Steven Pinker is a prominent member of a new cohort of science populizers with genuine scientific credentials (which includes, in the area of brain studies, such authors as Joseph LeDoux, Antonio Damasio, Daniel Dennett). His latest book is by far his most political therefore his most important. As it turns out, the data show that we have much in common as members of the human species, and the news is not all bad.

In the Blank Slate, Pinker directly addresses the major ideological impediments which prevent the widespread adoption of an enlightened, scientifically valid view of humanity. People have opposed the idea of human nature, Pinker argues, due to the adherence to three ideas: the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine.

After presenting empirical and philosophical arguments against this trio of ideas, Pinker turns to directly addressing the fears accompany the denial of human nature. Specifically, people fear that human nature bolsters the acceptance of inequality (and hence injustice) and prevents progress and perfectability of people and society. Pinker counters that such fears are founded upon an exaggerated and overly simplistic view of the manner in which our genes influence our thoughts and actions. Such influences always remain beneath our consciousness and volition; they are one of the ultimate causes of our behavior, but never the sole cause or the immediate cause. This relates to another major fear: the fear of biological determinism, the absence of free will. Pinker also discusses the fear of nihilism, the fear that once our actions and preferences are understood to be rooted in biology, our lives will loose meaning and morality. Again, Pinker shows that such fears are founded upon misunderstanding and oversimplification, as well as the confusion between ultimate casues and mechanism, on the one hand, and the immediate and proximate causes on the other.

In general, many progressives on the political Left have embraced the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage to provide the foundation for ideologies of cultural transformation and reform, in the service of redressing injustices and inequalities. Unfortunately, as Pinker demonstrates, the evidence (as well as our own common sense experiences) indicates that we are neither Blank Slates or Noble Savages. The sum total of our inherited tendencies, our human nature, is neither wicked or noble. Nonetheless, there is the fear, found on both the political Left and Right, that embracing human nature also means normalizing and sanctioning the unseamly side of ourselves. But, as Pinker argues, "natural" is an empirical judgement; "good" is a moral one.

Some critics have argued that no one really believes in the Blank Slate any more, and that Pinker is fighting "straw men." I think, however, that Pinker does a good job of showing that Blank Slate positions are often the implicit default in matters of public discussion and policy making; Blank Slate ideas continue to misguide efforts, even when the Blank Slate is not intentionally invoked.

The third notion which Pinker disputes, the Ghost in the Machine, is far more important to people committed to the political Right, because the Ghost is frequently equated with the immaterial spiritual soul. The major implication of modern neuroscience has been that the workings of the human mind can be adequately explained by the workings of the human brain, as Pinker has shown in more detail in his previous book, How the Mind Works. The more we learn about brain function, the more it has taken over the job description previously assigned to the soul or to the Ghost. The Ghost remains in the mind of many as the only possible foundation for Free Will, and hence meaning and morality. Free will and an inherited human nature are not necessarily contradictory, however, as long as one avoids a simplistic biological determinism in which genes directly control our actions and opinions.

In place of all these fears, Pinker constructs an empirically-supported view of our human nature, addressing in turn 1) the reliabilty and veracity of our perception and our understanding of the world; 2) the sources of interpersonal conflict as well as the sources of a realistic (non-supernatural) morality; 3) the hot-buton topics of race, gender, violence, and child rearing. This is were some of the real meat, the empirical data, is to be found; and this is where Pinker makes good on his claims that accepting the idea of human nature is neither dangerously reactionary or bebasing.

An acquaintance of mine wondered just who this book was intended for, since it appeared to be written above the level of your average person. So be it: Science can be popularized by good writing and clear thinking, but it cannot be greatly simplified without significant loss of coherence and cogency. The book is intended for us: for whoever has the motivation to pick it up or to read this review. If you've read this far, do yourself a favor and read Pinker's book. It's not only fascinating and well-argued; it's important.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker

The Blank Slate is an ambitious book that goes after the blank slate fallacy that is the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves. It's a social-biological study of nature versus nature. This excellent 528 page-book is composed of the following six parts: Part I. The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine, Part II. Fear and Loathing, Part III. Human Nature with a Human Face, Part IV. Know Thyself, Part V. Hot Buttons, and Part VI. The Voice of the Species.

