|
Post by brandt on Oct 20, 2010 13:41:39 GMT 10
Brother Phillip, is there any way that I can post pdf files (at least in part) or send them to you.
If we are shaped, because we could not shape ourselves being a blank slate (there would be no shaper there), then any person is a replacement for any other. I think, that if you and I continue you this, we may actually have a break through in (at the minimum) an understanding of each other's individualist and collectivist philosophies. I think that you will find, as I suspect, that they are not actually different.
In one of the research projects that I spending time on we are finding that collectivist cultures are quite individualistic and there is other research suggesting a higher degree of xenophobia amongst collectivist cultures. Individualism and collectivism are not diametric opposites. There are two different domains.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 21, 2010 6:41:58 GMT 10
Brother Phillip, is there any way that I can post pdf files (at least in part) or send them to you.
If we are shaped, because we could not shape ourselves being a blank slate (there would be no shaper there), then any person is a replacement for any other. I think, that if you and I continue you this, we may actually have a break through in (at the minimum) an understanding of each other's individualist and collectivist philosophies. I think that you will find, as I suspect, that they are not actually different.
In one of the research projects that I spending time on we are finding that collectivist cultures are quite individualistic and there is other research suggesting a higher degree of xenophobia amongst collectivist cultures. Individualism and collectivism are not diametric opposites. There are two different domains. Bro. Brandt,I replied to your query about posting files, under "Attachments" (linked), to minimize distractions here. Your point about not being able to shape ourselves is, I suggest a false "chicken and the egg" type dichotomy, overcome by the observation that we are born into an evolving culture which at first shapes us, as Sociologists inform us. The process of maturity may hopefully result in some insight, enabling us to consciously participate in the process of individualization. Whether our initial shaping is due to nature or nurture is in part, a moot point, although, I imagine a hard-wired human nature would be harder to resist and transcend. I guess at this point I need some understanding of your terminology. Which of your terms "individualism" and "collectivism" do you associate with "human nature" (genetics) and which with "socialization" (memetics)? What constitutes our human nature? Which of the diverse theories is correct? Do you consider there is a single human nature or two (masculine and feminine) or more? Do different cultures each have their own unique human natures? And, if so, how did that come about? If there is one human nature, how do differences arise between those us bound by that nature? Please note, I do not suppose that socialization is entirely a matter of "anything goes." Several approaches may evolve within their physical and social environments. Some approaches may be be more effective than others at a particular time. Some, once successful approaches might, as conditions change, prove to be impractical. Still, the options are there.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 22, 2010 6:49:17 GMT 10
Despite mixed reviews, I have lodged an inter-library loan request for Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature I obtained the book yesterday. My first impression is not favourable and I can see why Pinker has been criticized for a lack of scientific rigor. Apart from subtle indications, such as a general disposition for language, "Human Nature" appears to be not so much defined by Pinker as an actual, concrete phenomenon but rather as a negative, "god of the gaps." Where a compulsive pursuit or avoidance is widespread, especially among developed nations (rather than being necessarily universal), for Pinker that seems to suffice as proof of Human Nature having been responsible for that custom or usage. Albeit, like a prurient school boy, so far I have only turned to the references about sex (and gender). So, to do Pinker justice, I will need to start at beginning. I guess to test the degree of plasticity in our natures we would need some isolation test, like a Monroe Box (Simpsons' reference). In effect we have something like that with the reports (some presumably fictitious and some well attested) of various children around the world said to have been raised by animals, such as the Wolf Boy of the Ardennes.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 22, 2010 19:32:24 GMT 10
Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man
Francis Xavier One thing this debate needs is a definition of "Human Nature." No doubt there are individual differences some due to differing physiologies, together with the differing abilities and self-fulfilling expectations they entail. Some individuals are physically, emotionally or intellectually more adept in some respects than others, while some may even be congenitally or accidentally handicapped. All, to differing degrees and shades, seeing as it were "through a glass, darkly" (I Corinthians 13:12). How these individual differences are expressed become socially determined: The village idiot in one culture might have been an honoured shaman in another (or even a president or king, if from an over-privileged family). Some long established cultural customs and usages may, with increased contact with other cultures, become liabilities. However, to speak of Human Nature suggests all humans are subject to it. Perhaps we are too close and too involved in that nature to perceive it (like a deep-sea fish that cannot perceive water). Whatever the case, we need to know what people mean when they speak of "Human Nature," otherwise there can be no sensible debate.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 29, 2010 21:08:24 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 29, 2010 21:17:29 GMT 10
