Steven Pinker describes the "blank slate" hypothesis, that humans are essentially uniform clay on which external influences (culture, society, etc.) are responsible for the entirety of identity. This is particularly discussed in the context of gender (and "second wave" or "gender feminism"), and race, and uses studies to demonstrate that some traits are innate/inherited. Most of the book is about the implications of the "blank slate" and what it means for it to be true or not true.

What really struck me is how much "trouble" he would get in for presenting this argument today.

Pinker deftly blends a deep understanding of philosophy and a thorough review of scientific literature to critic the dearly-held 19070’s intellectual doctrines of the blank slate, the noble savage and the ghost of the machine. Like Better Angles of our Nature, the book is expansive, thorough and convincing - liberally citing from the literature to make his points with data.

Whether we like it or not, we have a common human nature and it’s imparted by our genes. While this does not mean our destiny is predetermined, it does shape our lives and our society. To ignore it, or worse, actively deny it exists, is folly.

What was particularly striking was how recognizable the debunked arguments still are in today’s intellectual debates. As explored in the book, many intellectuals espouse theories they want to be true, largely because they fit with their ideology, even if they have no basis in fact. After reading this book, you’ll see these arguments frequently in debates of many of societies most passionate disagreements.

A quote I think succinctly summarizes Pinker’s argument:
“Acknowledging human nature does not mean overturning our personal world views, and I would have nothing to suggest as a replacement if it did. It means only taking intellectual life out of its parallel universe and reuniting it with science and, when it is borne out by science, with common sense. The alternative is to make intellectual life increasingly irrelevant to human affairs, to turn intellectuals into hypocrites, and to turn everyone else into anti-intellectuals.”

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker

The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. It’s a social-biological study of nature versus nature. This excellent 528 page-book is composed of the following six parts: Part I. The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine, Part II. Fear and Loathing, Part III. Human Nature with a Human Face, Part IV. Know Thyself, Part V. Hot Buttons, and Part VI. The Voice of the Species.

Positives:
1.tSteven Pinker the well known Professor of Psychology at Harvard University writes thought-provoking, well-researched books and this book is no different.
2.tProfessor Pinker goes after the doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine and does so with gusto and a mountain of scientific evidence.
3.tI’m glad someone finally refers to Social Darwinism to what it really is, “Social Spencerism”.
4.tThe fallacy of behaviorists.
5.tThe theory of mind explained.
6.tGreat quotes with conviction. “The evidence is overwhelming that every aspect of our mental lives depends entirely on physiological events in the tissues of the brain”.
7.tThe three great outrages of self-love.
8.tHow genes affect our behavior…”Small differences in the genes can lead to large differences in behavior”.
9.tEvolution is central to the understanding of life.
10.tCulture defined.
11.tFascinating look at how our brains remain active during “assembly”.
12.tEvolutionary biology used to explain the complex cognitive and behavioral adaptations.
13.tThe attacks on “determinism” and “reductionism”.
14.tThe religious opposition to evolution and its intended corruption of American science education.
15.tThe religious opposition to neuroscience. The exorcism of the human soul. I would love a whole book on just this topic!
16.tThe dangerous fallacy of equating evolutionary psychology with “Social Darwinism”.
17.tDebunking the four fears over the anxiety of human nature.
18.tThe fact that all species harbor genetic variability, but our species is among the less variable ones. Racial differences being among them.
19.tThe disposal of eugenics, discrimination, and Social Darwinism.
20.tMany excellent messages throughout the book, “An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it”.
21.tThe fallacies of Nazism and Marxism. Nazism with races and the Marxists with classes.
22.tHomosexuality in its proper form.
23.tThe importance of respecting women’s fundamental rights to their bodies.
24.tThe compatibility of human nature with social and moral progress. Excellent!
25.tThe debunking of environmental determinism.
26.tHow our minds work.
27.tThe fallacy of the soul!
28.tThe co-evolution of intelligence and language.
29.tThe importance of our genes.
30.tThe ethics of autonomy, community and divinity explained.
31.tTragic Vision and Utopian outlooks.
32.tInteresting take on the goals of the Constitution. How to anticipate and limit that corruption became an obsession of the framers.
33.tInteresting take on economics.
34.tFascinating look at the fallacy of the connection between media violence and violent behavior.
35.tThe logic of violence.
36.tThe understanding of true equality.
37.tGender under a true light.
38.tThe appalling notion that rape has nothing to do with rape. Thank you.
39.t The three laws of behavioral genetics.
40.tMany parenting myths debunked, bravo!
41.tA good grasp of how the mind works is indispensable to the arts.
42.tGreat notes.
43.tExtensive references.

