Steve Pinker is a Blank Slater, he just hasn't realised it yet.

[Robin]

Here is what Steve Pinker writes in his article "The Blank Slate" for the magazine "General Psychology":

What all this suggests is that children are shaped not by their parents, but in part—but only in part—by their genes; in part by their culture, both the culture of the surrounding society and the children’s own culture, which we condescendingly call their peer group; 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.

Now, help me out here, how is that not a "Blank Slate" position?

There is no-one in the social sciences, as far as I am aware, that suggests that genetics has nothing to do with how we turn out. For as long as I have been talking to people in the social sciences they have said that how someone turns out is partly due to their genes and partly due to their environment, culture, society, physical environment etc.

Pinker tries to pretend that there is a difference between what he is saying and what the social sciences say in general by picking someone with an extreme position, Ashley Montagu, and claims that this view is 'typical'. In fact it is not even typical of Montagu's claims as you can easily find him clarifying that things like laughing and crying are genetically programmed just as they are in other animals.

And, as I said, Montagu's claims are not typical for the social sciences.

The other example Pinker gives in this article is Arnold Schwartznegger. I am not sure how Pinker could have concluded that Arnie is the exemplar of the social sciences.

What the social sciences tend to reject is the "breeding is everything" opinion which says that poor people are poor because they have inferior breeding and that rich people are rich due to superior breeding and that everybody should just know their place and not try to get above themselves. I don't think that Pinker is defending that view.

So let's get away from this idea that Pinker's view is any different to the view that has been taken by the social sciences since at least the 1960's



PS Incidentally, I am confused as to why Pinker believes that the only part of a child's culture, society and behaviour that doesn't influence them is the part that they have spent most time with, ie their parents.

 

[Roboramma]

PS Incidentally, I am confused as to why Pinker believes that the only part of a child's culture, society and behaviour that doesn't influence them is the part that they have spent most time with, ie their parents.

Because the evidence from twin studies and adoption studies demonstrates that his view is correct, perhaps?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's rare to find someone willing to speak apolitical about the Nature/Nurture divide.

Fact is, if Nature hasn't given it to you, there is nothing to Nurture.

 

[Robin]

Because the evidence from twin studies and adoption studies demonstrates that his view is correct, perhaps?

I have seen studies which suggest humans have paranormal powers, and yet I don't believe it.

I am asking specifically why, if Pinker thinks that we are shaped by culture, society, peers environment etc, what exactly does he think is somehow mysteriously blocking a similar influence from parents?

Unless we can identify this factor that is somehow blocking parental influence and letting through all of those other influences, perhaps we should be just a little skeptical of those studies.

 

[Robin]

It's rare to find someone willing to speak apolitical about the Nature/Nurture divide.

Fact is, if Nature hasn't given it to you, there is nothing to Nurture.

I don't understand what you mean.

I don't think it alters my point in any way since Pinker has agreed that we are somewhat blank slates and my questions are:

How does Pinker's view differ from the mainstream view held by the social sciences since at least 1960s?

How does Pinker suggest that we can be shaped by influences such as society, culture, peers, environment but somehow parental influence doesn't shape us in the same way?

 

[angrysoba]

Some scientists think it all comes down to nurture (and nature). Others vehemently disagree and say it comes down to nature (and nurture).

 

[Roboramma]

I have seen studies which suggest humans have paranormal powers, and yet I don't believe it.

I am asking specifically why, if Pinker thinks that we are shaped by culture, society, peers environment etc, what exactly does he think is somehow mysteriously blocking a similar influence from parents?

Unless we can identify this factor that is somehow blocking parental influence and letting through all of those other influences, perhaps we should be just a little skeptical of those studies.

It's not like he references one poorly conducted study. Sure, it's a counter-intuitive result. Your prior probability was probably quite low. But each study should lead to a Bayesian updating of that probability. Are you suggesting that no evidence aside from understanding the mechanism could cause you to update?

