This 2002 takedown of the tabula rasa (blank slate), noble savage fetishism and the ghost in the machine is sadly very dated now. Time does not wait for science writing and the most recent texts will often be the most revelatory.

The Blank Slate is also very timid and moderate. The sad thing is that many would still dispute many of these simple truths and refute the evidence provided. The decades haven’t softened the ideological attachments people have to various delusions.

In the 2016 afterword he remarks on how controversial the book was despite avoiding the topic of race and IQ. Suffice to say that small variations in genes can lead to huge general differences. Such as those between humans and their chimpanzee kin. He opines that progressives only accept genetic determinism when it is related to their pet-issues, namely as a propensity to obesity or homosexuality.

Twin studies tell us a lot regarding similar outcomes and genetics, even when the identical siblings are separated. Of course, various mutations such as conditions in the womb and different exposures in life can have impacts as well. Nature and nurture work in concert.

Pinker’s Panglossianism was beginning to show itself here, it is often a sprawling manifesto as he puts every aspect of life to the sword. You can see the Pollyanna origin points for The Better Angels of our Nature and Enlightenment Now.

Pinker argues that the pragmatic Hobbes was right, rather than romantic Rousseau regarding human natural history however. There was no golden age, just brutal, short lives. The gentleness of primitive cultures has been greatly exaggerated and they will be as damaging as their technology allows.

He contradicts theory of mind, arguing that the brain is a computer evolved by ancestors to outsmart competitors and understand their surroundings. Even babies are able to judge the motivations of others.

He uses lots of horrific animal tests to back up his beliefs, unjustifiable harm to cats, ferrets, monkeys and mice. The data is there now but you can’t help but think we cause huge suffering for very spurious reasons.

Within a complex human nature we have an inherent ability to process data. Unhelpful evolutionary hangovers include regularly eating too much fatty food, participating in risky sexual behaviour etc. How many people are forced into existence simply due to their parents chasing the pleasure of an orgasm?

Incidentally, siblings are more similar because of their genes than anything environmental. Confirming from the twin studies that parenting has very little influence, as long as you aren’t abusive, stunting the child nutritionally etc. Brains aren’t plastic and any shift in connections takes place within existing framework

Pinker then discusses the ideological boundaries that he and others face in discussing these topics. A “progressive” power-base now silences discussion when the facts clash with their ideology. He uses examples of campus cancel culture and the harassment E.O. Wilson has faced for proffering a very basic argument of sociobiology.

Different human groups have some similarities (e.g. smiling when happy) but are from clones, having evolved separately for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps genetic superiority is a future cause for social justice as the most intelligent people continue to choose to mate with intelligent partners and create a small intellectual elite? There is of course some evidence to suggest that smarter people have smaller families or opt out of reproduction altogether.

The importance of literature makes for a fun section but this book is often too wide ranging with the author offering opinions on areas he isn’t well informed on. Elsewhere, Pinker shows his huge penchant for techno-optimism when he comes out against Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich etc and shows his ignorance on human overpopulation. He cites Norman Borlaug’s green revolution in providing extra food with fossil fuel based fertilisers and pesticides but neglects to include Borlaug’s warnings of “the population monster” and his acknowledgement that these measures only represented a temporary sticking plaster.

In conclusion, while The Blank Slate had interesting and challenging ideas to offer twenty years ago I would recommend instead Robert Plomin’s excellent work Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are for discovering more on the topic of genetic primacy (not least the findings of twin studies). I also expect Robert Sapolsky’s recent book on determinism will provide the latest arguments for the absence of free will.

Reading this book feels like hearing an intelligent person trying to talk sense to an obstinate child. Every once in a while you pick up an interesting fact, but the ratio of information to text is not high enough to make this book worth ones time. The info is drowned in a sea of qualifiers and platitudes, time after time he states that eugenics and Social Darwinism is bad, much of the book feels designed for soothing the idiotic frenzy of leftist apparatchiks, and to avoid being called a Nazi apologist.