Negatives:
1.tLinks did not work. A real crime for a book like this.
2.tNot an even-handed approach. Mr. Pinker has his opinions and does not hesitate to use them. This could be considered a positive but it’s not because the author does unleash ad hominen attacks to some of his opponents. For example, B.F. Skinner.
3.tThe book could be tedious to read at times.
4.tIt requires an investment of time. The book is too long.
5.tA more comprehensive summary at end of each chapter would have been added value.

In summary, this is an important contribution to knowledge. This book is worthy of five stars just based on the wisdom you will obtain. Many important ideas and thoughts are found throughout this ambitious book. Such as, that new ideas from the sciences of human nature DO NOT undermine human values.

Further suggestions: “Human” by Michael S. Gazzaniga, “SuperSense” by Bruce M. Hood, “The Myth of Free Will” by Cris Evatt, “Hardwired Behavior” by Laurence Tancredi, “Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality” by Patricia S. Churchland, and “The Brain and the Meaning of Life” by Paul Thagard.

Este es sin duda alguna un excelente libro para conocer otro punto de vista acerca de los seres humanos: El de la naturaleza humana. En las ciencias sociales muchas veces (sino es que siempre) se nos habla de que todo lo que somos es aprendido o moldeado por la sociedad, incluso se nos dice esto en psicología. Steven Pinker analiza esta propuesta y la debate, da argumentos de que, en realidad, muchas de las cosas que ocurren a nuestro alrededor pasan porque está en nuestra naturaleza, son parte de nosotros, incluso vienen en nuestros genes. Al mismo tiempo nos dice que esto no debe ser mal interpretado con fines discriminatorios, sino todo lo contrario, el esclarecer estos temas "oscuros" de la especie humana nos ayudará a enfrentar mejor nuestros problemas y encontrar soluciones.

En lo personal recomiendo mucho este libro a todos aquellos que estén interesados en los seres humanos. Aun cuando estén de acuerdo con la teoría de la tabla rasa, siempre es interesante conocer las antitesis de lo que nos convence para, de esta forma, poder crearnos nuestro propio criterio y adoptar posturas más informadas.

This is one of Pinker's more wide-ranging books. He covers topics from politics to parenting to art. For this reason, it felt like a much more important and serious book than his books that focused on linguistics. I did miss, however, some of the linguistic humour and wordplay of his earlier books.

While I think that the latter chapters on specific topics were a bit unnecessary, at the end of the day I think they were worth inclusion.

Most of all, I really appreciate Pinker's intellectual honesty. He is very open to examining all sides of his assertions and avoids dogma.

I tried this book three different ways, and I almost didn't make it through. Probably, I wouldn't have if not for the mild social pressure of my book group to just-keep-swimming through the academic bickering, myriad intricate examples backing up a single point, and curious social prescriptions based on non-science related to the scientific findings that Pinker records in the first half of this tomb whose #1 purpose, as I understood it (and certainly, I could be wrong) was to prove that humans might be born with fundamental natures. What these natures are, are yet to be deduced.

Sure. Okay. I'll bite. So I read a library copy, read a Kindle copy, and then listened to the audio book version. And I learned a whole lotta stuff, which I promptly forgot (very similar to my experience in high school and college, trying to retain info about subjects of mild interest to me). My biggest take away was the permission to wonder about what humans come packaged with out-of-the-womb. Second, to be wary of subscribing too deeply to the Noble Savage concept --more out of respect for the complexity of experience in early inhabitants of places than because it's somehow a bad idea to attribute dignity to them. Third, I still don't 100% understand what Pinker meant by the Ghost in the Machine (if not 'soul'.)