Positives:

1. Steven Pinker the well known Professor of Psychology at Harvard University writes thought-provoking, well-researched books and this book is no different.

2. Professor Pinker goes after the doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine and does so with gusto and a mountain of scientific evidence.

3. I'm glad someone finally refers to Social Darwinism to what it really is, "Social Spencerism".

4. The fallacy of behaviorists.

5. The theory of mind explained.

6. Great quotes with conviction. "The evidence is overwhelming that every aspect of our mental lives depends entirely on physiological events in the tissues of the brain".

7. The three great outrages of self-love.

8. How genes affect our behavior..."Small differences in the genes can lead to large differences in behavior".

9. Evolution is central to the understanding of life.

10. Culture defined.

11. Fascinating look at how our brains remain active during "assembly".

12. Evolutionary biology used to explain the complex cognitive and behavioral adaptations.

13. The attacks on "determinism" and "reductionism".

14. The religious opposition to evolution and its intended corruption of American science education.

15. The religious opposition to neuroscience. The exorcism of the human soul. I would love a whole book on just this topic!

16. The dangerous fallacy of equating evolutionary psychology with "Social Darwinism".

17. Debunking the four fears over the anxiety of human nature.

18. The fact that all species harbor genetic variability, but our species is among the less variable ones. Racial differences being among them.

19. The disposal of eugenics, discrimination, and Social Darwinism.

20. Many excellent messages throughout the book, "An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it".

21. The fallacies of Nazism and Marxism. Nazism with races and the Marxists with classes.

22. Homosexuality in its proper form.

23. The importance of respecting women's fundamental rights to their bodies.

24. The compatibility of human nature with social and moral progress. Excellent!

25. The debunking of environmental determinism.

26. How our minds work.

27. The fallacy of the soul!

28. The co-evolution of intelligence and language.

29. The importance of our genes.

30. The ethics of autonomy, community and divinity explained.

31. Tragic Vision and Utopian outlooks.

32. Interesting take on the goals of the Constitution. How to anticipate and limit that corruption became an obsession of the framers.

33. Interesting take on economics.

34. Fascinating look at the fallacy of the connection between media violence and violent behavior.

35. The logic of violence.

36. The understanding of true equality.

37. Gender under a true light.

38. The appalling notion that rape has nothing to do with rape. Thank you.

39. The three laws of behavioral genetics.

40. Many parenting myths debunked, bravo!

41. A good grasp of how the mind works is indispensable to the arts.

42. Great notes.

43. Extensive references.

Negatives:

1. Links did not work. A real crime for a book like this.

2. Not an even-handed approach. Mr. Pinker has his opinions and does not hesitate to use them. This could be considered a positive but it's not because the author does unleash ad hominen attacks to some of his opponents. For example, B.F. Skinner.

3. The book could be tedious to read at times.

4. It requires an investment of time. The book is too long.

5. A more comprehensive summary at end of each chapter would have been added value.

In summary, this is an important contribution to knowledge. This book is worthy of five stars just based on the wisdom you will obtain. Many important ideas and thoughts are found throughout this ambitious book. Such as, that new ideas from the sciences of human nature DO NOT undermine human values.

Further suggestions: "Human" by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "SuperSense" by Bruce M. Hood, "The Myth of Free Will" by Cris Evatt, "Hardwired Behavior" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.

The Blank Slate

What makes people behave the way we do? How do our personality traits emerge? Is it in our genes? Is it in our environment? Is it a combination of both? Are characteristics ingrained in our species? Or are we blank slates? These are the questions tackled by MIT Psychologist Steven Pinker in this wonderful and voluminous book. From the start, Pinker makes it clear that his purpose is to promote and support the view that human traits, that is to say human nature, is carried in our genes, that we are not blank slates molded by our environments. His further purpose is to expose and destroy the arguments of those who reject the truth about human nature on political rather than scientific grounds. He is very convincing in his arguments.

