Rating: 
Summary: Don't just buy it. Read it.
Review: This is a book that a lot of people will buy in order to put on their bookshelves to show off. It's a challenging book to read, but it rewards the effort.The book starts out with an argument against what to a non-academic would appear to be a straw man: the dogmatic, anti-scientific ideology that is peculiar to college professors, particularly in the humanities. If you have a child in high school, do not let him or her go off to college without first reading Pinker. But if you do not worry about encountering the academic dogma, then you may find the first third of the book somewhat tedious. Pinker is mainly concerned with describing the way evolution has shaped the innate propensities and limitations of human thinking. My favorite chapter happens to be the one called "Out of Our Depths," which describes the way our brains are not wired to readily grasp some of the knowledge and ideas that we have developed in the past few hundred years. This includes not only modern physics but much of economics. It is not possible in a short review to do justice to the breadth and insights of this book. Suffice to say that I give it my highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: An important book for the modern world
Review: Steven Pinker is a prominent member of a new cohort of science populizers with genuine scientific credentials (which includes, in the area of brain studies, such authors as Joseph LeDoux, Antonio Damasio, Daniel Dennett). His latest book is by far his most political therefore his most important. As it turns out, the data show that we have much in common as members of the human species, and the news is not all bad. In the Blank Slate, Pinker directly addresses the major ideological impediments which prevent the widespread adoption of an enlightened, scientifically valid view of humanity. People have opposed the idea of human nature, Pinker argues, due to the adherence to three ideas: the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine. After presenting empirical and philosophical arguments against this trio of ideas, Pinker turns to directly addressing the fears accompany the denial of human nature. Specifically, people fear that human nature bolsters the acceptance of inequality (and hence injustice) and prevents progress and perfectability of people and society. Pinker counters that such fears are founded upon an exaggerated and overly simplistic view of the manner in which our genes influence our thoughts and actions. Such influences always remain beneath our consciousness and volition; they are one of the ultimate causes of our behavior, but never the sole cause or the immediate cause. This relates to another major fear: the fear of biological determinism, the absence of free will. Pinker also discusses the fear of nihilism, the fear that once our actions and preferences are understood to be rooted in biology, our lives will loose meaning and morality. Again, Pinker shows that such fears are founded upon misunderstanding and oversimplification, as well as the confusion between ultimate casues and mechanism, on the one hand, and the immediate and proximate causes on the other. In general, many progressives on the political Left have embraced the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage to provide the foundation for ideologies of cultural transformation and reform, in the service of redressing injustices and inequalities. Unfortunately, as Pinker demonstrates, the evidence (as well as our own common sense experiences) indicates that we are neither Blank Slates or Noble Savages. The sum total of our inherited tendencies, our human nature, is neither wicked or noble. Nonetheless, there is the fear, found on both the political Left and Right, that embracing human nature also means normalizing and sanctioning the unseamly side of ourselves. But, as Pinker argues, "natural" is an empirical judgement; "good" is a moral one. Some critics have argued that no one really believes in the Blank Slate any more, and that Pinker is fighting "straw men." I think, however, that Pinker does a good job of showing that Blank Slate positions are often the implicit default in matters of public discussion and policy making; Blank Slate ideas continue to misguide efforts, even when the Blank Slate is not intentionally invoked. The third notion which Pinker disputes, the Ghost in the Machine, is far more important to people committed to the political Right, because the Ghost is frequently equated with the immaterial spiritual soul. The major implication of modern neuroscience has been that the workings of the human mind can be adequately explained by the workings of the human brain, as Pinker has shown in more detail in his previous book, How the Mind Works. The more we learn about brain function, the more it has taken over the job description previously assigned to the soul or to the Ghost. The Ghost remains in the mind of many as the only possible foundation for Free Will, and hence meaning and morality. Free will and an inherited human nature are not necessarily contradictory, however, as long as one avoids a simplistic biological determinism in which genes directly control our actions and opinions. In place of all these fears, Pinker constructs an empirically-supported view of our human nature, addressing in turn 1) the reliabilty and veracity of our perception and our understanding of the world; 2) the sources of interpersonal conflict as well as the sources of a realistic (non-supernatural) morality; 3) the hot-buton topics of race, gender, violence, and child rearing. This is were some of the real meat, the empirical data, is to be found; and this is where Pinker makes good on his claims that accepting the idea of human nature is neither dangerously reactionary or bebasing. An acquaintance of mine wondered just who this book was intended for, since it appeared to be written above the level of your average person. So be it: Science can be popularized by good writing and clear thinking, but it cannot be greatly simplified without significant loss of coherence and cogency. The book is intended for us: for whoever has the motivation to pick it up or to read this review. If you've read this far, do yourself a favor and read Pinker's book. It's not only fascinating and well-argued; it's important.