Just as I was coming to the end of the book, it was explained to me that THIS was the study that resulted, in perhaps a round-about way, the expulsion of a Harvard University President just a year or so after I started my job in Cambridge, MA. I can now understand, somewhat, what lead to that (and to the hiring of Harvard's new(ish) and first female President Drew Faust. This book has so many words and runs so deep in content that it's easy to be swept along with the current and find yourself agreeing with the author almost by default --feeling magnanimous and a little light-headed once you've wrestled with the concepts he presents, and digested the material. Halfway through, I found myself spouting some of Pinker's ideas in conversation!

All in all, I AM glad I read it because now I have lots of context for human behavior related to analyzing human behavior (meta!) I do find it hard, sometimes, to spend so much time in such a male space, a heteronormative space, and a white Canadian-American of certain-access-and-particular-reach space. I don't say this to diminish Pinker's work, but rather to point out some of the natural limits I bumped up against. And we all have natural limits, right? That's okay.

Oh! One thing I nearly forgot: Pinker's Righteous Woman Shield!! In the chapter where he asserts his support of a certain strand of feminism he literally composes a LENGTHY list of women whom he holds up, I assume, as proof that he's not a misogynist when he says that maybe the ladies don't much like science or math (see Harvard President debacle above). Elsewhere, related to sexual assault, he never once mentions male victims, so I assume the blinders that led Pinker to feel he needed to present a literal list of female thinkers who'll back him up are the same blinders that permit him and others to ignore a rather enormous similarity between the supposedly opposite sexes --that both suffer these experiences. (I don't think trans-folk even make an appearance in the book.)

Finally, I read part of this book while sitting in juror selection. That was odd and a little disturbing. Next time, juror selection = comics?

"The Blank Slate" е книга, за която е модерно да се правиш, че си я прочел. Двадесет хиляди рейтинга, оценка над 4* и под 900 ревюта, какво става тук? :Д Подозрително! :)

Храбро ще се хвърля под интелектуалните релси с моите 5 цента, 5 стотинки и т.н. От субективна гледна точка не ми хареса книгата, защото висшето ми е в близост до тематиката и в книгата няма нищо ново за мен. Предъвквано до болка в университета, а и аз съм си читанка и вече съм пре-образована за тази книга.

От обявен за "модерен мислител" автор очаквам да е мислител, т.е. да има нови интересни идеи и те да са подкрепени от съответни доказателства. Не очаквах смилане на Хюм, Декарт, Уотсън, Скинър като за американци, и о, не - отново историята на Финиъс Гейдж, който имал нещастието да бъде пронизан в главата от метална пръчка, в резултат на което се превърнал в различна и по-неприятна личност.

Разбирам желанието на Пинкър да събере на едно място всички свои разсъждения по повод на влиянието на ген/среда или както звучи прекрасно на английски - диспутът нейчър версус нърчър. Това, което не ми стана ясно е, с кого спори. В книгата на места Пинкър навлизаше в обилни рантове, плод на класическите отровни отношения между колеги в университета, работещи в една научна област. С какво тези университетски спорове касаят читателите не бих могла да кажа. Не знам кои са тези хора, които твърдят, че генът няма никакво значение. Сигурно същите, които отричат еволюцията и вярват, че Адам обича ребърца. Те няма да прочетат тази книга така или иначе.

Книгата ми се стори разхвърляна. Засегнаха се всевъзможни теми: антропология, лингвистика, престъпност, човешки геном, невропластичност, еднояйчни близнаци, родителстване, възпитание, междуполови и междурасови разлики, сексуално поведение, стереотипи, морал, психопатия, феминизъм, предразсъдъци, алтруизъм и паразитиране, ирационалност, изкуство. Сигурно пропускам доста неща. Доста уморително и претоварено, но ако имате интерес в тези хиляда области - ще ви бъде интересно.

