity they're so wrong. And so stubborn.
Rating: 
Summary: OK overall, But mistaken over-reliance on nurture assumption
Review: Dr. Pinker's book is basically OK, overall. The tricky part about trying to write large -- way beyond your specific areas of expertise -- is that you end up relying on other "experts" whom you are counting on to be reliable. Thus, Dr. Pinker gets into scientific trouble when he writes about childhood personality development with over-reliance on one recent, extreme, and controversial book, The Nurture Assumption by Harris. Now a just published bestseller, available in England... argues the exact opposite of Harris's belief that genes and peer group experiences shape personality and families/parents do not. British clinical psychologist Oliver James (author of Britain on the Couch) argues rather convincingly that the first 6 years of family life with parents and siblings shape much more of adult personality than do genes or peer groups. Ooops ! Even assuming that James and Harris are each partly correct, Pinker is left out on a limb by having enthusiastically and without reservation endorsed 100% of Harris's extreme viewpoint. So reading James is a good idea before making conclusions about the nature of human nature. He picked an odd title, based on a popular English poem about parents' influence on children, ... How to survive family life" with the asteriks appearing on the book's cover. Look before you conclude -- Blank Slate appears to contain a significant mistake of over-reliance on a single source.
Rating:
Summary: Gestalt shift on the human mind with tremendous consequences
Review: 'The Blank Slate' is an important vehicle for delivering the consequences of scientific discovery into political discussion. It helps retire some previous, flawed arguements (particularly from the religious right and the utopian left), and paves the way for more productive debate on social policy in view of human biology.
Question reviews that seek to disuade you from investing your time into this book. 'The Blank Slate' re-opens questions that were once taboo, making it a relevant work to anyone concerned with race, gender, violence and child-rearing. Whether you ultimately agree with Pinker or not, the points he raises deserve to be taken seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable read on a fascinating topic
Review: I found this book most interesting and enjoyable. The author is well versed on this current and important issue. If I may simplistically summarize the thesis (imho) in two sentences, he is saying that as the more obstinate PC left ignores science, they are harming their cause which he generally supports. In particular, the 'myths' of the blank slate, the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine are becoming more incompatible with the evidence and efforts to protect them are becoming more harmful to society. I would say that whether one agrees or disagrees with his opinions (and I do both) on subjects as diverse as language, art, and parenting, he does express himself well. To me, the book was well worth reading.
| 
