Although writing is dry, at times Pinker does manage to be captivating. Reading his chapter on gender made me feel like a man (I am not), and reading his chapter on children made me feel like I am not human. However, amongst the very lengthy sermons, there are some good points made about social reality and the significance of genetics.

كتاب الصفحة البيضاء لستيفن بنكر دا مستفز فوق الوصف، سلاسة ونعومة وبساطة جميلة جدا، طرح أفكار وتأصيل تاريخي لها مع التركيز على دلالة اللغة واهميتها (النقطة دي كانت مبهرة بشكل خيالي)، وللأسف الكتب الحلوة اللي زي دي بتخليني اتمنى اني كنت اقراه بلغته الأم وفي نفس الوقت بيخليني الاحظ اكتر للفجوة المرعبة بين الترجمات العربي والمقابل لها في الاصول والترجمات الانجليزية مثلا، فارق معرفي مهول في الحجم والتأثير، في حين الترجمات العربي محكومة بمجهودات اغلبها له شروط تجارية او حتى مش مهتم بنقل معرفة ما، والمشاريع الحكومية بتكون غير مضمونة الجودة.

The Blank Slate is Steven Pinker's ambitious attempt to close the gap between the conventionally accepted dogma that human beings come into this world free of innate characteristics, ready to be molded and shaped by society, and what science has begun to reveal about genetic predisposition.

Prior to reading this book, I had no idea that the origin of human nature was such a contentious topic amongst modern intellectuals. Seems that a lot of people think acknowledging that something like violence might have been evolutionarily adaptive is the same thing as condoning violence and excusing those who engage in it, or that admitting that men and women are genetically different justifies discrimination against women. Pinker spends a lot of time in this book carefully addressing these concerns while at the same time making a compelling argument that the current tendency to deny any genetic influence on society's more vexing ills only handicaps our ability to successfully deal with our most serious problems.

Pinker is not shy about tackling controversial topics as he makes his points. The chapter in which he pointed to evidence showing that a child's intelligence and personality are shaped far more by genes, peers and random influences than they are by parents got him an enormous amount of mail, as did the section in which he discussed genetic influences on our appreciation of the arts.

Despite the radical nature of many of the theories Pinker presents, I found myself having continuous "ah-ha!" moments as I read this book. At its core, the idea that we are shaped by our genes as well as our experiences fits far better with reality than the idea that we are all nothing but moldable blank slates. Though these theories may not intellectually fashionable, Pinker makes it clear that there are a wealth of benefits to be gained by accepting what science has to tell us about the true origins of human nature.

Innate Temperament: A Terrifying Idea?

“We are not, as many people assume, blank slates shaped by our environment”

In his book (The Blank Slate: The modern denial of Human Nature), Steven Pinker argues that modern science (evolutionary psychology and neuroscience in particular) has challenged three "linked dogmas" that constitute the dominant view of human nature in intellectual life:

1. The Blank Slate aka “Tabula Rasa” (adopted by the empiricists): the mind has no innate traits, and therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception.
2. The Noble Savage (adopted by the romanticists): people are born good and corrupted by society and civilisation.
3. The Ghost in the Machine (adopted by the dualists): each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology.

Much of the book is dedicated to examining fears of the social and political consequences of his view of human nature:
1. The Fear of Inequality: If people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified. Moreover, absolute egalitarianism might be in principle unachievable.
The Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed the dilemma up:
“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
2. The Fear of Imperfectability: If people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.
3. The Fear of Determinism: If people are the products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.
4. The Fear of Nihilism: If people are the products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose. Here we can speak of different types of nihilism: Moral Nihilism, Existential Nihilism, Epistemological Nihilism...

Here is an article by Pinker "Science is not your Enemy!": An impassioned plea to humanists...
https://newrepublic.com/article/11412...

طبيعة فطرية: هل هي فكرة مرعبة؟
(نحن لسنا، كما يفترض الكثيرون، مجرّد ألواح فارغة تشكّلها البيئة.)

في كتابه (اللوح الفارغ: الإنكار المعاصر للطبيعة البشرية) يحاجج ستيڤن پينكر بأنّ العلم الحديث (علم النفس التطوّري وعلوم الأعصاب على وجه الخصوص) قد تحدّى ثلاثة عقائد بخصوص الطبيعة البشرية، متقاطعة فيما بينها وتشكّل وجهة النظر المهيمنة على الحياة الفكرية والثقافية المعاصرة:

1. عقيدة اللوح الفارغ (تعرف أيضاً بالاسم اللاتيني الصفحة البيضاءTabula Rasa ) ويتبنّاها الإمبيريقيون: العقل البشري لا يمتلك سمات فطرية أصيلة، لذلك فإنّ كل المعرفة سيكتسبها عن طريق الإدراك والخبرةالتجربة.
2. عقيدة الهمجيّ النبيل ويتبنّاها الرومنسيّون (يعدّمني ياهن): الإنسان كائن مسالم وخيّر بطبعه، ثم يأتي المجتمع والحضارة لتخرّباه.
3. عقيدة الروح في الآلة ويتبنّاها المثنويّون: العقل البشري (وكأنه روح تسكن الجسد) بإمكانه اتّخاذ قراراته بصورة مستقلّة بشكل كامل عن البيولوجيا (الجسد البشري).

