In Pinker's lecture/essay a passage that caught my eye was "If ignoble traits are innate, such as selfishness, violence, prejudice or, rape, that would make them unchangeable, so attempts at social reform and human improvement would be a waste of time. Why try to make the world a better place if people are rotten to the core and will just foul it up no matter what you do?" To consider this we must first assume that these certain traits are simply possessed from one's first breath. He continues with: "But this, too, is unsound. Even if people do harbor ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior, as we saw from the ubiquity of homicidal fantasies, which needless to say rarely result in homicidal behavior. That disconnect is possible precisely because the human mind is a complex system of many parts, some of which can counteract others, such as a moral sens, cognitive faculties that allow us to learn lessons from history, and the executive system of the frontal lobes of the brain that can apply knowledge about consequences and moral values to inhibit behaviors."
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement simply because I believe we, as humans, are responsible on our own actions and should not be allowed to blame wrongful actions on the traits we are born with (again assuming we are born with certain traits that define the rest of our lives either for the good or evil). Pinker points to the fact that the mind is more complex than a single primordial tendency, this postulate for me makes the effects of the plea of 'temporary insanity' most appalling for me because you can take a proven murderer and put him in a cushy hospital with a high probability that he/she will be walking our streets and breathing our air in just a few years time. Instead I strongly feel that this piece of crap should be locked away for good as a bare minimum. I feel this way, and I cannot stress it enough, because I believe we are responsible for our actions and we wholly deserve any and all consequences that stem from such actions, even and especially good actions.
In further thinking about some of the more obscure consequences of these emotions I can see why/how some of these innate traits can rise to the surface and become a problem. This pondering reminds me of a good friend's childhood experience he was so kind to share and I shall to the best of my ability recount now. This friend of mine came to this country when he was around ten years of age and he found himself a bit more mature than many boys in his class when he found himself at the age of about 12. Because of this he found that he naturally related to the girls in his class more than the guys this led him to be pick on and teased periodically. Now he had been training with his father in martial arts since the age of say 6, mainly in ken-do I believe. It was in the mist of a bad day that one of these kids started picking on him and one of his good friends, a girl, was with him and the two were doing the best to ignore him, when all of a sudden my friends eyes which are naturally blue turned to grey. After this point my friend has no personal recollection of the events following. What happened was he basically beat the shit out of the kid that was harassing him, to the point where he overwhelmed this kid who had about 2 years on him with in seconds and began wailing away at him before the teachers at the school reacted probably just in time to save the kid from having a concussion. From my friends account he 'woke up' some 15-20 minutes later in the principle's office. Now I am not a lawyer so I cannot attest to if this could be construed as temporary insanity. For the purposes of this post this story made me think that there can be some circumstances where the no matter how well tempered a person is no matter how well disciplined there can be weak points where those primal traits can fight their way through even the most well mannered consciousness. The contrasting of these two ideas brings in the science wars. What can be done these two thoughts seem, at least to me, equally valid?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
White paper void of the mind.
“Let’s suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all
characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? ... To this I
answer in one word, from EXPERIENCE.” This being an exert from Pinker’s “The
Blank Slate” is complimentary with a metaphor first introduced by John Locke
and ventures into the idea of nurture versus nature. I chose these few lines because I think they are unbelievably insightful into how human nature works and beyond relatable.
These words draw particular attention from me
because they speak such truth about what I have come to learn from the world
thus far in my lifetime. The very reason for why variance exists within the
human race and why similarity is present within families, romantic
relationships, and friendships is by the differentiated experience in each
individual’s life. I am fascinated by how personality and individuality seem to
erupt at different points in a person’s life and how extremely contrasting
personality types can be. A book written by Florence Littauer called “Personality
Plus” describes, in detail, the four main personality types and a theoretical
approach to each describing the etiology and birth of that type in an
individual’s life. The very idea of the mind being an “open book” or “blank
slate” can be rooted back to every conflict that has ever taken place in the
history of mankind. If everyone had experienced the exact same things in the
exact same perspectives at the same times, there would be no misunderstanding or
difference in perception to ignite conflict. Experience truly is everything.
I value this phrase because I try to take in
everything that I can and understand where the people around me are coming from
when approaching every conflict in life. It is valuable because if you don’t
know what that other person is feeling or what experiences they have had, it is
impossible for the conflict to truly be resolved. The source of this value in
my life is from my family. My mother does an excellent job of taking time to
see the entire picture before deciding or saying anything. My father, on the
other hand, is quite the opposite and jumps quickly to judge and make a
decision. Both of their opposing qualities helped me to value it because I can
see its effectiveness and how it can be lacking while in my household everyday.
I care about the idea of keeping an open mind
and that understanding that experience is the one barrier that will always keep
a distance between two people, because it can be applied to everything in life.
When you truly believe and respect that no one can see your opinion exactly
like you do, ever, it is freeing and finally peace can be had.
In the words of Dr. House, Everybody Lies
When Pinker talks about the social psychologists asking people if they ever fantasize about killing someone they don't like, he concludes the paragraph with the phrase, "And more than 60% of women and about three-quarters of men at least occasionally think about killing people they don't like. And the rest of them are lying." This may be stretching it a bit for the purpose of this assignment, but this phrase really struck me. Are surveys really that useful, or do people give the answer they know others want to hear?
