| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
17 May 2004 07:58:40 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
"Pale in Wales" <clouds@rain.wales> wrote in message
news:10ai3u51mu1fd2@news.supernews.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/
Cousin JJ can't help it.
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and, thus,
innate.
"During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate has set the agenda for
much of the social sciences and humanities," Pinker writes. "... Psychology has
sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple mechanisms
of learning."
With 2002's "The Blank Slate," Pinker used pop culture and psychology references
to show that people's conceptions of human nature affect everything from
child-rearing to politics to morality to the arts.
Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a
chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's mind
is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited universal
structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit with
plenty of room for cultural and individual variation.
Pinker shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature and
instead have embraced three dogmas:
1. The Blank Slate
(the mind has no innate traits),
2. The Noble Savage
(people are born good and corrupted by society),
3. 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.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/qid=1084841665/
-------------------------------
From the jacket:
Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from the way we
raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as science is
bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people are
hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate patterns of
thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social change,
to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and purpose.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct
and How the Mind Works, 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 the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who
are now challenging them.
Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing that
equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from
discoveries about 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.
http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html
----------------------------
A blistering attack, a blitzkrieg on
the [older] sociologist! Once I get
this puppy scanned, you will not survive!
No-one shall survive who reads that
blistering book! Try it you'll see.
--Reanimater
.
|
|
| User: "alan jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
21 May 2004 04:49:27 PM |
|
|
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and, thus,
innate.
So what exactly is meant by this all encompassing term, 'behaviors are the product
of genes'. Its so broad it could mean anything. Biology over experience?
So let us test this new frontier with the idea know.
Let's see, are there individual differences in the way we process nutrients?
Genetic bias operating at an individual level, where by certain neurotransmitters
are 'better' synthesized from what we eat. You could argue that such elemental
biology might affect the character of an individual. In which case a person's
'happy disposition' might reflect a particular bias when processing endorphins,
etc. I'm after the practical points of this idea.
Behavior isn't just a product of biology, if it were there would be little
point trying to influence it as we do. We learn habits which then go on to affect
our biological function. The foods we acquire an habit for, might have a telling
effect on mood. The memories we are drawn to, might affect our emotional state,
or our emotional reaction to particular situations. This is moving away from
genes and on into culture.
The question is how much do we control, how much has control of us? How
influential is this innate sense? Would this innate sense come to the fore,
when we have nothing but this 'will' for guidance? As i've said else
where this has to potential to open a whole other can of worms. Here we
talk of the individual, citing the varity of behaviors beyond any particular
grouping.
Is this 'innate' sense absolute or relative to the innate sense of all those
other individuals? By innate behavior, i take this to mean some 'hardwired'
sense or functionality of the brain, drawing us to seek particular cognitive
rewards. As an example, we have innate reactions to particular colors, something
beyond culture with ties to evolution. Imagine the same only on a more subtle
level, with the many parallel functions of the brain. Is there a case for
saying these accident of genetic fine tuning, actually happen on an individual
basis? (Note this would have to account for the apparent differences that exist
even within families.)
[Alternatively one might argue that the 'earliest' memories [hours/weeks old]
on this blank slate affect the longer term development of character and behavior.]
For example a child denied the stimulation of faces might bedenighed an aide to
memory, Denigned this early stimulation the character of the brain might turn
inward, forcing a kind of introspection. While the child made the center of
attention would learn to react in the moment. Indeed the way the brain physically
developed might be decided by the attention given the child.
As an aside, studies of separated twins would seem to support this idea of
innateness...
Immortalist wrote:
"Pale in Wales" <clouds@rain.wales> wrote in message
news:10ai3u51mu1fd2@news.supernews.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/
Cousin JJ can't help it.
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and, thus,
innate.
"During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate has set the agenda for
much of the social sciences and humanities," Pinker writes. "... Psychology has
sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple mechanisms
of learning."
With 2002's "The Blank Slate," Pinker used pop culture and psychology references
to show that people's conceptions of human nature affect everything from
child-rearing to politics to morality to the arts.
Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a
chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's mind
is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited universal
structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit with
plenty of room for cultural and individual variation.
Pinker shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature and
instead have embraced three dogmas:
1. The Blank Slate
(the mind has no innate traits),
2. The Noble Savage
(people are born good and corrupted by society),
3. 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.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/qid=1084841665/
-------------------------------
From the jacket:
Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from the way we
raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as science is
bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people are
hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate patterns of
thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social change,
to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and purpose.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct
and How the Mind Works, 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 the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who
are now challenging them.
Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing that
equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from
discoveries about 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.
http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html
----------------------------
A blistering attack, a blitzkrieg on
the [older] sociologist! Once I get
this puppy scanned, you will not survive!
No-one shall survive who reads that
blistering book! Try it you'll see.
--Reanimater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
22 May 2004 12:44:28 PM |
|
|
"alan jones" <ob2@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:oRurc.488$3d1.264@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net...
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that
people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and,
thus,
innate.
So what exactly is meant by this all encompassing term, 'behaviors are the
product
of genes'. Its so broad it could mean anything. Biology over experience?
"In his latest book..." wanker media reporter? Mystery solved! Gotta get
something from the text of the book itself, from Pinker himself, to make the
proper criticism.
My wager is that Pinker is merely arguing for Nature and Nurture, some of both in
every act, thought, or e-motion.
So let us test this new frontier with the idea know.
What new frontier, a straw man of "its all nature and none nurture?" I'll bet you
can't Pinker saying that anywhere. I would respond to the rest but its based on a
misconception of Pinker's position.
Let's see, are there individual differences in the way we process nutrients?
Genetic bias operating at an individual level, where by certain
neurotransmitters
are 'better' synthesized from what we eat. You could argue that such elemental
biology might affect the character of an individual. In which case a person's
'happy disposition' might reflect a particular bias when processing endorphins,
etc. I'm after the practical points of this idea.
Behavior isn't just a product of biology, if it were there would be little
point trying to influence it as we do. We learn habits which then go on to
affect
our biological function. The foods we acquire an habit for, might have a
telling
effect on mood. The memories we are drawn to, might affect our emotional state,
or our emotional reaction to particular situations. This is moving away from
genes and on into culture.
The question is how much do we control, how much has control of us? How
influential is this innate sense? Would this innate sense come to the fore,
when we have nothing but this 'will' for guidance? As i've said else
where this has to potential to open a whole other can of worms. Here we
talk of the individual, citing the varity of behaviors beyond any particular
grouping.
Is this 'innate' sense absolute or relative to the innate sense of all those
other individuals? By innate behavior, i take this to mean some 'hardwired'
sense or functionality of the brain, drawing us to seek particular cognitive
rewards. As an example, we have innate reactions to particular colors,
something
beyond culture with ties to evolution. Imagine the same only on a more subtle
level, with the many parallel functions of the brain. Is there a case for
saying these accident of genetic fine tuning, actually happen on an individual
basis? (Note this would have to account for the apparent differences that exist
even within families.)
[Alternatively one might argue that the 'earliest' memories [hours/weeks old]
on this blank slate affect the longer term development of character and
behavior.]
For example a child denied the stimulation of faces might bedenighed an aide to
memory, Denigned this early stimulation the character of the brain might turn
inward, forcing a kind of introspection. While the child made the center of
attention would learn to react in the moment. Indeed the way the brain
physically
developed might be decided by the attention given the child.
As an aside, studies of separated twins would seem to support this idea of
innateness...
Immortalist wrote:
"Pale in Wales" <clouds@rain.wales> wrote in message
news:10ai3u51mu1fd2@news.supernews.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/
Cousin JJ can't help it.
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that
people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and,
thus,
innate.
"During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate has set the agenda
for
much of the social sciences and humanities," Pinker writes. "... Psychology
has
sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple
mechanisms
of learning."
With 2002's "The Blank Slate," Pinker used pop culture and psychology
references
to show that people's conceptions of human nature affect everything from
child-rearing to politics to morality to the arts.
Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a
chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's
mind
is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited
universal
structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit
with
plenty of room for cultural and individual variation.
Pinker shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature
and
instead have embraced three dogmas:
1. The Blank Slate
(the mind has no innate traits),
2. The Noble Savage
(people are born good and corrupted by society),
3. 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.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/qid=1084841665/
-------------------------------
From the jacket:
Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from the
way we
raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as science
is
bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people are
hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate patterns of
thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social
change,
to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and
purpose.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language
Instinct
and How the Mind Works, 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 the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists
who
are now challenging them.
Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing
that
equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from
discoveries about 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.
http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html
----------------------------
A blistering attack, a blitzkrieg on
the [older] sociologist! Once I get
this puppy scanned, you will not survive!
No-one shall survive who reads that
blistering book! Try it you'll see.
--Reanimater
.
|
|
|
| User: "alan jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
24 May 2004 03:18:47 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3tudnZsMLO_iDzLdRVn-vg@comcast.com...
"alan jones" <ob2@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:oRurc.488$3d1.264@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net...
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that
people are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and
lessons. Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of
genes and, thus, innate.
So what exactly is meant by this all encompassing term, 'behaviors are the
product of genes'. Its so broad it could mean anything. Biology over
experience?
"In his latest book..." wanker media reporter? Mystery solved! Gotta get
something from the text of the book itself, from Pinker himself, to make the
proper criticism.
My wager is that Pinker is merely arguing for Nature and Nurture, some
of both in every act, thought, or e-motion.
....And I would back that wager too. This is most likely a restatement of the
classic debate, given our current knowledge and the apparent need to
address this age-old question, nature vs nurture. I wonder though, what use
will be made of this position, the innate.
Ok so the position on nature vs nurture, fundamentally hasn't changed. I
wonder if this won't throw the question of behaviour and influence, back
solely to the individual and his genes, or the group and their genes. Would
such a position shift our focus from the influence of culture and its detrimental
effects? Will we once again hear the phrase, "he was born bad", and miss
the direction 'he' was given?
This attempt to re-create the 'individual' is wrapped up in freewill and the
idea that we can or can't be pre-determined. On one hand this restatement
of genes as determinate, declares the individual to be unique, we are the
unique hand dealt us by fate, or God. We can dismiss to the background,
the machinations of culture. We may even say there are aspects to our
character that can't be charted by the behavioralist. Something beyond the
gospel, that has behaviour as mere observation. On the other hand we fail
to question the larger question of influence. The external forces and their
would be managers, the shapes given to 'desired behaviour'...
So let us test this new frontier with the idea know.
What new frontier, a straw man of "its all nature and none nurture?" I'll
bet you can't Pinker saying that anywhere. I would respond to the rest
but its based on a misconception of Pinker's position.
Actually I wasn't so much misconstruing Pinker, as making clear the connection,
behaviour has to genes. In a previous thread The behaviour - B.F Skinner,
you replied with http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/ ,
which seem to pre-empt this post on Pinker, with the ideas of Baos...
" It was precisely because he recognized profound innate differences in
personality between individuals that he discounted innate differences
between races, a perspective that was later proved genetically correct
by Richard Lewontin. "
Whilst I recognise the value of this position, and share it and Pinker to
an extent, I wonder at what stage in our development these point come
into play. You could say genes play the greater part, before we are at
the mercy of culture, before society takes hold, or school before that. I'm
not sure if past a certain stage in our development, we and our experience
aren't one.
The point I made of the earliest stages of life and the brain's development,
would also go some way to explaining the huge differences of personality
within families. We in essence learn our character or our character reflects
our unique [Gene given ;] dysfunctions. etc..
My concern though remains with Skinners notion of 'Desired Behaviour,
the near invisibility of that stated aim, as we look elsewhere to explain
who, and what we are. I wonder if 'its' practice wouldn't need these
alternative views to shift our focus. "don't blame me, blame his genes".
Let's see, are there individual differences in the way we process nutrients?
