Q&A:
Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate'
By Steve Sailer
UPI National Correspondent
From the Life
& Mind Desk
Published
10/30/2002 10:21 AM
View
printer-friendly version
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 30 (UPI) -- The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology cognitive scientist Steven Pinker's bestseller
"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" is one of
the more intellectually ambitious books to hit the best-seller
lists in recent years. United Press International caught up
with him just before a lecture at the California Institute of
Technology, and then followed up with e-mail questions:
UPI: A widespread criticism among hostile reviewers has
been: "You say that genes affect how people behave. Doesn't
everybody know this already? Why write a book about it?"
Pinker: In their hearts, most people know it, especially
people with more than one child. But many people deny it when
they switch into intellectualizing mode. For example, many
parenting studies measure a correlation between parenting
practices and children's outcomes and conclude that parenting
made the difference -- jabbering at your kids advances their
language skills, spanking them makes them more violent and so
forth. They ignore the fact that parents provide their
children with genes, not just an environment, so talkative
parents may pass on genes for talkativeness to their children.
Another example: every few years, many academics and activists
sign pious petitions declaring that "violence is learned
behavior." A third example: statistics showing that women are
underrepresented in professions like mechanical engineering
are interpreted as evidence of hidden barriers; no one asks
whether women are less likely to choose people-free
professions like mechanical engineering. All three of these
blank-slate fallacies, by the way, are commonly made by
scientists.
Q: A common fear seems to be: "But if genetic determinism
is actually true, doesn't that mean the Nazis were right?"
A: Genetic determinism is not true. Except for a few
neurological disorders, no behavioral trait is determined with
100 percent probability by the genome, or anything else (we
know this because identical twins are only similar, not
indistinguishable, in their personality and intellect). Of
course, even a statistical influence of the genes does not
mean that the Nazis were right. Factually, they were wrong in
believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively
distinct in their biology, that they occupy different rungs on
an evolutionary ladder, that they differ in morally worthy
traits like courage and honesty, and that "superior" groups
were endangered by interbreeding with "inferior" ones.
Morally, they were wrong in causing the deaths of some 35
million innocent people and horrific suffering to countless
others.
Your question, of course, alludes to a conventional wisdom
among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide. But
the 20th century suffered “two” ideologies that led to
genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't
believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful
concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution
that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by
coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief
that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior
groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.
Q: Aren't we all better off if people believe that we are
not constrained by our biology and so can achieve any future
we choose?
A: People are surely better off with the truth. Oddly
enough, everyone agrees with this when it comes to the arts.
Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and
saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever
after. But when it comes to science, these same people say,
"Give us schmaltz!" They expect the science of human beings to
be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational
sermonizing.
Q: What is the Tragic Vision vs. the Utopian Vision?
A: They are the different visions of human nature that
underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction
comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book
"A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision,
humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and
knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those
limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are
“products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to
overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this
distinction come many right-left contrasts that would
otherwise have no common denominator. Rightists tend to like
tradition (because human nature does not change), small
government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society),
a strong police and military (because people will always be
tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they
convert individual selfishness into collective wealth).
Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and
cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media,
and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and
more peaceable and generous.
Q: What is the Naturalistic Fallacy vs. the Moralistic
Fallacy?
A: The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found
in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the
belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of
evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest.
Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because
they want to describe the natural world honestly, without
people deriving morals about how we ought to behave -- as in:
If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide,
cannibalism, it must be OK).
The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in
nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary
voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice
feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to
benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the
romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill,
rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or
reactionary.
Q: It's widely assumed that only right-wingers believe in
human nature. Are there any leftists who argue that
understanding our evolved natures will better help the
poor?
A: The most famous is my MIT colleague Noam Chomsky, who
believes that people have innate tendencies to cooperate,
share, and produce creative works, justifying a kind of
socialist anarchism. This is a rather romantic view of human
nature that is innocent of modern Darwinism -- you can't be an
anarchist unless you're a romantic, and you cannot be a
romantic if you're a Darwinian. But other leftists are fans of
evolutionary psychology. Peter Singer believes we cannot
achieve Utopia, but we can do better than we're doing now to
help the poor. Herb Gintis and Sam Bowles argue that welfare
can become politically popular again if it does not violate
the public's sense of fairness. Robert Frank argues that
extreme laissez-faire policies don't make people better off
because of our innate craving for status makes us waste
disposable income in zero-sum contests of conspicuous
consumption. And decades ago there were "Bell-Curve Liberals"
-- British intellectuals who saw IQ tests as the ultimate
egalitarian talent-detectors, which would subvert a class
system ruled by inbred upper-class twits.