I agree with Pinker in this statement. I think in general, people lie because they want to impress other people to make them believe they are someone else, someone better. It is no surprise that people don't want to admit they have had the desire to kill someone. I know that Dr. House is not real, and was never quoted in this article, but as a frequent watcher of the show, Pinker agrees with Dr. House, everybody lies. I feel like lying has also become more acceptable in our society today. I've heard to tell a little "white lie" in job interviews to become a better candidate, people lie about their age, and people lie to their friends about that new haircut they just got. These lies are considered harmless or even beneficial, but regardless, it is a lie. I am guilty of this too, but why do we feel the need to lie to be someone we're not? Is it our biology or is it the way we were raised? To Pinker, he would say something along the lines of our genes playing a larger role. Pinker himself doesn't go on to discuss why these people are lying when it comes to killing people, but I though it was interesting enough to dive in to the topic myself.
I agree with Pinker in this statement. I think in general, people lie because they want to impress other people to make them believe they are someone else, someone better. It is no surprise that people don't want to admit they have had the desire to kill someone. I know that Dr. House is not real, and was never quoted in this article, but as a frequent watcher of the show, Pinker agrees with Dr. House, everybody lies. I feel like lying has also become more acceptable in our society today. I've heard to tell a little "white lie" in job interviews to become a better candidate, people lie about their age, and people lie to their friends about that new haircut they just got. These lies are considered harmless or even beneficial, but regardless, it is a lie. I am guilty of this too, but why do we feel the need to lie to be someone we're not? Is it our biology or is it the way we were raised? To Pinker, he would say something along the lines of our genes playing a larger role. Pinker himself doesn't go on to discuss why these people are lying when it comes to killing people, but I though it was interesting enough to dive in to the topic myself.
Pinker and I agree but.... not completely...
While reading Steven Pinkers "The Blank Slate" the specific portion that struck a deep cord with me and my personal beliefs
is when he stated "Children are shaped not by their parents, but in part by their genes, in part by their culture and in large
part by sheer chance". I strongly disagree with the point made by Pinker. I do believe that children are shaped by how they
are raised, how they are treated and what they are taught is right or wrong. Yes, I do believe with his three points that
children are shaped by culture, yes I believe genes play a roll in how they will grow up and mature and yes I do agree that
certain events in ones life alters who they may become for example witnessing a horrible murder may alter a persons
mental state or may not. However I do not and would no ever agree that children are not shaped by their parents. I say this
due to personal examples of my own life that have made me challenge this argument. I have a friend who I will change her name for the sake of protecting her identity who was taken away from her mother and father when she was a day old due to the lack of sufficient care they could offer her, she was born with a rare blood disease requiring transfusions once a month. Her identical brother was born a healthy baby with no additional medical care needed to support him and as her parents were 21 and 18 they decided to keep him. Her identical brother was brought up in a rough area outside of Harlem New York, given an education at a private school but verbally abused by his father and mother regularly. My friend Sam* was brought up in a similar cultural environment as her brother, shared similar experiences but had never suffered from a form of verbal abuse. She now attends the University of Minnesota and is gaining her undergraduate degree in Psychology. Yes, you would hope her brother is doing wonderful things with his life as well... however sadly he is not. He now is in the state jail awaiting trial for domestic abuse called in by his mother. All the years of being brought up and suffering from abuse drove him to lash out on his parents on numerous occasions although their culture, genes and chance experiences were extremely similar (they both were chased by dogs, as this is one of Pinkers examples).
When comparing Pinkers ideas to "science wars" ( I hope I get this right as I recently enrolled in the course and missed the lecture and am relying on another students notes) he seems to believe that what we do and who we become is based primarily on genes. However I believe that it is based on the environment that an individual is brought up in as well as genes.
`````Side note- My computer is currently being a unreliable Mac right now as usual and I am typing this on my sisters Iphone so I apologize if it does not flow properly also it may have autocorrected
Removing the Ghost from the Machine
The passage that leapt out at me the most was the one in which Pinker describes how science exorcises the ghost in the machine, saying "It is the ghost in the machine that has been subject to the most withering threats from modern science. Cognitive science has shown that the formerly mysterious power called 'intelligence' can be explained in mechanistic terms, by thinking of beliefs as information, thinking as a kind of computation... and that emotions and motives and goals can be understood... as mechanisms of feedback and control."
This expulsion of the ghost from the machine most likely resonates the most with me because it vindicates some of my core beliefs. Science has always led me to believe that there is no such entity as soul which exists entirely separate from the body. Why should there be, when neuroscience so comprehensively explains our behavior without needing to reference this supernatural, transcendental soul? Unfortunately, many people seem to fear this concept, that we might actually be the "heaps of glorified clockwork" Pinker describes. This fear gives rise to the "fear of determinism." Yet Pinker is able to demonstrate that, even though our actions may be purely a result of our biological make-up, that does not undermine our system of justice. We still have an obligation to remove dangerous individuals from society, and to attempt to discourage future antisocial behavior. In this way we can reconcile the ideas of determinism and justice.
