Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.96 AVERAGE
3.96 AVERAGE
Brilliant!
I really enjoy Pinker's work. Although it takes a step back to fully digest and appreciate, he manages to make the dull humorous and the complicated understandable.
It's a breath of fresh air.
I really enjoy Pinker's work. Although it takes a step back to fully digest and appreciate, he manages to make the dull humorous and the complicated understandable.
It's a breath of fresh air.
I enjoyed The Blank Slate, and it's tough to see it as anything other than a prescient (albeit ignored) antidote to the social movement that gave rise to Trumpism. More specifically, Pinker's book wrestles with one core idea: when objective, scientific truth points to conclusions that have uncomfortable results, is it better to embrace the truth as-is or, for fear of that truth being manipulated and used inappropriately, is it better to peddle a convenient and palatable fiction?
Pinker comes down firmly on the side of truth qua truth, and he provides numerous examples throughout. For example--standard dogma in the US asserts that there are no differences between male and female other than sex organs, and that gender and gender roles are a social construct. Or to take a more controversial example, Pinker notes the accepted doctrine that all races have equal intelligence in all respects (regardless of which quantum we use to measure it). Because boys and girls are the same, and because all races are the same--the doctrine goes--therefore all should have equal rights.
Pinker digs into this and points out that science doesn't support the conclusion that there are no differences between boys and girls other than sex organs. If the basis of the extension of rights to a group is an acknowledgment of being materially identical, then those rights are in jeopardy when the science disproves the "exactitude" of the similarity. Pinker posits an alternative: we have equal rights as an inherent part of the human condition (he talks about expanding the circle of rights, but I'm simplifying), regardless of whatever differences there are between individuals, sexes, or races. He uses the analogy that even though taller people have higher IQs than shorter people (which science confirms), we don't discriminate on the basis of height because we don't believe it's relevant to whether someone deserves equal rights. Shouldn't the same be true about other characteristics?
Here's the rub: anyone who has been around kids for any length of time invariably reaches the conclusion that boys and girls differ, and it isn't all culture. If, society forces us to adopt as truth something readily disprovable by human experience, two things happen. First, we devalue truth, as it becomes a subjective means of obtaining the right social outcome. And second--and more relevant today--is that shoving "social truth" down the throats of people tends to result in populist pushback. This is exactly what we see today, and why so many people embrace Trump as someone who "says it like it is," even if they otherwise disagree with everything about him. Had we broken the taboo of contradicting social truth, would we have cut the legs out from under Trump? Missed opportunities--
Definitely a must read.
Pinker comes down firmly on the side of truth qua truth, and he provides numerous examples throughout. For example--standard dogma in the US asserts that there are no differences between male and female other than sex organs, and that gender and gender roles are a social construct. Or to take a more controversial example, Pinker notes the accepted doctrine that all races have equal intelligence in all respects (regardless of which quantum we use to measure it). Because boys and girls are the same, and because all races are the same--the doctrine goes--therefore all should have equal rights.
Pinker digs into this and points out that science doesn't support the conclusion that there are no differences between boys and girls other than sex organs. If the basis of the extension of rights to a group is an acknowledgment of being materially identical, then those rights are in jeopardy when the science disproves the "exactitude" of the similarity. Pinker posits an alternative: we have equal rights as an inherent part of the human condition (he talks about expanding the circle of rights, but I'm simplifying), regardless of whatever differences there are between individuals, sexes, or races. He uses the analogy that even though taller people have higher IQs than shorter people (which science confirms), we don't discriminate on the basis of height because we don't believe it's relevant to whether someone deserves equal rights. Shouldn't the same be true about other characteristics?
Here's the rub: anyone who has been around kids for any length of time invariably reaches the conclusion that boys and girls differ, and it isn't all culture. If, society forces us to adopt as truth something readily disprovable by human experience, two things happen. First, we devalue truth, as it becomes a subjective means of obtaining the right social outcome. And second--and more relevant today--is that shoving "social truth" down the throats of people tends to result in populist pushback. This is exactly what we see today, and why so many people embrace Trump as someone who "says it like it is," even if they otherwise disagree with everything about him. Had we broken the taboo of contradicting social truth, would we have cut the legs out from under Trump? Missed opportunities--
Definitely a must read.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Pinker provides strong support for his hypothesis of the existence of a biologically or genetically based component to human nature. As a staunch social justice warrior (SJW) in the Rawlsian tradition, it was a bit like a cold shower to grab my attention and force me to self-reflect. And although I disagree with the conclusion he reaches in re post-modernism (my contention falling outside of the scope of a review), I agree with much of what he conveys.
Pinker understands at the outset that his views will upset many of his peers, who will invariably and vehemently oppose the genetic component of human nature in favour of a more comfortable adoption of a blank slate.
Although reading this a full decade-and-a-half after its initial publication, it feels that much of this is still not accepted in polite company, and the Oprahs and Dr Phils of the world still hold sway over public imagination. This might be the favourite of books I've read in 2017 and I won't even demerit his attack on post-modern thought, though I do concur with his charge of its banality in many cases. I'd love to read an updated version that showcases the progress and acceptance (or rejection) between 2002 and today.
Pinker understands at the outset that his views will upset many of his peers, who will invariably and vehemently oppose the genetic component of human nature in favour of a more comfortable adoption of a blank slate.
Although reading this a full decade-and-a-half after its initial publication, it feels that much of this is still not accepted in polite company, and the Oprahs and Dr Phils of the world still hold sway over public imagination. This might be the favourite of books I've read in 2017 and I won't even demerit his attack on post-modern thought, though I do concur with his charge of its banality in many cases. I'd love to read an updated version that showcases the progress and acceptance (or rejection) between 2002 and today.
➡️ Is our mind a blank slate when we are born or is our character and mind determined by our genes? How do our environment and our social connections shape who we are?
informative
slow-paced
While it was a bit dense and didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, Pinker eloquently explains a lot of why we are the way we are and why we shouldn't be afraid of it/deal with it.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
NOTE: What an ironically lame review of a book that is legitimate genius! In retrospect, I must not have had the time/wherewithal to write the review this amazing book deserves.
It had (and still has) a HUGE influence on my thinking and way of seeing the world. How many books can you say that about?
Clichés like ‘transformative’ or ‘monumental’ or ‘important’ come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that’s honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I’m left where I started.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.
NOTE: What an ironically lame review of a book that is legitimate genius! In retrospect, I must not have had the time/wherewithal to write the review this amazing book deserves.
It had (and still has) a HUGE influence on my thinking and way of seeing the world. How many books can you say that about?
Clichés like ‘transformative’ or ‘monumental’ or ‘important’ come to mind when I try to describe it in a quick pass.
That sounds lame and hyperbolic, but that’s honestly appropriate when describing this work.
I guess I’m left where I started.
I love Steven Pinker and I loved this book.