Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.96 AVERAGE
3.96 AVERAGE
It took me quite a long time to read this one. The text is quite small and it hurt my eyes, while the density of ideas hurt my brain. Pinker gives the reader a lot to think about in his attempt to debunk the widely-held belief that we are all born as tabulae rasae, and that nurture the sole determinant of our character or behaviour. And while some of his statements might be regarded in some quarters as 'politically incorrect', for the most part he doesn't so much proselytise as put his propositions out there for contemplation. But he doesn't half go on, though, and some his utterances and assertions (particularly on modern art and composition) betray significant personal prejudice. So take it with a pinch of salt.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Which I agree with human is not a blank slate. He lost me when he is using it to talk about the world...
I'm thoroughly enjoying this book. It is well written, engaging, and humorous, with plenty of insightful examples as well as provocative, and well-substantiated, conclusions. Of all the intriguing ideas explored, I find the idea of an evolved moral sense perhaps the most fascinating.
In the first third of the book I found myself impatient with all the highly anthropomorphic descriptions of genetic evolution through natural selection. Genes don't have agency or motivation, but the frequency with which science popularizers describe them this way just drives me batty and, and I feel it makes understanding critical evolutionary notions very difficult. But now, past the half-way mark, Pinker has completely redeemed himself, and offered several very very articulate and clear descriptions of natural selection, proximate and ultimate causation, and so on.
I am really looking forward to reading more of his books.
In the first third of the book I found myself impatient with all the highly anthropomorphic descriptions of genetic evolution through natural selection. Genes don't have agency or motivation, but the frequency with which science popularizers describe them this way just drives me batty and, and I feel it makes understanding critical evolutionary notions very difficult. But now, past the half-way mark, Pinker has completely redeemed himself, and offered several very very articulate and clear descriptions of natural selection, proximate and ultimate causation, and so on.
I am really looking forward to reading more of his books.
At first you may think you already agree with the view espoused by this book, namely that human nature reaches deep into what we do and what we are. That is until the author quite brilliantly exposes all those little things that we hold true that go counter to the concept of human nature and evidence itself. One of those powerful books that makes you change your perception of a wide range of subject in one powerful swoop.
Interesting reading...some content educated readers will already know.
The most interesting part of this book was the historical references to the theory of the blank slate, why it was important and why it is still being vehemently - but incorrectly - defended. That we have an inherited human nature, for better and worse, does not leave us humans without a free will. In fact, if we're predisposed to certain actions, free will is ever more important. "Predisposed to" is not the same as "forced to". I was really quite surprised that there is a "modern denial of human nature". Really, after all we know about evolution? That's just silly. Of course no human is born as a "blank slate" - such a human would have severe problems with everything from socialization to language acquisition.
This is a sidetrack to why I'm interested in this sort of thing. I was long inclined to believe that nurture was a stronger force than nature. Having been isolated from "chick groups" for a better part of my childhood, I was quite disdainful of girls at the tender age of 11 years old, when I had to associate with such again. I thought they had it from each other, but I wasn't sure. In a class where we got to ask our homeroom teacher anythning my question was whether girls or boys think differently. My classmates thought I was an idiot ("the brains of boys and girls are the same") and my teacher couldn't give a satisfactory answer. Well, at any rate, I wish they would read this book. Clearly the genders are predisposed to some differences in behavior and thinking, as well as in physical brains structure.
However, when Pinker goes off on explaining why a combination of nature and nurture is right thing to believe in and that there is such a thing as human nature, it gets old real fast. He doesn't really bring any revolutionary new facts to the table - but yes, of course, he builds a solid argument. In case you need one.
This is a sidetrack to why I'm interested in this sort of thing. I was long inclined to believe that nurture was a stronger force than nature. Having been isolated from "chick groups" for a better part of my childhood, I was quite disdainful of girls at the tender age of 11 years old, when I had to associate with such again. I thought they had it from each other, but I wasn't sure. In a class where we got to ask our homeroom teacher anythning my question was whether girls or boys think differently. My classmates thought I was an idiot ("the brains of boys and girls are the same") and my teacher couldn't give a satisfactory answer. Well, at any rate, I wish they would read this book. Clearly the genders are predisposed to some differences in behavior and thinking, as well as in physical brains structure.
However, when Pinker goes off on explaining why a combination of nature and nurture is right thing to believe in and that there is such a thing as human nature, it gets old real fast. He doesn't really bring any revolutionary new facts to the table - but yes, of course, he builds a solid argument. In case you need one.
He lost me at Tootsie is better than Shakespeare.
informative
reflective
medium-paced