Posted on 12/26/2002 9:18:33 AM PST by shrinkermd
P>This is an important book. It was declared among the best non-fiction books of the year by: Amazon.com, Borders, Globe and Mail, Evening Standard, The Independent, Los Angeles Times, New Statesman, New York Times, Publishers Weekly, The Spectator, The Telegraph and the Literary Supplement. Many professionals and others reviewed this book. Because the book is long (509 pages) and comprehensive, it is amenable to a variety of reviews --both positive and negative. The actual number of book reviews is astounding. Put Steven Pinker into your Internet search engine and you will find hours of reading material.
The importance of the book lies in the author's challenge to reigning dogma about the nature/nurture controversy. In order to do this, the author reviews a wide variety of topics including politics, gender, war, race and aggression. Because some of these topics are subject to bias, it is important to understand the author.
The book jacket describes him as a Professor at MIT and an essayist. Professor Pinker has a web site that is more informative. Besides a picture, the web site gives a brief biography. Steven Pinker is a native of Montreal. He graduated from McGill University in 1976 and received a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University in 1979. He was at Stanford for two years. He has been at MIT since 1982 where he is Professor of Psychology and a McVicar Faculty Fellow. Besides many scientific and lay articles, he has written the following books: Language Learnability and Language Development, Learnability and Cognition, The Language Instinct, How the Media Works and Words and Rules.
Professor Pinker is an open man. He gave a personal account of his life in 1999 to Ed Douglas of the Guardian (UK). Mr. Douglas describes the author as, "...looking like a rock star...curly shoulder-length mane.. .Cuban heels... a well defined jaw..." Professor Pinker's parents are Jewish. His mother eventually became a counselor and his father a lawyer. He feels he is a cultural Jew who became an atheist at age 13. He is a private, hard working man who has been married twice --once for 12 years to a psychologist and again recently to a scientific and graphics design illustrator. He has chosen not to have children.
Roger Brown of Words and Things fame was Professor Pinker's mentor at Harvard. How we acquire language was Professor Brown's area of interest: his early work in language development established his reputation. Professor Brown was a life-long homosexual with Cary Grant good looks and charisma. After the death of his partner he began drinking heavily, pursued young men and eventually suicided in 1997. Professor Brown wrote Against My Better Judgement: An Intimate Memoir: the book was published in 1996. In this book, Professor Brown catalogs the cruising behavior of his partner and his relationships with "male hustlers." The book belies "gay" as a characteristic of his homosexual lifestyle. Brown always claimed he was too old to be "gay." Professor Brown clearly became alcoholic and failed in his attempts to establish long-term relationships with young men. He also despaired as he lost his good looks. Joy B. Davis did an excellent review of Roger Brown's book. Professor Pinker did the obituary for Roger Brown.
The battle over nature/nurture is changing. Behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience all demonstrate the importance of biology as a means to understand human nature. Professor Pinker documents how these disciplines are attacking the secular religious belief that human brains are blank slates and malleable like clay. Professor Pinker devotes the majority of his book to a review of these areas; however, he also explores more general, "hot button" topics.
One of these "hot button" general topics is politics. The last section of the book has one chapter devoted to politics. I choose to begin here because understanding this chapter is a good lead in for the rest of the book. Chapter 16, entitled politics, begins with twin study data on political attitudes. Adult identical twins separated at birth have political views that correlate.62 (on -1 to +1 scale). What is inherited is not political attitudes but differences in temperament. Of course, personal and social experience determine political views as well, but the finding that innate, heritable temperament plays such a large part is astounding.
Thomas Sowell, in A Conflict of Visions saw much of the ideological struggle as being between two visions of the nature of humanity--"the constrained vision" and "the unconstrained" vision. Pinker takes Sowell's "constrained" and calls it "tragic." He takes Sowell's "unconstrained" and calls it "utopian".
In the tragic vision, human beings are seen as limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtue. All social plans must recognize these limits. Human nature has not changed and cultural traditions, religion and customs evolved as a means of dealing with human limitations. Among these limitations is intrinsic selfishness: this selfishness is not psychopathy but it is a constant in our daily lives. Since human nature has not changed, we are always close to barbarism without cultural and other constraints. Finally, we cannot predict an individual's behavior; hence, we should be wary of top down government plans to change the beliefs and behavior of millions. The best we can hope for are incremental changes based on real experience, trial and error and focusing on actual results. In a word, this is typical conservative thought as espoused by such notables as Hobbes, Burke, Hamilton, Madison, Hayek, Holmes, Friedman, Berlin and Posner.