Rating:
Summary: The End Game of Empiricism
Review: Professor Laudan has pointed out that rather than being the replacement for empiricism, the now common relativistic view of scientific conclusions is actually the end game of empiricism. In the Blank Slate,
Professor Pinker argues that the famous tabula rasa notion is at the heart of empiricism; moreover, he argues that the thesis that all scientific concepts are nothing more than social constructions is itself an expression of empiricism's basic principle. He then submits an analysis of this view, in all of its manifestations, that reveals its untenability as an epistemological theory or a basis for social policy. Not to know the arguments that Pinker presents in this book, whether one accepts them or not, illegitimates one's participation in further discourse on these matters. This book is certainly required reading for those scholars interested in philosophy of education, my own area of concern. Going even further, I would say that anyone interested in any aspect of educational theory should read this book. Jerome Popp, Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Rating: 
Summary: All-Knowing or Know-It-All?
Review: This book exemplifies - for the most part valiantly and eloquently -- the continuing gulf between being all-knowing and being a know-it-all. Pinker synthesizes, or attempts to synthesize, thinkers in a wide range of disciplines hovering around the extended topic "What is human nature, why is it thus, and what difference does this make?" His conclusion -- that "we have reason to believe that the mind is equipped with a battery of emotions, drives, and faculties for reasoning and communicating, and that they have a common logic across cultures, are difficult to erase or redesign from scratch, were shaped by natural selection acting over the course of human evolution, and owe some of their basic design (and some of their variation) to information in the genome" (p. 73) - is persuasive, if too generic and equivocal to rank as an earth-shattering paradigm shift. Pinker is perhaps most intriguing in showing how polarized extremisms along the continuum between those viewing nature or nurture (i.e., the innate or the culturally-specified) as the primary determinant of the human condition have made, and continue to make, strange bedfellows of the Right and the Left. Pinker's magnum opus, however, suffers from puzzling lacunae. In selected areas he lets loose with laundry lists of a dozen researchers whose work he deems relevant, but in other areas the bibliography is far skimpier. For instance, although as a cognitive scientist purporting to explain the basis for human thought patterns he is clearly venturing into the turf of philosophy, and although he appears somewhat adept with the concepts of such pioneers in this field as Descartes, Locke and Hume, Pinker's book is completely devoid of mention of Immanuel Kant's epistemology. This is all the more curious in that the author not only makes several passing references to Kant's moral doctrines, but indeed arrives at a system of how the mind is structured to categorize experience (based, in Pinker's version, on forms of reasoning that presumptively served the species' survival), and of how these categories limit that of which we can conceive, which strongly echoes the system set forth in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." Either Pinker is suffering from severe "anxiety of influence," or he needs a genius grant to afford him more time to complete his reading. Pinker also tends (presumably for evolutionary reasons) to caricature those with whom he elects to disagree, such as asserting that Steven Jay Gould's attack on the abstract quality of "intelligence" as a one-dimensional basis for ranking individuals and (by aggregation) groups equates to the denial of inborn talent (p. 149), or that Jerome Kagan and other child development experts are without a rational basis for arguing that parents can affect how their children turn out (p. 394). Most annoying, however, is the extent to which Pinker falls prey to the instinct to follow through the perceived implications of his system into such diverse areas as aesthetic theory and political philosophy. For instance, he plays out his concept of human nature to postulate a biologically-based critique of modernism (abstraction) and post-modernism as causing the "decline and fall" of the arts (p. 411). The aesthetic connection has some merit (although here again Pinker is unable or unwilling to place his pontifications within the context of a vast literature of relevant predecessors ranging from Kant (in his third Critique) to John Dewey, Benedetto Croce, and Suzanne Langer), but itself becomes an extreme overstatement inasmuch as it fails to recognize the phenomenological aspects of human perception and intelligence that make conceptual or non-representational art intriguing to some percipients. It is not a priori impossible to become a bona fide polymath or to develop a comprehensive system for understanding human nature and affairs. But those who have tried it have derived increased power and flexibility from recognizing (as did Aristotle, to whom Pinker deigns to give a mere bit part as a theorist of tragedy) that every discipline has its own differentiating subject matter and set of rules, or from stipulating (like Richard McKeon) a pluralist schema that can alternately utilize several discrete approaches to fundamental problems and questions and thereby achieve multi-dimensional depth of insight. Many before have fallen into the trap of extrapolating too far from one idea or set of ideas, even a promising and well-thought-out one in an area over which they had relative mastery. Such an intellectual approach risks something akin to the dilettantism of a Michael Jordan dabbling at baseball or golf, or the futile and narcissistic valor of a youngster who, having fashioned the best slingshot in town, sallies forth to conquer the world. Ultimately, "The Blank Slate" is too wide and insufficiently deep, and is at most an intriguing prolegomenon to a bio-psychologically grounded unified field theory of all things human.
