"So much changes when you get an education! You unlearn dangerous superstitions, such as that leaders rule by divine right, or that people who don't look like you are less than human. You learn that there are other cultures that are as tied to their ways of life as you are to yours, and for no better or worse reason. You learn that charismatic saviors have led their countries to disaster. You learn that your own convictions, no matter how heartfelt or popular may be mistaken." p235.

Pinker is deeply problematic (and a new darling of the Alt-Right)

"One of the consequences of this unhistorical approach is that Pinker repeats fallacies that have been exposed time and time again...Enlightenment Now is embarrassingly feeble...a parody of Enlightenment thinking at its crudest."

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon

https://twitter.com/OmanReagan/status/963788684863488000

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Intellectual-War-on/242538

Jeez, talk about "deeply problematic..."
That describes that "New Statesman" review perfectly.

Pinker has some good points, and some not so good ones.
I searched in vain for good points in the NS review. Not surprising, really, given that it wasn't a review, it was a statement of ideology.

Thank you, exAmmon. It would do many RfMers well to examine John Gray more closely, but his professional pessimism and its utility is too easily misunderstood and thus too often dismissed.

I’ll take one John Gray over a hundred Pinkers et. al. every day of the week, which is exactly what I do.

Human

"Mars/Venus" John Gray?

Seriously?

Wow.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Mars/Venus" John Gray?
>
> Seriously?
>
> Wow.

Guess you didn’t actually read the review you criticized?

(John Gray, philosopher. Wow, indeed.)

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess you didn’t actually read the review you
> criticized?
>
> (John Gray, philosopher. Wow, indeed.)

I did.
It was largely disingenuous pap.
I didn't notice as I read it that Mr. Mars/Venus was the author. Knowing that after the fact, it explains the review.

And...philosopher?
Thanks for the laugh :)

I can't tell, are you being serious, ifi-?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(philosopher)


(I once had a long standing argument, pre-google, with a smart but terribly illiterate brother-in-law that Thomas Moore the Irish poet is NOT the Thomas Moore of Care Of The Soul. He conflated the two in a Sacrament talk.)

Just to be crystal clear, because I cannot see the possible humour in purposely conflating two very different intellects:

John Gray, American author of Men Are From Mars etc is most obviously, glaringly so, decidedly NOT the same man as:

John Gray, British analytic philosopher and author of many volumes including the Silence Of Animals.

My humor isn't appreciated.
(neither are my gaffes, apparently!)

:)

What's deeply problematic is that someone could describe this work as "an unhistorical approach" and that "Pinker repeats fallacies that have been exposed time and time again."

I guess they didn't like the presentation of facts. Perhaps they were looking for "alternative facts".

Embarrassingly feeble? That would describe the review that seems to be written by someone who probably was unable to digest the vast amount of data.

The reason people don't like Pinker is that he presents unpopular facts that undermine the victim narrative being perpetuated by the far left.

Pinker basically says, "things aren't as bad as some people want you to think it is, and here are the relevant facts and statistics to demonstrate that."

Then people say, "oh my god you're a nazi. How dare you not allow us to indulge in our victim narrative?"

And Pinker says, "did you actually read the book?"

And the people say, "Pinker is deeply problematic (and a new darling of the Alt-Right)."

Heh.

Let me guess, Jordan Peterson fanboy?

Nothing that Pinker has said in the first 2/3 of the book which I have read so far would make Pinker "a darling of the Alt-Right".

I wouldn't consider Pinker political - at all! Certainly not a supporter of the alt-right. He doesn't adhere to any ideology; his forte is dealing with scientific fact.

auntsukey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> He doesn't adhere to any ideology

Look again. Pinker offers nothing other than ideology. Each volume is a tendentious apology for neoliberalism.


> his forte is dealing with scientific fact.

His "forte", that which he excels at, is propaganda.

I appreciate your responses.

Pinker is an apologist for human rights abuses, racism and colonialist wars cloaked in respectability politics. Propaganda indeed. The worthwhile causes of Enlightenment thinking, reason and science deserve a better spokesperson.

I haven't read the book. My husband is reading it, as part of an exmo, liberal leaning book group. He likes it. I look forward to reading it when I finish the 3 or 4 books I'm working on now. I freely acknowledge the liberal bias in my house.

So I'm a little perflexed about the label about Pinker being a darling of the alt-right.

Perhaps it's better to discuss the ideas than try to pigeon-hole the entire book, or the author?

