-- Anyone out there have any more articles by [or about] Pinker that outline his politics?
See further:
As you know, I highly recommend 'The Blank Slate'. Briefly, Pinker rejects most of the sacred cows of the left, with regard to gender differences, behavior, etc.. You probably won't agree with his politics in toto, which are probably moderate democrat; but at least you'll see an honest justification of his arguments, not a list of leftist pieties.
. He's very careful about race, and which of us could blame him?. He acknowledges that there may be average differences between populations, but that these differences are small compared with the variance within populations. This is fine and scientifically justifiable. He claims that personally he doesn't think there is sufficent evidence for a genetic origin for racial differences in the US, and cites Sowell extensively. Again, while I personally think the evidence is stronger than he says, his position is at least not violently inconsistent with the evidence.
His position on AA is a rare one, which might be characterized as 'honest leftist'. He says its necessary, because it's socially necessary for each group to have the possibility of success. But he doesn't adhere to any of the redistributive 'justifications' for AA; he just says that, whatever the origins for currently different outcomes, you can't have a society where the average prospects for identifiable groups are hugely different. IMO, this is an unusual and courageous position. Both right and left, for different ideological reasons, refuse to consider the possibility that given total equal opportunity, outcomes might be different as a result of genetics - and very different in professions which require extreme abilities. If equal opportunity led to a medical profession that is as different from the general population as, say, the NBA is, what do you do? Do you tell a promising kid from an underrepresented group that, while on paper he has the same chance as anyone else, statistically he has only a tiny chance of becoming a doctor? Even if you don't tell him that, he's a smart kid, he'll figure it out. On the other hand, if you do try to 'adjust' the outcome, then you have an identifiable sub-group within the medical proferssion that is less qualified, on average; in effect, you've made racism rational.
Anyone who says this is an easy problem with a clear solution isn't thinking about it enough. Pinker cannot be accused of that.
This is quite an admission! Science is finally finding enough proof for that which orthodox Christians have known for 2,000 years: man is a sinful creature.
Steven Pinker opens:
I'm going to discuss an idea that elicits wildly opposite reactions.
Some people find it a shocking claim with radical implications for morals and every value that we hold dear. Other people think that it's a claim that was established a hundred years ago, that the excitement is only in how we work out the details, and that it has few if any implications for our values and ethics.
That is the idea that mind is the physiological activity of the brain, in particular the information processing activity of the brain; that the brain, like other organs, is shaped by the genes; and that in turn, the genome was shaped by natural selection and other evolutionary processes.
I am among those who think that this should no longer be a shocking claim, and that the excitement is in fleshing out the details, and showing exactly how our perception, decision-making, and emotions can be tied to the activity of the brain.
Stephen Pinker closes
I feel sure Prof. Pinker's project must be "exciting" in principle; especially as it is seemingly bent on finding ways to falsify and thus overcome the planted experience of the human race over the course of decades of millennia by now.
Sad you should think so Betty. I find that his ideas compliment our Constitutions principles, that free men should follow the ruled of law, -- not be ruled by the morals of the majority.
But then as a wise man once said: "Some motives are beyond the reach of argument." Patrick, just try to scan the logic of the foregoing passages. Is this really a logical argument? Or is it an exercise in polemics, generated from an undisclosed motive, from a "hidden major premise?"
You found a hidden premise? Where?
Let's walk it through. Pinker begins by casting doubt on the rationality of his anticipated "opponent" (perhaps a "political conservative," or "religious believer"). He goes on to suggest that the "breakthroughs" (precisely what kind of breakthroughs are not described) of the past one hundred years somehow obviate and render null the human existential experience of millennia, as articulated by the greatest thinkers of our race. Western civilization, I gather, is simply expected to concede the floor to a parvenu who got a blueprint for utopia from Hegel or one of his epigones. Yet a scientist is expected to chart his course by evidence. It must be embarrassing to Pinker (assuming he could ever be embarrassed, which is highly doubtful – let alone feel shame) that there has yet to be any successful "utopia" in all of human history.
Ah! His 'hidden premise' is advocating a utopia? Where did he say that?
So I wonder why Pinker thinks he's making any "selling points" here. Still, he urges us to believe that he, who claims to have some kind of warrant from God-knows-whom, (but I could guess) to consign human existence and human nature as mankind has experienced it for virtually countless millennia, to extinction so that a new beginning might be made, is completely justified in proclaiming the seductive, yet completely undemonstrated and yet-to-be-disclosed "virtues" of the "innovations" which lead to this result.
You sure we're reading the same paragraph, Betty? -- Again, -- where is all this said?
What are these innovations? First and foremost, there is the claim that consciousness is merely the epiphenomenon or by-product of brain activity. If that is so, then how do we explain Steven Pinker? Are his public performances really to be understood as demonstrations of the virtuosity of his brain? When did a guy like Steven Pinker ever leave his ego to die, so that his omnicompetent brain function might live? When did Steven Pinker ever say that he could claim no credit for his public pronouncements – in academia, the press, the public forum – because such must justly be credited entirely to the optimality of his brain function? If I believed for an instant that this dude actually believed anything that came out of his own mouth, I'd be a moron.
I think you may be believing a lot more about what you ~imagine~ he has said, -- than his actual writings Betty.
The brain is the single most complex living system known to man. There is not a single person on the face of this earth who understands what the brain is or what it does in all its complexity. We can study the organism. But even here, we get it wrong. For it turns out the brain is not a congeries of local organic sites, each dedicated to a specific, localized, dedicated purpose, such as interpreting "incoming" from sensory organs, such as the eye, the ear, etc. Instead it turns out that the functions of the brain are not localized, but widely distributed throughout the brain; it appears this wide distribution of activity is carried by quantum fields and routinely involves the principle of non-locality….