In the utopian vision, human beings are seen as having unlimited potential: any shortcomings are seen as due to faulty social conditioning. Utopians believe there is no innate human nature with the mind being a blank slate: this blank slate can be changed for the better. Human nature changes with changing social circumstances; hence, traditional institutions have no intrinsic worth. We must overcome the mistaken traditions of dead white men. We must assess traditional morals for political outcome. Since we do not know what we can do until we try, we must courageously make big changes that obviate moral outrages such as racism, sexism, homophobia and economic inequality. We must also do something about power differentials, environmental damage and war. For those who possess the utopian vision, radical political and judicial reform is mandatory. When the word "we" is used it refers to our part in a living culture that is more important than any one individual. This is typical liberal (progressive) thought as espoused by John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Fabian Socialists, Shaw, Rawls, Dworkian, Marx, Locke, Rousseau, Earl Warren and many others.
I am writing this review as the US plans to attack Iraq. No greater difference exists between the utopian and tragic vision adherents than the question of war. Utopians see war as a kind of pathology of misunderstanding, shortsightedness and irrational passions. Utopians believe less saber rattling, more pacifism, disarmament, de-emphasis of patriotism and negotiation can all prevent war. Those of a tragic vision persuasion see war as a natural outcome of group selfishness and evil. They believe the solution is a strong defense to raise the cost to aggressors and to permit negotiation from strength. Tragic visionaries also encourage patriotism, bravery and the military forces of the country. These fiercely held different views of human nature do not respond to debate; hence, discussions usually result in mutual recriminations and little else.
Professor Pinker believes that the new psychological sciences involving genes and behavior vindicate "some version" of the tragic vision. He also doubts that human nature will change remarkably. He believes the principal discoveries documented in chapters before Chapter 15 are:
The primacy of family ties, nepotism and inheritance.
Human beings avoid communal sharing: the more common ethos is reciprocal trade. When reciprocity cannot be established loafing and economic collapse occurs.
Dominance, violence are human universals.
Ethnocentrism and other group-on-group hostility is not only universal but easily elicited in even complex, modern democracies.
Partial heredity of intelligence and other personality characteristics means there will always be genetically determined differences of ability. A remedy for the resultant inequalities requires a trade-off with freedom; unsaid by Pinker is this "trade-off" can be a source of conflict.
People rationalize or otherwise deceive themselves such that they believe they have wisdom, autonomy and integrity when they do not. By doing so, they deny their self-serving prejudices and self-interest in general.
Humans have an innate, inherited bias for their kin and friends. They have a susceptibility to taboo mentality and a tendency to confuse morality with conformity, rank, cleanliness and beauty.
In summary, chapter 16 is extraordinary in its scope and mastery of multiple disciplines. Professor Pinker writes beautifully, cites carefully and this chapter is no exception. Starting with Chapter 16 makes the rest of the book an easier read. The chapter alone is worth the price of the book and it is puzzling why so few reference it.
Once understood, the tragic/utopian dichotomy permits an understanding of the first five chapters of the book. For example, Professor Pinker believes the utopians have a quasi-religious conviction about how the mind works which includes three fallacies--the blank slate, the noble savage and the ghost in the machine.
The blank slate assumes we have no inherent talents or temperaments: essentially, there is no such thing as human nature. The environment via parenting, culture and society shape the mind and human nature. It is now accepted that there is innate circuitry that does the learning, creates the culture and that responds to socialization. Besides this, psychologists have determined about one half of the variation in intelligence and personality comes from differences in genetic makeup. Evolutionary psychologists have examined thousands of cultures: many of our motives and behaviors seemingly without reason today make sense when one understands the original necessity. Finally, scientists are finding many properties of the brain are genetically organized and do not require information from the senses.
The noble savage assumes that naturally there are no evil motives in people. Corrupting social institutions produce all evils and wrongs. Many intellectuals of the left believe that violence and war among hunter-gatherers is rare or a kind of ritual. Facts show the homicide rate in primitive societies to be much higher than in modern industrial states. There is good evidence that violence, psychopathy, antagonistic personality disorders are heritable. All of these findings clearly demonstrate what we do not like about human nature is not solely the responsibility of social institutions.
The ghost in the machine assumes the most important part of us is independent of our biological nature. On the left, people who hold this view believe our experiences and choices do not depend on either physiology or evolutionary history. People who hold a utopian vision of the world often want radical change that is frustrated by bourgeois democracy; hence, radicals prefer to speak of a socially determined "we" rather than an unfettered biological "I."
On the right, the ghost in the machine takes another form. Professor Pinker assumes people who believe in an immaterial soul do not believe in the biological basis of thought and feeling. He sees the opposition to evolution and beliefs in the presence of a soul, free will and responsibility for choices as being myths. He believes that brain science makes moral responsibility evaporate. To him, some Christians have a primitive "ensoulment" belief that life begins at conception. Christians with the "ensoulment" belief deny the morality of stem cell research on human embryos. Quite surprisingly and without real foundation Professor Pinker states the Christian right opposes biological research because of threats "to the irreducible locus of free choice."
