|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 20, 2010 17:40:32 GMT 10
This excerpt was especially obscene: Rape, is rape, is rape. By tautological definition, it is something no one wants. If it's forced, unwanted sex, it is rape. Men also "abhor being raped," to which many prisoners can testify. One might also note that attempts "to socialize women to accept it" have had some success, as was common with slaves, and as the law formerly compelled wives to submit, with spousal rape not being recognized as a crime.
As for the possibility of rape being a feature of human [male] nature, elsewhere Pinker notes (p.367) that most men regard depictions of rape and degradation to be sexual turnoffs. But then, Pinker likes to hedge his bets (or prevaricate, as we might say).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 27, 2010 7:43:40 GMT 10
Just as Intelligent Design (ID) was the last intellectual redoubt of Creationism, so too is Evolutionary Psychology (EP) the last redoubt of Sociobiology (a pseudoscience when applied to human societies).
Pinker has his work cut out for him in advocating EP and maintaining his academic credibility — Thus, he writes for a public readership and provides what is arguably a balanced account of the evidence, for and against EP, while his preference can only be inferred by his approving or pejorative terminology.
That said, one wonders how Pinker can still seriously advocate the case for EP after admitting that, “Consciousness and free will seem to suffuse the neurobiological phenomena at every level, and cannot be pinpointed to any combination or interaction among parts” (p.240).
Here Pinker goes much further than even I would assert (I favor an ALMOST Blank Slate, universally formatted rather than differentially programmed between groups) and against some of the positive evidence he himself provides. Pinker wrote (ibid., emphasis added): [/blockquote][/quote] One would think by this statement that Pinker had conceded EP to be groundless.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 3, 2012 20:36:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 28, 2012 11:54:34 GMT 10
Aristotle compared the mind of man to a blank tablet on which nothing was written, but on which all things could be engraved. There is, however, this difference, that on the tablet the writing is limited by space, while in the case of the mind, you may continually go on writing and engraving without finding any boundary, because, as has already been shown, the mind is without limit John ComeniusMoravian educational reformer (Born this day 1592)
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 16, 2012 12:07:56 GMT 10
This response to just one of Pinker's paragraphs illustrates why his book is such hard reading. Not because his arguments are so erudite that one struggles to attain to that level of reasoning, but because it is like wading through treacle. There is no coherent argument put forth and few clear conclusions reached. The book consists of vacuous anecdotes, doubtful premises, non sequiturs and category errors. I am beginning to think this type of fuddled approach may be typical and even tactical among Evolutionary Psychologists.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 27, 2012 20:16:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 13, 2013 20:10:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Oct 24, 2013 21:26:03 GMT 10
|
|