Scan barcode
lakmus's review against another edition
3.0
So I think I've exhausted the need to read popular books in psych, because all the skipping over the parts that I've already read somewhere is becoming distracting. The first third was new for me, where Pinker goes over how the Blank Slate theory developed, etc; should've stopped there.
addystape's review against another edition
3.0
Pinker challenges the idea that our minds are blank slates at birth, a philosophy put forth by Locke. Pinker support his case with a survey of recent medical, biological, and anthropological research. Pinker says that while we have clung to the idea to maintain that all human beings are all equal at birth, we can not discount the role nature/genetics plays in our makeup and our behavior. Not usually my type of read, was sort of thrust upon me as a book club read, but still enjoyed it.
paella's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
Interesante, denso y con muchas referencias documentales. Puede que sea porque en mi entorno no es así o porque se refiere a un fenómeno de su tiempo, pero no veo en la sociedad esa inclinación tan fuerte a decir que el ser humano es una tabla rasa como se da a entender en el libro (lo del "buen salvaje" sigue vigente). Pinker hace trampa a veces, atacando ideas en puntos débiles para descartarlas por completo y aprovechando para sustituirlas por las suyas propias sin dar un marco teórico para aceptarlas, y también cae en prejuiciosos lugares comunes a la hora de tratar ciertos temas, en este sentido destaca la sección sobre el arte moderno y la última parte el libro en términos generales. Aún así lo considero un buen libro para adquirir fundamentos en el debate de educación contra naturaleza.
tristansreadingmania's review against another edition
4.0
"I'm only human
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes"
--The Human League, Human
Most of us instinctively feel the acquisition of scientific knowledge follows a linear path, first operating from a solid factual base, and then modifying itself as it goes along in an objective fashion. Ultimately, a common agreeance on a certain topic will be reached, and the findings will translate into well-considered policy.
Ideally, that is how it should work, with scientists serving as neutral observers, freely informing us, the public, on whatever findings they come across, whatever the implications. This is not always what actually happens, of course. Not by a long shot. Ironically - also tellingly -, when it comes to the in-depth study of the human animal, there is active, hostile opprobrium by (a certain school of) social scientists and ideologically motivated activists alike. Scientists who try to find biological causations for certain human behaviours or perceived inequalities are frequently ostracised, pelted by slurs, and made pariah's in their own fields. The sober truth is that the scientific community is not free at all from anti-intellectualism and bullying tactics.
It seems nothing much has changed since the 2002 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno 2016, the social sciences in Western academia are still infested with social constructivist thinking, with no sign of it abating any time soon. In fact, it might even have reached its zenith, having entrenched itself even further. It's not difficult to make an analogy with creationists. This exemplifies how far we still have to go as a species to attain a higher level of rational thinking, which means being willing to demolish some of our most cherished beliefs. Ego investment still is riding high, it seems.
Biological innateness. Determinism. These terms observably evoke unpleasant feelings in many. However, in order to come face to face with the homo sapiens which, during its brutal evolutionary process, has acquired certain survival - often nasty -instincts, one should let go of such reservations . Funnily enough, it was some of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau) who introduced the blank slate theory. But are we blank slates, almost solely informed by the culture that surrounds us? Hardly, as Pinker shows us -with the aid of a plethora of immensely interesting case studies - in this intellectually dense, yet highly accessible book. Genes and our biological make-up determine our behaviour to a far greater extent than culture or our upbringing ever will. Pinker even goes as far as saying that parental influence on their child(ren)'s formation is pretty much negligible. Peer group interaction is a far more important determining factor.
However, Pinker deftly reasons that even with the ever-expanding, confronting knowledge of the human coming from the exciting fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, there is no need for us to defeatedly resort to fatalism or nihilism. On the contrary, an intimate, unsentimental understanding of what we are will help us enormously in developing a truly humanistic ethos and thus in crafting a pragmatic society which can be beneficial to all of us.
The utopian vision, with its aim to 'mould' the human psyche (social constructivism), the 20th century has adequately shown to only lead us into disaster.