Allan Sandage, one the world's leading astronomers, has declared the big bang is a miracle. In recent years researchers have calculated that the ratio between the density of the universe and the density that would halt cosmic expansion: if it wasn't within one-quadrillion of 1 percent of what it is the universe would collapsed upon itself. If gravity were only slightly stronger, stars would burn out in a year and so forth and so on. Einstein was not convinced there was or was not a God, but he did believe, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." To be an atheist requires a "leap to faith" similar to those who believe in God. In the meantime, there is a large and growing literature on the interaction between behavioral genetics and spirituality. An unfortunate void in this book is the failure to explore such matters.
Chapters 8 through 11 are the fears engendered by the new sciences of the brain and human nature. The fears are: inequality, imperfectability, determinism and nihilism.
The fear of inequality is a political concern. If the doctrine of "the blank slate" is no longer true, how can society guarantee political equality? A blank slate guarantees that equality exists. If human nature varies in an individual's abilities, it makes possible the worst sort of social Darwinism. If racial groups differ in abilities, prejudice will follow. Finally, if biological inequalities are inherited, politicians could write laws enabling eugenic sterilization and worse. Professor Pinker takes a whole chapter to refute these inequality fears.
The fear of imperfectability is subtle and deeply rooted. If human nature is biologically determined to be selfish and self-serving, how can we perfect it? There is again, the conflict between competing visions. Adam Smith pointed out the butcher, baker and brewer do their jobs to make money and get ahead. Marx, believed these same three---butcher, baker and brewer--do their work out of benevolence and a desire to advance socialistic order. "From each according to their means to each according to their needs" underpinned communist Russia. We all know what happened. Professor Pinker demonstrates how the fear of imperfectability plays into feminism, naturalism and relativism.
The fear of determinism is not a fear of biological determinism, but, rather, a fear that determinism eliminates free will. In the traditional view of "the ghost in the machine" our bodies are inhabited by a self (some would equate self with soul) that chooses and acts. We, then, because of this choosing and acting have free will. The basic fear of is that by understanding human nature we gradually reduce the scope of personal responsibility. Sort of an insanity defense for the sane. Professor Pinker is not convincing about eliminating the sense of self or personal responsibility: in other places in the book, he admits as much. He does hold a detailed and interesting account of punishment and criminality.
The fear of nihilism is that strictly biological explanations of the mind will eliminate meaning and purpose in our lives. Professor Pinker's conviction is that religion is changing into a sophisticated deism that is compatible with biological explanations of the mind. He frankly states the goal of this chapter is defensive in that he denies the materialistic explanation of the mind as inherently immoral. I am not sure the Professor has not created a "straw man:" few would argue against a biological basis of the mind.
Professor Pinker categorizes chapters 12-15 as "know thyself." These chapters are the meat of the book in respect to behavior genetics and evolutionary psychology. They are well written and carefully cited. He makes a case for all the assertions previously alluded to as "principal discoveries" summarized above.
Professor Pinker categorizes Chapters 16-20 as "hot buttons." I have already summarized Chapter 16, on politics. The chapter on violence documents that people are biologically prepared for violence but the expression waxes and wanes according to environmental and unknown conditions. Violence and war occur because of man's nature. The basic problem of aggression, violence and war is we compete, are indifferent to others needs and to seek glory or recognition. Culture and faith may ameliorate these tendencies but never eliminate them.
Professor Pinker in Chapter 18 discusses gender. He distinguishes two forms of feminism. Traditional, equity feminism demands equality under the law and in the workplace. Few debate or deny equity feminism. Gender feminism holds that men enslave women and believes male and female differences are culturally or socially determined. This chapter documents most of the key literature documenting the biological and psychological differences between men and women. It also references in subtle ways evolutionary psychological principals regarding gender differences as well as a discussion of rape.
Chapter 19, Children, is an important chapter in the book. Professor Pinker claims, "the nature/nurture debate is over." Of course, it is not completely over, but we now have three proven behavioral genetic laws that have profound ramifications for both science and society. These three laws are:
The First Law: Behavioral traits are heritable.
The Second Law: Parenting effects are less than genetic effects.
The Third Law: Genes or families do not explain much of complex behavior.
I must say this is disquieting for me. I spent forty years practicing psychiatry of which a significant part was counseling. I also raised three children. Notwithstanding these biases, it is hard to argue with Professor Pinker's data and reasoning.