Genetic bias operating at an individual level, where by certain
neurotransmitters are 'better' synthesized from what we eat. You could
argue that such elemental biology might affect the character of an individual.
In which case a person's 'happy disposition' might reflect a particular bias
when processing endorphins, etc. I'm after the practical points of this idea.
Behavior isn't just a product of biology, if it were there would be little
point trying to influence it as we do. We learn habits which then go on to
affect our biological function. The foods we acquire an habit for, might
have a telling effect on mood. The memories we are drawn to, might affect
our emotional state, or our emotional reaction to particular situations. This
is moving away from genes and on into culture.
The question is how much do we control, how much has control of us? How
influential is this innate sense? Would this innate sense come to the fore,
when we have nothing but this 'will' for guidance? As i've said else
where this has to potential to open a whole other can of worms. Here we
talk of the individual, citing the varity of behaviors beyond any particular
grouping.
Is this 'innate' sense absolute or relative to the innate sense of all those
other individuals? By innate behavior, i take this to mean some 'hardwired'
sense or functionality of the brain, drawing us to seek particular cognitive
rewards. As an example, we have innate reactions to particular colors
something beyond culture with ties to evolution. Imagine the same only on
a more subtle level, with the many parallel functions of the brain. Is there a
case for saying these accident of genetic fine tuning, actually happen on an
individual basis? (Note this would have to account for the apparent differences
that exist even within families.)
[Alternatively one might argue that the 'earliest' memories [hours/weeks old]
on this blank slate affect the longer term development of character and
behavior.]
For example a child denied the stimulation of faces might bedenighed an aide
to memory, Denigned this early stimulation the character of the brain might
turn inward, forcing a kind of introspection. While the child made the center
of attention would learn to react in the moment. Indeed the way the brain
physically developed might be decided by the attention given the child.
As an aside, studies of separated twins would seem to support this idea of
innateness...
Immortalist wrote:
"Pale in Wales" <clouds@rain.wales> wrote in message
news:10ai3u51mu1fd2@news.supernews.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/
Cousin JJ can't help it.
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory that
people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and,
thus,
innate.
"During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate has set the agenda
for
much of the social sciences and humanities," Pinker writes. "... Psychology
has
sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple
mechanisms
of learning."
With 2002's "The Blank Slate," Pinker used pop culture and psychology
references
to show that people's conceptions of human nature affect everything from
child-rearing to politics to morality to the arts.
Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a
chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's
mind
is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited
universal
structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit
with
plenty of room for cultural and individual variation.
Pinker shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature
and
instead have embraced three dogmas:
1. The Blank Slate
(the mind has no innate traits),
2. The Noble Savage
(people are born good and corrupted by society),
3. 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.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/qid=1084841665/
-------------------------------
From the jacket:
Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from the
way we
raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as science
is
bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people are
hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate patterns of
thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social
change,
to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and
purpose.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language
Instinct
and How the Mind Works, 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 the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists
who
are now challenging them.
Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing
that
equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from
discoveries about 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.
http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html
----------------------------
A blistering attack, a blitzkrieg on
the [older] sociologist! Once I get
this puppy scanned, you will not survive!
No-one shall survive who reads that
blistering book! Try it you'll see.
--Reanimater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
25 May 2004 11:35:37 PM |
|
|
"alan jones" <ob2@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:c8tlcq$2mdq$1@news.wplus.net...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tudnZsMLO_iDzLdRVn-vg@comcast.com...
"alan jones" <ob2@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:oRurc.488$3d1.264@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net...
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory
that
people are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences
and
lessons. Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of
genes and, thus, innate.
So what exactly is meant by this all encompassing term, 'behaviors are the
product of genes'. Its so broad it could mean anything. Biology over
experience?
"In his latest book..." wanker media reporter? Mystery solved! Gotta get
something from the text of the book itself, from Pinker himself, to make the
proper criticism.
My wager is that Pinker is merely arguing for Nature and Nurture, some
of both in every act, thought, or e-motion.