Quantum fields? Wow! Who's theory is that?
If non-local effects are involved, then it seems this must mean that consciousness is BIGGER than the physical brain, MORE than the physical brain. Seemingly, consciousness takes place at a principal level of reality independent of physical brain function. Which in turn suggests that some principle must exist to coordinate such widely distributed activity – activity which, on Bell's Theorem, may likely involve events so remote that they occur on the very edge, on the other side, of the universe….
Wow again! Same theorist Betty?
Which is the polar opposite, the antithesis, of Pinker's argument: That brain function is a local phenomenon, confined to tight processing units, mute, insensate…material, determined…. The critique could continue on other substantive points. But I think it would be good to leave off for now: Time for a time-out!
Dear Patrick, if you or anybody else out there reading this has further ideas on the present subject, I would seriously be most glad to hear them and think about them.
Betty? -- Have you read Pinkers books?
Pinker is promoting ideology under the color of science. It reflects poorly on him and it is bad science at that, because he has blinders on concerning math, physics and cosmology. All of the following are not considered in his narrow worldview:
The universe is inherently mathematical.
Earth exists in an extremely rare habitable zone in the universe.
Dark energy is not detected in laboratory conditions despite it representing over 70% of the mass of the universe.
Superposition (Schrodinger’s cat) and the presence or loss of information in singularities
The physical constants being just-so for the universe and life to exist at all
The unattributed origin for information in biological systems
Non-locality – the violation of Bell’s inequalities at distance.
Dimensionality and dualities as geometric transitions
Fulfilled prophesy and history (particularly of the Jews)
Personal responsibility - the rationale behind any rule of law
Philosophical/theological reasoning over the millennia.
The environmental determination of human differences is the central cog of all Socialist rationalization. Once you realize that we really are all different, Socialism and levelling generally, cease to have any real appeal.
William Flax
For a discussion of this in more depth, see Racial Denial In America--Life In A Pavlovian Kennel.
The Atlantic monthly has an interview with Edward O. Wilson with additional links: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/ba980318.htm
Wilson is an environmental wacko, but his research has dealt sever blows to feminism and those who believe in social engineering.
Hello, tpaine! Sorry to be so tardy replying. WRT the above quote, I find myself mystified that you find Pinker’s thought complementary to our Constitution’s core principle of liberty. Indeed, I have reached the opposite conclusion.
You suggested you doubt Pinker has a “hidden major premise.” But I think there is one. I think his (undisclosed) initial premise is: absolute self-denial is good and necessary. Yet liberty cannot inhere in anything other than a “self.”
I notice that Pinker does not abjure his “self” – his homunculus as he disparagingly puts it – in favor of logical consistency with his theory.
You asked me whether I’ve read any of his books. The answer is, no I haven’t. Though I’ve browsed him in the stacks, I’ve yet to actually check him out of the library. The reason is, reading him gives me a bad case of “cognitive dissonance”: On the one hand, he is saying that there is no self or soul, that all a man is, in essence, is the epiphenomenal result of the activity of a machine -- his physical brain.
On the other hand, the strong, indelible presence of Steven Pinker as something quite real and distinguishable from Pinker’s brain makes itself constantly felt. One definitely senses the vivid presence of a self or “ego.” Yet his writings seem to be an attempt to demolish that concept. Still, he leaves us with puzzling questions on which his theory seems to cast no light. For instance, why would a physical brain choose to engage in scientific pursuits that are essentially non-physical and apparently extraneous to its normal functional needs? What supplies the motive? What is the mediating principle directing the physical system to explore what is essentially spiritual reality? How does the brain hook up with the external world in a way that creates meaningful information – and for what or whom is this information intended? How does the brain engage in self-reflection – which is the means by which we purportedly “fictional selves” locate ourselves in space/time reality and understand our values, purposes, and goals – when there is no self there to reflect? Left to its own devices, it seems to me the brain would just happily keep chugging along coordinating and maintaining the life functions of the organism for as long as it could. What could inspire it to reach to any larger task? Indeed, can it feel inspiration? Can it feel at all? Can it decide? Does it have free will? If it has “will” at all, then where is that located? How is that to be accounted for? Does it love? feel sorrow, joy, fear, etc.? Or covetousness, jealousy, lust for power, hatred, etc.?
What does it actually mean to say that “the brain decides?”
I get the distinct impression that this seemingly mild-mannered, soft-spoken and charming professor intends his theory to apply to all the rest of us, but not to himself. Clearly, Pinker gives himself “a pass” from selflessness.
And I think this is intellectually dishonest. To me, it is a prime example of ideological thinking, not science. And I would note the general tendency of all ideological thinking to drift into forms of tyranny of one type or another….
Pinker’s model seems best suited to the life of an insect colony – or of a totalitarian state. There is zero sense of the self in a colony of ants, bees, or termites. Their societies only “work” because all individuals are merged into a collective Self and are “ordered” by its needs. There is no liberty here – all is determined by the pattern of the colony’s rigid and unchanging social life.
I feel certain that you’d agree: This is no model for a truly human society, tpaine – one that respects the dignity and liberty of the individual….
Well my friend, this is all probably “as clear as mud.” But it’s the best I can do right now.
Thank you so much for writing. Please share your thoughts with me when you get the chance.
Of course it does. Socialists and communists are wrong. We knew that.
I don't, but the mention of politics is curious. For politics has always been understood in contrast to nature. Nature, that is, left by itself, gives no laws, for necessity requires no laws. The ancient distinction between nature and nurture (explained by Strauss in the introduction to his History of Political Philosophy) points to an interesting tension: the argument of the good. Or, the problem of evil.
I am convinced that the minute we think that death is not good, we are on the way to becoming human.