This expulsion of the ghost from the machine most likely resonates the most with me because it vindicates some of my core beliefs. Science has always led me to believe that there is no such entity as soul which exists entirely separate from the body. Why should there be, when neuroscience so comprehensively explains our behavior without needing to reference this supernatural, transcendental soul? Unfortunately, many people seem to fear this concept, that we might actually be the "heaps of glorified clockwork" Pinker describes. This fear gives rise to the "fear of determinism." Yet Pinker is able to demonstrate that, even though our actions may be purely a result of our biological make-up, that does not undermine our system of justice. We still have an obligation to remove dangerous individuals from society, and to attempt to discourage future antisocial behavior. In this way we can reconcile the ideas of determinism and justice.
Pinker Passage
The passage in the Pinker article that most resonated with me was, "One more point before concluding. Even if our moral sense is a product of evolution, it does not imply that morality is somehow a figment of our imagination or a human construction. One could argue that morality, even without a God, has an inherent logic that the human moral sense implements." Overall I thought maybe the article was inappropriately titled as to better catch the eye. It seemed to be arguing more against the blank slate than society and culture's impact on human development.
With apologies to the religious, this passage did, however, affirm a belief I've held for a while. Basing morality on something other than societal standards and your own combination of common sense and experience can be dangerous. However, by accepting a larger held system of what is right and wrong, society is better able to function. Pinker demonstrates this with the Calvin and Hobbes comic in which Hobbes shows Calvin how problematic it would be for everyone to exclusively use a self servicing Machiavellian approach to everyday life.
I suppose the biggest reason why people should care is so that people can better understand and function with one another. I was asked once in a high school classroom setting, "If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing someone." I found the question ludicrous and appalling. The idea that all that separated humans from total chaos was unwavering dogma was, to me, laughable. I feel if people weren't so blindly willing to accept one view or the other, that scientists and post modernists might better be able to understand each other and coexist.
With apologies to the religious, this passage did, however, affirm a belief I've held for a while. Basing morality on something other than societal standards and your own combination of common sense and experience can be dangerous. However, by accepting a larger held system of what is right and wrong, society is better able to function. Pinker demonstrates this with the Calvin and Hobbes comic in which Hobbes shows Calvin how problematic it would be for everyone to exclusively use a self servicing Machiavellian approach to everyday life.
I suppose the biggest reason why people should care is so that people can better understand and function with one another. I was asked once in a high school classroom setting, "If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing someone." I found the question ludicrous and appalling. The idea that all that separated humans from total chaos was unwavering dogma was, to me, laughable. I feel if people weren't so blindly willing to accept one view or the other, that scientists and post modernists might better be able to understand each other and coexist.
Essential Common Human Soul Thing
"The main problem is that blank slates don't do anything...When Locke implied that 'there's nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses,' the appropriate reply came from Leibniz, who said, 'Except for intellect itself.'"
This excerpt from the article struck me because I used to absolutely believe that all humans are structured due to their cultural and environmental circumstances and that there wasn't a "universal human 'nature'"/"human self" that we all share. So I was on Locke's team.
Now, though, I think I much more am with Leibniz, and Pinker, though I'm not entirely familiar with where he's (Leibniz) coming from. To me, what's being said is that there is an essential human "intellect" (nature, soul, mind) that is in existence, is a part of any being, that, though may be affected by the outside environment, would and does exist without it.
I switched sides for a lot of crazy hippy reasons, but also because there are very clear scientific reasons for believing this as well. The example of the identical twins who are raised in entirely different environments, but who still have many, many similarities is a great example of how people aren't exclusively shaped by the environment they're in. And, earlier in the article it talks about how evolutionary psychology also refutes the "blank slate" thing saying, "There is a bedrock of human universals: ways of thinking and feeling and behaving that can be seen in all of the cultures documented by ethnography."
"...a belief in a life to come is not such an uplifting idea, because it necessarily devalues life on Earth," also resonated with me.
There has been eternal debate over the ethics of religion that will probably always remain. It was just an interesting side note to his argument, I think, and it was very blatantly and nonchalantly put.
I agree with his statement completely. I've believe that for a very long time, and it relates to science wars in that "real" science tries to come up with answers and facts regarding the beginning of the universe and religion doesn't, though it does (commonly) express an absolute knowledge about how the world was created. Then you have the agnostic people (like me) who embrace "not knowing," or denying an "absolute truth/answer" which is a concept that the "science studies" side of the science wars were all about.
I'm a part of the science wars simply because I'm even engaging in conversation about these topics/people/ideas. I'm a part of a space that engages in putting "science," something thought of as typically factual, immune to cultural bias and politics, into a necessarily cultural and political realm.
I'm also part of the science wars because I'm trying to come up with evidence for a conceptual idea. On the one hand, I'm with Pinker and I believe that there aren't any definitive answers to many things.
This excerpt from the article struck me because I used to absolutely believe that all humans are structured due to their cultural and environmental circumstances and that there wasn't a "universal human 'nature'"/"human self" that we all share. So I was on Locke's team.
Now, though, I think I much more am with Leibniz, and Pinker, though I'm not entirely familiar with where he's (Leibniz) coming from. To me, what's being said is that there is an essential human "intellect" (nature, soul, mind) that is in existence, is a part of any being, that, though may be affected by the outside environment, would and does exist without it.
