Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Steven Pinker (Goodreads Author)

4.08 · Rating details · 19,716 ratings · 816 reviews

“In a work of outstanding clarity and sheer brilliance Steven Pinker banishes forever fears that a biological understanding of human nature threatens humane values.”
—Helena Cronin, author of The Ant and The Peacock

“A mind blowing, mind openingexpos. Pinker's profoundly positive arguments for the compatibility of biology and humanism are unrivalled for their scope and depth “In a work of outstanding clarity and sheer brilliance Steven Pinker banishes forever fears that a biological understanding of human nature threatens humane values.”
—Helena Cronin, author of The Ant and The Peacock

“A mind blowing, mind openingexpos. Pinker's profoundly positive arguments for the compatibility of biology and humanism are unrivalled for their scope and depth and should be mandatory, if disquieting, reading.”
—Patricia Goldman-Rakic, past president of the Society for Neuroscience

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. He shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature by embracing three linked dogmas: the Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits), the Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society), and the Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so their defenders have engaged in desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who are now challenging them.

Pinker injects calm and rationality into these debates by showing that equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from discoveries about a rich human nature. He disarms even the most menacing threats with clear thinking, common sense, and pertinent facts from science and history.

Despite its popularity among intellectuals during much of the twentieth century, he argues, the doctrine of the Blank Slate may have done more harm than good. It denies our common humanity and our individual preferences, replaces hardheaded analyses of social problems with feel-good slogans, and distorts our understanding of government, violence, parenting, and the arts.

Pinker shows that an acknowledgement of human nature that is grounded in science and common sense, far from being dangerous, can complement insights about the human condition made by millennia of artists and philosophers. All this is done in the style that earned his previous books many prizes and worldwide acclaim: wit, lucidity, and insight into matters great and small. ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 528 pages

Published August 26th 2003 by Penguin Books (first published 2002)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Blank Slate, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Best Science Books - Non-Fiction Only

1,487 books — 3,245 voters

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales by Oliver Sacks

Best Cognitive Science Books

310 books — 423 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.08 ·

Rating details

· 19,716 ratings · 816 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Jun 03, 2008 Jenn Pellerin rated it it was amazing

Recommended to Jenn by: Jamie

Shelves: science-and-brains

I'm an atheist. I've always been and always will be (god willing). When I was a kid, I used to envy the religious folks who seemed to be having such deep meaningful fun all the time. It's not that I hate religion, or the idea of god, it's just that I can't really get my mind around it after a childhood devoid of spirituality. Newsflash: if you don't take a lot for granted, religious theory makes NO SENSE. The only place I've ever found deeper meaning is in biology and physics and neurology. ...more

flag 186 likes · Like · see review

Apr 13, 2010 Nebuchadnezzar rated it it was ok

Shelves: politics-and-political-philosophy, psychology-and-neuroscience, evolutionary-psychology

I contend that there are two Steven Pinkers. Pinker 1 is an eloquent, witty, and insightful writer on the issues of cognitive psychology and linguistics who has the rare talent of making his subjects accessible and appealing to academic and lay audiences. Pinker 2 retains the writing ability, but instead uses it for pushing his pet theories, usually political in nature (cf. his most recent Better Angels of Our Nature). This book comes straight from the pen of Pinker 2.

There are really two main ...more

flag 154 likes · Like · see review

Feb 03, 2009 Manny rated it really liked it

Shelves: science

Steven Pinker takes on the old nature/nurture question, and does an excellent job of it. Are we the products of our genes or our upbringing? Pinker tells you in the first few pages what the new consensus is: both, but genes are probably more important.

He has some wonderful stories to back up the general points. Here's one that particularly appealed to me. During the 60s and 70s, you often heard that boys and girls are indoctrinated from an early age so as to conform to conventional gender roles. Steven Pinker takes on the old nature/nurture question, and does an excellent job of it. Are we the products of our genes or our upbringing? Pinker tells you in the first few pages what the new consensus is: both, but genes are probably more important.

He has some wonderful stories to back up the general points. Here's one that particularly appealed to me. During the 60s and 70s, you often heard that boys and girls are indoctrinated from an early age so as to conform to conventional gender roles. Without that conditioning, girls would e.g. be as likely to want to play with toy guns, or boys with dolls. It was just a theory, but it was one that many people believed.

