Just finished reading chapter one of "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.

Excellent so far, so much of our policy and thinking is based on the three errors of:

The blank slate
The ghost in machine
The noble savage

These errors have sent (western) human society way off course and have resulted in great harm.

I liked it very much too, it also led me to a lot of studies I wasn't aware of, but I think too often he argues against strawmans . Also I think his own ideas as expressed in other books still imply the ghost in the machine premise, although more like a skynet type of ghost .

It's the origin of one of my favourite quotes.

Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.

Asta666 wrote:I liked it very much too, it also led me to a lot of studies I wasn't aware of, but I think too often he argues against strawmans . Also I think his own ideas as expressed in other books still imply the ghost in the machine premise, although more like a skynet type of ghost .

I agree. It would be difficult indeed to find actual proponents now-a-days of the Ghost in the Machine, Noble Savage, and Blank Slate among secular scientists.

However relics of "blank slate" kind of thinking are still discernible every time parents are blamed for the poor outcomes of their children.

scott1328 wrote:

Asta666 wrote:I liked it very much too, it also led me to a lot of studies I wasn't aware of, but I think too often he argues against strawmans . Also I think his own ideas as expressed in other books still imply the ghost in the machine premise, although more like a skynet type of ghost .

I agree. It would be difficult indeed to find actual proponents now-a-days of the Ghost in the Machine, Noble Savage, and Blank Slate among secular scientists.

However relics of "blank slate" kind of thinking are still discernible every time parents are blamed for the poor outcomes of their children.

Actually I think the ghost-in-machine still exists at least implicitly in many theories and among many theorist today, Steven Pinker included. Off course I agree that if pushed to clarify the issue, he would not state he believes that view.

As for "relics" of blank slate, I don't think many people ever held that view in psychology. Not even someone as radical as John Watson held a blank state view, despite the often cited quote from him regarding turning any child into whatever he wants (the quote is out of context, the next sentence he clarifies that he is exaggerating). Off course Pinker is intellectually lazy and portrays people like Skinner, who held a very high regard for genetic influence in human behavior, as being a blank slate proponent.

Oh and parents are for a large extent responsible for their children's outcomes (I wouldn't use blame, most simply are not aware of better methods or need training or resources). Genes and environments both have their influences, saying there is no impact of learning is just as ignorant as saying it's all due to learning.

Imza wrote:
Oh and parents are for a large extent responsible for their children's outcomes

Not according to the data presented in the book.

Have you actually read the book?

romansh wrote:

Imza wrote:
Oh and parents are for a large extent responsible for their children's outcomes

Not according to the data presented in the book.

Have you actually read the book?

Yes I have, I'm in child psychology myself. Pinker is overstating his case to show the influence of genes on various areas of human development but even someone like Pinker can't defend that claim against the mountains of data to the contrary. And like I said, people are largely defensive of the notion of parents being responsible because it implies blame or malice on the part of the parents, which is largely not the case. When I say parents are "responsible" I mean in it scientific terms, as in they account for some of the largest variance in child outcomes. Off course the actual picture is more complicated when you take into account complex gene X environment interactions, as well as larger social ones but saying parents don't have a large influence is absurd.

So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

romansh wrote:So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

Why only twin studies? Twin studies are valuable but certainly not the only methodology used in the field. Relying on them exclusively will naturally lead to error as any one research methodology does not make a scientific enterprise. One of the key flaws of twin studies being that the separate and different environments for twins separated at birth tend not to be very different (same country, same social class, same race, etc...). I don't have the time to go through every study of this but Robert Sapolsky does a great job of distilling all the key features of twin studies and how to be wary of making too strong conclusions from them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY

Off course this is not to dismiss the results from the twin studies, they are very valuable. As for specific outcomes, give me some ones your interested in and I'll hunt down citations for you. For a more general perspective, I would suggest reading the book "Meaningful Differences" which is a book length treatment of a large scale study. Off course the book is heavily on the environment side of things but like the twin studies, it is itself flawed. More specific research related to outcomes of say intelligence can be found on research on IQ, which is largely considered to have 50/50 (Give or take) gene/environmental influence.

I would also suggest reading critiques of Pinker as well, I know within the psychology community he has been criticized for misrepresenting the research and trying to sell his books. This isn't true across the board but he does provide one aspect of the research that he is personally biased towards. Here is one good review http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 6542,d.dmg

Imza wrote:

romansh wrote:So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

Why only twin studies?