I switched sides for a lot of crazy hippy reasons, but also because there are very clear scientific reasons for believing this as well. The example of the identical twins who are raised in entirely different environments, but who still have many, many similarities is a great example of how people aren't exclusively shaped by the environment they're in. And, earlier in the article it talks about how evolutionary psychology also refutes the "blank slate" thing saying, "There is a bedrock of human universals: ways of thinking and feeling and behaving that can be seen in all of the cultures documented by ethnography."
"...a belief in a life to come is not such an uplifting idea, because it necessarily devalues life on Earth," also resonated with me.
There has been eternal debate over the ethics of religion that will probably always remain. It was just an interesting side note to his argument, I think, and it was very blatantly and nonchalantly put.
I agree with his statement completely. I've believe that for a very long time, and it relates to science wars in that "real" science tries to come up with answers and facts regarding the beginning of the universe and religion doesn't, though it does (commonly) express an absolute knowledge about how the world was created. Then you have the agnostic people (like me) who embrace "not knowing," or denying an "absolute truth/answer" which is a concept that the "science studies" side of the science wars were all about.
I'm a part of the science wars simply because I'm even engaging in conversation about these topics/people/ideas. I'm a part of a space that engages in putting "science," something thought of as typically factual, immune to cultural bias and politics, into a necessarily cultural and political realm.
I'm also part of the science wars because I'm trying to come up with evidence for a conceptual idea. On the one hand, I'm with Pinker and I believe that there aren't any definitive answers to many things.
Filling the 'blank slate': physiology and environment
In the Pinker reading, one sentence in particular resonated with my opinions: “children are shaped not by their parents, but in part...by their genes; in part by their culture...; and in large part by sheer chance—chance events in the development of the brain in utero, such as whether some neurons zigged or zagged at a particular day in brain development, and perhaps chance events in life, such as whether at some point you were chased by a dog, or inhaled a virus, or were dropped on your head, or got the top bunk bed as opposed to the bottom bunk bed” (pg. 7).
As a student of the genetic and developmental sciences, I have learned that much thought goes into determining different genetic and environmental factors that shape an organism’s physiology. I believe that it is this physiology that affects who and what we are as individuals. The way our brain is hardwired (so developed with the blueprint of genetics and the circumstances in which it developed) is the basis for how we react to our environments and the societies in which we live. What I find particularly interesting in Pinker’s statement is his inclusion of chance in a child’s development. I think that this is an important clarification: we are not just our genetics. While genetics forms an outline, there are many other environmental and epigenetic factors. As plastic as our brains are, the chance occurrence of being chased by a dog can shape our neurons, and therefore ourselves, as we develop into adults. It is this circle that I find so fascinating: the genetic influence on development, the physiology affecting our reactions to the environment, and ultimately - to close the circle - the environment affecting the physiology of an individual.
This circle of environment and biology impacting each other is an idea that I would like to connect to the ‘science wars.’ It is evident that each, biology and society, ultimately interconnect to form the personality of the individual. Each area on its own can answer some of our specific questions; however, a full picture will consider both. Biologists that study the biological basis of the human personality will be able to uncover the physiological mechanisms, and others will study how the environment affects its development. By bringing them together, we can ultimately find a more cohesive and comprehensive answer to how the human’s ‘blank slate’ is filled.
As a student of the genetic and developmental sciences, I have learned that much thought goes into determining different genetic and environmental factors that shape an organism’s physiology. I believe that it is this physiology that affects who and what we are as individuals. The way our brain is hardwired (so developed with the blueprint of genetics and the circumstances in which it developed) is the basis for how we react to our environments and the societies in which we live. What I find particularly interesting in Pinker’s statement is his inclusion of chance in a child’s development. I think that this is an important clarification: we are not just our genetics. While genetics forms an outline, there are many other environmental and epigenetic factors. As plastic as our brains are, the chance occurrence of being chased by a dog can shape our neurons, and therefore ourselves, as we develop into adults. It is this circle that I find so fascinating: the genetic influence on development, the physiology affecting our reactions to the environment, and ultimately - to close the circle - the environment affecting the physiology of an individual.
This circle of environment and biology impacting each other is an idea that I would like to connect to the ‘science wars.’ It is evident that each, biology and society, ultimately interconnect to form the personality of the individual. Each area on its own can answer some of our specific questions; however, a full picture will consider both. Biologists that study the biological basis of the human personality will be able to uncover the physiological mechanisms, and others will study how the environment affects its development. By bringing them together, we can ultimately find a more cohesive and comprehensive answer to how the human’s ‘blank slate’ is filled.