So, says Pinker, how could we investigate the question scientifically? It's difficult. What you'd like to do, if you had the chance, would be to take a few dozen boys, castrate them at birth, surgically transform them into girls, and then raise them like other girls without ever telling them what you'd done. At various points in their development, you could compare them with a control group of biologically normal girls, and see if there were any significant differences.

Needless to say, no one would ever permit such an appallingly wicked experiment. Except that it's actually happened. Every year, it turns out that a small number of male infants do have to be castrated and turned into girls, most often as a result of botched circumcision operations. Historically, they've usually not been told what happened, since this was deemed to be in their best interests.

Studies on these unfortunate children show that they nearly always feel deeply conflicted, and quite different from other girls. They have all sorts of impulses which they feel are bizarre and wrong, and which can sometimes lead them to suicidal despair. In some cases, they have later been informed that they are actually male, and their reaction has typically been one of relief. They weren't weird after all. They were just male without knowing it.

Well, if you thought that story was interesting, he's got dozens more that are nearly as good. I loved this book.

...more

flag 77 likes · Like · see review

Sep 27, 2008 Lena rated it really liked it

Shelves: skepticism, how-the-brain-works, non-fiction

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 ...more

flag 41 likes · Like · see review

Jan 19, 2018 Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing

Shelves: international-relations-classics, books-of-2018, top-books

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
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.
...more

flag 35 likes · Like · see review

Sep 25, 2016 Tristan rated it really liked it · review of another edition

"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 "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. ...more

flag 27 likes · Like · see review

Jul 14, 2008 Daniel rated it it was ok

Shelves: general-nonfiction

Louis Menand has written a typically excellent piece on Pinker's arrogance: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002...
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 Louis Menand has written a typically excellent piece on Pinker's arrogance: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002...
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 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? ...more

flag 26 likes · Like · see review

Dec 17, 2009 David rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, nonfiction, politics, philosophy, biology

What an impressive book! I have been reading a number of Steven Pinker's books, and they are all excellent. I was particularly interested in how politics and social activists have worked to slow down the progress of science. The concept of a "blank slate", though socially attractive, has held back science and our understanding of human nature.

The chapter on children was especially interesting. Pinker rightly gives much credit to Judith Harris' excellent book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Apr 18, 2013 L.E. Duncan rated it it was ok

So here's a case where you have a book about how much of our personalities and, well, nature is innate, rather than nurtured into us by our parents or our environment. If The Blank Slate were two hundred pages and focused just on brain science, it'd be one thing. The trouble is that it ends up reading as if Pinker gathered every single study that seemed to support his position and threw it into a blender, and then threw in a number of screeds against groups he has a bone to pick with. The result So here's a case where you have a book about how much of our personalities and, well, nature is innate, rather than nurtured into us by our parents or our environment. If The Blank Slate were two hundred pages and focused just on brain science, it'd be one thing. The trouble is that it ends up reading as if Pinker gathered every single study that seemed to support his position and threw it into a blender, and then threw in a number of screeds against groups he has a bone to pick with. The result is a somewhat uneven and contradictory book where one chapter asserts that women don't go into math because they are innately unlikely to like it, and another chapter asserts that no one is innately good at complex math, which is why we have school to pound it into kids' little heads. Pinker's insistence on environment and parenting having minimal influence is sometimes undercut by the studies he presents and his own conclusions. Pinker is quick to say that differences between men and women are innate, whether it's emotional, a difference in a bell curve intelligence spread, or in general interests, but he'll attribute differences between races and ethnic groups to environment or oppression, forces he largely dismisses otherwise. Or we can note that Pinker asserts first that women are better caretakers then men, then secondly asserts that parenting is fairly irrelevant (as long as there's a man to look up to, no comments on where women fall on this influence spectrum), and then thirdly asserts that how well kids get along with parents is predictive of their overall success, which would suggest . . . parenting isn't irrelevant? He also tends to reduce complex issues, such as art or culture or rule of law to biological imperatives, which is a bit odd when he also asserts human individuality and specialness (as long as they also fall within the Norman the Normy Norms that define actual human nature, I suppose). He'll say art has no influence on anyone, really, so everyone hates modernism and post-modernism because it deconstructs art, which no one needs, because everyone knows art isn't real. And by the by, prejudices/stereotypes are often innate and have some good sense and 100% reliable statistics behind them, and these prejudices can't be strongly messed with by media or culture, although of course we should treat everyone with respect, even if they're low IQ and will never amount to anything or. Except that human nature is so violent (at least, if you're a man) and suspicious that of course we will never treat everyone with respect and don't you dare Big Brother us into doing so.