If on some particular trait, adopted children resemble their biological parents more than their adoptive parents, and in fact resemble their adoptive parents no more, on average, than someone taken at random from the same population, it's hard to make sense of any theory that suggests that differences between how parents raise their children are influencing their children in that trait.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As mentioned, twin studies strongly suggest that positive parental influence has a minor effect compared to peer group influence - which makes a ton of sense, evolutionary, since the parents will be gone long before your peers.
Of course, parents have a dramatic effect in the negative, starting with malnutrition and drugs while in utero onto physical and psychological mistreatment during child development.

 

[Robin]

Some scientists think it all comes down to nurture (and nature). Others vehemently disagree and say it comes down to nature (and nurture).

I am not sure that there are any who actually hold these extreme positions.

I would have thought that most hold some position in between, or that there is no simple distinction to be made.

 

[angrysoba]

As mentioned, twin studies strongly suggest that positive parental influence has a minor effect compared to peer group influence - which makes a ton of sense, evolutionary, since the parents will be gone long before your peers.Of course, parents have a dramatic effect in the negative, starting with malnutrition and drugs while in utero onto physical and psychological mistreatment during child development.

I'm not quite sure if that really does make sense evolutionarily does it? I mean it doesn't go against it either.

Either way, no doubt peers have a stronger influence on kids than parents do. They will usually speak the way their peers do, for example, and be interested in similar things to their peers more than that of their parents.

 

[Robin]

It's not like he references one poorly conducted study.

I didn't say he did. I am suggesting that either he is referencing a number of poorly conducted studies, or misinterpreting some properly conducted studies.

Sure, it's a counter-intuitive result.

It is not that it is counter intuitive, it is that it would require some mechanism that would block parental influence among all the other environmental influences.

No-one has suggested such a mechanism. Can you suggest a plausible mechanism which would block parental influence and let all other environmential influences through.
[quote[Your prior probability was probably quite low. But each study should lead to a Bayesian updating of that probability. Are you suggesting that no evidence aside from understanding the mechanism could cause you to update?[/quote]
Um no. I am saying that I would need to see this mechanism that mysteriously blocks parental influence and allows all other environmental influences through.

I would also like to see any studies that even suggest this. Admittedly I have only read his article in General Psychology that has no references, but I have searched the internet for such studies. Can you point me at them?

If on some particular trait, adopted children resemble their biological parents more than their adoptive parents, and in fact resemble their adoptive parents no more, on average, than someone taken at random from the same population, it's hard to make sense of any theory that suggests that differences between how parents raise their children are influencing their children in that trait.

Again, what Pinker has suggested is that we are shaped by all sorts of environmental influences, just not parental influence.

Again, I am questioning what mechanism would block parental influences and let all other environmental influences through?

 

[Robin]

As mentioned, twin studies strongly suggest that positive parental influence has a minor effect compared to peer group influence

That is not what Pinker said though.

I don't think that any parents would be at all surprised that our children's peers have much greater influence on our children than we do. Not all parents are happy with that, but most parents I have met will say that this is so.

That is a pretty trivial proposition compared to what Pinker is saying in this article.

If Pinker is only saying that parents have less influence than peers or that parental influence is only one of the influences on their parents then clearly he is not saying anything new at all.

 

[Robin]

If anyone thinks the paranormal research comparison is unfair, just remember that paranormal research mainly is conducted in respectable universities by people qualified to the lecturer or professor level who are well versed in experimental design.

One of the most famous ones was conducted in Princeton University by a highly qualified professor who had also contributed to design of propulsion units for NASA. The research was conducted by a department set aside for paranormal study and which continued to be supported by Princeton for nearly thirty years.

We only doubt these studies because of the extreme nature of the claims they purport to uphold, if the claims were less extreme they would pass under the radar.

So why should I just roll over and accept a bunch of studies when they purport to show something that suggests some blocking mechanism which has not been identified.