...And I would back that wager too. This is most likely a restatement of the
classic debate, given our current knowledge and the apparent need to
address this age-old question, nature vs nurture. I wonder though, what use
will be made of this position, the innate.
Ok so the position on nature vs nurture, fundamentally hasn't changed. I
I have a hard time accepting that everything fundamentally has not changed. Every
year that goes by produces much research evidence.
wonder if this won't throw the question of behaviour and influence, back
solely to the individual and his genes, or the group and their genes. Would
such a position shift our focus from the influence of culture and its
detrimental
effects? Will we once again hear the phrase, "he was born bad", and miss
the direction 'he' was given?
In my opinion it would be dangerous to go either way without any evidence to back
up the position. If we go on as we are, but knowing there are some instinctual
influences and possibly a "human nature" attracting our behavior towards it, that
the blank slate conclusions could wreck us and our society. Though it may not
necessarily wreck us, but I'd rather go with the best evidence as a guide.
But I like sociology and social psychology, I cross my fingers as the data
continues to come in on human nature as to which things in social science will
make it through without having to be revised. Its dreadful to have to watch some
parts of social science go down in flames though, especially tight theories that
seemed to explain so much for so many years.
This attempt to re-create the 'individual' is wrapped up in freewill and the
idea that we can or can't be pre-determined. On one hand this restatement
of genes as determinate, declares the individual to be unique, we are the
unique hand dealt us by fate, or God. We can dismiss to the background,
the machinations of culture. We may even say there are aspects to our
character that can't be charted by the behavioralist. Something beyond the
gospel, that has behaviour as mere observation. On the other hand we fail
to question the larger question of influence. The external forces and their
would be managers, the shapes given to 'desired behaviour'...
huh? I don't think you have to fear the "slight biases" of human nature being as
powerful as behaviorism fallacies.
So let us test this new frontier with the idea know.
What new frontier, a straw man of "its all nature and none nurture?" I'll
bet you can't Pinker saying that anywhere. I would respond to the rest
but its based on a misconception of Pinker's position.
Actually I wasn't so much misconstruing Pinker, as making clear the connection,
behaviour has to genes. In a previous thread The behaviour - B.F Skinner,
you replied with http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/ ,
which seem to pre-empt this post on Pinker, with the ideas of Baos...
" It was precisely because he recognized profound innate differences in
personality between individuals that he discounted innate differences
between races, a perspective that was later proved genetically correct
by Richard Lewontin. "
Whilst I recognise the value of this position, and share it and Pinker to
an extent, I wonder at what stage in our development these point come
into play. You could say genes play the greater part, before we are at
the mercy of culture, before society takes hold, or school before that. I'm
not sure if past a certain stage in our development, we and our experience
aren't one.
I hear the latest evidence when it comes to be is in the "critical stages" and
mainly those stages associated with the (myelin_sheaths) which take up till the
age of 7 to grow around some nerve cells and cement many parts of the brain into
place. Like an accent you can't get rid of for life.
http://images.google.com/images?q=myelin%20sheath
The genes for human nature put the cells in a region and the environmental
conditions can select a particular configuration in that genetically constrained
region and then the sheaths (cement) them into place for life.
Dude, get a copy of this book, this boy done fucked some ***** up.
Nature Via Nurture : Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human
by Matt Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060006781/qid=1085546294/
The point I made of the earliest stages of life and the brain's development,
would also go some way to explaining the huge differences of personality
within families. We in essence learn our character or our character reflects
our unique [Gene given ;] dysfunctions. etc..
My concern though remains with Skinners notion of 'Desired Behaviour,
the near invisibility of that stated aim, as we look elsewhere to explain
who, and what we are. I wonder if 'its' practice wouldn't need these
alternative views to shift our focus. "don't blame me, blame his genes".
Fuckin Skinners *****! Amen!
Let's see, are there individual differences in the way we process
nutrients?
Genetic bias operating at an individual level, where by certain
neurotransmitters are 'better' synthesized from what we eat. You could
argue that such elemental biology might affect the character of an
individual.