تبدو هذه العقائد متغلغلة في الثقافة الغربية المعاصرة بدءاً من جون لوك وليس انتهاءً بكارل ماركس... وفي عام 1954 مثلاً أراد الكاتب ويليم غولدينغ William Golding في روايته الرمزية أمير الذّباب Lord of the Flies التي تكشف عن طبيعة العقل البشري أن يقنع القراء بأن الإنسان يولد وفيه غريزة الشرّ، وأنّ كبح هذا الشرّ هو دور الإنسان نفسه. وقد استطاع اثنان على الأقل من ابطال روايته مقاومة هذه الغريزة. ولم يحسم الأمر ما إذا كان هذا نتيجة رواسب التنشئة الاجتماعية أم نتيجة وجود عامل بيولوجي للخير.

ثمّ يتفحّص ستيڤن پينكر عن قرب المخاوف من النتائج الاجتماعية والسياسية التي ممكن أن تنجم عن الاعتراف بطبيعة بشرية أصيلة نابعة من علم النفس التطوّري وعلوم الأعصاب، وهي:

1. الخوف من عدم القدرة على تحقيق المساواة الاجتماعية "المطلقة": إن كان البشر مختلفون أصالةً، فالاضطهاد والتمييز قد يكونا مبرّرين. ومن جهة أخرى قد تكون العقائد المساواتية egalitarianism المهيمنة على مجتمعات الغرب (الليبرالية الديمقراطية) غير قابلة للتحقيق من حيث المبدأ.
لخّص الروائي الروسي ألكسندر سولجستين معضلة شعارات الثورة الفرنسية (المساواة-الحرّية) بالعبارة التالية: "يولد البشر بقابليّاتٍ مختلفة؛ إن كانوا أحراراً فهم غير متساوين، وإن كانوا متساوين فهم غير أحرار. "
2. الخوف من عدم قابلية تحقيق الكمال في "النفس" البشرية: إن كان البشر لا يمكنهم، لسبب أصيل نابع من طبيعتهم البشرية ، تحقيق المعايير الأخلاقية لمجتمع ما، عندئذٍ تغدو محاولة تحسين أوضاعهم السوسيو-اقتصادية عديمة الجدوى.
3. الخوف من الحتمية: إن كان البشر نتاج البيولوجيا وحسب، فإنّ الإرادة الحرّة ستكون مجرّد وهم والطبيعة البشريّة مكوّدة بشكل كامل ونهائي في شريط الدنا وتلافيف الدماغ، ولن يمكننا عندئذٍ تحميلهم مسؤولية أفعالهم.
4. الخوف من العدميّة: إن كان البشر نتاج البيولوجيا وحسب، فلن يمكنهم إعطاء الحياة معنىً أو هدفاً يتجاوز الطبيعة البشرية الأصيلة، وهنا يمكننا الحديث عن عدّة أنواع من العدمية: العدمية الأخلاقية، العدمية الوجودية، العدمية الإبيستمولوجية وهلمّ جرّا...

"I'm only human
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes"

--The Human League, Human


Most of us instinctively feel the acquisition of scientific knowledge follows a linear path, first operating from a solid factual base, and then modifying itself as it goes along in an objective fashion. Ultimately, a common agreeance on a certain topic will be reached, and the findings will translate into well-considered policy.

Ideally, that is how it should work, with scientists serving as neutral observers, freely informing us, the public, on whatever findings they come across, whatever the implications. This is not always what actually happens, of course. Not by a long shot. Ironically - also tellingly -, when it comes to the in-depth study of the human animal, there is active, hostile opprobrium by (a certain school of) social scientists and ideologically motivated activists alike. Scientists who try to find biological causations for certain human behaviours or perceived inequalities are frequently ostracised, pelted by slurs, and made pariah's in their own fields. The sober truth is that the scientific community is not free at all from anti-intellectualism and bullying tactics.

It seems nothing much has changed since the 2002 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno 2016, the social sciences in Western academia are still infested with social constructivist thinking, with no sign of it abating any time soon. In fact, it might even have reached its zenith, having entrenched itself even further. It's not difficult to make an analogy with creationists. This exemplifies how far we still have to go as a species to attain a higher level of rational thinking, which means being willing to demolish some of our most cherished beliefs. Ego investment still is riding high, it seems.