The first law states behavioral traits are heritable: heritability is the proportion of variance in a trait that correlates with genetic differences. At least one-half of the variation in intelligence and temperament is heritable. That is these qualities correlate or are an indirect product of the genes. The I.Q. correlation with genes increases with age so that by adulthood it is .82 (on a scale of -1 to +1). We become more like mom and dad as we grow older. The temperaments we are talking about can be subsumed under the acronym OCEAN --Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion/Introversion, Antagonism/Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Through twin studies it is apparent the following are also heritable: nicotine dependence, alcoholism, and hours of TV watched and even likelihood of divorcing. The problem we all have as long as the heritability of a trait is not zero, we have no way of knowing how much, if any, the trait has been influenced by the environment. All of these conclusions assume no gross neglect, abuse or other catastrophic parenting or other experiences such as childhood rape or incest.
You must understand behavioral genetic methods from three perspectives to make sense of the data. First, twin and other studies can help explain what makes people different but not what they have in common. Further, to say that the heritablility of intelligence is .50 implies half the variation among people is inherited not half of intelligence in a specific individual. Second, behavioral genetic methods measure variation within a given group such as upper-middle class white people and not between lower class and upper class people. Third, behavioral genetic methods only show that traits correlate with genes and do not imply causation.
The second law specifies parenting effects are less than genetic effects. Most people by now assume that genes are important but believe the remaining differences are the responsibility of parenting. There are two kinds of environment --shared and non-shared or unique. Shared environment is what we and our siblings experience in our homes of origin, neighborhood and so forth. The non-shared or unique environment is everything else including differences of parenting between siblings, birth order, injuries, sicknesses and other events that do not happen to one's siblings. The shared environment effect on intelligence and personality traits (OCEAN) is 10% at best and most likely zero. This is particularly true when you measure past the childhood years and into adulthood. As we shall see in the next paragraph the unique environment correlation with intelligence and personality may be as high as .50.
The Third Law: Genes or families do not explain much of complex behavior follows directly from the first and second laws. With genes proving 50% of the variance, shared environment 0-10% then the unique environment must provide the remaining 40% of the variance. One way of remembering this is that identical twins are 50% similar whether they grow up together or apart. In respect to the unique environment, it appears that types of parenting do not correlate with how children turn out. Indeed, it appears how the parents interact with a child is dependent upon the child's genetic make-up. Perhaps the main unique or non-shared environment is peer relationships and interactions. Children model themselves on their peers rather than their family. Their language is much more similar to their peers (including accent) than their parents. While important, peer groups cannot be everything, since identical twins raised together share genes, parents and peer groups but their personality correlation is only .50. Much yet needs to be learned.
It would appear that parents do not change or cause the personalities of their children; therefore, one does not shape children like putty. What seems to be the variable that counts is for parents to recognize children as partners in human relationships: at birth minor partners but when older major partners. It is analogous to how married people get along. Few successfully married people claim they changed the intelligence or personality of their spouse, but they would claim they established a close and workable relationship (friendship).
The last chapter in the "hot button" section is labeled "The Arts." Professor Pinker debunks modernist, postmodernist and deconstructioniist approaches on the basis of biology. This seems to make good sense. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable about art and cannot comment on the value of this chapter.
The author neglected some "hot button" issues. Religion, spirituality and genes is one. Previously, I indicated this was a void. Professor Pinker probably does not have colleagues who are ardent, practicing Christians. If he did, he would not believe Pro-lifers take that position because of "ensoulment" of blastocytes. People who are opposed to abortion believe life starts at conception because there are no good arguments to the contrary. Further, I am skeptical most Christians would deny that what we experience as "mind " and "free choice" have physiological bases.
The author clearly states that religion is still important to the masses but not to the public intellectuals. He has written at least one essay questioning religious belief. It may be that only the uneducated and the stupid believe, but more likely, as the emerging literature suggests, there is a biological basis to spirituality. Sometimes, even atheists express spiritual needs by adhering to a secular faith such as Marxism. There seems to be a general pattern of spirituality across time and cultures.
A second neglected "hot button" issue is social class. Professor Pinker gives several reasons to consider it, but then one reason not to --"anything to do with genes is treated like plutonium." Nothing troubles the utopians more than the findings of Rowe and others that genes play a part in determining social class. Apparently, Professor Pinker treated social class and genes like plutonium.
A third neglected "hot button" issue is homosexuality. Professor Pinker claims gay men have "gay brains"-- a smaller third interstitial nucleus in the anterior hypothalamus. Professor Pinker also states, "the sexual orientation of most gay men cannot be reversed by experience." In spite of this assertion, there is a National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Many fundamental church groups claim successes in converting homosexuals to heterosexuals. It is hard to practice psychiatry without realizing that a considerable number of people drop in and out of the Gay lifestyle. Further, there seem to be wide differences in "Gays" in respect to their sexual behavior and feminine identification.