In the first part of the book, Pinker presents a basic history of the philosophy and theories of human nature. What emerges is that the philosophers we think of as "liberal" such as Hobbes, Locke and Machievelli, believe in an inherent human nature which society can temper through laws while the utopians do not believe in any inborn traits, that people can be molded in any way society sees fit. As Pinker demonstrates, in the academic world, the liberal idea which formed much of the basis of the western enlightenment has been largely superceded by counter-intuitive ideas that people are either "noble savages" or "blank slates."

In the next part of the book, Pinker demonstrates the discoveries science has made into how the mind works. In an easy to read manner, he shows how many human tendencies are rooted in evolutionary selection and are controlled by inherited genes. Pinker's real purpose in writing this book, however, is not to present a history of the development of evolutionary psychology. Rather his purpose is to show how the intrusion of political ideology of both the right and left has infected this academic discipline, rendering pursuit of scientific truth secondary to justification of a series of pre-ordained conclusion. For this reason, the "Blank Slate" is among the most important books of recent years. As Pinker demonstrates, there are real consequences to the savaging of any scientist whose conclusions do not meet with the accepted theory that human beings are blank slates to be molded as society sees fit. The book is filled with examples of accepted dogma that does not fit with scientific evidence. Pinker not only demolishes some of these dogmatic beliefs that defy logic and factual analysis, he demonstrates the moral and philosophical foolishness of such beliefs. As Pinker demonstrates, the accepted dogma is that criminal tendencies are acquired, not inborn. But the argument the proponents of the blank slate seem to make is that if a behavior is inborn it cannot be immoral or otherwise wrong. Therefore, since criminal behavior is wrong, it cannot be inborn. As Pinker convincingly argues, this line of reasoning is not only fallacious but dangerous. The proponents of the blank slate have left themselves no moral wiggle room if and when their argument is proven false. If traits are truly proven to be inborn, then the blank slate proponents would have no choice but to argue that such behavior is not wrong. Pinker avoids this twisted reasoning because, as he rightly asserts, just because a tendency is inborn does MEAN that acting on that tendency is appropriate or anything other than immoral. Morality is defined by society or God, if you like, not by our genetics. The ultimate conclusion of the theory that society creates personality is that society can re-make personalities as it sees fit. Pinker shows how this has led to disastrous experimentation on children and adults alike. In its worst manifestation, it leads to the mass murder of a Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung.

This book is part science, part philosophy and part political/social criticism. It is always entertaining and hugely informative. If I have any criticism of the book at all, it is Pinker's complete lack of a discussion, even superficial, over the role played by social and environmental factors in overcoming genetically based traits and tendencies. However, the complex interplay between the genetic markers which pre-determine many human tendencies and the environmental factors which influence those tendencies is clearly a subject for a different book. Pinker's goal here is to demolish the dogmatists. In this he succeeds. Any reader who values truth over dogma will enjoy and appreciate it.

Sociobiology is a controversial, yet important and growing field of scientific exploration. No other field of science elicits as much condemnation from academics and intellectuals, yet no other scientific endeavor has ever cast as much light on the truth about the evolution of human nature. The reason for the distain shown by academic intellectuals is sociobiology's crushing refutation of the concept known as the "blank slate" theory of human nature, which has become the cornerstone of postmodernist ideals of political correctness. The entire edifice of the postmodern human engineering project carried on at many universities and in the popular media is based upon the concept that "everything is political", and that the attribute we call "human nature" is nothing more than cultural propaganda instilled into children by their parents and reinforced throughout their lives by a rigid, chauvinistic propaganda machine that has become known as "Western Civilization". Evidence is fast mounting that human nature is anything but nonexistent, sociobiology is the area of science where this evidence is researched and proven, and Steven Pinker has done a good job of organizing and, with some reservations, elucidating the evidence. In short, boys and girls are no more identical above the neck than they are below, and every personal psychological attribute is nearly as genetically heritable as every physical attribute. This book proves to my satisfaction that human nature is a factor in the human condition, and that the blank slate theory of personality is a politically correct joke.