The Blank Slate has much in common with John Gray’s pop-psych book Men Are from Mars: Women Are from Venus (see Cameron’s The Myth of Mars and Venus). Pinker was obviously writing to appeal to popular audiences and, more especially to popular prejudices with his “dog whistle” references to so-called “Human Nature” (HN). From the preface, where we might expect some sort of thesis statement, we find instead Pinker at first acknowledges that the mainstream position is that both nature and nurture interact to account for individual differences and he agrees with that position. Pinker then manages to ignore that general consensus and derides a “refusal to acknowledge human nature” and proceeds as if he were rebelling against convention!? On the one hand, one needs to acknowledge that, while there may or may not have been agendas behind some the scientific community’s drift away from biological determinism, there has also been solid science demonstrating a high degree of cultural plasticity of HN. Indeed, that plasticity underlies much of the disciplines of Sociology and Social Psychology. On the other hand, Pinker equates the existence of individual, genetic tendencies for particular intelligences and personality types with broader, community differences, as between racial groups (debunked by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man). At this juncture, let it be clearly understood that genetically all human are very closely related. We come from common ancestors, Out of Africa, only about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago (displacing earlier humans). There simply has not been enough time for much genetic variation to arise and, biologically, such rapid genetic changes would necessitate a type of Lamarckian soft inheritance. The genetic variation between individuals is not writ large on entire communities. As Franz Boas clearly stated, “If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic, and emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be present.” Similarly, I would add that, on those criteria, representatives of our our extended families would be present in each third. Clearly there are differences between communities and clearly these have evolved. This evolution does NOT as Pinker insists mean the differences have a biological basis. As the rate of genetic evolution is much, much too slow to account for the speed of such changes, then we are left wondering, what does? I suggest the answer is cultural ideas or, as Richard Dawkins calls them, memes. Memes can and do rapidly evolve, even within individual lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 29, 2010 21:28:20 GMT 10
In his preface (p.xi), Pinker states:
It is for Pinker’s readers to judge whether or not his arguments are “coolly analytical” or biased. The supposed "positive thrust" of his belief appears to be largely neglected further on, (as is the “psychological unity of our species”). What are the “new sciences of human nature” of which he speaks? Does he include his new “science” of Evolutionary Biology and if so doesn’t this constitute circular reasoning? How do people feel, so we can treat them appropriately? Why should we treat others according to Pinker’s theory of how they feel instead of some other such theory (or, indeed, how people say they feel). Pinker’s “touchstone” of suffering and oppression, by appealing to biological determinism can only serve to entrench those conditions. Why ought we not include Pinker in his category of “self-appointed social reformers”? He fails to recognize that democracy and the rule of law do not always serve minorities well and he fails to acknowledge the perennial debate among philosophers as to just what constitutes and defines HN.
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. To be fair, Pinker includes much of the evidence on both sides of the perennial nature versus nurture debate. Even so, his thrust is clear from his use of approving labels for his favoured position and pejorative labels for opposing opinions. For instance, Pinker contrasts his so-called “realistic” assumptions with perspectives he later repeatedly derides as either “utopian” or "tragic" (regardless of real, long-term, successful application in some instances). Were we to reverse Pinker’s labelling, we would have a more defensible case.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2010 9:50:21 GMT 10
I obtained the book yesterday. My first impression is not favourable and I can see why Pinker has been criticized for a lack of scientific rigor. Apart from subtle indications, such as a general disposition for language, "Human Nature" appears to be not so much defined by Pinker as an actual, concrete phenomenon but rather as a negative, "god of the gaps." Where a compulsive pursuit or avoidance is widespread, especially among developed nations (rather than being necessarily universal), for Pinker that seems to suffice as proof of Human Nature having been responsible for that custom or usage. Albeit, like a prurient school boy, so far I have only turned to the references about sex (and gender). So, to do Pinker justice, I will need to start at beginning. I have begun a review of Pinker's, The Blank Slate, elsewhere on the forum ( linked).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2010 9:52:55 GMT 10
Pinker argues (p.ix): “Until the studies are redone with adopted children (who get only their environment, not their genes, from their parents), the data are compatible with the possibility that genes make all the difference, the possibility that parenting makes all the difference, or anything in between.” Somehow he manages to be ignorant of the plethora of such studies already conducted, when it suits him (making a different point, he discusses some of these studies further on in his book, e.g., pp.374/9)!? In many cases Pinker goes on to cite differences that might more defensibly be said to be due to early shaping rather than to innate disposition: No matter, it is all grist to his mill.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2010 10:08:32 GMT 10
At one point Pinker agues that genetics support the rationality of one not paying to hear him sing but, instead, paying to hear Pavarotti sing. By this I am reminded of Thomas Paine having written against the notion of hereditary rulers, saying: The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet-laureate At another point (p.163), Pinker included a cartoon in which it was claimed “Walruses kill penguins for no apparent reason other than fun!” If so, they must have had a lot of fun in the past, as there are now no penguins in the Northern Hemisphere (and no Walruses in the Southern Hemisphere)!? The book carries on ad nauseam which such flawed and inane reasoning. Frankly, I am appalled that Pinker has any academic standing in the US and yet he is a Professor at MIT!?
|
|