The Fear of Nihilism
The excerpt that I chose form Pinker's article is "Finally, there’s the fear of nihilism: the fear that biology strips life of meaning and purpose. It says that love, beauty, morality, and all that we hold precious, are just figments of a brain pursuing selfish evolutionary strategies. For most people who ask the question “Why am I here,” the answer “To pass on your genes” is less than comforting". To me, this really struck true. Often times I am trying to bridge the gap between humanities & science (just like this course), while conflicting ideas from different disciplines leave me unsettled. Logic is what I know and love, so I understand things from a neurological standpoint, but yet the idea that emotions can be completely separate is frankly, scary. I think the majority of people would agree that nihilism is a very real threat. However, at the same time, I don't think that this issue is so obviously talked about. People often argue about why we're here, how we came to be here, etc, but I don't think that the issue of nihilism is particularly brought up. The idea that science can attempt to answer some of these questions in such a way, that we have no more purpose than to mate and produce offspring, should be acknowledged more because I think it is a relevant, shared fear. I think that it is something that even scientists, perhaps even especially scientists, as well as everyone else can relate to. This is definitely an underlying theme in the "science wars" and I would say that it is one of the most controversial topics out there. From my perspective as a science major, I want to explain everything in terms of biology. But yet, at the same time, these explanations often times feel incomplete. Although I know this, would I actually admit it? Admit that my field of study is unable to fully explain everything? That it is incapable in some way? Probably not. This is a difficult issue. In some ways, it is a fear of the 'unknown', because today we are still asking the classic questions of why we are here. But alternatively it is also a fear of the 'known', being that the most scientific answers and logic can be even more frightening. The idea that science will explain away "all that we hold precious" and I would argue, destroy the wall separating humans from other animals, that we would no longer be able to classify ourselves as superior, is intriguing.
Yet More Wisdom From Calvin and Hobbes
1) After reading through Pinker's "The Blank Slate" one of the ideas he proposes near the conclusion of the piece coincides directly with what I consider morality.
One day,
Calvin announces to his tiger companion Hobbes,“I don’t believe in ethics any
more. As far as I’m concerned, the ends justify the means. Get what you can
while the getting’s good, that’s what I say. Might makes right. The winners
write the history books. It’s a dog- eat-dog world, so I’ll do whatever I have
to and let others argue about whether it’s ‘right’ or not.” Whereupon Hobbes
pushes him into the mud, and he exclaims, “Hey! Why’d you do that?!” Hobbes
explains,“You were in my way. Now you’re not. The ends justify the means.”
Calvin says, “I didn’t mean for everyone, you dolt. Just me.”
This shows the logical untenability
of a morality based on the ethic of “just me.” As soon as your fate depends on
the behavior of other people and you engage them in any kind of dialogue, you
can’t maintain that your interests are privileged simply because you’re the
one who has them and expect them to take you seriously, any more than you can
say that the point that you happen to be standing on is a privileged spot in
the universe because you happened to be standing on it at that very moment.
It’s this core idea of the interchangeability of perspectives, or the
recognition of other people’s interests, that’s the true basis of morality...
2) This paragraph (and cartoon) shows that human interaction and morality are tied together. As Pinker says, morality based only on one's selfish interests does not work. This section of the paper really spoke to me because I have recently been struggling to define my personal morals. Immediately after reading this I knew this was basically how I felt about morality. I was taught to always show respect to others and their values and ideas, regardless of my own opinions about them. I love when Pinker writes, "As soon as your fate depends on the behavior of other people and you engage them in any kind of dialogue, you can’t maintain that your interests are privileged simply because you’re the one who has them...". I believe that in modern society acceptance and the ability to consider others ideas and interests ahead, or at least along side, our own is faltering at an alarming rate of speed. Pinker talks about "interchangeability of perspectives" and I would say that this notion has tremendous potential on eliminating conflict on all societal levels. Morality is something that requires interaction with others and learning from those interactions. Knowledge and experience gained from these interactions can then be applied to developing morals because you've gained others perspectives (not "just me") which is why social interaction is necessary.
3) The "science wars" have been raging and will continue to rage on into the future. Pinker's ideas in "The Blank Slate" offer biological explanations for human nature with some very controversial definitions. However, one interesting part of this piece was that the paragraph listed above was not surrounded by controversy. Developing morals doesn't require a God, or even any lessons, because, as Pinker suggests, morality has an inherent logic. The main message I think we can all take from Pinker's piece is that ideas about human nature can and should be explained biologically. As we evolve and change as a society our ideas need to evolve and change as well. I think this is the essence of the science wars. Because we all face moral dilemmas and decisions, these ideas Pinker proposes apply to everyone and society in general. If we can all advance together, and learn to recognize each others ideas and values, society as a whole will be better benefiting from these "science wars".
Quick note
Feel no need to mark off the parts of your post as "1", "2", and "3". We wrote the directions in steps, just to make it clear the things we wanted you to include in your post. You can do it this way if you want; I just know my own writing feels freer when I don't write in numbers -- so if you feel the same, you definitely don't have to do it this way.
Leviathan's Conudrum
1). In Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” I found a passage from Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan which has and always will contradict my own examination on the world. Thomas Hobbes states,
“Hereby it is manifest that during the time when men live
without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are
in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every
man against every man.… In such condition there is no
place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and
consequently… no arts, no letters, no society, and which is
worst of all, a continual fear and danger of violent death,
and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
2). This passage from Hobbes’s Leviathan has always interested me and has always contradicted my own thoughts since I first read it in a Global Studies course. Hobbes’s perspective on the human condition and the human experience lacks the depth and opportunities that I have seen throughout my life and what we have seen throughout millennia. Understandings what is meant by having a “common power” has always been a point of contention because is Hobbes saying the police force and government or rather some common purpose of human life in which we all strive to complete. It is safe to assume that whatever this common purpose or power that Hobbes describes is not universally shared. Humans are the (in our own calculations) the most evolved species on the planet, with each person having a unique set of experiences that have shaped and molded their thoughts about earth and their perspective of their fellow humans. Perhaps what has guided me most towards this feeling and opposition of a Common power is my opposition of religion and God. To me, Leviathan and the thought that humans need to be controlled by some unified power demeans and belittles the human experience and the human condition. Additional, the eternal optimist in me also rejects the notion of a common power.