... I got carried away. But the book is absolutely exhausting, wheeling from one conclusion to the next in a mixture of hopeless pessimism, wide-eyed futurism, white-knuckled warnings about not screwing up the status quo, and sudden naivete. I also find many of the absolutely-certain-claims somewhat suspect, as if statistics/brain scans from this or that study and some anecdotes and did you know tribal people actually kill each other?? are absolute proof of what a human is. You can't point out that many media reports of "this causes cancer" or "this proves this parenting tactic successful!" often exaggerate or segment the truth without making it impossible not to notice that nothing, even studies or statistics, exists in cold, objective isolation. I'm not being post-modern here. I'm saying that the very fact I know more about Pinker from this book than I do about human nature is par for the course. Does any of this matter? Does it matter to a childless female engineer that she's some kind of biological anomaly (and is she?). Is anything helped by positing that men are naturally violent and competitive, and ignoring the uncountable exceptions, or ignoring that women also compete against other women, for mates and otherwise? Is IQ, like, this magic statistic that determines human worth in society? Are you sure you aren't a supporter of eugenics? Etc, etc, etc. We can all agree that people are not meant to be programmed, that we should not force people who want to be poets to become mathematicians to fill a quota, and we should treat people well even when they're not like us. All right? All right. ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Nov 14, 2017 Owlseyes inside Notre Dame, it's so strange a 15-hour blaze and...30-minutes wait to call the firemen...and rated it really liked it

Shelves: psychology, psychology-professor-at-m-i-t, behavioral-genetics, evolutionary-psychology, case-against-empiricism, tabula-rasa, pinker-likes-cartoons, b-f-skinner-was-a-blank-slater, human-nature, complex-human-nature

(Steven Pinker in Oporto, on the 11th of November 2017. My photo.)

"Nature, Mr Allnut , is what we are put in this world to rise above" Katherine Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen

"Hillary Clinton may have advanced the dumbest explanation in the history of psychobabble, but she does not deserve the charge of trying to excuse the president's [husband] behavior"

Pinker makes the case against a man who gets his formation/make up only from the outer forces of parenting, education, etc. ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Jul 13, 2017 Sundus rated it really liked it

Wow What an interesting and exquisitely written book!!!

This is my first read by this author “Steven Pinker”. He is a psychologist and author of several books and articles on cognition and linguistics. In The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature he refuted the widely held belief that the human mind at birth is a tabula rasa /blank slate to which the environment (nurture) gives form and substance.

He further explained that neither genetics nor environmental conditions are solely ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Jun 26, 2008 Ezra rated it it was ok