This is a long book, a bit tedious in places, but well written, interesting and even humorous overall. The inference that genetic influences are the all-important factor in life outcome is, I think, patently false and contradicted by experience and common sense. The best possible proof of this is contained in a short, fascinating book written by Theodore Dalrymple called "Life at the bottom", which I would strongly recommend as a reality-check by which to measure some of the tenants of sociobiology presented in Pinker's book. This is especially useful when evaluating chapter 19 on the debate about nature/nurture as it concerns children. Dalrymple's book is a collection of anecdotes gleaned from the experiences of a physician who has spent his life ministering to the British underclass. He does not discredit sociobiology, a subject which is never mentioned in his book. He illuminates the subject in the light of harsh reality.

In spite of its deficiencies, however, sociobiology goes a long way toward explaining how genetic tendencies coalesce into the characteristics known as "human nature". It also casts light upon the reasons that 20th century attempts to engineer utopian societies culminated in failure (and in the case of Marxist projects, the deaths of as many as a hundred million people). Sociobiology is, however explicitly silent upon the subject of how best to contain these human impulses in order to establish and maintain an orderly, yet progressive and free civilization. The "fact" of Human Nature presents us with a slew of "natural" behaviors. On the other hand, just because a behavior may be natural does not necessarily mean that its uninhibited expression is appropriate for the maintenance of an orderly civilization and a happy life.

While evidence from sociobiology seems to refute some of the cherished beliefs of modern conservatism as well as liberalism, the case against liberalism is much stronger. Pinker works very hard to establish his credentials as a modern liberal throughout the book, and in some areas I believe that his desire to be seen as a liberal has colored the conclusions he draws from his evidence. This is definitely a worthwhile book. Take the evidence seriously, but be wary when navigating the shoals of the author's opinions.

Mr. Pinker tries to start a reflexion on what makes us what we are.

This book is more a synthesis of his ideas than a scientific work. It gives occasions to question what we believe to be obvious, while it is only the result of the mainstream idea which has been invading the medias and the families for decades : the idea that the human mind is a mere "blank slate" and that, subsequently, all our behaviours, and more generally, our plagues, come from our environment, ie, family, "society" or "culture".

I agree that Mr. Pinker sometimes simplifies his opponents' viewpoints, and he sometimes lacks of nuance and in-depth analysis.

But I don't think he ever pretended to release a scientific work. I think that, first of all, Mr. Pinker wants us to change our references and to be able to accept the very idea of an open debate on the human nature. I personally loved changing my mind on so many topics, or at least finding out that other approaches were possible, where I used to be entrenched in a one-explanation approach.

For instance I used to believe that parenting was the alpha and omega of what makes a person what she/he is. Steven Pinker's book ruined this certainty. I am happy I ceased accusing my parents of all my difficulties in life. This by no means implies that parenting is not a good and important thing. It only gives an opportunity to change glasses about what it means to be a mother or a father.

There are dozens of other fascinating examples of what "the Blank Slate" can bring to the reader.

Maybe this explains the violence behind the debates about human nature.

The book invites us to ask ourselves about our ability to question our certainties with GOOD FAITH, i.e., our ability to admit that facts could invalidate sometiles (but not all the times) our opinions.

Even if we are not forced to follow Mr. Pinker in ALL his developments (I don't say I do), it is still an interesting approach, which brings lots of factual, solid information often ignored by most of us. It is a good start for reflexion, and by no means a dogmatic or "reductionnist" work (I always wonder why this word, "reductionnist" is used by people who precisely reduce the whole human experience to social and familial patterns and reject any other approach).

Some of the reviews here on Amazon.com come from people who visibly have difficulties dealing with FACTS and are really very aggressive (hence my 5 stars, in order to compensate such undue attacks).

When FACTS tend to question our opinions, we have two choices :

1. We admit that we could be wrong and try to start a discussion to redefine our point of view; or

2. We attack the man who states these facts and pretend him to be a stupid / fascist / chauvinist person.

I don't say I always fall in the first category, but I think it is a good way to discuss books like Mr. Pinker's (instead of personal and aggressive attacks, or, worse, commentaries written by people who didn't read the book since they reproach to Mr. Pinker ideas that he never expresses).

