Katie read and liked Daniel's review of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature:

"Louis Menand has written a typically excellent piece on Pinker's arrogance: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/11...
I found this book simultaneously interesting and exasperating, because the author is obviously a highly educated, well-read ma...more Louis Menand has written a typically excellent piece on Pinker's arrogance: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/11...
I found this book simultaneously interesting and exasperating, because the author is obviously a highly educated, well-read man who thinks he knows everything about every subject. There is a whole class of these public intellectuals (the late Carl Sagan, Richard Dawins, et al) who play this game: they use the public authority they have gained by virtue of (at least modest) academic accomplishment in one field to pronounce authoritatively on every damn thing under the sun. (Most of his scholarly journal output is in psychology and language, according to his cv; his PhD is in experimental psychology.) And maybe Pinker has figured it all out, but don't you think he could cut those of us a break who still think we exist? "Cognitive neuroscientists have not only exorcised the ghost but have shown that the brain does not even have a part that does exactly what the ghost is supposed to do: review all the facts and make a decision for the rest of the brain to carry out. Each of us <feels> there is a single I in control. But that is an illusion the brain works hard to produce..." And with that he dismisses the idea that you and I exist at all; there is no "you" there, only a collection of atoms with some remarkable properties (observable by other lumps of atoms). Wow, I am glad that's all settled. More generally, it's good to know there's no need for a field like philosophy. Pinker has a footnote to support his claim that the brain has no "I," but one of his sources (predictably) is Daniel Dennett, the Tufts philosopher and enemy of the mind (and Anything Else Immaterial). Elsewhere Pinker claims Hitler thought he was doing God's will (footnote to some article in an atheist magazine I looked up -- check out Free Inquiry, Volumbe 19, Issue 2, and judge for yourself whether you would *ever* cite this source in a serious academic inquiry) and that the Catholic Church teaches that 'ensoulment' takes place at the moment of conception. Let me take this last nugget for a moment. I'm guessing Pinker has spent little time in Catholic churches or reading Catholic books or magazines, so I can see why he thinks a statement like "the catholic church teaches ______" is an easy one to make. To those of us who have done some of those things, though, it is not so trivial. Sure, in broad strokes, one can formulate simple statements with confidence (e.g., that God exists or Jesus is the Son of God or even abortion is wrong), but his assertion is packed with some things that are far harder to disentangle. Most importantly, he uses the word "ensoulment" -- and this is central to his argument at this point in the book -- implying that the Church firmly teaches this concept that he is upset about. I do not know that the RCC says much (currently, anyway) dogmatically about the philosophical underpinnings of a word like "ensoulment." What I do know is that I am familiar with the phrase Ghost in the Machine (one of Pinker's bogeymen in this book) from Catholic authors who, like the late JPII, were critical of Cartesian dualism. So, I am being long-winded, but I am trying to get across that Pinker has these convenient cartoon notions of what other people say and because he is so frightfully intelligent he assumes he has it all figured out. If he would just say to himself, "It is possible that there is one thing I think I know that I do not," I believe his tone would be far more congenial and the book much improved. But then again, there is no self for him to say it to, so what's the point? (less) "

Katie read and liked Papa Redden's review of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature:

"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 ...more 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.
(less) "