I wish Pinker the best of luck in giving people a nuanced view on nature-nurture, but my rating of this book none the less is three stars. After three attempts I still cannot bring myself to finishing the book, so any higher rating would be dishonest. You can learn more from a 100 page book written for smart people, than from this 500 pager written for idiots.

A side note:
My dad is a priest and intelligent except when it comes to religion, then his intelligence drops by 50% and his honesty by 90. This book is written for people like my father, who are idiots when it comes to a certain issue, but the issue is heredity instead of religion.

What is accepted by academics is people are the product of their environment not of their genetics and Steven Pinker disagrees with this. Human nature can't be changed to fit some social engineer's plan to shape human behavior based on social conditioning. Steven Pinker writes that human behavior has some genetic basis that was formed by evolution. This stance is not accepted by academics that see this as a throwback to Nazi ideas of eugenics and there have been demonstrations about this. I can understand the opposition to this idea since many have been sterilized or killed to eliminate so called inferior people. An orphan was sterilized back in the American Eugenics era who later became a WWII tank commander and businessman who lost his wife when she learned of his inability to father kids. There may be some genetic basis for some behaviors but you need more than correlation in twin studies to have definitive evidence.

An out of context quote:
“We are all members of the same flawed species. Putting our moral vision into practice means imposing our will on others. The human lust for power and esteem, coupled with its vulnerability to self-deception and self-righteousness, makes that an invitation to a calamity, all the worse when the power is directed at a goal as quixotic as eradicating human self-interest.” - Pinker.

One of those books where you read certain arguments, some of which you have been trying/have tried to present, and are just overwhelmed by the simplicity, logic and coherence that the author brings to the table. One of my personal favourites is when Steven Pinker talks about how the rationalization or explanation of a crime/action(or studies conducted to understand the human nature/behaviour/traits from that perspective) should not be considered as an attempt to shift responsibilty, to seek redemption or to justify inequality.

Well written and easy readable book. This book just wasn't really what I was expecting. The author just wants us to know why the Blank Slate theory is not a morally better theory than the Human Nature theory. In fact the whole argument of the book is why the Human Nature theory is a much better theory.

I don't believe in the blank slate personally so I didn't need to be convinced. Even so the 'this is better because' tone throughout the book became slightly annoying.

He completely lost me at the rape section though.

About rape being an act of violence and benefit all men.
Quote: "The idea becomes even less credible when we remember that rapist tend to be losers and nobodies, while presumably the main beneficiaries of the patriarchy are the rich and the powerful."

Are there really no rich and powerful men who rape? Or was it more underreported when this book came out?

About women dressing more modestly.
And: "The suggestion that women in dangerous situations be mindful of reactions they may be eliciting or signals they may inadvertently be sending is just common sense, and it's hard to believe any grownup would think otherwise -"

I think this exhibit proofs that how we dress really doesn't matter https://www.huffpost.com/entry/powerf...

Professor Pinker may be the closest thing we have comparible to an old time polymath, and he has a sense of humor. This book has been rendered into laymans' terms, thankfully, yet still reeks with references to endless scientific studies. On the way it debunks many common myths about the preprogramming, or lack thereof, in human beings. It also comes dangerously close to knocking the props out from under the assumptions necessary to support most religious principles. Yet, the author goes to great lengths to tell the truth as he sees it without directly offending social sensibilities. Many of his observations, with appropriate support, cause major paradigm shifts for most readers, I suspect. We are not as virtuous as we like to think and we are driven by self-interest far more than we care to admit. Reading this work will make you reflect upon and possibly change some of your attitudes and behaviors.

Преди да прочета тази книга не знаех, че формирането на човешката природа е толкова спорен въпрос в интелектуалните среди.

Изгледа, много хора смятат, че например насилието е болестно, несвойствено за човека състояние - и да се каже, че склонността към насилие всъщност е еволюционна адаптация за справяне с определени ситуации е същото, като оправдаване на насилието. Също според тях, откритието, че съществуват известни вродени разлики в начина на мислене и в емоциите на мъжете и жените, породени от различия в мозъка и хормоните им - е подтикване към дискриминация към жените.