Because twins studies control the genotype as a variable.

If both twins end up schizophrenic regardless of how they are brought up then we can say that schizophrenia is caused by the genes.

NoFreeWill wrote:

Imza wrote:

romansh wrote:So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

Why only twin studies?

Because twins studies control the genotype as a variable.

If both twins end up schizophrenic regardless of how they are brought up then we can say that schizophrenia is caused by the genes.

Why "only" twin studies? I know what twin studies do, I also know from my basic science courses that no one study, nor no one methodology will give you the perfect answer. Again, listen to Sapolsky's lecture on how these methods have time and again been used to claim we have have found the golden genetic ticket only to later find severe confounds in the design.

Also schizophrenia is much heritable than other traits and is also much easier to study compared to other multi-faceted outcomes.

Imza wrote:

romansh wrote:So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

Why only twin studies? Twin studies are valuable but certainly not the only methodology used in the field. Relying on them exclusively will naturally lead to error as any one research methodology does not make a scientific enterprise. One of the key flaws of twin studies being that the separate and different environments for twins separated at birth tend not to be very different (same country, same social class, same race, etc...). I don't have the time to go through every study of this but Robert Sapolsky does a great job of distilling all the key features of twin studies and how to be wary of making too strong conclusions from them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY

I suspect you're being generous. Some of the methodology behind twin and adoption studies that lead to the conclusions of people like Pinker is so faulty it's ludicrous. The Gene Illusion by Jay Joseph is another good exploration of some of the problems involved.

NoFreeWill wrote:If both twins end up schizophrenic regardless of how they are brought up then we can say that schizophrenia is caused by the genes.

No we can't.

And as far as we know nobody ends up schixophrenic "regardless of how they are brought up". Even those who postulate or invent genetic causes for conditions like schizophrenia still acknowledge that genes only have an effect by interaction with environment.

Imza wrote:As for "relics" of blank slate, I don't think many people ever held that view in psychology. Not even someone as radical as John Watson held a blank state view, despite the often cited quote from him regarding turning any child into whatever he wants (the quote is out of context, the next sentence he clarifies that he is exaggerating). Off course Pinker is intellectually lazy and portrays people like Skinner, who held a very high regard for genetic influence in human behavior, as being a blank slate proponent.

One of the frustrating things about this whole debate is that both sides insist on presenting themselves as the middle ground, while painting the other side as an extreme. People like Stephen Jay Gould call people like Pinker "biological determinists", which they strenuously deny, while in turn calling people like Gould "blank slatists", which they strenuously deny. When push comes to shove, both sides cover their arses by acknowledging that both genes and environment play a role in human characteristics (well, d'uh ).

Which kind of makes one wonder what they're arguing about, if in fact they're actually arguing about anything rather than just trying to sell more books.

Personally I think there's much more of interest to be found in examining each single issue on its merits. The genesis of intelligence, sporting ability, character type and musical talent might all be completely different for all we know. One day they might find a genetic profile that comprehensively proves the genetic origin of one, while saying nothing about any of the others. It's not particularly helpful to be either a biological determinist or a blank slatist if it means you start with a prejudice that everything must originate from the same "side".

It has to be admitted, though, that there is a very major difference in the state of science about genetics on the one hand, and environmental influence on the other. That is that we KNOW, from both real world observation and scientifically robust experiment, many of the effects of environment. We know that if two newborns are raised exclusively in English speaking and French speaking environments respectively, one will learn to speak English and the other will learn to speak French. We know that if two young five year olds start piano lessons with the same teacher, and one practises an hour a day while the other doesn't practise at all, the first one will become a better piano player. Etc. etc.

By contrast, most of what people like Pinker claim about the effects of genes is much more indirect, based on either methodologically unsound twin and adoption studies or pure supposition. Very often, peoples' ideas about genetic inheritance come from nothing more than the fact that not all environmental influences can be disentangled and understood. So faced with the great mass of stuff about people that we don't understand, they just throw their arms up and say "it must be in the genes!"

Of course it might well be, in some cases. Or not, in others. But the thing is it's not really saying much, to say that.

I don't know much about actual hard genetic science, but my impression is that considering the lightning speed at which it's advancing, there's been surprisingly little found to support the claims of Pinker et al.

For the record: the conclusion I remember from the book was that we're a mix of nature and nurture. Pinker didn't come down on any one side. I'm willing to be shown wrong on that.

