|
Post by Smithee on Oct 30, 2010 15:01:40 GMT 10
Frankly, I am appalled that Pinker has any academic standing in the US and yet he is a Professor at MIT!? Does MIT also have Chairs in Phrenology and Intelligent Design?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2010 21:54:49 GMT 10
What is Human Nature (HN)? Certainly anything instinctual[/url] must be included: However, humans are remarkable for their lack of having any instinct of adult significance, i.e. a “complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden.” Beyond insticts, most would include innate biological predispositions or drives shown to be common to all humanity. This commonality is essential for something to be meaningfully considered “Human Nature.” While some individuals because of some peculiar strength or defect may fall outside this criterion, a trait needs to prevail in every sizeable human population for it to be genetically part of HN. Where human populations exist (or have existed) which do not exhibit a particular trait, then we need to look beyond genetic predispositions for that trait. This is where Pinker fudges the issue. Whereas HN is by definition what humans have in common, he uses it to discuss differences BETWEEN humans. Thus, he postulates different natures, e.g. women's nature and black nature. There is a distinction between stating that it is human nature for women to behave in a certain way, as compared to stating that it is women’s nature to do so. The latter makes plain any lie, as a woman might rightly declare that a trait does not apply in her particular case and, “Ain’t I a Woman?" ( Sojourner Truth). Where a trait is not universal the presumption needs to be that it is cultural. Whether or not a trait confers an advantage, has evolved or adapted is irrevelant, since both genes and memes evolve. Okham’s razor would, I suggest dispose us to suppose that traits are culturally aquired, except those which are clearly universal. The onus of proof is on those who disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2010 22:10:25 GMT 10
Clearly any evolutionary theory, Psychological or otherwise, must fit with what is known of Evolution. Evolution can occur genetically or memetically. Genetic evolution is a drawn-out process over a vast time scale, characterised by long periods of statis. Each population has its own gene pool and for individuals in each generation the genes are uniquely mixed, some combinations are favourable, some not: The wider gene pool in a population remains pretty much the same, with any chance mutations soon being lost in the mix (except for small isolated groups). Memetic evolution fits the phenomenon described by Pinker. However, memes are elements of learned culture, something Pinker was arguing against.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 31, 2010 21:39:11 GMT 10
What can we agree upon? I suggest Pinker would not insist that instinct, as defined above, plays much of a role in HN, so his postulated slate cannot be deeply inscribed. I also suggest he would agree that we have evolved a high degree of plasticity in learning from and responding to our environment (in other words it is, indeed, part of our evolved HN to be highly influenced by social memes). Certainly, the possibility of some innate dispositions, albeit, weaker than instincts, cannot be wholly excluded, but how do we distinguish these from leaned responses? I suggest by rejecting those to which virtually entire cultures have been or are exceptions. I further suggest that not much then remains to constitute HN (a mostly blank slate), which is increasingly seen to be an illogically reified, abstract concept, the subject of perennial, diverse debate and beginning to look like having no more substance than the smile of Alice's Cheshire Cat.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 31, 2010 21:53:24 GMT 10
From the "Sexual Differentiation" thread: If every person is only a product of their culture then we have some hard decisions to make. Indeed, as our most famous evolutionist said: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin
Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 3, 2010 6:37:21 GMT 10
As well as arguing against “The Blank Slate, the modern denial of human nature” (the mind has no innate traits), Pinker claims to also argue against the notion of the Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society) and that of the Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology [and society]). My main concern has been with Pinker’s headline act, the Blank Slate.
Pinker’s other two targets are both less controversial and lead Pinker to contradict his main thesis of our psychology being significantly influenced by innate, genetic traits. For instance, the concept of the Noble Savage only enjoyed its time in vogue BECAUSE it seemed contrary to the prevailing notions of civilization actually being civilizing and of Hobbes’ notion of nature (including Human Nature] being “Red in tooth and claw.” In other words, the concept of the Noble Savage actually involved people behaving in accordance with an innate, benevolent “Human Nature.” In arguing that the mind is an ALMOST blank slate, I too reject the notion of the Noble Savage.
Pinker fudges with his other target, the Ghost in the Machine, by insisting that it involves a soul making choices free from biology. This is more of a theological position which, in Pinker’s case, ignores the role of social conditioning in our choices. If we take both biology AND culture into account (genes AND memes), I too reject the notion of the Ghost in the Machine.
In both cases, my rejection also involves a rejection of Pinker’s hardwired notion of Human Nature.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 6, 2010 19:29:40 GMT 10
I further suggest that not much then remains to constitute HN (a mostly blank slate), which is increasingly seen to be an illogically reified, abstract concept, the subject of perennial, diverse debate and beginning to look like having no more substance than the smile of Alice's Cheshire Cat. In a flash of uncharacteristic clarity (pp.239/240), Pinker makes a curious admission regarding our understanding of the human mind: From our understanding of the human mind comes our understanding of Human Nature and, despite Pinker’s admission of the mind being impenetrably veiled in mystery, he recklessly and simplistically proclaims this unknowable, insubstantial construct to be demonstrably and substantially governed by genes for such abstract qualities as, “Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, psychopathy, and criminal behaviour” (p.260)!? One needs to question what purposes such assertions serve and to what prejudices they appeal, especially where they are accompanied by several appalling pages (pp.201/7) defending the usefulness of stereotypes, including those of, “ ‘The homosexual,’ ‘the Negro,’ and ‘the female’ ” (p.202).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 6, 2010 20:42:39 GMT 10
As well as arguing against “The Blank Slate, the modern denial of human nature” (the mind has no innate traits), Pinker claims to also argue against the notion of the Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society) and that of the Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology [and society]). My main concern has been with Pinker’s headline act, the Blank Slate.
Pinker’s other two targets are both less controversial and lead Pinker to contradict his main thesis of our psychology being significantly influenced by innate, genetic traits. For instance, the concept of the Noble Savage only enjoyed its time in vogue BECAUSE it seemed contrary to the prevailing notions of civilization actually being civilizing and of Hobbes’ notion of nature (including Human Nature] being “Red in tooth and claw.” In other words, the concept of the Noble Savage actually involved people behaving in accordance with an innate, benevolent “Human Nature.” In arguing that the mind is an ALMOST blank slate, I too reject the notion of the Noble Savage.
Pinker fudges with his other target, the Ghost in the Machine, by insisting that it involves a soul making choices free from biology. This is more of a theological position which, in Pinker’s case, ignores the role of social conditioning in our choices. If we take both biology AND culture into account (genes AND memes), I too reject the notion of the Ghost in the Machine.
In both cases, my rejection also involves a rejection of Pinker’s hardwired notion of Human Nature. To be fair, Pinker includes much of the evidence on both sides of the perennial nature versus nurture debate. Pinker presents the evidence contrary to his primary argument against a mostly Blank Slate in his more convincing arguments against his secondary targets, those of the Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine. This is a rather novel form of rhetorical misdirection, appearing to be balanced and inclusive but managing to skew what is the preponderance of evidence against his primary target.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 17, 2010 5:54:16 GMT 10
Not so odd is the "Related Searches" results at the bottom of this linked image from a screen capture:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 20, 2010 17:22:25 GMT 10
...like wading through treacle. In another of Pinker's treacly paragraphs (p.164), we read: I'm guessing women tend to drop out of Pinker's EP classes.
|
|