so. steven pinker got a lot of press out of this thing. it is essentially a sustained and detailed case for the predominance of genetic factors in determing human behavior. mr pinker is (if i recall) mainly a developmental neuroscientist (if that's a legitimate description...?). he provides a tremendous and very enjoyable welath of case studies and background for the various psychological, philosophical, sociological and biological problems which he subjects to the peculiar dialectical lens of so. steven pinker got a lot of press out of this thing. it is essentially a sustained and detailed case for the predominance of genetic factors in determing human behavior. mr pinker is (if i recall) mainly a developmental neuroscientist (if that's a legitimate description...?). he provides a tremendous and very enjoyable welath of case studies and background for the various psychological, philosophical, sociological and biological problems which he subjects to the peculiar dialectical lens of nature/nurture. if you're like me, this seems sort of arbitrary and anachronistic; thomas hobbes is long dead (ideologically and otherwise), skinnerism is not so popular, etc... my problem with pinker and the rest of the current mature crop of pop-science meega-pundits (thinking kurzweil, dawkins, wolfram...), is that they have all this incredible data, and a good number of intelligent conclusions, but some impulse (hubris? frustration? hunger for fame?) drives them to waaay overstep the bounds of what is interesting or relevant about their research, seeing jingoistc intellectual bogeymen in every pop culture shadow, and turning their work into extended rants about their pet theoretical controversy that no sane person wuld care about. it's good entertainment, i suppose, if entertainment requires epic struggles of will, and this must be motivating the editors... anyays, in pinker's case i was pretty perturbed by his opening statements (declaration of war against all "blank slate" dogmas... i kinda drew a blank myself on that one), and then i procceeded to be thoroughy engrossed for many chapters, in which pinker used his considerable erudition (which seems both fairly deep and fairly broad) to lay out a really intense survey of all kids of topics that might have to do with the "nature/nurture" controversy: lots of great data on twin studies, baby studies, language studies, archeological studies... it's about 70% quotations for a while, and it's great.
then, at some point, for some reason, mr pinker decides to take it upon himself to attack feminism, postmodern philosophy, and experimental art, in the name of genetic determinism. it's an incredibile reversal: this accomplished scientist, high on his case studies, suddenly ripping into minor intellectual figures in disciplines he clearly knows jack shit about. it is presumptuous, elitist, ridiculous. perhaps it is the hidden form of his particular nerd-autism, blinding him to the incredbile, stereotypical flatulence of the harvard neuroscientist confidently and patiently xplaining that humans are not genetically constructed to appreciate non-figural art, that women are unhappy because feminism is forcing them to be away from home too much... THAT kind of crap. naturally, i wanted to rip his smug white face off...

so, in conclusion: if i had my own copy of this book, i might rip out the introduction and the last couple chapters and feel okay about it. maybe just keep the bibliography, though.... ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2013 Gendou rated it it was amazing

Shelves: philosophy, non-fiction, biology

Pinker argues cleanly and decisively against the theory of the Blank Slate (and its corollary, the Noble Savage). You might say he wipes the Blank Slate clean. Or that he breaks it over his knee.

He examines how motivations for wanting to believe in a Blank Slate come from four fears of human nature:

1. The Fear of Inequality: if people are innately different, oppression and discrimination (like sexism and racism) would be justified. But people are, in fact, different. Ignoring this fact doesn't ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2007 Chuck McCabe rated it it was amazing

Pinker examines the concept of the mind as a blank slate capable of taking any impressions that arose in England and France in the mid-18th century and became the basis for liberal democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. The "blank slate" underlies the nurture pole of the nature/ nurture debate and looms huge in political and social policies. Drawing on an immense body of research in psychology and other social sciences, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Pinker makes the case for the ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jul 21, 2008 David Redden rated it liked it

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 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.
...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Aug 13, 2011 Brett Hilton rated it it was ok

Steven Pinker is an excellent writer, but I have major problems with this book. For starters, his main argument - that the blank slate hypothesis is untenable - is something of a straw man argument. How many people today actually believe that genes don't shape our brains, and thus our minds? I'm friends with many anthropology students who have read about the blank slate hypothesis, and their criticism of sociobiology is often directed at writers in the 19th century (and EO Wilson, who himself is ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2018 Elena Holmgren rated it really liked it

This book is not without its flaws. As others have pointed out, the picture here might just be a tad bit too simple. However, Pinker accomplishes one important feat in this book, and that is to point out that our theories of justice and morality are not hostage to the empirically falsifiable claim that there are no innate differences between individuals. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no This book is not without its flaws. As others have pointed out, the picture here might just be a tad bit too simple. However, Pinker accomplishes one important feat in this book, and that is to point out that our theories of justice and morality are not hostage to the empirically falsifiable claim that there are no innate differences between individuals. Our moral commitment to respecting the human dignity, equality, freedom, and human rights of any and all regardless of gender or race is in no way advanced by stifling scientific research that might reveal essential differences between individuals. In fact, Pinker argues that it is quite the contrary. He nicely shows how extreme postmodernist, social constructivist views share a disturbing commonality with totalitarian thinking, in that they both do violence to the natural tendencies and inclinations of individuals by making armchair prescriptions that ignore these. Instead, he argues that to respect individuals implies first and foremost to recognize and nurture their innate tendencies, whether through education, parenting, or through empirically-informed ethical practices and social policies.