Perhaps some ideas aren't the exclusive property of the right OR the left. Hopefully people on both sides of the political spectrum should open themselves up to the best ideas from the other side.

I stopped reading Pinker after reading his books, The Stuff of Thought, The Blank Slate, Words and Rules, How the Mind Works, and The Language Instinct. ALL OF THESE BOOKS WERE THOROUGHLY AND EFFECTIVELY DEBUNKED. As such, on the subject of cognitive psychology--his major field, he has no remaining credibility.

Thereafter, Pinker turned to more popular writing. I have not read this most recent book (and do not intend to), but it appears from the Amazon description that it is another populist attempt by a "scientist" to make science the panacea for every human problem, social or philosophical, that mankind faces. The celebrity "reviews" on Amazon are literally nauseating in their ignorant praise; and that includes Bill Gates.

From his other writings and talks, what Pinker generally fails to realize is that as a matter of simple logic, science cannot define, much less dictate, morality, or moral authority. Moreover, science cannot explain the existence of autonomous human agents. His affinity for "humanism" is rampant in his writings and talks, yet he fails to acknowledge that the very basis of humanism, i.e. human freewill, is anathema to materialist science, or any type of scientific explanation. As such, the edifice of his thesis that science should be our personal and social god effectively crumbles. Science, of course, should make significant contributions to our social policies and worldviews. But it should be viewed as a counselor, not a dictator.

I found the review in New Statesman (linked above) consistent with my experience of Pinker.

I was thinking about buying "How the Mind Works", but I already had too many books in my basket (literally and figuratively).

When you said his books have been thoroughly debunked, I'm wondering how you reached that conclusion. If you have a thorough critical review, or some other and better sources you'd recommend on the subject, I'd be interested.

I've been a teacher for over 30 years, and will forever be a student. Although I know WHAT works for building knowledge and skills in my field, I'm really interested in HOW the brain does it. I'd like to improve and simplify the process, if possible.

There are a lot of books that address Pinker's book, "How The Mind Works." I would recommend Jerry Foder's book that was specifically in response to Pinker, appropriately titled, "The Mind Doesn't Work That Way."

The issues here are a bit complicated, but generally speaking they revolve around what is called the Computational Theory of Mind (CTM); i.e. the theory that all aspects of the mind can be explained by the computational processes of the brain. Pinker combines CTM with a Chomskian psychological nativism, which is itself questionable, and argues that there is a mental module that humans are born with and that explains language learning in children, and cognition generally. Finally, according to Pinker, all of this is a product of Neo-Darwinism. For me, all of the above are questionable. But, notwithstanding my own views, the Pinker book is poorly argued. Foder, who has a great deal of stature on these matters of cognitive psychology, takes issue with Pinker's assumptions and conclusions. Here is a quote from Foder's response:

"[Pinker] insists on a connection between nativism about cognition and a Neo-Darwinist, adaptationist account of how the cognitive mind evolved. That struck me as neither convincingly argued . . . nor particularly plausible in its own right. Finally, I was, and remain, perplexed by an attitude of ebullient optimism . . . I would have thought that the last forty or fifty years have demonstrated pretty clearly that there are aspects of higher mental processes into which the current armamentarium of computational models, theories, and experimental techniques offers vanishingly little insight."

(The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, p. 2)

In my opinion, Foder is a first rate philosopher and logician, who is very meticulous in his writing, although I do not agree with him on most issues. Pinker, on the other hand, is deficient in such logical skills, and loose in his arguments, which makes his writings come across as more rhetorical than factual.

As far as my general claim that Pinker has been debunked, I believe this applies generally to both the CTM, and Chomskian nativism. Moreover, there are no effective and specific arguments that tie Neo-Darwinism to the CTM that I am aware of. Moreover, such a position, in my view, is based upon an assumption that Neo-Darwinism has far more explanatory power in matters of human development, and in particular human psychology, than it actually does. It plays in to the mindset that if something in biology or psychology cannot be explained, it must be natural selection.

I hope this helps.

Thanks. That sounds interesting. I don't know what half of those terms mean, although I could probably guess to some extent (neo-Darwinism, etc) so I guess I have my work cut out for me. I'd be interested in reading the Pinker book AND the rebuttal (BTW, great snarky title: "The Mind Doesn't Work that Way". LOL. Hopefully the substance is there, unlike Hugh Nibley's rebuttal to "No Man Knows My History"/"No Mam, That's Not History").

I'm not even sure if I want to come at the subject from a philosophical or psychological angle. Maybe more the mechanics of how memories are made and retrieved and how the brain connects many types of information together.