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.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Science, mixed Logic and History, bad Philosophy
Review: Let's start out by saying what Pinker won't state clearly: 'You are a machine, with no free will. The entirety of reality is mass-energy interacting. Forget God, souls, and all that, they're illusions.' Is this true? Beats me, but it's worth saying plainly, because it's the view that informs Pinker's work. He seems to think it has been proven true, scientifically. Since it hasn't been, and probably can't be (How do you prove the non-existence of something? Especially an invisible something that may or may not exist in the first place!). All this leads to some stupidities in the book, especially when Pinker is trying to deny free will while defending the importance of moral choice. If free will does not exist, we don't make moral choices. Instead, we do what we do because we have to do it, and this includes talking about non-existent choices. Now let's paraphrase something that Pinker does say clearly: 'Our personality, tastes, and other individual characteristics are mostly the result of our genes and chance. Nuture pays very little part in determining who and what we are.' Most of the book is devoted to outlining the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion, and it is massive. Studies of twins and other siblings raised together and apart, of genetic boys raised as girls, and a GREAT variety of other work shows that we are largely 'hardwired' in personality, intelligence, tastes, and possibly even moral attitudes. Aside from the obvious (you grow up speaking the language your primary caregivers speak to you), how you are raised doesn't affect you very much (which is NOT to say it doesn't affect you at all, or isn't important). Another thing Pinker states clearly: 'It's frequently claimed that nobody actually believes in the "Blank Slate" anymore. This isn't true. Most of them won't defend it openly any more, but they do believe in it.' This is the historical section of the book, outlining the attacks on the idea of inborn human nature. It's not as good as it could be -- many of the attacks on "sociobiology" were valid -- but it does show that the ideas Pinker is outlining here have been distorted and mocked by those with sometimes hidden agendas. Pinker's conclusions would probably arouse little controversy if it weren't for politics. There are vast belief systems devoted to the idea that we can make a better world by making better people, and that we can make better people by changing their enviornment (Libertarianism and Leftism come to mind). Well, mostly we can't. Anyone wanting to make a better world had best start with a clear-eyed view of inherited human nature, and either work within it or wait for genetic engineering. In a few years, much of this will seem quaint. By 2010, we'll probably be able to read, quickly and cheaply, anyone's genome. After that, we'll correlate personality test results, IQ, and behavior against the genome, and we'll KNOW what genes are correlated with what mental characteristics. And given the unvarying nature of our individual DNA, that will also be pretty good proof that behavior trait A is influenced in a predictable way by genes alpha, beta, gamma, etc. The results, I believe, will largely vindicate Pinker. Overall, Pinker does a good job of marshalling the evidence for inborn, genetically determined human nature. It's essential reading if you have any interest in this subject at all.
Rating:
Summary: A classic
Review: The Blank Slate is a brilliant synthesis of biology, psychology and humanism, composed by a polymath who is also a gifted writer. Perhaps the highest compliment I can give it is that in the future it will be regarded as boringly obvious. Today, however, it is a presentation of insights that, singly, are recognized by only few, and combined, by practically no one. Drawing to a considerable extent on the work of R. Trivers and E. O. Wilson, The Blank Slate carries their thinking further, constructing a coherent thesis of human nature based on the insights of evolutionary psychology. Pinker's sensitive humanism allows him to avoid the reductionistic trap that many other evolutionary psychologists fall into. The net result is a work that offers surprising insights into almost every realm of life; and one that is destined to become a classic. By the way, I'm a published author, and rather a polymath myself; I'm not easily pleased. This encomium is the first I've ever written.