It is true that Mr. Pinker sometimes adopts a biased presentation of facts. But the nice thing is that he quotes all his references and exposes every step of his reasoning, which allows a true discussion and an open, honest debate. I really enjoyed very much reading this book.

As noted by other reviewers, this book is as much about the tides of toxic social ideology we're all wading through, as it is about human biology or human behavioral development. That said, there's enough detail here on the subject of classic twin studies, heritability, and related topics to provide the proper grounding for Pinker's main argument: which is that the idea of a blank slate — at this point in our scientific journey as humans — has literally no legs to stand on. Those pushing the blank slate narrative basically missed the memo: nature vs. nurture is a settled match and nurture (mostly) got its butt kicked.

* Quick Diversion *

If you follow the science, the question of "nature or nurture", leads to a simple answer: "yes, but far more nature than nurture." Yes, one's environment and the manner in which they are raised can directly affect personality and other aspects, but it doesn't and could never build a person out of nothingness. In short, nurture's impact is nowhere close to that of our genetic makeup. Based on what we know now, who we are — our personality traits, and our innate strengths and weaknesses — are about 65% genetic. Another 20% is a function of human developmental biology (i.e. given the same sperm and egg, all sorts of things happen within the human body during that 9 months which make it impossible for those two cells to develop the same way twice).

All those trillions of cellular operations that began you and continued outside the womb until roughly age 24 — simultaneously encoded and guided by our DNA and RNA, and also subject to a defined-range-of-randomness that occurs inside all organisms — had a direct impact on the specifics of your brain's wiring and by extension your way of perceiving and thinking, and thus on your behavior.

The rest of who and what we are can logically be attributed to "nurture" — our families, environmental advantages or disadvantages, and the like. But in the end it wasn't much of a contest once we started understanding human genetics and neuroscience at a deeper level.

* End Diversion *

Pinker could've filled the whole book with evidence related to biology and environment, overloadig us with stats and quotes from various experts, but the book is about more than that. Pinker is a brilliant mind who pulls no punches when it comes to the zealotry of the blank slaters, but he does it in a way that is thoughtful and measured — something pretty rare these days. For this reason alone you should read the book to get some perspective that you are unlikely to get elsewhere.

Ultimately Pinker wants us to recognize two things when thinking about these topics:

1) The science bears out that we are who we are, largely because of our genes and the molecular processes at work in the human body during embryonic and childhood development, with a modest amount accounted for by human experience (how and where we are raised)... and...

2) It is not necessary to take the woke approach to understand human development and human behavior. We can speak out on the social and societal issues that need addressing, without twisting settled biological science into a pretzel and adding a side-helping of righteous indignation.

This book is about science and politics. Pinker took on the project this book represents after colleagues told him that little boys are aggressive because they’re socialized to be, teenagers get the idea to compete for appearance thanks to spelling bee awards, and men think sex is desirable because society tells them it is. In other words, humans are born a blank slate, only nurture, not nature, will make them what they are. “This is the mentality of a cult,” writes Pinker, “in which fantastical beliefs are flaunted as proof of one’s piety. This mentality cannot exist with an esteem for truth… [and is] responsible for unfortunate trends… [like] a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence, and the inevitable reaction [of] politically incorrect shock jocks who revel in anti-intellectualism and bigotry, emboldened by the knowledge that the intellectual establishment has forfeited claims of credibility…” Amen to that!

Pinker shows the cult fearful of findings from cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary physiology. Why? Because they make the errant assumption that pre-wired humans are incapable of being made moral and humane. Their interpretation of statistics was as certainty, not probability. Hence, what we’re now so familiar with from the Right were long before practiced by the Left. Scientific findings were not only denied and vilified, but scientists who dare desecrate the creed were attacked with smear campaigns, character assassination, and words put in their mouth only to pronounce how wrong they were. Even the likes of paleontologist Steven J. Gould (stunned me), geneticist Richard Lewontin (naturally), and the neuroscientist Steven Rose (daft) were dupes for the movement. This troika and the campus snowflakes they inspired labeled E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Trivers as genocidal bigots, racists, practitioners of eugenics, Nazis (yawn), and Right-wing prophets of patriarchy (more yawn). All because Wilson et. al. found biology responsible for much of human behavior. (Was this really a surprise?) While Pinker’s focus is social “science” doctrine, not the shock jocks he refers to (Rush Limbaugh etc.), as one reads this book it becomes apparent there’s no difference between the two, other than what they proclaim as sacrosanct and blasphemy.