In contrast, what postmodern views tend to share is this social constructionist view that there are no essential properties that define who people are. Instead, people either:

1) "make" up their identities, ex-nihilo, (whatever that means, and however that is supposed to work out in practice for embodied human agents who are constrained in the range of possible identities that they can adopt by virtue of their very embodiment), or

2) are passive receptacles of social "codes" that determine who they are, as well as being pawns of larger institutional forces that lack any agency and standing as responsible, autonomous individuals.

Ultimately, both views hinge on the notion that there are no innate, natural constraints that might define what it is to be a functional human agent. This can be seen, for instance, in the second- and third-wave feminist dogma that biology is irrelevant to psychology, and that gender is entirely a social construct. Pinker rightly reminds us that this is an empirically falsifiable claim, and that we had better not build our ethical theories about gender equity on a claim that, he says, has been shown to be false by evolutionary neuropsychology.

Moreover, he argues that this rejection of human nature is actually counterproductive when it comes to advancing the goals of social justice. This is because, by ignoring empirical evidence regarding the conditions that are conducive to human flourishing, it cannot possibly engage in practices that are likely to lead to such flourishing. So if we care about promoting the flourishing of, say, women, then what better guide to understanding what such flourishing might be could we have than a psychology that is as free from ideological policing as possible?

To deem certain thoughts unthinkable because they are anathema according to our latest ideology (e.g., second- and third-wave feminism's cardinal sin of gender essentialism) is to pit truth against right, which makes us less likely to get the latter, since the former is the only reliable guide we could possibly have to understanding what the latter could be. Thus, he argues that we needn't fear that the scientific approach to understanding human nature will legitimize bigoted, unethical views. He seems to have a pretty firm conviction that the principles of ethics are universal and grounded independently of any kind of empirical considerations. This isn't to say that we can meaningfully apply these universal principles without empirical knowledge. If these principles are to apply to human beings, we had better have empirical data about what human beings are really like.

Because individuals aren't just abstract, characterless units, but rather have innate characteristics that define them as the individuals that they are, equality cannot be sameness or interchangeability. Thus, for instance, second- and third-wave feminism needn't police biology and psychology in the fear that such sciences might uncover data showing that women on average exhibit cognitive differences from men. Should evidence of such innate differences appear, it would in no way undermine women's claim to equal human rights, since difference doesn't imply inferiority. Just because human individuals exhibit a vast degree of variation in aptitude and natural ability doesn't imply that some are to be accorded rights that others lack. Each one of us has capacities that others lack, while lacking capacities that others possess. Nevertheless, we already accord equal recognition to others despite these everyday, obvious differences. In addition, such ideological policing of science, and such a need to cover up in advance what the science might show, reveals too much about our own fears. We implicitly confess the weak foundations of our ethical principles every time we put restrictions on science ahead of time.

Moreover, because humans are adapted to living interdependent lives as members of purposive groups, freedom cannot imply that individuals are to be seen as free-floating atoms, while groups are mere aggregates of such atoms. Rather, a great deal of our flourishing and thus of meaningful freedom depends on properly adjusting ourselves to others. Hence, freedom must be tempered with equality if human flourishing can be attained. Finding the right way of mutually constraining freedom and equality is the goal of political thinking, and Pinker argues that it cannot be achieved if we ignore the innate traits of individuals. ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Jan 22, 2018 Farha Crystal rated it really liked it

Shelves: steven-pinker

'Man will become better when you show him what he is like.' - Anthon Chekov

Won't he??? ...

Maybe, the arguments in this book can't be put any more eloquently than the quote of Anton Chekov.
...

The book was both fun and terrible to encounter how supposed "liberals" experience the cognitive dissonance by having their assumptions and dogmas challenged.

The author goes over controversies , a number of hot buttons, hot zones, Chernobyls, third rails, and so on -- including the arts ( I disagree with him ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Jun 24, 2011 Book rated it it was amazing

Shelves: evolution

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. ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Apr 18, 2015 Thomas Jackson rated it it was amazing

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.