Q: You argue that the modernist high culture and
post-modernist criticism have, on the whole, failed to engage
humanity's interest because they ideologically rejected basic
truths about human nature. What are some of modern art's
flaws?
A: My quarrel isn't with Modernism itself, but with the
dogmatic versions that came to dominate the elite arts and
bred the even more extreme doctrines of postmodernism. These
movements were based on a militant denial of human nature,
especially the idea that people are born with a capacity to
experience aesthetic pleasure. Beauty in art, narrative in
fiction, melody in music, meter and rhyme in poetry, ornament
and green space in architecture, were considered bourgeois and
lightweight, or products of mass-marketing. Instead, modernist
and postmodernist art was intended to raise our
consciousnesses, illustrate a theory, or shock us out of our
middle-class stupor.
Q: Why, in contrast, did popular culture become so much
more, well, popular?
A: Popular culture, to become popular, had to please
people, and (at least at its best) it perfected engrossing
plots, catchy rhythms and melodies and gorgeous fashions and
faces.
Q: You are an atheist, although less strident about it than
your fellow evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins. Do you
ever worry that by pitting Darwin vs. God, mano a mano,
evolutionists are encouraging Creationism, since an awful lot
of Americans would pick God if forced to choose?
A: My criticism of religion in "The Blank Slate" was
defensive, meant to counter the argument that morality can
only come from a belief in a soul that accepts God's purpose
and is rewarded or punished in an afterlife. I think the
evidence suggests that this doctrine is false both logically
and factually. I don't make a point of criticizing religion in
general. Some hard-headed biologists and evolutionary
theorists believe that an abstract conception of a divine
power is consistent with conventional Darwinism.
Q: In 1922, G.K. Chesterton argued that only the Christian
doctrine of the equal value of all souls could reconcile the
human desire for equality with Darwin's strong emphasis on
heritable differences as the engine of evolution. Chesterton
observed, "The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases
all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it
is right; for if they were not created equal, they were
certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy
except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." You believe
the doctrine that we have souls is pernicious, but didn't the
blank slate theory start to flourish when intellectuals
stopped believing in souls, yet still wanted to believe in
equality, so they started insisting that humans had to be
biologically equal blank slates?
A: Yes, that's historically correct, but it is still a bad
political philosophy. It makes the principle of political
equality a hostage to fortune, implying that foreseeable
empirical discoveries could make it obsolete. A stronger case
for political equality comes out of two more robust
principles. First, that humans, however much they might differ
in certain traits, don't differ in having a desire for life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These desires do not
depend on having a soul but on being a member of a species
that was homogenized in certain ways by natural selection.
Second, that the policy of treating people according to their
individual merits is more fair than a policy of prejudging
them according to the statistics of their race, sex, religion
or ethnic group.
Q: If free will is a myth, how can we justify punishing
criminals who couldn't control their actions? How can we teach
our children that crime is wrong, even if nobody sees you
commit the crime?
A: I don't think free will is a myth, only that it consists
of a brain process rather than the uncaused action of an
immaterial soul. In cases where we can tell with certainty
that an identifiable kind of actor is undeterrable by criminal
sanctions, in fact we “don't” punish him -- that's why we
don't punish children, animals, machines, or the truly insane
(though we may incapacitate them if they are dangerous to
themselves or others). In other cases, we hold people
responsible because the steadfast policy of holding a person
responsible can deter bad behavior in the future -- if not by
the person himself, then by other people who see the policy
being applied resolutely and are not tempted to game the
system.
We cannot teach a psychopath that crime is wrong even if no
one sees you commit it. With everyone else, we can appeal to
their empathy, alerting them to the harm they do to other
people; to their intellect, pointing out that they cannot
logically hold others to standards that they flout themselves;
and to their sense of character, reminding them that a person
of principle will, in the long run and for good reason, be
trusted and esteemed more than someone who cuts corners
whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
Q: Your long curly hair has been compared to such 1970s
rock stars as Peter Frampton, Roger Daltrey and Robert Plant,
but you might look more like the 17th century philosopher
Spinoza. Whom do you think you look like?
A: Then there's T. Rex singer Marc Bolan, jazz guitarist
Pat Metheny, and most often, conductor Simon Rattle. I,
personally, would have to answer Bruno, the piano player in
the TV show "Fame."
Copyright © 2002 United Press
International
View
printer-friendly version