After a history of the blank slate starting with John Locke, followed by the Great Schism and what the cult is trying to protect, Pinker dives into measurement, data, and reason. The identical twin studies were so pronounced and ironclad, I had to reread them, then check references to believe these clones (which is what twins are) could be so identical in their behavior. That is, twins separated at birth, shipped off to different countries, class structures, learning environments, never to know the other or their common parents, found decades later to have the same behaviors in a myriad of the most nuanced and peculiar ways. Biology matters.

So it is, with the purifying flames of science separated from politically correct programs of pseudo-morality, Pinker burns just about every quasi-religious Postmodernist liberal dogma in the blank slate arena you can name—with the exception of gender-fluidity, not yet concocted. I hope one day he’ll do the same to Creationists and global warming deniers on the Right. What a thrill, and a shame to find even biologists themselves got caught up in the PC creed of our times. It also clarified for me what almost cannot be done in physics and chemistry (except for transparent liars like Ivar Giaever). Biology, several steps up from the closest thing we’ve got to certainty in the foundations of reality, allows for some fiddle-faddle and hoodwink, so long as the promoter has a notable name like Gould. Limbaugh and Creationists love this. Gould, the troika, and their followers deserve their share of credit for the monster they helped create on the Right as a response to this kind of nonsense.

Have you ever read a book that completely changes the way you view the world? The author demolishes many things held dear to us, but he is able to lucidly turn this seemingly stark world-view around and reveal its promise and elucidates the inherent dangers of the old world-view. That is a rare talent! In reading the book, I was constantly made uncomfortable by some of the findings he discusses, but in the end I felt that this new vision was inspiring and extremely intuitive.

The author begins with a discussion of how the mind works and discusses the field of evolutionary psychology before he begins a tour-de-force, discussing everything from gender to politics to violence. In these discussions, the author misses on a few points, where it appears he almost has an agenda, but most of the discussion is reasoned, rational and even-handed. Many of the authors faults are as a result of the crime of omission where his focus is directed towards his decidedly libertarian political bias. In particular, I ended up reading the chapter on politics and while agreeing with him on his bashing of some liberal pre-conceived notions, I came to a different conclusion than the author. When he starts discussing free markets and rational actors, he tends to lose me. When he mentions that irregardless of social programs to create a level playing field, some people will still be left behind, doesn't mean that these programs don't help some people. The author takes great pains to lucidly show that there are no differences in IQ among races, but how does he couple this with the fact that black people are more likely to be criminals, less likely to go to school and more likely to be poor. Irregardless of a blank slate, there are a lot of societal shaping factors at play, which can be rectified social programs.

But overall, this book is right on the spot, clear-headed and rational. The chapter on "suffering" is amazingly powerful, poetic and inspiring. I found myself highlighting my copy every sentence in this chapter. The author provides an honest dissection of why we should treat people equally as a universal moral idiom, rather than based on genetically-imbued talents, skills and intelligence. The author discusses the honest fact, that men and women are inherently different, on average but our policies shouldn't discriminate because there is a great inherent overlap. In conclusion, this book provides a cogent analysis of human nature that while seemingly alien, upon introspection is an entirely intuitive analysis of our human condition. This is an essential read that is mind-expanding as well as emotionally satisfying.