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

May 02, 2016 Fadi rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: evolution-psychology-sociobiology

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 ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Dec 18, 2010 Steven Peterson rated it it was amazing

Pinker takes on a perspective regarding human nature that tended to dominate the social sciences in the 20th century (with many adherents of the position still active now), namely that humans are "blank slates" and their life course is highly malleable. He says (Pages 2-3): "That theory of human nature--namely that it barely exists--is the topic of this book. . .Challenges to the doctrine from skeptics and scientists have pushed some believers into a crisis of faith and have led others to mount ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

May 27, 2014 Kunal Sen rated it really liked it

Not that I was convinced by all the arguments presented in this book, but it is an incredible joy to discover a single book that echoes so many thoughts that have been percolating in my mind, and to hear the same things I have been trying to say, argued and articulated so well.

With age I have come to dislike the idea of an ideology, any ideology. Anything that compels us to think that something is correct or good because it ought to be correct. Reality does not care how any of us feel about it. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2008 Camille rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: people who like challenging thoughts

Every so often in life you read a book that significantly influences the way you think. The Blank Slate, for me, is one of those rare books. My understanding of human nature, gender, politics, violence, learning, and, most significantly, my view on child-raising will all be affected by this book from here on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that The Blank Slate will be as significant and influence on the second third of my life as Atlas Shrugged was on the first third. I find it somewhat ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jun 13, 2017 Nick Davies rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: 2017, favourites

Though this took me a fortnight to read, this is in no way a reflection of the book being hard going - this is a dense and well-researched exploration of a number of interlinked aspects of sociology, biology, genetics and politics.. and it was absorbing and rich and full of interesting points.

Difficult to review, however, because it feels like a buffet of information that I have been snacking on for a couple of weeks. I've turned over the corner of ten or twelve pages of particular interest ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 21, 2014 Paul rated it it was ok

I can't finish this. The first third or so of the book is interesting and important, mostly because of the discussion about cognitive neuroscience. I think it's extremely important that any educated person in the modern or future world get a solid basic understanding of what we know (and don't know) about how the human brain works. Obviously that will govern our whole understanding of psychology, sociology, and human life in general. Anyone who wants his or her worldview to actually reflect I can't finish this. The first third or so of the book is interesting and important, mostly because of the discussion about cognitive neuroscience. I think it's extremely important that any educated person in the modern or future world get a solid basic understanding of what we know (and don't know) about how the human brain works. Obviously that will govern our whole understanding of psychology, sociology, and human life in general. Anyone who wants his or her worldview to actually reflect reality has to take that into account.

It's quite important to note, as the author does, that a great deal of contemporary thought by people who are more or less avowedly atheistic and materialistic nevertheless attributes or implies quite unphysical abilities for the human mind.

That said, the book sidesteps the actual issue of the soul and consciousness. A couple of times the issue seems to appear as a murky blob beneath the surface, but it's dismissed with typical reductionist verbiage like "consciousness is actually an illusion that several brain circuits work very hard to maintain." Descartes was tragically wrong about a number of things, but the point stands and will forever stand that if my consciousness is an "illusion," there is still a me to be deluded.

In reality, the scornful statement "ghost in the machine" is useful to a certain point. Obviously, all our thoughts and emotions and other qualia or mental phenomena or whatever you want to call them have physical manifestations in the brain. There is not a "big" ghost that handles most cognitive functions in supernatural space and then hands the greatly digested results to the menial physical system for, say, motor control. Without the appropriate parts of the brain, we can't think or feel in the ways proper to those parts. However, that only constitutes a "proof" of the nonexistence of the soul if you're a reductionist in a hurry to sweep the remaining details under the rug and move on. There is still all the room in the universe for a soul, not only as an epiphenomenon that maps physical brain states onto our conscious qualia, but as an entity that can exert influence back on the body at certain neural (or other) breakpoints, at least at a fine enough scale that we can't measure them, and likely enough at an even finer scale where quantum physics assures us that we can never measure them. This "small ghost" is by no means disproven, and whether or not it's a more satisfying explanation of human existence is, at least at this point, more a matter of taste than anything else.