Понеже книгата е изключително обемна и разглежда широк кръг въпроси, позволявам си да преведа част от описанието и от издателството, което според мен успява отлично и накратко да я представи:

"В книгата си, Пинкър разглежда идеята на т.н. "човешка природа" и нейното морално, емоционално и политическо значение. Той показва как много интелектуалци отричат съществуването на каквито и да е вродени характеристики у човека и вместо това догматично приемат три постулата:
- Tabula rasa: човешкият ум няма каквито и да е вродени характеристики, таланти, наклонности и т.н. - всичко това зависи и се формира от средата, в която човек израства;
- Благородният дивак: хората се раждат добри и невинни и биват "покварени" от обществото, на което се дължат всякакви лоши техни черти и поведение;
- Духовен свят: човек има душа, която мисли и чувства независимо от биологията на тялото, което обитава.

Всяка от тия три догми носи своя морален и исторически багаж и техните защитници прибягват до понякога отчаяни тактики, за да дискредитират учените, които ги отхвърлят."

Доста по-интересно е, отколкото успявам да опиша. Сори.

4,5

Estaría bien que, pasados ya 15 años desde su aparición, Pinker publicase una puesta al día y ampliación. Puerta de entrada para aquellos interesados en la psicología basada en la biología y la teoría de la evolución y la
selección natural.

در ایران با عنوان: لوح سپید،انکار مدرن ذات بشر، به وسیله اقایان بهزاد سروری و دانیال قارونی ترجمه شده و بوسیله نشر نگاه معاصر منتشر شده است.

In some ways, this book is both a tragedy and an inspiration.

How is it a tragedy? It's a tragedy because the book is responding to very ideologically-based, simple arguments for the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine that I think don't really need to be addressed. Many of the points in the book I was thoroughly convinced of before reading the book -- I knew that genetics played some role in determining personality and aptitude; I was convinced of the probabilistic approach to human behavior; and I was convinced that versions of "is" do not automatically translate into "ought". On top of that, much of the book is spent rehashing the very petty politics of what happens in university departments and on college campuses -- the politicization and tribalization of knowledge. It's a stark reminder that even in environments where people should be better and do better, they often give in to their worst instincts.

So, the book is tragic in that much of this material, in a more perfect world, could have just been skipped or ignored. The author could have begun this book from a different starting place where readers have no ideological axes to grind, open-minded examination of evidence and arguments take place, and we are all intellectually and emotionally ready to live in a world of nuance. But no, that is not the world we live in, so that is not the book we get. And that is tragic.

The book, though, is also an inspiration. Why? Because it attempts to lift the conversation to that place where nuance and evidence are grounded in a humanistic understanding of our role as scholars and thinkers. The author, through his exploration of the various themes and evidence, tries to make us all epistemic creatures -- people who can have beliefs and values but suspend them in order to explore counter-evidence, new theories, and hypotheses, and sharpen our values with our knowledge. As epistemic creatures, we would also be able to ask that all-important question: How do we know something?

In a moment in history where so much discourse is polluted by vulgarity, that is refreshing...but it's also tragic. Because in a world where we are all trained from a young age to have the epistemic and moral habits of scientists, this might have been a more nuanced and at once infinitely shorter book.

My favorite of all Pinker's books. It makes the case for a science of human nature, and in the process is devastating to so-called conventional wisdom, political correctness and other silliness. The highlight for me is how clearly he lays bare the utter waste of human activity that is postmodernism. It was one of those rare moments when an author seems to be giving the exact words to the reader's earlier intuition or experiences. I constantly found myself wishing I could travel back in time to one "philosophy of science" panel in particular just to be able to ask a few better questions!

Definitely packs A LOT of information into each and every single one of its pages. It is information that is necessary to be an informed citizen of the modern world. However, Pinker's prose often comes across as dry, due to the sheer number of factoids that are being thrown at the reader with each sentence. That being said, the book does deserve the praise that it has received.