In 1973 Robert Spitzer, M.D. was instrumental in removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. Early in 2001, he claimed that highly motivated homosexuals could convert themselves to heterosexuals. There are only a few twin studies. If one identical twin is Gay there is a 50% chance for the other twin to be Gay. For fraternal twins the correlation is .20 and for related siblings it is .10. These studies and the alleged brain differences have had their critics. Presently, the safest bet is that there are sufficient compelling studies to indicate becoming gay or lesbian begins before birth. Genetic or biological processes in the womb result in gayness or lesbianism; however this is not an all or none phenomenon and the environment must play some part.
Gay and lesbian advocates insist their orientation is biologically determined before birth. Seemingly, they fear if this is not the accepted wisdom, there would be a basis for discrimination or coercion from religious and mental health groups. Gays and lesbians also are convinced their orientation is immutable. If orientation is not immutable then there is either choice or environmental factors that partially or completely determine orientation. If this is true, then there is either a sin or a disorder. Finally, the political battle to make homosexuals a "protected class" seems to rise or fall on the presence or absence of a genetic determinism. The price for these two views --absolute biological determination and immutability--is the politicization of science.
One can only hope that Professor Pinker and his colleagues will remedy the dearth of solid information on these issues. In the meantime, gays and lesbians are advocating a strict biological determinism by political means. Not only is this not in anyone's long term interest, but it stifles science and truth in a most lamentable way.
The fourth, and last, neglected "hot button" issue is race. Professor Pinker believes that t the black-white difference in IQ is not genetically determined. He points out immigrants initially have low average IQs that increase with time. He points out that regional areas of the US have had a similar change in IQs. Finally, he quotes Thomas Sowell as his authoritative reference. Dr. Sowell, a conservative economist, bases his opinions that race IQ differences are not genetically determined on: anecdotal experiences that Black girls are smarter than Black Boys; the immigrant experience; historical descriptions of conquerors of conquered people as being stupid; and, the Flynn effect where IQs seem to increase with time. Current opinion is that The Flynn Effect results from better nutrition: the effect is primarily on the left-hand side of the Bell Curve.
According to Professor J.P. Rushton, "...Pinker then blinks and stumbles when it comes to race...he is silent about the 15 IQ point difference between African-Americans and Europeans and the 30 IQ point difference between unmixed Africans and Europeans...these findings have been corroborated by over 100 years of research..." After the publication of the Bell Curve in 1994, Herrnstein and Murray were bitterly attacked. Over 60 experts in intelligence and related fields affirmed the above findings about race in a Wall Street Journal Editorial dated 13 December 1994. Finally, Professor Jensen who was hounded for years for his views recently published a book with Frank Miele called Intelligence, Race and Genetics which also affirms these findings. Professor Jensen, previously of Harvard, retired from the University of California, Berkley, and is recognized as the expert in the field of IQ and race. Lest one believe the propaganda that Professor Jensen is a right-wing racist it is important to remember he is of liberal sentiments and has urged exogamy as a solution for the racial disparity in IQ.
The racial differences in IQ are real. The only question is whether they are heritable. Even per capita gross domestic product correlates with a country's average I.Q. The present question before the US Supreme Court is whether affirmative action is constitutional. Siblings vary in intelligence by an average factor of 14, and this would suggest these racial differences are moot. Unfortunately, the differences are at the edges.
It is rare to find a physician, lawyer, scientist or engineer with an IQ less than 110. About 25% of European Whites score at 110 or better. Because the average Black IQ is 85, only 5% of Blacks have an IQ of 110 or better. Mathematically, both absolutely and proportionately, whites will have more individuals at 110 and above than Blacks. Seemingly, the US Supreme Court can ignore these mathematical certainties and the colleges and universities can dumb down their curricula; however, it is going to be hard for everyone to face the White resentment when the truth is widely known.
The whole problem is further complicated by the finding that the Jews have an average IQ of one-half to one standard deviation higher that White Europeans. Overall, a best guess is Ashenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115. This means that over 60% will score over 110--almost three times that of European Whites. More importantly measuring for "giftedness" only 3% of European Whites will score above 130: Ashenazi and other Jews will have perhaps up to five times that number scoring 130 and above. The policy ramifications here are that one can expect more doctors, lawyers, scientists and the gifted among the Jews and especially Russian Jews. It also means in a meritocracy Christians need to focus on the Second Deadly Sin --Envy!
Henry Hazlitt began Economics in One Lesson with a statement that said economics is difficult because economists respond to the pleadings of special interests; hence, everything they write takes into account their political dogma. Similarly, psychology is difficult because often psychologists respond to the political requirements of academia. Anyone who has not read Tenured Radicals by Roger Kimball should. There is no question many fear the outrageous actions of radical professors and students. It stymies open discussion and prematurely closes areas of inquiry.