You (and others here) might find the Pinker and Foder books a bit difficult without some background in cognitive science. Let me suggest the following introductory books you might want to read first:

Tim Crane, The Mechanical Mind, A Philosophical Introduction to Minds, Machines and Mental Representation

Andy Clark, Mindware, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science.

Note the emphasis in both books on both "introduction," and "philosophy." These books outline the basic issues and philosophical difficulties involved, and point the way towards more opinionated theories and commentary, like that of Pinker and Foder.

Good luck.

You need to remember that Henry Bemis (who has enough time to read all books-see the Twilight Zone) is an ardent believer in the woo interpretation of the mind.

When Henry says something is debunked he means it doesn't agree with him. In actuality we don't have the necessary evidence to understand and make a definitive declaration of how the mind works.

When Henry says he doesn't read Pinker anymore he's saying he only reads books that he agrees with and that his mind is closed.

Henry enjoys speaking in the religiously convinced absolutes of the closed mind.

Hmmm . . . I still have reservations about philosophical discussion of how the mind works. Right now, I'm more interested in facts, mechanics, imaging (what lights up when you do this or that), etc.

But back to the original topic. It's nice to know somebody liked "How the Mind Works". I might check it out on Amazon and see if it covers what I'm interested in. I personally don't think you have to agree with the author's ideas on everything to read the book. I regularly take what's useful and well-supported and reject or reserve judgement on the rest.

I appreciate your response.

Pinker has eugenicist sympathies has stated that he believes certain ethnic groups have natural intellectual superiority. This should raise a massive red flag!

"In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

Also:

"Enlightenment advances were tied to empire building and the nascent Industrial Revolution, predicated not just on noble ideas and scientific curiosity, but also on slavery, genocide, exploitation and cultural triumphalism."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02148-1

"That Pinker has managed to get this so spectacularly wrong is not altogether surprising given that he rarely deigns to cite any of the relevant writings...most of the important Enlightenment thinkers receive little or no mention at all in the book."

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/20/4806696.htm

"What happens when you decide the history, philosophy, and study of science are the same as the war on science so you can dismiss them? You end up writing a book saying the Tuskegee Study was just fine actually.

https://twitter.com/Ian_Mosby/status/968986994079514624

"Violent intervention by Western countries in poor countries: good Violent resistance to oppression in poor countries: bad

https://twitter.com/n0nmanifest/status/963833925159346177

I read The Blank Slate and found it to make a lot of sense to my little brain. The lack of woo was very refreshing.

An important book!

Mormonism's origins have white/euro supremacist roots and because of this, most white Mormons are often blind to historical and structural racism. I'm not surprised that white folks are missing that Pinker's assessment of the state of the world is deeply biased from a Euro-/white-American perspective (i.e. colonialist).

Personally I cherish many things about the Enlightenment but it too was used to justify European and American colonialism, torture, rape, medical experimentation on non-white people, slavery, genocides, and vast disruption to ecosystems and the global climate.

Pinker promotes anti-identity politics ignoring the fact that identity as a highly privileged, straight, white male entitles him to ignore how his ideas impact people of colour with far less privilege.

There may well be many good points in his writing, but if we as ex-Mormons really consider ourselves fair, kind, and invested in the greater good we must be more rigorous in whose voices we elevate.

I consider myself "fair, kind, invested in the great good" and I choose to elevate Pinker's voice.

You're free to choose to elevate whomever you choose.

I have provided ample evidence of Pinker being an apologist for white supremacy, eugenics, colonialism. If this is someone you wish to elevate, it's as good as an endorsement for the same.

Since when does "opinion" qualify as "ample"?

To auntsurkey and Dorothy:

You both say how much you love Pinker, and his book, The Blank Slate, but neither offer so much as a sentence as to what the book is about, or what specifically you find compelling about Pinker's views, much less any argument in support of such views.

I can only assume that you have no understanding of what "The Blank Slate" is about, or what Pinker's general views are. Perhaps you are just enamored by a Harvard professor with long, curly gray locks; which I admit is rather impressive.

Please, *show* me (not just tell me) I am wrong.

Ya got me there Henry. My wee brain is too estrogen addled to understand the first thing about his book, but his pic on the book jacket--wooo weee!

and your previous one. Apparently the self-deprecating sarcasm of the first post was too subtle for those of superior intellect to notice. I think it was misunderstood as an invitation ascend to the podium.

;-)

It would be useless to try to show you that you are wrong. Someone who is always right cannot be shown to be wrong.