Biological innateness. Determinism. These terms observably evoke unpleasant feelings in many. However, in order to come face to face with the homo sapiens which, during its brutal evolutionary process, has acquired certain survival - often nasty -instincts, one should let go of such reservations . Funnily enough, it was some of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau) who introduced the blank slate theory. But are we blank slates, almost solely informed by the culture that surrounds us? Hardly, as Pinker shows us -with the aid of a plethora of immensely interesting case studies - in this intellectually dense, yet highly accessible book. Genes and our biological make-up determine our behaviour to a far greater extent than culture or our upbringing ever will. Pinker even goes as far as saying that parental influence on their child(ren)'s formation is pretty much negligible. Peer group interaction is a far more important determining factor.

However, Pinker deftly reasons that even with the ever-expanding, confronting knowledge of the human coming from the exciting fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, there is no need for us to defeatedly resort to fatalism or nihilism. On the contrary, an intimate, unsentimental understanding of what we are will help us enormously in developing a truly humanistic ethos and thus in crafting a pragmatic society which can be beneficial to all of us.

The utopian vision, with its aim to 'mould' the human psyche (social constructivism), the 20th century has adequately shown to only lead us into disaster.

The Blank Slate was an informative, thought-provoking and polemic book designed to refute ordinary conceptions and intellectual arguments which cut against a sociobiological understanding of humans and human society. I detected a couple instances in which the author, Stephen Pinker, overstated scientific conclusions, leading me to doubt the accuracy of his other scientific evidence. I also have reservations about the rational-actor lens through which he interprets human nature. On the other hand, the writing is good and many of his points are well taken. In sum, this book amounts to an interesting point of view that, while not entirely accurate, helps us see human society in a different light.

First the bad. In the couple areas of social science with which I'm somewhat familiar, he sometimes overstates the scientific research he uses as support. For instance, he briefly qualifies research suggesting inheritable differences between male and female brains but then proceeds to lay it all out as unqualified fact. All of this research was done on adults, which means that some of the differences might be hereditary, but this is far from established fact. The same charge has been laid against his sister Susan, which, interestingly enough, may support some of his other arguments about intra-family similarity in tendencies. His hypothesis about hereditary differences between male and female brains may in fact be true, and it definitely matches up with most peoples' intuitive observations of their own children. In any case I agree with him that it should make no difference when it comes to placing value on males or females, but none of this excuses the fact that he overstates the scientific conclusions.

In Chapter 12, Pinker similarly runs roughshod over stereotypical associations. He proclaims, “[P]eople’s ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious, deliberate reasoning.” While researchers have shown that thinking carefully about an individual's characteristics can dampen the effect of stereotypical associations, it doesn't reduce their effect to nil. In fact, subsequent studies suggest otherwise, because stereotypical associations effect more than just memory recall; they effect perception, interpretation and memory encoding. Academic social psychologists who profess otherwise are mostly legal defense experts and corporate human resource consultants. I doubt that Pinker cherry-picked or intentionally misrepresented the science, leaving me with the conclusion that he again overstated scientific conclusions.

As another minor but related point, Pinker might be misusing quotes, taking them out of context or reading too much into them. He quotes several intellectuals and researchers to prove that the philosophical ideas of “the blank slate” and “the noble savage” are broadly represented in academia. This may all be true, but after catching him overstating scientific conclusions I started to notice that many of these quotations could contain different, more nuanced meanings than Pinker squeezes out of them.

Pinker tips his hand most revealingly in Chapter 18, in which he writes, “In a cutthroat market, any company stupid enough to overlook qualified women or to overpay unqualified men would be driven out of business by a more meritocratic competitor.” This represents a brash oversimplification of history, cognitive science, social psychology; an underestimation of the influence of dumb luck; and an overestimation of humans’ ability to accurately evaluate the merits of other humans. It suggests that while Pinker’s erudition is broad, he makes up for its sometimes lack of depth by looking only as far as required to confirm his preconceived vision of rational actors in a rational society, which he in turn derives from the apparent rationality of evolution. The idea that we inexorably act rationally is not a necessary conclusion from our status as products of a mercilessly rational evolutionary process, but I understand how this can be a reassuring conclusion for people uncomfortable with ambiguity.

With all these faults, it’s still a compelling read. Pinker presents a great deal of fascinating and oddly intuitive scientific research in very accessible fashion. I’m satisfied by his assertion that we are creatures with inherited tendencies and skills, one of which is the ability to not allow our tendencies to rule tyrannically over us. He made me feel more confident and justified about my loose, respectful, loving relationship with my children, which others might see as too permissive for my children’s good. He carefully defines positions, quoting authorities from multiple disciplines to make his points, so he’s either very well read, has a number of well read research assistants, or perhaps both. His prose was confident like most polemics, but stops short of the patronization that ruins so many of the others.

