Keith, As always with your pieces, the NYTimes bit is interesting - but I would say, flawed.
Perhaps, because he speaks out of one discipline - one corner - when a generalist view might be more effective. He says: "The common belief is that the mind is just that, a blank slate -- that people are born with no talents or temperaments and that the entire mind is a product of culture and socialization." I don't know of any such common belief - I would say the reverse is likely to be true, as he confirms with his "putty" statement. "These are my twins. "This is Harry the Doctor, this is Keith the Concert pianist." People are different from birth - in minor and major ways. I think that perhaps Rakoff may have exchanged the cart and the horse. He said of our phobias: "That a biological understanding of human nature threatens fundamental values of political equality, social progress, personal responsibility and meaning and purpose." Or the reverse may be true. As you know, I'm happy with my two (or three) basic assumptions of human behavior - which pithy comments I have seen often on FW couched in different terms. They are really useful assumptions We have "unlimited desires" that we seek with the "least exertion" pressed by a "basic curiosity". People who should know better translate these as greedy and lazy. In fact they are survival characteristics - as is curiosity. (We can barely survive in the desert and will do so until a climatic disaster, or something, destroys us. Then, someone climbs the mountain and finds on the other side a verdant pasture which invites progress and more certain survival.) It would seem likely that people who combine into a group, where skills can specialize and knowledge can be shared, are more likely to survive than a person who remains separate. It probably follows that by natural selection (is there such a thing?) people who are inclined behave well with each other are more likely to survive than those whose behavior gets them thrown out of the group. I would argue that we are naturally cooperative because we are the survivors. Are the "fundamental values of political equality, social progress, personal responsibility and meaning and purpose" likely to be in our make-up anyway? In pursuit of our "unlimited desires" would it not be natural for us to cooperate with others, to trade with others, to join with others in - for example - a barn-raising (a not really, but apparently voluntary effort)? For those who would not cooperate are long gone. Rakoff does redeem himself somewhat by pointing to the confusion of cause and effect, but he has to bring in "complexity" - fast becoming a favorite word of those who have given up on understanding. Perhaps, he should start with some simple assumptions, like the Classicals did. Harry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith wrote: >"A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most >beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful >pictures can be painted on it." So said the man whose obdurate policies >caused the death by starvation of at least 30 million Chinese. It was not >only Mao Tse-tung's philosophy but has also predominated in the human >science departments of western academe for the past 30 years. > >Thankfully, the voices of evolutionary psychologists, who base their views >on evidence rather than idealism, are now beginning to be heard. Some FWers >might be interested in yesterdays article in the NYT. > ><<<< >QUESTIONS FOR STEVEN PINKER > > >By David Rakoff > >Q. Your new book argues the importance of human nature in the way we think >about ourselves. Why have you called it ''The Blank Slate''? > >The common belief is that the mind is just that, a blank slate -- that >people are born with no talents or temperaments and that the entire mind is >a product of culture and socialization. More specifically, the book is an >attempt to confront the phobia that people have of discussions of human >nature. > > >Q. What's at the heart of that phobia? > >That a biological understanding of human nature threatens fundamental >values of political equality, social progress, personal responsibility and >meaning and purpose. And you can't advance research in psychology without >confronting these often unspoken but very powerful feelings. There are >fears that if you acknowledge that people are born with anything, it >implies that some people have more of it than others, and therefore it >would open the door to political inequality or oppression, for example. > > >Q. Which makes it more comfortable to think of humans as characterless >meatloaves imprinted by culture. > >I don't think anyone who's had more than one child believes that children >are indistinguishable lumps of putty waiting to be shaped. There's this >enormous body of work on parenting that looks at the correlation of what >parents do and how children turn out: parents who speak to their children >have children with advanced language skills, parents who spank have >children that grow up to be more violent and so on. This could be, but >correlation does not prove causation. The fact is that parents provide >their children not just with an environment but also with genes. The same >genes that make parents talkative could make their children more advanced >in language skills. The original studies are rarely done with adopted >children. > > >Q. Is even nurture an outgrowth of nature, then? Is all of it, even >culture itself, reducible to evolutionary biology? > >I prefer the word unification to reduction. An analogy is that even though >we know that sand and mountains and dirt and so on are nothing but >molecules -- they're not special kinds of stuff -- a physicist couldn't >explain the geography of Europe, even though Europe is nothing but a bunch >of protons, neutrons and electrons. Likewise, with human history and >politics and cultural affairs, that level of analysis isn't going to tell >you the best way to organize a society or how to change a law or try to >influence a social value. An understanding of history and culture can only >benefit from a better understanding of human emotion and thought. But you >don't get much insight into day-to-day behavior by thinking about a person >as a hundred billion neurons firing in complicated patterns. It doesn't buy >you anything in figuring out how to please your boss or how to get a date >or how to win friends and influence people. > > >Q. Where does that leave our sense of agency and free will? > >Agency, personal responsibility and so on can all be tied to brain >function, but these are brain functions that are so staggeringly complex >that there is no danger that they're going to be reduced to some simple >reflex anytime soon, if ever. It's a fallacy to think that hunger and >thirst and a sex drive are biological but that reasoning and decision >making and learning are something else, something nonbiological. They're >just a different kind of biology. > > >Q. If biological processes are all, then it's hardly outrageous to claim >that individuals are predisposed to having greater or lesser intelligence. >Do you worry about becoming co-opted by the ''Bell Curve''-oisie? > >I think that would be a big leap. Rather than constructing a bomb, I hope >the book is about how to defuse it. The explosiveness comes from a fear >that certain empirical possibilities open the door to social and political >evils. That's not the case. We can have an honest science of human nature >without a Pandora's box of negative consequences. Anyone who's read the >book can't attack it by saying, ''If we accept what you're saying about >human nature, then all hell will break loose.'' The point of the book is >that all hell won't break loose. > >Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company > >>>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- > >Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England >Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