MITの言語学者であり，いまもっとも説得力のある進化心理学の説き手の一人であるピンカーによる遺伝と環境についての論争が何故いかに本質とずれてしまうのかについての大作．ヒューマンネイチャー（人間の本質）が何なのかについては欧米では劇的な大論争があるのだがその論争の本質となぜそうなのかをすばらしく優雅に解説してくれる．

ブランクスレートというイデオロギーの根源，なぜそれがイデオロギーとして20世紀に君臨し，また21世紀にも影響力をもち続ける勢いなのか，そしてホットイッシューについてのピンカーの胸をすくような解説．ルソー，ホッブスにさかのぼる根源，社会科学者のナイーブさとさらに輪をかけて悪用する人たち．さばきの見事さ，相変わらずの軽快な語り口，わくわくして読みました．

Este es un libro absolutamente esencial para todo universitario en las ciencias y las humanidades. Pensado y escrito en la tradición de "no enseñar qué pensar, sin cómo pensar" este es un libro erudito, rico en información y referencias científicas. En un extremo está el sistema de valores determinista de la tradición judeo-cristiana que nos dice que la naturaleza humana está dada por los mitos de esa tradición y que guardan cierta relación con las determinaciones innatas biológicas de nuestra especie; en el otro extremo, nos dice el autor, está otro sistema de valores determinista que es "la tabula rasa", en la que se presenta la teoría de "una naturaleza humana inexistente": es decir una teoría del ser humano que parte de la premisa de que la naturaleza humana no existe, todo es producto de la cultura. Somos como una hoja limpia (una tabla rasa), sin determinaciones biológico-evolutivas en donde todo es producto de la socialización, la cultura, y la construcción social. Esto incluye cosas como la sexualidad humana y el género (tan utilizada políticamente por las feministas de tercera ola) en la que nos dicen que todos los niños y niñas nacen bisexuales y a través de la educación y la cultura el género y las preferencias sexuales les son construídas. La evolución biológica biológica, dice la teoría de la tabula rasa (la negación moderna de la naturaleza humana, como indica el subtítulo de este libro indispensable). Todo es una vulgar construcción social maleable por el ser humano. Steven Pinker recorre así, distintas facetas de la política, la cultura, las humanidades y las ciencias, y todo aquel ámbito en donde se ha estado utilizado de manera hiper-tóxica la ideología de la tabula rasa con fines políticos (como el feminismo), para transparentar y cuestionar las falsas y destructivas premisas de las que parte.

Awesome book!

In this book, Professor Pinker presents some radical new ideas, which he backs up with rigorous statistics and copious academic references: boys are different from girls; children take after their parents; it's hard for parents to change a child's personality; some rapists do it for the sex; there is such a thing as human nature, and it affects what we think and do.

At this point, you may be thinking that all this is common sense -- your grandmother would have told you as much. If you want to see why Professor Pinker needed to write this book, take a look at the one, two and three star reviews. Not one criticises the book for stating the bleeding obvious.

Some thirty years ago when I was at university, our sociology lectures really did feed us the line that those reviewers are trying to assert: that intelligence and personality are not inherited; that boys and girls would be the same if they were brought up the same; that rapists are not interested in sex, just violence in asserting male hegemony; that humans are a blank slate.

Strangely enough, I bought into these assertions myself, not because they had any evidence or theory to back them up, but because the lecturers were respected academics, and because they presented the ideas as new and somehow left wing and feminist.

This book is important, not only because it shows that their ideas are unsupported and wrong, but because it shows that they are not left wing either. Dr Pinker is not some male-chauvinist right-wing bigot, and in the book he shows that feminism and equality must not be tied to ideas about human nature that run counter to the facts. Even if there is evidence that man and women are different, it must not become an excuse for discriminating against women.

The book has some flaws. Dr Pinker is careful to show that differences between men and women should not be allowed to affect our value judgements about sexism. However, his chapters on education and art do make this sort of linkage, implying that jazz and rock music are better than modernist serial music because they are closer to human nature, for example. In this case, I agree with Pinker's conclusions, but not his argument, which is less academically rigorous than other chapters of this book. Worse, these arguments undermine Pinker's points about sexism and racism, and the book would be much better without them.

Nonetheless, this book represents rather a turning point for academia, drawing together recent research by feminists, statisticians and other academics that leaves the old-style sociologists and philosophers looking rather silly. An important book, presented in Pinker's fluent and accessible style, and a comfortable five stars.

Arrived well packaged