In which case a person's 'happy disposition' might reflect a particular
bias
when processing endorphins, etc. I'm after the practical points of this
idea.
Behavior isn't just a product of biology, if it were there would be little
point trying to influence it as we do. We learn habits which then go on to
affect our biological function. The foods we acquire an habit for, might
have a telling effect on mood. The memories we are drawn to, might affect
our emotional state, or our emotional reaction to particular situations.
This
is moving away from genes and on into culture.
The question is how much do we control, how much has control of us? How
influential is this innate sense? Would this innate sense come to the fore,
when we have nothing but this 'will' for guidance? As i've said else
where this has to potential to open a whole other can of worms. Here we
talk of the individual, citing the varity of behaviors beyond any
particular
grouping.
Is this 'innate' sense absolute or relative to the innate sense of all
those
other individuals? By innate behavior, i take this to mean some 'hardwired'
sense or functionality of the brain, drawing us to seek particular
cognitive
rewards. As an example, we have innate reactions to particular colors
something beyond culture with ties to evolution. Imagine the same only on
a more subtle level, with the many parallel functions of the brain. Is
there a
case for saying these accident of genetic fine tuning, actually happen on
an
individual basis? (Note this would have to account for the apparent
differences
that exist even within families.)
[Alternatively one might argue that the 'earliest' memories [hours/weeks
old]
on this blank slate affect the longer term development of character and
behavior.]
For example a child denied the stimulation of faces might bedenighed an
aide
to memory, Denigned this early stimulation the character of the brain might
turn inward, forcing a kind of introspection. While the child made the
center
of attention would learn to react in the moment. Indeed the way the brain
physically developed might be decided by the attention given the child.
As an aside, studies of separated twins would seem to support this idea of
innateness...
Immortalist wrote:
"Pale in Wales" <clouds@rain.wales> wrote in message
news:10ai3u51mu1fd2@news.supernews.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/
Cousin JJ can't help it.
In his latest book, "The Blank Slate," Pinker takes aim at the theory
that
people
are born with minds that are blank, to be filled by experiences and
lessons.
Instead, he contends, many human behaviors are the product of genes and,
thus,
innate.
"During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate has set the
agenda
for
much of the social sciences and humanities," Pinker writes. "...
Psychology
has
sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple
mechanisms
of learning."
With 2002's "The Blank Slate," Pinker used pop culture and psychology
references
to show that people's conceptions of human nature affect everything from
child-rearing to politics to morality to the arts.
Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker,
a
chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an
infant's
mind
is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited
universal
structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival,
albeit
with
plenty of room for cultural and individual variation.
Pinker shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human
nature
and
instead have embraced three dogmas:
1. The Blank Slate
(the mind has no innate traits),
2. The Noble Savage
(people are born good and corrupted by society),
3. 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.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/qid=1084841665/
-------------------------------
From the jacket:
Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from
the
way we
raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as
science
is
bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people
are
hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate
patterns of
thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social
change,
to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and
purpose.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language
Instinct
and How the Mind Works, 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 the desperate tactics to discredit the
scientists
who
are now challenging them.
Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing
that
equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from
discoveries about 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.
http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html
----------------------------
A blistering attack, a blitzkrieg on
the [older] sociologist! Once I get
this puppy scanned, you will not survive!
No-one shall survive who reads that
blistering book! Try it you'll see.
--Reanimater
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
18 May 2004 10:08:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:58:40 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_print.html
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind0005.htm
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/scien/scien010.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Nature, not Nuture (nature via nurture) |
19 May 2004 12:15:00 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nospam@nevermind.ca> wrote in message
news:nbaka0dflna7v1os8ahrrmtdtug2asjs0i@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:58:40 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_print.html
AMEN! thanx for that video, getting ready to read nature via nurture the second
time.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=ridley&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_ugroup=alt.philosophy.*&as_uauthors=reanimater_2000@yahoo.com%20&lr=&hl=en
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind0005.htm
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/scien/scien010.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