Макар и да съм съгласна с повечето от тезите му, книгата според мен се нуждае от по-прецизен ред и по-добро плавно протичане на мисълта между отделните ѝ части. От мен 2 звезди.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Was he arguing against straw men? Maybe, lots of stuff and people I did not know. But the stuff I did know seemed correct. His argument is that like creationist (though I don't think he actually makes this comparison), modernist and postmodernist have beliefs that they seem to hold on to regardless of what science may say. The three beliefs (Man is a blank slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine) tend to come from the Left. Anyone who says that much of human nature is inherent (personality, gender, intelligence) is wrong by default. Anyone who says that man in nature (without society) is not good is wrong (is man by nature violent, prone to rape, nasty, brutish, and shorte? If you say yes, you have are by default wrong). I don't really remember how he connects the Ghost in the Machine to the left (I was not convinced by that). The ends is super weak. Skip the last chapter. I am going to read it again.

What was this? A bunch of non sequiters trying to prove a point, with repeated "facts" from studies picked just for this. I got really excited in the beginning, but became confused not say dubious about author's intent. He defended some studies and authors and dissected others to pieces. Strange that this book got some awards. One cannot explain complicated theories with simplified ones, it just doesn't work. This book is great to read at night, very sleep inducing!

Reading this book has been a transformative experience for me, and I just happened to read it at the perfect time, a time where I was having trouble verbalising my moral convictions as a scientist.

It was as if Pinker read my mind and listed my ideas, only in a more eloquent, well structured manner.

He argues that the acceptance of innate differences and tendencies between members of our species, a result of genetic make-up, should not be detrimental to our moral reasoning, but rather the opposite. Acknowledging such truths, and using reason and logic to transcend our innate limitations, would allows us to make more informed decisions within many realms of society, including politics, bioethics and education.

Pinker's argument resonates well with that of Rakitin in Dostoevsky's "The Karamazov Brothers", when he says: "Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue, even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity."

And what a wonderful thought that is.

Es un libro interesante. Sigue la línea de  El Gen Egoísta, pero ofrece derivaciones más interesantes.

La gran cuestión es que estamos todos equivocados (un poco presumido pero casi "sic") al creer que los seres humanos llegamos al mundo todos iguales, como tablas rasas en las que se puede escribir cualquier cosa. Recuerdo que mi violín venía con un librito que decía "un niño es un fuego que se enciende y no un recipiente que se llena". Esa creencias que todos tenemos (?) tiene dos implicancias o hipótesis adjuntas: que originalmente somos buenos, y es entonces el proceso de aprendizaje, la socialización la que nos corrompe, y por otro lado que "somos alguien que decide", que hay un alguien (que somos nosotros) que controla lo que hacemos, que hay un "fantasma en la máquina.

De más está decir que para Pinker no es así. Biológicamente venimos bastante configurados, el ser hombre o mujer es una marca imborrable (los cerebros son distintos), el peso de la herencia genética es incluso más importante que cualquier tipo de influencia social, etc. Naturalmente somos proclives a la guerra, el enfrentamiento y el individualismo. Y no hay alma, ni nada que sea "yo". La autoconciencia es un engaño del cerebro, la conciencia de sí es simplemente el sistema que sintetiza los estímulos más salientes. ¡Pero tranquilos! Esto no implica necesariamente que la eugenesia y el nazismo sean un óptimo moral, ni que la educación sea un desperdicio de recursos, ni que seamos autómatas sin capacidad de elección. Hay cierto grado de elección personal, y desde ahí es entonces posible aprender, crecer, construir sociedad, ampliar el círculo de derechos.

A esta altura creo que huelga decir que no estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que dice Pinker. Sin embargo tiene un libro interesante con ideas potentes, varias de las cuales, según entiendo son bastante originales. Está bastante basado en datos, y papers de otros, a veces demasiado o demasiado burdamente. Me tocó una versión digital bastante mala lamentablemente.




-----------------------------


Filosofía Siglo XXI

This book was amazing, One of those books when you come out on the other side of it you can see some changes in your life and in your perception..Steven Pinker you are a badass great book. And thank you Morgan for the recommendation.