The discussion of evolutionary psychology is somewhat interesting for its actual content, some of which could be quite valid. It's more illuminating in the sense that it allows me to see the modern biologist's worship of evolution as deity in action. Rather half-cocked, unlikely-sounding theories can be passed off as clearly established fact if they invoke the Divine Name of Evolution. Psychology as a whole is probably in a state roughly corresponding to geology in the mid 20th century, where workable paradigms are out there and starting to win the fight against the unworkable paradigms. Evolutionary psychology sounds more like the half-baked world of 19th century geology, with solid pieces of observation and reasoning cemented together with a mixture of vagueness and absurd cocksurety.

The book then ambles off into a series of ruminations by our fairly insufferable author, who is about 1/20 the social and political critic he thinks he is, where he makes either astoundingly obvious or blatantly inept statements and claims about human life in general and where he sees ramifications of the biology of the brain in these situations. I spent most of last month avoiding the audiobook and I'm finally giving it up as bad business.

I would recommend finding another book to introduce oneself to cognitive neuroscience. I will be looking for one and welcome suggestions. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 14, 2013 Andy rated it it was ok

Pinker claims there is much opposition to the idea that biology (as opposed to parenting, etc.) is an important determinant of human behavior. This seems fishy to me because it is the exact opposite of my reality. Also, his narrow focus on a particular type of research might confuse people regarding the implications of the science.

In medical practice, there is extreme tunnel vision on biological causes of disease to the exclusion of other explanations. The reflex standard position in our Pinker claims there is much opposition to the idea that biology (as opposed to parenting, etc.) is an important determinant of human behavior. This seems fishy to me because it is the exact opposite of my reality. Also, his narrow focus on a particular type of research might confuse people regarding the implications of the science.

In medical practice, there is extreme tunnel vision on biological causes of disease to the exclusion of other explanations. The reflex standard position in our society now is that behavior problems in kids are "ADHD" or some other medical diagnosis to be treated with a drug. Does a huge percentage of kids really suffer from congenital Ritalin deficiency? When you do blinded trials of Ritalin, most kids referred for treatment do just as well on placebo. Meanwhile, there are real interventions involving school environment or cognitive behavior that could help but are generally not even considered. So it seems like our culture not only accepts biological explanations of behavior, but does so to excess.

The "3 laws" that he preaches are based on studies that only look at stable, middle-class families. They find that parenting/environment doesn't really matter. OK, fine, as long as you exclude bad parenting in a bad neighborhood. He does specifically mention this caveat, so he is not lying, but he is minimizing what seems to me like a much more important point for social policy. Readers who don't pay careful attention will walk away with the message that "parenting doesn't matter." If this helps them relax about college prep coaching for their toddlers, then that's nice, but we shouldn't forget about unlucky children who are beaten and malnourished and definitely do more poorly on average than kids who benefit from a nurturing environment.

I'll take his word for it that there is a Blank Slate/Noble Savage dogma in various pockets of academics, but still I feel like Pinker is mainly arguing against a straw man. To a certain point this is OK, because it's a useful device for livening up what would otherwise be a boring restatement of the obvious. He is a good writer and covers lots of interesting topics in a witty, eloquent fashion. This book is a starting point for discussions, but nothing more.

After looking at other reviews here I see that Pinker has indeed gotten facts wrong, including misquotes of his opponents regarding major points. I can't give more than 2 stars then despite the quality of the writing. I should have looked at Goodreads before reading this one! ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2016 Kalle Nordenstorm rated it liked it

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 ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 04, 2008 Larry rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: everyone who thinks we were created special.

Recommended to Larry by: New York Review of Books

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 ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 27, 2017 Mehrsa rated it it was ok

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 ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
can someone show some way how parents might be able to control their children behaviour?	3	40	Dec 26, 2013 10:00AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Videos About This Book

Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate

1 comment

Genres

Psychology

940 users

Science

851 users

Nonfiction

747 users

Philosophy

434 users

Sociology

92 users

Science > Biology

75 users

See top shelves…

About Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker

5,709 followers

Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New ...more