Professor Pinker has begun a long journey to free the humanities from politically correct, blank slate beliefs. His book is iconoclastic without being a political screed. For the most part, he addresses all the "hot button" issues. Those he does not seem to be the ones at the present time tenured radicals will not brook no matter what. This book like the Bell Curve is bound to have long-term consequences. They are both "stealth books" that change advocates and adversaries alike for the better whether they choose to or not. Besides that, Professor Pinker surely is, as others have said, a polymath.
Buy this book. It is beautifully written, marvelously cited and exciting to read. E. O. Wilson, a zoologist, once said, "we are born not as a blank tablet but an exposed negative waiting to be filled in and developed by experience." Get with it! The "blank slate" and the "noble savage" are receding into history.
1 Douglas, Ed (1999).Steven Pinker: The Mind Reader.Guardian, 6 November 1999.
2 Davis, Joy (1999). Against My Better Judgement: An Intimate Memoir by Roger Brown. Gay Today, www.gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/reviews/101 199re.html
3 Page 283 of the book
4 Sowell, T. (1987). A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. New York: Quill
4 Page 133 in the book.
5This whole paragraph is from Easterbrook, G. The New Convergence. Wired, 12 December 2002. www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence-pr.html.
6 Avise,J.(1998).The Genetic Gods: Evolution and Belief In Human Affairs. Boston: Harvard Press
7 Hunt, M. 2002 The Biological Roots of Religion. Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol 19 Number 3. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/hunt 19 3.html.
8 Page 2 of the book.
9 Pinker, S. Whence Religious Belief? Skeptical Inquirer, July-August 1999.
10 Pate 149 of book.
11 Rowe, D.(1994). The Limits of Family Influence.New York: Guillford.
12 Levay, S. (1993). The Sexual Brain. Cambride, Mass: MIT Press.
13 Kluger, J. Can Gays Switch Sides.Time, 21 May 2001.
14 Mubarak, D. Why Are We Gay. The Advocated. 17 July 2001.
15 Sowell, T.Race and IQ I, II, III. Jewish World Review. 01,02,03 October 2002.
16 Rushton, J.P.Sweeping Away Culture-Only Orthodoxy Almost. Amazon Book Reviews. 29 November 2002. Professor Rushton has also written Race, Revolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (edition 3).
17 Herrnsteinsein RJ and Murray C.(1994) The Bell Curve.New York, Simon and Schuster.
18 Staff. Mainstream Science on Intelligence.Wall Street Journal. 13 December 1994.
19 Mentor and Prodigy. The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. La Griffe du Lion, Volume 4 Number 1 March 2002
19 Mentor and Prodigy. The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. La Griffe du Lion, Volume 4 Number 1 March 2002
See the Bell Curve, Page 272-276 for a preliminary discussion of this.
Herrnsteinsein RJ and Murray C.(1994) The Bell Curve.New York, Simon and Schuster.
Staff. Mainstream Science on Intelligence.Wall Street Journal. 13 December 1994.
Mentor and Prodigy. The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. La Griffe du Lion, Volume 4 Number 1 March 2002
See the Bell Curve, Page 272-276 for a preliminary discussion of this.
Science (or "science") has its prophets, visionaries and ecstatics, just as religion does. What's most important in Huxley may not be the details of Darwinism, but the longing for total revolution, liberation, salvation, and one true answer. The young Hegel was like that as well.
You might appreciate Lewis Feuer's book "Ideology and the Ideologists." New philosophical systems or scientific discoveries -- whether Newton or Darwin or Hegel or pragmatism -- quickly become the focus of hopes for radical transformation. A generation later these ideas have come to be considered more conservative, and the radicals have moved on to others.
For ideological purposes it's not so much the content of the scientific or philosophical ideas that matters as their familiarity or novelty. That doesn't mean that the content of ideas doesn't matter. A Darwinian radicalism or conservatism will look different from a Lockean radicalism or conservatism or an Augustinian radicalism or conservatism, but propagandists can use the raw material of ideas to support the status quo or to overthrow it, and not care much about the moral implications of the ideas they employ.
If you look back to the 1940s you will find many liberals and leftists championing "new," "scientific" and "progressive" ideas that were supposed to remake the world on a rational and scientific basis: logical positivism, psychoanalysis, existentialism, the philosophy of linguistic analysis, modern art and architecture, Skinnerian behaviorism, progressive education.
Some of these ideas don't seem particularly radical today. Someone who's still plugging away at the hot new ideas of two generations ago looks distinctly old fashioned. Nor did such ideas necessarily fit together well. It was the novelty and reductiveness of the ideas and the radical single-mindedness, overweening confidence, and enthusiasm of their adherents that made these concepts look like a progressive bloc. Conservatives, by contrast stood by older Christian or Christian humanist ideas.