3). I suppose the biggest fear and, perhaps, the source of my opposition to the selected passage comes from the fear of being wrong. Perhaps my rejection of the idea of the common power is because I fear the distinct possibility of being wrong. Perhaps evidence of this common power is the millions of humans that flock to religion over the past thousands of years in search for this comfort and protection. I can see how from this quote and reading the Pinker article how I have found myself entrenched in the ‘Science Wars’. As much as science would like to attribute genetics and bodily reactions to explain the actions and reactions of humans there seems to be the element of experience missing. In the end, does it really matter at all what we think about common powers? Common powers exist and have always existed to control the masses. Does this mean we should destroy every institution regarding them? No. I am not sure I am arguing that either, but what I do hope to achieve through this is a larger sense of accomplishment and pride in the abilities of humans to impact and influence the lives of ourselves and those around us through compassion and not out of fear.
Is it really all in our genes?
1. The exert from Pinker's article that I chose was the quote from Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan:
"Hereby it is manifest that during the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every man against every man.… In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently… no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, a continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." To this statement, I definitely agree.
2. The first part of this quote by Hobbes discussing how people without a common power will be in a condition of war against every being is very true in life because I believe everyone believes in some sort of common power that unites us humans as individuals. Without this common power, belief, or set of beliefs, individual human beings could not have achieved so much in all areas such as science, industry, and all other things.I don't necessarily see this common power as a Leviathan (armed police force and government) as Hobbes believes but I see this common power as more of a common goal, belief, or vision. This quote really made me think of how without goals or visions of the future, I don't know how I myself would have gotten as far as graduating from high school or attending college. Without this "common power" as Hobbes talks of, we as humans would be living in a world of a constant battle against everyone else and we would achieve absolutely nothing, which is why I believe this to be so important.
3. Pinker brings up the point of how much of who we are and how we act, the goals we have, and what we do everyday has to do directly with our genes. I heard this exact same argument last year in my intro-level psychology class when we covered the brain and human behavior. This thought that everything we do, think, or believe is all based on heredity and our genes is a pretty big issue in the 'science wars'. It seems to me by bringing this up he is taking a pretty large position on the side of science in the 'science wars'. From my thoughts above in parts 1 and 2 I would have to say that I have taken the view that our beliefs, goals and visions (I don't think that these things are purely based off of our genes) dictate how we achieve things as a group or individuals in society and Pinker would bring up that these goals or visions are based off of our genes and not on our environment or outside factors. So from what I see Pinker and I are on different sides of the 'science wars' for this certain topic.
So why should we as humans care about this? Would humans have been fine without a common power, belief, or goal uniting them throughout history? Would we be where we currently are in our current state of medicine, technology, industry, etc. or would we be further along without this common power?
"Hereby it is manifest that during the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every man against every man.… In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently… no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, a continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." To this statement, I definitely agree.
2. The first part of this quote by Hobbes discussing how people without a common power will be in a condition of war against every being is very true in life because I believe everyone believes in some sort of common power that unites us humans as individuals. Without this common power, belief, or set of beliefs, individual human beings could not have achieved so much in all areas such as science, industry, and all other things.I don't necessarily see this common power as a Leviathan (armed police force and government) as Hobbes believes but I see this common power as more of a common goal, belief, or vision. This quote really made me think of how without goals or visions of the future, I don't know how I myself would have gotten as far as graduating from high school or attending college. Without this "common power" as Hobbes talks of, we as humans would be living in a world of a constant battle against everyone else and we would achieve absolutely nothing, which is why I believe this to be so important.
3. Pinker brings up the point of how much of who we are and how we act, the goals we have, and what we do everyday has to do directly with our genes. I heard this exact same argument last year in my intro-level psychology class when we covered the brain and human behavior. This thought that everything we do, think, or believe is all based on heredity and our genes is a pretty big issue in the 'science wars'. It seems to me by bringing this up he is taking a pretty large position on the side of science in the 'science wars'. From my thoughts above in parts 1 and 2 I would have to say that I have taken the view that our beliefs, goals and visions (I don't think that these things are purely based off of our genes) dictate how we achieve things as a group or individuals in society and Pinker would bring up that these goals or visions are based off of our genes and not on our environment or outside factors. So from what I see Pinker and I are on different sides of the 'science wars' for this certain topic.
So why should we as humans care about this? Would humans have been fine without a common power, belief, or goal uniting them throughout history? Would we be where we currently are in our current state of medicine, technology, industry, etc. or would we be further along without this common power?
The Paradox of Equality
1. The paragraph written by Pinker that clawed at my personal beliefs the most was on page 5; "Let me begin with the fear of inequality. The idea is that if we're blank slates, we must be equal. That follows from the mathematical truism that zero equals zero equals zero." This underlying philosophy and explanation of the theory of the blank slate is a perfect summary of why I disagree with the concept of the blank slate entirely.