Much less should I roll over and accept the interpretations of these studies by a celebrity.

 

[angrysoba]

That is not what Pinker said though.

I don't think that any parents would be at all surprised that our children's peers have much greater influence on our children than we do. Not all parents are happy with that, but most parents I have met will say that this is so.

That is a pretty trivial proposition compared to what Pinker is saying in this article.

If Pinker is only saying that parents have less influence than peers or that parental influence is only one of the influences on their parents then clearly he is not saying anything new at all.

1.) I think a lot of people, including parents, believe that a child's behaviour is essentially the result of parenting.

2.) Yes, maybe much of what Pinker is saying is not new. He is usually collating sources that have been conducted by other researchers and he himself is writing popular science books.

 

[angrysoba]

If anyone thinks the paranormal research comparison is unfair, just remember that paranormal research mainly is conducted in respectable universities by people qualified to the lecturer or professor level who are well versed in experimental design. One of the most famous ones was conducted in Princeton University by a highly qualified professor who had also contributed to design of propulsion units for NASA. The research was conducted by a department set aside for paranormal study and which continued to be supported by Princeton for nearly thirty years.

We only doubt these studies because of the extreme nature of the claims they purport to uphold, if the claims were less extreme they would pass under the radar.

So why should I just roll over and accept a bunch of studies when they purport to show something that suggests some blocking mechanism which has not been identified.

Much less should I roll over and accept the interpretations of these studies by a celebrity.

Huh? Did I miss something?

Anyway, paranormal research may be carried out in respectable universities such as Columbia, by respectable scientists such as Dr Venkman, etc... but it doesn't mean it should be respected.

 

[Robin]

Huh? Did I miss something?

I don't understand. Miss something about what? I can't see any ambiguity in what I said.

Anyway, paranormal research may be carried out in respectable universities such as Columbia, by respectable scientists such as Dr Venkman, etc... but it doesn't mean it should be respected.

If you leave out your mention of s fictional character and substitute in a very real one like Princeton professor Robert George Jahn, then this is just what I said.

Let me then generalise this "Research may be carried out in respectable universities by qualified scientists but it doesn't mean it should be respected."

 

[Robin]

1.) I think a lot of people, including parents, believe that a child's behaviour is essentially the result of parenting.

I have never met a single one who has said the characteristics of the adult are solely or eve primarily the result of parenting.

2.) Yes, maybe much of what Pinker is saying is not new. He is usually collating sources that have been conducted by other researchers and he himself is writing popular science books.

Again I am having trouble finding the studies that back up what he is saying. It is not uncommon for a popular writer to misrepresent research. Given his other misrepresentations I have no good reason to accept that he is being straight about this research.

I can't say I have ever heard the claim that parents have no influence.

 

[Robin]

If you take Pinker's statement that I quoted and change it just a little to include the parents as one of the influences then I have no problem with it and moreover I expect you would have something that the research is really showing.

But you would have a statement that, far from being need to anyone, is more or less consistent with what most social scientists have been saying since the 1960s.

 

[Darat]

For those interested in the discussion the entire 8 page article is here: https://theopenscholars.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_blank_slate_general.pdf

I don't think the quote satisfactorily summarises the article and his opinion.

 

[Darat]

I have never met a single one who has said the characteristics of the adult are solely or eve primarily the result of parenting.

...snip....

Really? Perhaps in your country it is different but in the UK the "cultural folklore" view is that you are moulded from birth by your parents into the adult you become. "What do you expect have you seen her parents" is a refrain I've often heard when people are gossiping.

But you will also hear the opposite "Oh his parents were so nice and did everything they could but he was a bad'un from birth".

I don't think this is by the way any true rational examination of the facts, I think it depends solely on which narrative the person wants to create at the time and since it is "folklore wisdom" it should always be treated with extreme caution as to being an accurate reflection of reality.