Today, many conservative writers are unsure about where to place Darwinism. Is evolution radical or conservative? Is Darwinism an anti-religious materialism or does it allow for God (or does God allow for Darwinism)? Does evolutionary theory subvert or sustain current conditions or those conditions that are beneficial to morality and human flourishing? Is Darwinism just science or is it an ideology? Does it make us all animals? Does it acquaint us with the limits of what is possible? Or does it make a transformation of humanity possible? And will that transformation by good or bad?
Much depends on what one takes "evolution" or "Darwinism" to be and how one frames the question. But one can find conservative writers coming down on opposite sides of these controversies. If you're interested, you can probably find a lot of articles on the subject here. Extreme Darwinism may be a conservative "H-Bomb" that destroys radical claims and aspirations, but also destroys much else that is valuable or necessary for life along with them.
Curiously, we've been here before. A century ago, evolution was very much a topic of controversy and debate. Conservative and radical Darwinians sparred with religious or humanist anti-Darwinians. It's commonplace in retrospect to make the "social Darwinists" into racists and "reactionaries." But there were many leftists who made use of Darwinian ideas -- Shaw, Wells, Jack London, John Dewey, Lester Ward -- and some radicals of a century were not above using concepts and language that would today be called "racist."
Thank you for your thoughtful post, x. What the ideologists have in common, it seems to me, is the total rejection of the classical concepts of human nature and human order – Hellenic and Judeo-Christian – and the radical transformation of the understanding of man that becomes urgent once God has “died.” For the classical concepts are premised on the “existence” of God. Even the great Greeks, by virtue of an amazing analytical speculation, “found” the One God of the Beyond. That is, they came to the conclusion, on the basis of reason, that there must be a God beyond the intramundane gods, the Olympians. And, unlike the Israelites and Christians, they drew this conclusion without the aid of direct divine self-revelation. They understood that the order of the cosmos depended on a Source that was not itself immanent in the space-time reality of the cosmos.
It hardly surprises me that the so-called death of God has had the effect of exposing man to the danger of extinction – figuratively and quite literally. You wrote:
“If you look back to the 1940s you will find many liberals and leftists championing ‘new,’ ‘scientific’ and ‘progressive’ ideas that were supposed to remake the world on a rational and scientific basis: logical positivism, psychoanalysis, existentialism, the philosophy of linguistic analysis, modern art and architecture, Skinnerian behaviorism, progressive education.”
Except for the reference to good ol’ B.F., this little list of “progressive” ideas was effectively realized in Weimar Germany. One might say that it constituted a transformation of the German national consciousness that ineluctibly led to the rise of Hitler who, we must never forget, was democratically elected. The rest, as they say, is history.
And I think you’re right in concluding that “It was the novelty and reductiveness of the ideas and the radical single-mindedness, overweening confidence, and enthusiasm of their adherents that made these concepts look like a progressive bloc.”
Yes. Certainly it was not Hitler’s brilliance as a thinker or scholar of culture and history that led to his rise to power. Once the German nation had become spiritually denuded – as a result of the doctrinalization of religious faith (i.e., faith understood as commitment to a text rather than as a commitment to live in relationship with God) and the rising belief that material science was the very means of human self-salvation – they became sitting ducks for the horrific depredations of the Nazis, as well as the Nazis' collaborators and/or codependents.
You ask: “Is Darwinism an anti-religious materialism or does it allow for God (or does God allow for Darwinism)? Does evolutionary theory subvert or sustain current conditions or those conditions that are beneficial to morality and human flourishing? Is Darwinism just science or is it an ideology? Does it make us all animals? Does it acquaint us with the limits of what is possible? Or does it make a transformation of humanity possible? And will that transformation be good or bad?”
Great questions all. I suspect the answers all depend, however, on (1) how one defines Darwinism and (2) the ideological commitments of the respondent. One thing does seem clear to me however: Darwinism is both materialist and phenomenalist in its concept of man, and leaves no place for spirituality – not one nook or cranny.
Now one can argue that man is just another purely phenomenal existent in nature, that he has zero spiritual extension. That is, there is no real qualitative difference between man and the animal species from which he putatively “descended.”
But then, the question for me becomes: If this is factually true, then why does man appear to be so deeply implicated in matters of the spirit that, once told that “God is dead,” he seemingly inevitably falls under the sway of the “progressive” ideologues and propagandists who propose to fill up the void God “left” with any old “bag of bones,” ersatz religion that promises human self-salvation and paradise on earth?
The devil knows the only attack he can make on man that has any chance of success is the spiritual attack.
The problem with such a secure scientific-materialist grounding for one's beliefs is that one doesn't move on to ethical and religious ways of thinking. The likely result is a shallow and complacent amorality or a pure pragmatism of expediency. And if our nature is defined by our material make-up, the temptation to change our nature by reengineering our genes may prove too strong to overcome. I'm not sure that evolutionary psychology or Darwinism provides a way to say "no" to dangerous experimentation with our species.
Well said, x. I share your concern. I'll go check out the McGinnis article.