2. Equality is a sensitive topic which can often be misunderstood because there are many different situations in which equality applies, but in each situation, the details of what the "equality" is varies and can be misinterpreted. I firmly believe that people are not born possessing a "blank slate" for a brain which would render all people equal at the time of birth. There exists an abundance of sources that cause discrepancies in each individuals mind at birth, and even more variations can be caused throughout the development of the child. Such discrepancies can be seen even when the children have the same parents. People vary neurologically, which is a variation that is present at birth. I firmly believe that much of our ability to learn and process information is genetic, and that not all minds are "blank," instead, some people possess better mental equipment naturally for learning and comprehending information. This is why even in the most nurturing of environments, developing children and adolescents can fall behind their peers. They were simply not born with the drive or discipline that is needed in society to succeed, and are thus incapable of taking advantage of the opportunities that may surround them to better themselves as members of society. This speaks so strongly to me because the very thought of everyone being equal in intelligence is terrifying because of the threat it poses to progress. He touches on this in a later paragraph which talks about that if equality is a fact of everyone's "slate" then more successful people are viewed as larcenous, as if they steal for their successes. While some successful people definitely "steal" to reach higher positions, that is not applicable to all situations of success. My father is an excellent example of this, he was born to a working class family, and never received praise or encouragement for his achievements, and while his brothers and sisters failed to go on to higher education, he did all he could to get through college and dental school, proving all of their criticisms wrong. I would argue that this inequality in their drive and motivation is something that is ingrained in their brains, and is a clear indication that not all people are equal. I feel as though I have inherited a lot of my fathers drive which has pushed me to be successful despite lack of verbal encouragement from either of my parents.
When someone becomes more successful than a majority of the population, it seems unfair to those who do not pursue success, and thus causes animosity toward successful people. This same concept is the basis for why the Jews have been arguably the single most hated and persecuted ethnic group throughout history. Jews historically have been successful, typically healthier (due to their knowledge on the importance of hygiene) and because of the notion that they are the "chosen people".
3. At first glance, my opinion on a matter such as the blank slate could be seen as discriminatory, as if I am suggesting that people in society do not deserve equality because they were not all born with equal levels of intelligence or other brain processes needed to have social equality. This is not what I am arguing at all. Being a mental or intellectual equal to someone does not suggest how they deserve to be treated in society or pose a threat to cause discrimination or other prejudice. I know for a fact that I have a higher drive and motivation than many people in society, but there are others who have a higher drive than I do, and perhaps were born with a more complex slate that better acquires knowledge, putting them at a biological advantage. It goes without saying that mathematics comes naturally to some people while leaving other people pulling their hair out in frustration with basic algebra problems, while others are brilliant in memorizing facts, but miss overall concepts in a lesson. Certain people are just equipped with such ability to process different information in different manners, it is neurological, based on the connections in their brain that determine processing speed, storage of information and recall ability. It strongly relies on how their slate is developed, not just at the point of birth but later through their development as a child and young adult. This is a strong basis for science wars, because it is a battle of not only nature vs. nurture, but also pure genetic advantages vs. the possibility of a universal equality. These concepts need to constantly be investigated, because the rash acceptance of one theory as the solid truth could completely ignore and alienate reasons for why there are differences in intelligence among people and the variations in "success" and achievement across cultures and societies. I care because I do not believe we all start at zero, and such a notion is very ignorant and lacking in taking into account all the variables that account for human development. Everyone's slate exists, but each slate has its own number, unique to the person who holds that "slate", and it can change based on how that person develops in society. Without neurological research and views on the mind, important details of how to best improve the mind can be overlooked, and society would fail to progress intellectually. I was not born a zero, and neither were many other people in society. There is nothing wrong with being born a zero, but to group all people as being born as zeros is unfair and undermines individual ability, doing injustice to nature and creates an impairment that didn't naturally exist in the first place, which is unfair to not only the person who is made to believe that he is mentally equal to his peers, but to society as a whole.
2. Equality is a sensitive topic which can often be misunderstood because there are many different situations in which equality applies, but in each situation, the details of what the "equality" is varies and can be misinterpreted. I firmly believe that people are not born possessing a "blank slate" for a brain which would render all people equal at the time of birth. There exists an abundance of sources that cause discrepancies in each individuals mind at birth, and even more variations can be caused throughout the development of the child. Such discrepancies can be seen even when the children have the same parents. People vary neurologically, which is a variation that is present at birth. I firmly believe that much of our ability to learn and process information is genetic, and that not all minds are "blank," instead, some people possess better mental equipment naturally for learning and comprehending information. This is why even in the most nurturing of environments, developing children and adolescents can fall behind their peers. They were simply not born with the drive or discipline that is needed in society to succeed, and are thus incapable of taking advantage of the opportunities that may surround them to better themselves as members of society. This speaks so strongly to me because the very thought of everyone being equal in intelligence is terrifying because of the threat it poses to progress. He touches on this in a later paragraph which talks about that if equality is a fact of everyone's "slate" then more successful people are viewed as larcenous, as if they steal for their successes. While some successful people definitely "steal" to reach higher positions, that is not applicable to all situations of success. My father is an excellent example of this, he was born to a working class family, and never received praise or encouragement for his achievements, and while his brothers and sisters failed to go on to higher education, he did all he could to get through college and dental school, proving all of their criticisms wrong. I would argue that this inequality in their drive and motivation is something that is ingrained in their brains, and is a clear indication that not all people are equal. I feel as though I have inherited a lot of my fathers drive which has pushed me to be successful despite lack of verbal encouragement from either of my parents.