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes"
--The Human League, Human
Most of us instinctively feel the acquisition of scientific knowledge follows a linear path, first operating from a solid factual base, and then modifying itself as it goes along in an objective fashion. Ultimately, a common agreeance on a certain topic will be reached, and the findings will translate into well-considered policy.
Ideally, that is how it should work, with scientists serving as neutral observers, freely informing us, the public, on whatever findings they come across, whatever the implications. This is not always what actually happens, of course. Not by a long shot. Ironically - also tellingly -, when it comes to the in-depth study of the human animal, there is active, hostile opprobrium by (a certain school of) social scientists and ideologically motivated activists alike. Scientists who try to find biological causations for certain human behaviours or perceived inequalities are frequently ostracised, pelted by slurs, and made pariah's in their own fields. The sober truth is that the scientific community is not free at all from anti-intellectualism and bullying tactics.
It seems nothing much has changed since the 2002 publication of this book, which I'm informed drew out considerable polemical discourse at the time. I'm not surprised. Anno 2016, the social sciences in Western academia are still infested with social constructivist thinking, with no sign of it abating any time soon. In fact, it might even have reached its zenith, having entrenched itself even further. It's not difficult to make an analogy with creationists. This exemplifies how far we still have to go as a species to attain a higher level of rational thinking, which means being willing to demolish some of our most cherished beliefs. Ego investment still is riding high, it seems.
Biological innateness. Determinism. These terms observably evoke unpleasant feelings in many. However, in order to come face to face with the homo sapiens which, during its brutal evolutionary process, has acquired certain survival - often nasty -instincts, one should let go of such reservations . Funnily enough, it was some of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau) who introduced the blank slate theory. But are we blank slates, almost solely informed by the culture that surrounds us? Hardly, as Pinker shows us -with the aid of a plethora of immensely interesting case studies - in this intellectually dense, yet highly accessible book. Genes and our biological make-up determine our behaviour to a far greater extent than culture or our upbringing ever will. Pinker even goes as far as saying that parental influence on their child(ren)'s formation is pretty much negligible. Peer group interaction is a far more important determining factor.
However, Pinker deftly reasons that even with the ever-expanding, confronting knowledge of the human coming from the exciting fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, there is no need for us to defeatedly resort to fatalism or nihilism. On the contrary, an intimate, unsentimental understanding of what we are will help us enormously in developing a truly humanistic ethos and thus in crafting a pragmatic society which can be beneficial to all of us.
The utopian vision, with its aim to 'mould' the human psyche (social constructivism), the 20th century has adequately shown to only lead us into disaster.
cfinnigan's review against another edition
Fuck this book. If you want to see Pinker beat up a straw man this is your book. Pinker premise is built on blatant misreadings of other people’s work. It’s so poorly sourced it descends into anecdotes. This book is why people make fun of evolutionary psychology.
I was rereading it for a book club and realized I was wasting my one precious life watching this guy be aggressively wrong.
I was rereading it for a book club and realized I was wasting my one precious life watching this guy be aggressively wrong.
ahmed92kira's review against another edition
3.0
الكتاب موضوعه مهم
يطرح السؤال الازلي: هل تصرفاتنا ناجمة عن مورثاتنا ام من التربية والمجتمع اللي تربينا بي؟
سؤال عظيم ويحتاجله بحث جبير، الكاتب ما قصر بس المشكلة بالمترجم (محمد الجورا)
ترجمة غير موفقة للاسف قللت هواي من متعة قرائته مع ان الكتاب مكتوب بطريقة ممتعة باللغة الاصلية
يطرح السؤال الازلي: هل تصرفاتنا ناجمة عن مورثاتنا ام من التربية والمجتمع اللي تربينا بي؟
سؤال عظيم ويحتاجله بحث جبير، الكاتب ما قصر بس المشكلة بالمترجم (محمد الجورا)
ترجمة غير موفقة للاسف قللت هواي من متعة قرائته مع ان الكتاب مكتوب بطريقة ممتعة باللغة الاصلية