Selma, I would expect that humans must first survive. If they don't survive, all other bets are off. So, everything we do from the first reflex action of mouth to nipple is bent toward survival. As you may know, in my economics courses, the question is posed: "Is he more or less likely to survive the winter?"
Most of the things we do are not all that critical. So, we can modify this thought to 'we seek to act to our advantage' or 'we seek personal advantage in the things to do'. The corollary is that if you act to your disadvantage you will be less likely to survive the winter. But long before we reach the point of using our reason to make decisions, we arrive apparently pretty much a Blank Slate. But, our parents have survived the winter as have those who were before them. I suggest this would allow us to infer that those who have survived through these generations must have stronger survival advantages than those who perished. It seems sensible to conclude that those who cooperate and trade with each other for mutual advantage would have a better chance to survive than those who don't cooperate with others. It also means that the chubby little bundle - the offspring of parents who come from a long line of people who cooperated - may not be such a Blank Slate as first appears. Other questions we can wait for, but is it an advantage to us (a survival characteristic) to live with people who "naturally" protect children - any children. Is it sensible (a survival characteristic) for us to save the children and the women before worrying about the men? I'll leave it to the "experts" to fight with each other to decide whether or not cooperation is passed down through our genes, or perhaps is the result of a malformation of the brain, or something. It seems to me we are a cooperative society because it is to our advantage. Keith has discussed often the apparent need for groups to form among the young. Is this because of the not-so-Blank-Slate, or because they have decided they are better off in a group? Do they naturally come together. or do they deliberately choose it? Watch a new kid on the block try to make friends. How soon does reason (our substitute for instinct) kick in, so we deliberately join a group? Perhaps when the chubby little bundle associates crying with a warm cuddle and warm food? But, the crucial part of it all is that we act to our advantage (if we hope to survive the winter). Because we are like this, someone who acts in an apparent contrary fashion is admired by us. The volunteer, the person who gives of himself without reward is much admired. Yet, cooperation is reciprocal, or it doesn't work. The kids read (approximately) : "Bill helps Joe all the time. He helps Joe with his house, with his harvest, with his children. Joe never helps Bill with his harvest or anything else. Who has a better chance of surviving the winter." Harry ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selma wrote: >Those who are so enthralled with Steven Pinker and others like him might be >interested in a new book by John R. Skoyles and Dorion Sagan *Up From >Dragons* The Evolution of Human Intelligence. > >They examine some of the more recent discoveries about the remarkable >flexiblility of the brain pretty much demolish the arguments of Pinkernd >others who seem enthralled with the idea of human mind and human nature >being programmed by genes. > >Selma > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:36 AM >Subject: Review of "The Blank Slate" > > > > Some FWers might be interested in the New Scientist review of "The Blank > > Slate" > > > > Keith Hudson > > > > >>>> > > The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature, by Steven Pinker >(Allen > > Lane/ The Penguin Press) > > > > The blank slate of Steven Pinker's title is the "white paper void of all > > characters, without any ideas" to which philosopher John Locke compares >the > > original state of the mind, as it passively waits for experience to >provide > > it with the materials of thought and knowledge. Generalised beyond >anything > > Locke intended, the idea would be that the mind is empty of any powers or > > dispositions at all until life's journey gets under way. > > > > Gottfried Leibniz and David Hume, to mention but two, saw how hopeless >this > > idea was, since at the very least the mind or brain needs the capacity to > > make something of whatever it is that experience affords us. But according > > to Pinker's messianic book the idea lives on, often harnessed > > (inconsistently) with the romantic view that the blank mind is inherently > > noble and that violence, aggression, even a deficient sense of humour or a > > tin ear, must be the fault of bad parenting, bad environment or other > > defects of culture or society. > > > > Pinker believes that this bad idea infuses a whole cocktail of practical > > mistakes, including utopian politics, madcap schemes of social >engineering, > > optimistic educational programmes and ludicrous views about gender. To > > oppose it he mobilises the most modern of sciences, notably neuroscience, > > genetics, evolutionary theory, and particularly evolutionary psychology. > > > > The Blank Slate is brilliant in several dimensions. It is enjoyable, > > informative, clear, humane and sensible. Pinker is well aware of the > > emotions and self-deceptions that swirl around the science of human >nature, > > and he parades a lurid cast of villains from behaviourist B.F. Skinner to > > psychologist Jerome Kagan. > > > > It is difficult to be morally sensitive while treading on people's dreams. > > But Pinker manages it, while never compromising on the point that good > > morals and politics need to acknowledge the truth about human beings as > > they are, rather than how we might like them to be. Its political motto > > might be the remark E. O. Wilson made about Karl Marx: "Wonderful theory. > > Wrong species." > > > > All this is very sound. But is the breathless deference to the new >sciences > > of the mind and brain appropriate? Pinker writes rhetorically: "Every > > student of political science is taught that political ideologies are based > > on theories of human nature. Why must they be based on theories that are > > three hundred years out of date?" Yet his chapter on conflict and violence > > explicitly relies almost entirely on Thomas Hobbes, and his perceptive > > remarks on human greed and status come from political economists Adam >Smith > > and Thorstein Veblen. Pinker contrasts real science with "armchair" > > theorising. But most theorising is done in armchairs, and such writers >were > > gifted observers of human nature long before they sat in theirs. > > > > If we read carefully, the contributions of evolutionary theory, psychology > > or neuroscience appear to be either little or controversial. For example, > > Pinker says that there is an overwhelming consensus among experts that > > exposure to media violence does not make children more violent. But I read > > the book immediately after attending a conference on law and human nature > > which was told with equal certainty of a consensus among experts on just > > the opposite. Evidently measuring what the experts think is as hard as > > measuring anything else. > > > > When it comes to evolution and psychology the matter is no different. > > Pinker is unusually clear about the distinction between underlying > > evolutionary mechanisms (selfish genes) and proximate psychological > > mechanisms (overt motivations, such as lust or envy, altruism or malice). > > But politics and education need to assess the degree of freedom evolution > > may leave to those mechanisms, as we seek to influence them for the >better. > > If we want to know about that, Hobbes or Leo Tolstoy may still be better > > guides than the American Psychological Association. > > > > Simon Blackburn is professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge > > Simon Blackburn ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