Rating: 
Summary: Mainly hype.
Review: What's most disturbing about this book-- aside from the arrogance of the author who pontificates about everything from neuroscience to ethics, politics, and religion-- is how reductionist it is, while at the same time claiming not to be. According to Pinker, parents matter little, and even personal preferences (such as number of hours per day spent watching television) are all mainly hereditary. So, psychotherapy is useless, caustic parents harmless, and the only solution for a troubled kid (faulty genes) is to medicate him. I bet the drug manufacturers love Pinker. Forget about poverty and poor education shaping children. This would be funny if it weren't so sad. The book doesn't add anything new to the nature-nurture question, but it's being hyped and promoted nonstop, which seems to work. That's sad, too.
Rating:
Summary: Nature vs. nurture case closed--with reservations
Review: Sociobiology is a controversial, yet important and growing field of scientific exploration. No other field of science elicits as much condemnation from academics and intellectuals, yet no other scientific endeavor has ever cast as much light on the truth about the evolution of human nature. The reason for the distain shown by academic intellectuals is sociobiology's crushing refutation of the concept known as the "blank slate" theory of human nature, which has become the cornerstone of postmodernist ideals of political correctness. The entire edifice of the postmodern human engineering project carried on at many universities and in the popular media is based upon the concept that "everything is political", and that the attribute we call "human nature" is nothing more than cultural propaganda instilled into children by their parents and reinforced throughout their lives by a rigid, chauvinistic propaganda machine that has become known as "Western Civilization". Evidence is fast mounting that human nature is anything but nonexistent, sociobiology is the area of science where this evidence is researched and proven, and Steven Pinker has done a good job of organizing and, with some reservations, elucidating the evidence. In short, boys and girls are no more identical above the neck than they are below, and every personal psychological attribute is nearly as genetically heritable as every physical attribute. This book proves to my satisfaction that human nature is a factor in the human condition, and that the blank slate theory of personality is a politically correct joke. This is a long book, a bit tedious in places, but well written, interesting and even humorous overall. The inference that genetic influences are the all-important factor in life outcome is, I think, patently false and contradicted by experience and common sense. The best possible proof of this is contained in a short, fascinating book written by Theodore Dalrymple called "Life at the bottom", which I would strongly recommend as a reality-check by which to measure some of the tenants of sociobiology presented in Pinker's book. This is especially useful when evaluating chapter 19 on the debate about nature/nurture as it concerns children. Dalrymple's book is a collection of anecdotes gleaned from the experiences of a physician who has spent his life ministering to the British underclass. He does not discredit sociobiology, a subject which is never mentioned in his book. He illuminates the subject in the light of harsh reality. In spite of its deficiencies, however, sociobiology goes a long way toward explaining how genetic tendencies coalesce into the characteristics known as "human nature". It also casts light upon the reasons that 20th century attempts to engineer utopian societies culminated in failure (and in the case of Marxist projects, the deaths of as many as a hundred million people). Sociobiology is, however explicitly silent upon the subject of how best to contain these human impulses in order to establish and maintain an orderly, yet progressive and free civilization. The "fact" of Human Nature presents us with a slew of "natural" behaviors. On the other hand, just because a behavior may be natural does not necessarily mean that its uninhibited expression is appropriate for the maintenance of an orderly civilization and a happy life. While evidence from sociobiology seems to refute some of the cherished beliefs of modern conservatism as well as liberalism, the case against liberalism is much stronger. Pinker works very hard to establish his credentials as a modern liberal throughout the book, and in some areas I believe that his desire to be seen as a liberal has colored the conclusions he draws from his evidence. This is definitely a worthwhile book. Take the evidence seriously, but be wary when navigating the shoals of the author's opinions.
Rating:
Summary: The Blank Slate, Noble Savage, and Ghost in the Machine
Review: I quite like Pinker's book and think that some of the reviews (such as Patrick Bateson's in Nature) are off the wall in misreading it. This in not a book about nature-vs-nurture in the usual sense but a much broader book about three beginners' mistakes (my term, not Pinker's): The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine. Pinker's concern is not only that they appear to be wrong but that the policies based on them are likely to do more harm than good.
|
