Harry, For the life of me, I can't figure out what your comments have to do with my suggestion about the Skoyles and Sagan book.
The point is not how we survive and whether it is a matter of joining groups; the point is that the human brain is enormously flexible and proactive to the point that it transcends and transforms its genetic relationships. I just thought I would mention the book for those who would like another point of view based on the latest dicoveries about the way the brain functions. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:31 PM Subject: Re: Review of "The Blank Slate" > 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 > ******************************* > >