When someone becomes more successful than a majority of the population, it seems unfair to those who do not pursue success, and thus causes animosity toward successful people. This same concept is the basis for why the Jews have been arguably the single most hated and persecuted ethnic group throughout history. Jews historically have been successful, typically healthier (due to their knowledge on the importance of hygiene) and because of the notion that they are the "chosen people".
3. At first glance, my opinion on a matter such as the blank slate could be seen as discriminatory, as if I am suggesting that people in society do not deserve equality because they were not all born with equal levels of intelligence or other brain processes needed to have social equality. This is not what I am arguing at all. Being a mental or intellectual equal to someone does not suggest how they deserve to be treated in society or pose a threat to cause discrimination or other prejudice. I know for a fact that I have a higher drive and motivation than many people in society, but there are others who have a higher drive than I do, and perhaps were born with a more complex slate that better acquires knowledge, putting them at a biological advantage. It goes without saying that mathematics comes naturally to some people while leaving other people pulling their hair out in frustration with basic algebra problems, while others are brilliant in memorizing facts, but miss overall concepts in a lesson. Certain people are just equipped with such ability to process different information in different manners, it is neurological, based on the connections in their brain that determine processing speed, storage of information and recall ability. It strongly relies on how their slate is developed, not just at the point of birth but later through their development as a child and young adult. This is a strong basis for science wars, because it is a battle of not only nature vs. nurture, but also pure genetic advantages vs. the possibility of a universal equality. These concepts need to constantly be investigated, because the rash acceptance of one theory as the solid truth could completely ignore and alienate reasons for why there are differences in intelligence among people and the variations in "success" and achievement across cultures and societies. I care because I do not believe we all start at zero, and such a notion is very ignorant and lacking in taking into account all the variables that account for human development. Everyone's slate exists, but each slate has its own number, unique to the person who holds that "slate", and it can change based on how that person develops in society. Without neurological research and views on the mind, important details of how to best improve the mind can be overlooked, and society would fail to progress intellectually. I was not born a zero, and neither were many other people in society. There is nothing wrong with being born a zero, but to group all people as being born as zeros is unfair and undermines individual ability, doing injustice to nature and creates an impairment that didn't naturally exist in the first place, which is unfair to not only the person who is made to believe that he is mentally equal to his peers, but to society as a whole.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Pinker and the Brain Brain Brain Brain...
1. The words I chose are not of Steven Pinker, but of renowned English philosopher John Locke (page two of article): “Let’s suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? …To this I answer in one word, from EXPERIENCE,” to which I heartily agree.
2. Pinker's borrowed phrase resonates because much, if not all, of my learning style derives from experience; in other words, I learn best through examples. Case in point: a couple friends and I recently sat down to play the vastly nerdy and complex book-turned-movie-turned-board game, “Game of Thrones.” In retrospect, the first twenty minutes of talking about actual game play fell on deaf ears—it was only when the raiding and pillaging actually commenced that I began to fully comprehend.
To me, this quote ranks pretty high on the profoundness scale because it also ties in nicely to a belief I’m partial to—that, as human beings, we are able to assign meaning to our own experiences (or, as Grandma Moses put it, “Life is what we make it, always has been, always will be"). Why do some pencil pushers find their jobs fulfilling while others would rather ditch the cubicle and hit on the waitress at Chotchkie's? Me thinks it lies in the amount of meaning we choose to assign to certain tasks, beliefs, thoughts, etc. Perhaps a more poignant example: this post. This post, in my humble opinion, has the capability to only have as much meaning as I’m willing to provide it. I could spend hours pouring over Pinker’s article and a couple more carefully placing every syllable and consonant within the Blogger website; as a result, this experiences becomes a rewarding one—I find meaning in it. Yes, events like family reunions (depending on the family) may possess inherent value for almost everybody, but for many others, it’s all about how you play the cards.
3. Over 20 years ago now, “science” discovered that oat bran lowers cholesterol. “Whoopee!” the piggish public cried, “now I can eat all the steak I want for dinner as long as I have some oat bran-fortified potato chips for breakfast!” As a result, consumers (more generally, 'society') began to dictate more and more of what nutritional 'science' dove into—“give us more of that information about stuff that won’t kill us!”—now, people have more knowledge about omega-3 fatty acids then they ever cared to know ("Effect of flax addition on the flavor profile and acceptability of bagels," really?), but they're unhealthy as ever. Oh, and this is while disproportionate numbers die in the hospital and starve on the streets due to poor nutrition status. ...Point blank: am I asserting science and culture’s simultaneous molding of one another are bad? Hardly (matters of black and white are best reserved for penguins), but it is important to be aware of the process. The clay molds the sculptor as the sculptor molds the clay; if both base their work on what they see, what will be the final creation?
A pressing question for the less idealistic among us: are people’s lives at stake? No, not always; however, what may be more precious to some is also being juggled: pride (if you guessed ‘money’ or ‘where the new STSS building gets put,’ you weren’t far off). And as for whether or not I care…well, if you’ve read the second portion of my blog post, you maybe conclude that maybe I do care, maybe I don’t—come to think of it: maybe you care, maybe you don’t. In the end, does it really matter if we care or not, or is the empowerment of the knowledge that we may be more in control of our own fate than we think good enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)