Animavore wrote:For the record: the conclusion I remember from the book was that we're a mix of nature and nurture.

What's the point of the book then, given that that's about as contraversial as claiming that dogs bark. Why didn't he then entitle the book, "THE ONLY PARTLY FILLED-IN SLATE"?

The argument running through the book is basically a deconstruction what Pinker describes as "blank slate" mentality in the likes of Gould, Lewontin, even Skinner as Imza described above. That argument is largely a mixture of strawman-fighting (since none of those people actually believed in a blank slate anyway - they just believed in the far more reasonable proposition that any claims about genetic causes for human traits require actual, scientifically robust evidence before being accepted) and misrepresentation (since it relies on highly dubious and biased twin and adoption studies, and incorrect application of concepts like heritability).

The "oh well it's all a mixture after all" is just a cop-out after the fact to accommodate the weakness of his position.

Beatsong wrote:

Imza wrote:

romansh wrote:So you will be able to cite "twin" studies separated at birth showing your position?

Why only twin studies? Twin studies are valuable but certainly not the only methodology used in the field. Relying on them exclusively will naturally lead to error as any one research methodology does not make a scientific enterprise. One of the key flaws of twin studies being that the separate and different environments for twins separated at birth tend not to be very different (same country, same social class, same race, etc...). I don't have the time to go through every study of this but Robert Sapolsky does a great job of distilling all the key features of twin studies and how to be wary of making too strong conclusions from them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY

I suspect you're being generous. Some of the methodology behind twin and adoption studies that lead to the conclusions of people like Pinker is so faulty it's ludicrous. The Gene Illusion by Jay Joseph is another good exploration of some of the problems involved.

Generous yes but only because many methodologies people relied on initially are later found to have flaws. I recommend the Sapolsky lecture because he is a master at explaining it from the perspective of the researchers and how initially the logic they were using was sound from their perspective. Later on off course other researchers found flaws in the methods so the field adjusted. Same can be said for other methods not related to trying to isolate genetic influence, it's just good science that often requires discarding results and methods of the past.

As for Pinker and others, I do think it's annoying that people provide an all or nothing perspective, it's genes or environment but it can't be both. In Pinker's specific case, I think it's academically irresponsible by releasing such books and not being exquisitely careful and nuanced about what he says to the popular audience.

Beatsong wrote:

Animavore wrote:For the record: the conclusion I remember from the book was that we're a mix of nature and nurture.

What's the point of the book then, given that that's about as contraversial as claiming that dogs bark. Why didn't he then entitle the book, "THE ONLY PARTLY FILLED-IN SLATE"?

The argument running through the book is basically a deconstruction what Pinker describes as "blank slate" mentality in the likes of Gould, Lewontin, even Skinner as Imza described above. That argument is largely a mixture of strawman-fighting (since none of those people actually believed in a blank slate anyway - they just believed in the far more reasonable proposition that any claims about genetic causes for human traits require actual, scientifically robust evidence before being accepted) and misrepresentation (since it relies on highly dubious and biased twin and adoption studies, and incorrect application of concepts like heritability).

The "oh well it's all a mixture after all" is just a cop-out after the fact to accommodate the weakness of his position.

I'm not sure how you see that as weakness. The whole point is that we have innate traits which are uncoupled from learning or background. But background still affects us.
I see no controversy in that.

Animavore wrote:The whole point is that we have innate traits which are uncoupled from learning or background. But background still affects us.
I see no controversy in that.

Well no, but then the way you put it there says nothing other than "people are born different". Obviously people have innate traits like eye colour, blood type etc. In some relatively basic cases it's easy to see how these affect life outcomes - eg Usain Bolt would be unlikely to be such a good sprinter without such long legs.

The problem is that that statement, put as generally as that, really doesn't add anything to our knowledge. I don't believe you can claim that is all Pinker meant, because if it was there would have been nothing to write about - certainly nothing to write so passionately and combatively about.

The problem comes once you start trying to define WHICH traits are innate and uncoupled from learning or background, beyond the most obvious. Is intelligence such a trait? Is musical talent? Is neuroticism, or generosity? Claims that they are are indeed controversial, and require better science than what Pinker provides to deserve acceptance. The problem however is that there is lots of "folk wisdom" about genetic inheritance among the lay public, which Pinker's sloppy science feeds into.

Once you get beyond platitude and into any sort of specifics, it very quickly becomes controversial.

@Beatsong,

Have you read the book? It is kind of pointless having this discussion if you haven't.