Because? Does this mean that human beings did not take an abiding interest in their kin before the time the (selfish!) gene was discovered?
If this were so, then does it mean that the emotional life of human beings only evolved to the point of kin-inclusiveness just in the past several decades? I.e., parents didn't have a reason to love and care for their children before the gene was isolated?
I'm trying to follow McGinnis' line of reasoning here.... So far he sounds pretty "doctrinaire" to me, not to mention anhistoric.
You've already noted the underlying materialist assumption of this whole discussion. In a Darwinian sense, this ends up giving us a situation in which the basic moral foundation is "whatever works." And, contrary to what the review, at least, implies, there is no particular reason that the utopian view cannot account for inherited differences -- if only as something to be actively extinguished.
If there's an elephant in the room in this review (I've not even seen the cover of the book, so I can't comment on it...), it's the apparent absence of Pink's having conducted any meaningful discussion of right and wrong. For example, we see discussion of the tragic and utopian views, but there doesn't seem to be anything for them to be tragic or utopian about.
(And, of course, one must also consider the ramifications of the idea that in Pink's conception, the "utopian view" would in some degree have to be inherited....)
IMHO, when you get right down to it, he's doing what a lot of other people do: he's either trying to justify the last 6 Commandments without having to invoke those pesky first four; or he's setting up an argument for some variation on the idea of might makes right.
Interesting insight, r9etb. Somehow I don't think of Pinker as being particularly concerned with moral issues. But your observation that he may be wanting to justify the last six Commandments by obscuring the first four makes sense to me. Here's The Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the Ten Commandments, just to fill in the details:
"The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).
"Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).
"Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.
"And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).
Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).
"The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.
"His life is the object of the Fifth;
"the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
"his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
"his good name, of the Eighth;
"And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
"and in his property rights by the Tenth.
"This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation."
It seems clear to me that if God's law is not the ordering rule for men, then the "might makes right" scenario -- the rule by men -- is what you inevitably get. JMHO FWIW.
Thanks for writing, r9etb!
Somehow I don't think of Pinker as being particularly concerned with moral issues.
I think one reason is that it's extremely difficult to justify any particular moral stance from a purely materialistic perspective; the other reason is probably that Pink wasn't interested in writing about the moral implications of his conclusions in this book (it would probably treble its length).
Pink has rather fearlessly gone where angels fear to tread. It's reasonable to assume also that he's got some ideas of what's right and wrong. He cannot have failed to recognize the moral implications of his work.
So when you consider Pink's claims about the primacy of inherited behavior and intelligence, his apparent avoidance of the topics of race, class, culture, etc probably reflects something more than a bow to the "tenured radicals."
From a purely material perspective, Pink's conclusions provide what seems to be a very firm argument in favor of social Darwinism, with all that implies. Most people understand and reject the odious implications of Social Darwinism; however, arguments against it have to rely on something other than the empirical data that drives this analysis. In the end, it puts atheists such as Pink into the rather difficult position of having to argue from the utopian position he's just discredited.
The review notes that "an unfortunate void in this book is the failure to explore such matters" (of the difficulties associated with atheist beliefs). I have to think that this void is, in part, deliberate -- not simply because of the moral implications of atheist materialism, but also because it would require Pink to dance around the underlying assumption that there is no God.
It seems clear to me that if God's law is not the ordering rule for men, then the "might makes right" scenario -- the rule by men -- is what you inevitably get.
If I might offer a corollary: To an atheist, the concept of "unalienable rights" is inherently irrational.
Great point, cgbg! This seems to be standard operating procedure for the progressive activist.
Oh, just go ahead and call him "Pink" if you want to, r9etb! :^) (Hey, "if the shoe fits....")
WRT the above italics, I gather this is mainly an evasion of certain implications of his work. As you say, he probably doesn't relish being classed as a social Darwinist; but that's pretty much where his argument lands him. Given the primacy he accords to inheritence, some people are just naturally "more equal" than others.... I don't see any principle at work that justifies the inalienable rights of the "less equal." One might go to the extreme of saying that they're just taking up "Nature's space" and not contributing much of anything to the well-being of the species, but consuming scarce resources all the same....
You wrote: "He cannot have failed to recognize the moral implications of his work." Yes. I'm sure he sees the matter quite clearly. Perhaps he's just hoping that we won't notice the problem. I agree that "this void is, in part, deliberate -- not simply because of the moral implications of atheist materialism, but also because it would require Pink to dance around the underlying assumption that there is no God." Since he dropped God down the old rathole of personal and cultural memory in his first premise, I'm pretty sure he'd just like Him to stay there.... So it won't be "Pink" who "recalls" Him.
I think your "corollary" is spot on (IMHO): "To an atheist, the concept of 'unalienable rights' is inherently irrational."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.