Overall, The Blank Slate was entertaining, interesting, and informative, but I strongly recommend that you read it with both an open and critical mind.

Imprescindible este libro en esta época tan crítica de todo sin el más mínimo sustento científico. El autor arremete contra todos los postulados progres tan en boga, sin ningún respeto, eso es lo que más me gustó. La primera parte establece la estructura de lo que será todo su andamiaje discursivo, más adelante dará su fundamento a todas sus afirmaciones. La irreverencia para tratar postulados intocables del discurso dominante es el punto fuerte de este libro. Lo recomiendo ampliamente.

Poderosísimo libro que rompe todas las concepciones sociopolíticas previas que se pudieran tener, usando la Psicología, la Estadística y las ciencias de la evolución biológica y los estudios sociales. Terminas de leerlo y, si has dejado que pase por ti, no sales siendo la misma persona. Esto, aplicable de manera romántica a cualquier libro, es una certeza con este: tras asimilar lo que expone, es obligatorio que no sea el mismo que era antes de leerlo. Lo bueno es que soy, inevitablemente, más libre; lo malo, que es de esas libertades que duelen.

El autor expone, a modo de decimonónica refutación a terceras obras, que la sociedad se sustenta sobre falsos pilares que sujetan un entramado que difícilmente da lugar a conclusiones válidas porque están sesgadas de origen. Teniendo estopa para todos, reparte contra los autoritarismos y los libertarianismos (europeos y americanos), contra las izquierdas y las derechas, contra muchas cosas que creemos porque nos las han repetido nuestros padres, nuestros educadores y nuestros medios de manipulación de masas, y nunca nos habíamos planteado con profundidad hasta dónde llegaban esas mentiras. Sospechábamos que era así porque a veces todo es muy oscuro y no correlacionaban teorías y prácticas; ahora ya se ve todo mejor.

La mentira que supone la igualdad entre las personas. La de que las razas y los sexos tienen, generalmente, las mismas características. La de que hay estados naturales del ser humano civilizado que son incontestables. Estas y otras muchas son las dianas a las que el autor dispara para abrirnos los ojos a un estado superior de consciencia, con la sana intención de que el futuro no tenga su base en ideas falsas y que la tolerancia no surja de cuentos de hadas repetidos ad nauseam, sino de la creencia de que debemos respetarnos unos a otros a pesar de nuestras evidentes diferencias.

Como decía, ideas poderosas que hay que rumiar, y un libro que deberían leer los que conducen nuestros carros. Seguro que personas más inteligentes que yo se ven con capacidad de refutarlo, pero que es alimento para el cerebro no me lo podrá negar nadie.

In which Pinker argues against a bunch of straw men without backing up his overly sweeping claims. I don't disagree with his basic thesis, but I do disagree with his cartoonish characterizations of his opponents, namely, feminists, the left, social scientists, etc. If you're going to write a book in which you are right and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should at least make sure you support your huge thesis with unassailable facts. He did not. It's one thing to say "we are not a blank slate." Totally fine. But quite another to say parenting and environment make no difference whatsoever, that women are not in fact under-represented in the sciences (that one made me the most mad), and that art is now crap (why is he even qualified to critique modern art?). Anyway, I'm sure it's not his fault--his biology made him that arrogant.

I sometimes find a book that is so eloquently written, I enjoy reading it even if the concepts are too far beyond me to fully comprehend what the words are trying to tell me. This could be that kind of book except that also it is so clearly written, I may actually understand what the author was trying to convey. It is one thing to be a language expert and quite another to be a great author. I think that this book proves Pinker to be both.

There's some good stuff here for those unfamiliar with the nature/nurture debate, but Pinker is a polemicist, and not a very good one--I honestly don't think he understands a lot of the more subtle points in the debate and he tends to caricature folks he doesn't like as people who believe we are truly born wholly blank slates, which no serious person believes.[return][return]Over and over again in this book, Pinker quotes his purported opposition and follows up his quotation with an interpretation which is clearly a distortion.[return][return]Of course, if what you are interested in is seeing Pinker take a bludgeon to a bunch of strawmen, then you'll probably like this book.

No le puedo poner más estrellas, pero le pondría diez o quince si pudiera. Steven Pinker debería ser lectura obligada en las facultades de humanidades, para bajarles un poquito los humos; sobre todo a los que llama "alocados" en los estudios de género, los "estudios" "culturales" y otras formas radicales que se oponen no sólo al sentido común sino a la mismísima configuración del cerebro humano.