Harry, I am curious as to what your definition of "worthwhile" might be.
One of the reasons I do not participate very much in the discussions on this list is that many of them seem to go 'round' and 'round' and never go anywhere in the sense that they prove to be productive of a sense of direction or new insights about our society or where we should be headed. I believe the reason for this is that many of the arguments are based on one or more assumptions that are not even acknowledged, never mind clarified. Very often they are assumptions about human nature that determine the kinds of questions asked and answers given. Just so you know where I'm coming from, my model is the Socratic Dialogues. My first graduate course in social theory used Plato's Republic and Laws for textbooks and my teacher and mentor used the socratic method to teach so I got used to working very hard to find the "ground" on which arguments are based. I had thought about summarizing the arguments made by Skoyles and Sagan and the differences between their thinking and Pinker's but there is a wonderful website in which you can find a great deal of detail, if you wish: www.upfromdragons.com Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Review of "The Blank Slate" > Selma, > > I was just adding to the continuing discussion of Pinker, et al. You > happened to be the latest post in this thread, so I continued it. I should > have changed the subject, but don't get all het up. Did I say anything > worthwhile? > > Harry > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- > > > Selma wrote: > > >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 > > > ******************************* > > > > > > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >
