The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", Steven Pinker, Penguin Books, New York, 2003. ISBN 978-0-14-200334-3, PC 434/508. Notes 20 pgs., Ref. 29 pgs., Index 19 pgs., 9 ¼" x 6".

An established academician, Professor of Psychology at Harvard Univ., with generous list of publications, "The Blank Slate" captured three major book prizes deservedly denoted as brilliant, stimulating and learned. This book of 20 Chapters is divided into six Parts: I The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage & the Ghost in the Machine, II Fear & Loathing, III Human Nature with a Human Face, IV Know Thyself, V Hot Buttons, & VI The Voice of the Species. Be warned this treatise is no easy read, indeed, it is not an especial pleasurable experience, but an exhilarating journey that you wish had not ended and gives one reason to explore Pinker's other publications. His prose, arguments, exposition, and telling references reveals to us this is not humbug.

Being one of identical twins, plus having a background in medicine and genetics, made this book command an especial focus of my attention in Chapter 19, "The Children", on Nature & Nurture and the Laws of Behavior(al) Genetics. Genes aside, the intellectual depth Pinker provides to the reader in Chapter 20, "The Arts", stands out as an refreshing pause before the denouement, "The Voice of The Species". It is one of those "must read" books that even a refined player as Tinker Bell can emote without fear of accompanying dissonance vis-a-vis large percussion instruments as strings, drums or bells when discussing genes & genii (geniuses).

Neuroscience increasingly helps us understand the biological basis for human perceptions and patterns of thought. Pinker writes about these new findings as part of a nature vs. nurture debate. I am interested in these arguments, but I couldn't understand Pinker's position until I got to about page 200. There is substance to this book, but I had to work hard to understand it.

Extremely well written and erudite. Pinker weaves in a plethora of evidence, theories and information from numerous fields to support his compelling arguments. His command of language and writing style make it a pleasure to read. His thesis is sound and explains much of human nature and history.

Makes one think deeply about where we developed from. Steven also answers email about questions or comments. This author is outstanding. Would love to take a class from him...but would I be overwhelmed???

A careful examination of "nature v nurture". Insightful, rational, and very useful in consciously unraveling human nature. When we are aware of them, we are free to select between the things that deeply motivate us. That is what real choice is about.

Kidding,
Pinker is a genius and surprisingly funny as s***. Great gag gift for priests, teachers, or your disillusioned parents
Highly recommend this book to anyone looking to rise above the psychology 101 level or as i call it psychology LOL

Reasonably written although paragraph structure is often marginal with mutliple ideas/points in a paragraph (but I suppose that reflects the current de-emphasis of writing precision over-all). My problem with the book is that he essentially never really mentions - or even indicates - that there are points of view that seriously challenge and undermine many of his assumptions about neurophyschology as now researched and presented by him. Perhaps he can be forgiven due to his training as a psychologist which often permits and fosters imprecise thinking from the point of view of science, especially the confusion between correlation and cause and effect (which seems also to dog the social sciences). If you wish a valid point of view nof this area of though do not stop with this book. Try Tallis "Aping Mankind" for a views of a physician who is rigourously scientific trained and who has much more knowledge in regards of neural function and nuance than Pinker.

This book deals with the eternal clash between nature and nurture. The author's protestations notwithstanding, his real purpose is to show that there are some things in our makeup nurture cannot change.

That , however, is old hat. Nothing here that has not been said a thousand times by far better writers from Luctretius on.

Mr. Skinner likes to show one side of the picture. If you check the facts. He tends to take the statistics that support his points. Oh that is life Lies, Damn Likes, and Statistics. Can't blame him.He does make you rethink my views.

In The Blank Slate, Pinker outlines three dogmas that he says are the prevailing views of human nature in modern philosophy:

1) The blank slate, in which the mind has no innate (genetic) properties and, as John Watson boasted, through conditioning you could train a child to become anybody you want her to become.

2) The noble savage, in which people are born good, and society forms them into deviants. Pinker suggested that Rousseau was a strong proponent of this theory, but according to Wikipedia (which is always accurate), Rousseau never used this term.

3) The ghost in the machine, in which people's choices are solely dependent upon their soul.

Pinker provides evidence that these three dogmas are false, and that there is a strong genetic drive in human behavior. He covers diverse topics including racism, violence, rape, and feminism (among many others).

Overall, I found this book fascinating. I didn't think I was going to agree with Pinker...especially when I first started the book. But he presented some pretty good arguments that convinced me to waffle, if not to change my mind. I was a bit put off by Pinker's arrogance (like when he says that he's "proven" something when he's only provided evidence), but I guess that's to be expected in many well-respected intellectuals.

To see my full review: http://hibernatorslibrary.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-blank-slate-by-stephen-pinker.html

This book is a lifeline for people who still believe in reason, science and talking about social issues in that light.

More than just solid science, this book is one of the few threads we can cling to, as the western world devolves into postmodern thought, and the tyrannical application of it that inevitably accompanies it.

Don't waste any time, just get the book. I predict it will be illegal in some western countries by 2025.

The book, 'explaining postmodernism' by Stephen Hicks is an excellent companion piece to this book and dovetails with The Blank Slate perfectly.

It deals with more general and historical aspects of postmodernism VS. Classical liberalism while The Blank Slate deals more with how postmodernism is applied to scientific schools of thought and does genuine practical harm.

Steven Pinker is a truly fine writer for a practicing scientist, which fact further bears out my feeling that one should always read popular science books by scientists rather than science journalists, e.g. the likes of Gladwell, who routinely misses the key points and foist suspicious claims and nonsense in their stead.

As usual, Pinker produces a highly readable account of relevant studies without being heavy or simplistic on presentation. His ability of skewering an opponent without looking mean is also amply shown in this book, when he dissects with style some of the funnier claims of Radical Scientists, Gender Feminists and postmodernists.

I have read this book five times -- the first two times in its entirety, but lately I don't read the political arguments that commence with Part II and finish the rest of the book. I've read them before and I don't learn much new from them anymore.

It is a very well written book and you can learn a lot about the history and the politics of the nature-nurture debate, especially as it involves intelligence -- a hot topic for a long time.

I think the book was written partly because at the time (ca. 2002) the Human Genome Project was coming to an end and had found that there are only about 30,000 genes in humans. He points out, quite correctly, that that may not be important, indeed, it may not even be correct. There is a lot of so-called junk DNA in our chromosomes and yet -- here I base this question on my background in the history of science -- can we be certain that we got it right? Can we be sure that we understand genetics so thoroughly that we can't possibly be missing something more subtle but important in those junk genes?

And we're learning a lot more as the research continues just how complex the process of taking genes and making an organism with them truly is. There is a gene called the distal gene that has something to do with making our fingers -- the same gene is present in butterflies; in them it will produce a spot on the outer edge of the wing. I think this tells us that how genes work their magic is going to be a long and complicated process of discovery.

As for the IQ debate, I don't worry about it much anymore. There have been excesses on both sides of the debate: claims that the brain is so plastic that environment can do everything (not true) and some claims that learning is pointless in some, maybe even harmful. Very bad advice, I think.

If you're worried about not being smart enough, welcome to the club. Who wouldn't like to be smarter? Who hasn't met someone that seemed miles above you in intelligence? I've had the privilege of knowing people of every race, color, creed, and both genders who I'm sure are smarter than me. Instead of worrying about it, use what you have and learn. Smart people, really smart people, I've found are willing to ask questions of just about anybody. The vast majority of people are quite capable of learning and using a language -- they even use grammar pretty much automatically (another good point from Dr. Pinker in his book "The Language Instinct") -- very impressive, indeed.

I gave the book 4 stars only because it is getting a little old -- I hope that the study of genetics has come a long way in the last dozen years or so. It is a well-written book, not perfect -- history is never simple and some of the points made, well, they're good points, but the foundation underneath them may be a little uncertain.

But that's why the debates and, more importantly, the research goes on. Yes, you could do worse than reading this book and thinking about what it has to say.

Steven Pinker, a renowned writer and psychology professor at Harvard University has truly proved himself in “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature”. As someone who is very interested in the nature of his books (language, mind and human nature), it’s surprising that he, as an author, has never been mentioned in my college career; until now that is. When given an assignment at the beginning of the semester of a Neuroscience class that you will have to read a book related to neuroscience on your own, outside of class, I’m sure you can imagine the excitement. Being given the choice of choosing your own book, however, made it a bit more doable. The book itself is a little intimidating, but once you start reading it, the information being presented is so valuable yet relatable. It’s not a book specifically about topics that relate to neuroscience, but being that it is about Nature and Nurture, neuroscience theories do come up as Nature is about the biology of the person. It was very interesting to read and to gain a different perspective on the matter as something very different than what many have been taught. Even though the book is large, it would be interesting to see this being taught in place of other textbooks we are required to read about this topic.
For starters, “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” is primarily about the relationship between nature and nurture and how the two combined explains the behavior of people. As Pinker puts it, “This book is about the moral, emotional, and political colorings of the concept of human nature in modern life.” There are six parts to the book: The Blank Slate, the Nobel Savage and the Ghost in the Machine (1), Fear and Loathing (2), Human Nature with a Human Face (3), Know Thyself (4), Hot Buttons (5), and The Voice of the Species (6). Each part has subtopics, which are recognized as the chapters, and the amount varies by topic. The ‘nature vs nurture’ debate is a growing one as people believe one heavily influences human behavior over the other. What Pinker was trying, and succeeded, to do is getting the reader out of the mindset that one is more important than the other (in regards to nature and nurture) and to get the reader to understand that the two are intertwined as genetics as well as our environment play a major role in what shapes us to become who we are (in regards to our behavior). Pinker, strengthening his argument, states that “The refusal to acknowledge human nature is… distorts our science and scholarship, our public discourse and our day-to-day-lives.” He then goes on to state that “Logicians tell us that a single contradiction can corrupt a set of statements and allow falsehoods to proliferate through it.” Basically, he’s saying that denying human nature exits, even with “evidence from science and common sense” that it does, is a “corrupting influence”. Throughout all six parts, he uses nature and nurture to explain a variety of different aspects of human nature. In a chapter titled “Culture Vultures”, he talks about reductionism. Bad reductionism (greedy or destructive reductionism) is describing a theory by reducing one to another that’s considered ‘simpler’ or ‘basic’ and explaining it as such. Good reductionism (hierarchical reductionism) refers to unifying two different theories or fields of knowledge, which is what he is doing by connecting nature and nurture as one working model instead of two separate entities. He does a great job being consistent with the unity of the two, never suggesting or hinting at one being more important than the other.
As previously stated, reading this book was for a Neuroscience class. While the book in its entirety was not explicitly about the brain, neuroscience did come up when certain subjects came up. One of the neuroscience topics that came up is natural selection. As learned in class, natural selection is the process by which organisms better adapt to survive in their environment to produce offspring. This came up when Pinker was talking about our (as humans) differences and similarities in a chapter titled “The Fear of inequality”. He stated that “Modern biology tell us that the forces that make people alike are not the same as the forces that make people different.” Natural selection came up when Pinker goes to state that “Natural selection works to homogenize a species into a standard overall design by concentrating the effective genes and winnowing out the ineffective ones.” He also goes on to mention skin pigments and how UV radiation (also learned in class) in certain regions of the world played a huge role in the difference of skin tones. His point that was being made is that, on the topic of race, our quantitative differences are small in biological terms, but they are much larger among (individual) people that belong to the same ethnic group or race rather than between an ethnic group or race. In further detail, believing that members of the same ethic identity or race are all the same or that one ethnic group differs necessarily from one another is “based on false assumptions about our biology.” What is most admirable about Steven Pinker’s work is that he can take something as controversial (yet relatable) as racist ideologies and relate it back to nature and nurture as well as different neuroscience theories. By connecting his topic to something we can all relate to, on top of making it so easily understandable, I thought, was brilliant. His argument, and information to back up his argument was well-constructed and pieced together, and this is not the only time this has been evident. Pinker does an amazing job at getting his point across, making sure he is providing the reader with correct information, as well as presenting you the information without it being too informational (wordy with too many science terms). Overall, Steven Pinker did an amazing job linking nature and nurture together in his information six-part piece.
In conclusion, while hesitant and overwhelmed with the assignment at first, it was actually a good read and this assignment was the push I needed to go out of my comfort zone and read it. In doing this assignment, and over the course of this semester, I’ve realized that neuroscience is not just about the technicalities of the brain, but how it works and effects different people. I am going to revisit this book when I have more time to fully understand some of the concepts because it was written so eloquently that reading it just one time will do no one justice. Steven Pinker is a remarkable writer with the potential to become an amazing philosopher with his ideas and theories. I’d love to read another one of his works to compare writing styles and to get his perspective on other topics as well. Neuroscience is such a diverse topic and something that I wouldn’t mind exploring beyond a one-semester college course, and Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” is the reason for that.

Human nature has become so contentious a topic that it has become fashionable simply to dismiss it as a cultural construct and be done with it. Two ideas, as enduring and pernicious as Cartesian dualism, are attacked by Pinker in The Blank Slate: Locke's tabula rasa and Roseau's noble savage. Yet, an infant is not a blank slate and human nature is not inherently pure or good.

It is natural to want to be in control of one's destiny; it is natural to want to distance one's self from the "lower" animals, to try to deny the power of instinct, to try to refute the power of genes. Human beings are the products of the wild and inhospitable Pleistocene. Civilization is a recent invention. Indeed, our salad days were spent in tribes and groups in which occasional bursts of what we now call psychopathic behavior were often rewarded with improved reproductive fitness.

It is natural to want to believe that social evils like crime, racism and illiteracy can be erased through legislative measures. There are many academics that choose to believe that culture can somehow suppress impulses as ancient and omnipresent as aggression and lust. Though noble, this opinion is wrong.

In the text Pinker often mentions the fierce resistance that behavioral scientists have had to deal with from colleagues and the general public. This book serves as a warning against allowing social scientists toss their two cents into biological debates. One particularly eye-opening anecdote involves a study of left-handed people; the study found that left-handedness was loosely related to early death and several other negative things. This seemingly innocent study provoked an onslaught of death-threats and boycotts directed at the researchers.

Even academics like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin willing to resort to less than ethical academic practices in order to combat the "evils" of genetic determinism (genetic determinism, by the way, is a starwman argument, no one, not even Francis Galton, claimed that genes were the controllers of life. They are only the creators---predispositions and predilections are probabilistic, not binary).

Pinker identifies four fears in the book: of inequality, of determinism, of imperfectability and of nihilism. While reading this book, one may experience one or all of these deeply-rooted phobias that seem like such terrible alternatives to the pristine edifice built and polished by the Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophies have become so integral to our own thought patterns that we hardly think of their theories as being still open for debate. They are pleasant and comforting; why would we want to give them up?

Studies on identical twins adopted into separate have shown that they are alike in both personality and intellect. Their habits, propensities and careers are similar or identical. Psychopaths are not produced by bad environments, but by faulty brains designed by faulty genes. As far as we can tell psychopathic behavior begins in childhood. Recent studies suggest it begins in infancy.

The !San Kung were initially thought a peaceful people by an idealistic anthropologist, but further investigation revealed they have a murder rate that surpasses Detroit's. So much for the perfectibility of man! What about the noble savage? Ye, where is he? Violence is not an modern American phenomenon, it is a human one. The !San Kung have no access to violent media, yet they kill each other as if they did.

There are no known cultures without language, without emotion, without violence or without religion (except those who've managed to renounce the latter two through the strict application of reason and, even in these cases, their efforts never result in complete success). All cultures are products of the same complex cognitive algorithms. The environment does shape the end result, but one must ask, does a citizen of Athens have more or less in common with Zulu? An unbiased observer, like an extraterrestrial, would say he has much more like a Zulu than he is different.

Since a substantial portion of the child's personality is set in stone at the moment of conception, one could say the piles of child-rearing books written every year are barely worth their paper and binding. People are inherently unequal in every physical and cognitive respect. A slow child, even from a fine background, will never become a theoretical physicist.

Gender is not a social construct. Though they have been raised as girls, victims of botched circumcisions still grow up with boyish propensities and proclivities. Many of them end up opting for sex change operations. Studies on the neurological differences between men and women are adding to the evidence that there are fundamental differences between the sexes.

Human beings are by nature prejudiced against those who are not like them; they congregate into groups and wage war. They create rituals to assure good luck or divine the future, they invent afterlives so death seems less frightening, and, most universal of all, the try to imbue their lives with meaning.

The bottom line (which for emphasis I will write at the top), is that this is not only a fantastic and absorbing read but also a hugely important book. If taken seriously by leaders in education and social policy, Pinker's appeal to recognize human nature for what empirical studies have now shown it to be will bring huge benefits, both to society at large and in helping individuals to better understand themselves and their children.

The Blank Slate is the term describing the idea that, neurally at least, all new-borns carry in them the same potential to grow into happy well-adjusted adults or psychopaths, mathematical geniuses or dimwits. It is one of the three misconceptions about human nature that Steven Pinker argues we should cast aside. The others are "The Noble Savage" - primitive people, unexposed to the rat-race of the modern world, are uncorrupted and thus essentially good - and "The Ghost in the Machine" - our immaterial soul, spirit or floating free-will - is separate from the brain that it inhabits.

Citing a plethora of convincing scientific evidence, from anthropology, from brain research and, in particular from the studies of twins and other siblings raised together or apart, Pinker leaves no doubt that these three assumptions should be laid to rest. Yet, as discussed in twenty chapters on topics as diverse as culture, politics, gender, and children, they still permeate many widely accepted (and bitterly defended) doctrines about education, child-rearing, gender equality. Two simple but central examples: The differences in the personalities and talents of children turn out to be about 50% genetically determined. But the remaining 50 % (as shown by studies of twins reared apart or together) are NOT a result of differing home environments. Barring extreme cases of neglect or abuse, the home environment plays no measurable role. The non-genetic 50 % is actually a mixture of (1) indirect genetic influence such as choice of friends, (2) role adopted within the peer group and (3) pure and simple chance. In other words, the parenting books, the "quality time" spent instilling the "right" ideas and interests, the guilt of working parents who rely on child-minders can all be forgotten. Apart from keeping them fed and clothed, providing them with access to education and companions, little else that you offer your children will make much difference in the long run. A second important message goes to those feminists who will not be pacified until 50% of engineers 50% of industry bosses are women. Have they ever wondered, Pinker asks, whether the fact that numbers are far lower than this might be due not to discrimination, not to gender conditioning in early life, but to the fact that women are so constituted - by nature - that they, on average, have less desire to pursue such careers?

Beyond these central issues, Pinker delves into politics (the left is now beginning to concede that a "designer society" that ignores innate human nature may be doomed to failure); philosophy (postmodernism comes in for some hard knocks); morality (with Peter Singer, the author notes that moral progress can emerge from a fixed moral sense) and much more.

Depressing determinism? No, far from it. Accepting the facts about human nature is in many ways liberating.

The book is eloquently written, superbly argued and not without a sprinkling of Pinker's delightfully wry humor.

Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature explores several theories and not only examines them but expands them through his own research and the work of other scientists. A psychology Professor at Harvard University, Pinker’s studies involve the brain, specifically the mind, language, and human nature. Throughout his career, he has been rewarded for becoming Humanist of the Year and received prizes for other well-written books, including The Blank Slate. Pinker’s compelling insights on human nature are what makes the novel intense and very thought-provoking. As he broadens the scope of a socially constructed type of human nature, his argument against the blank slate- an ideology that the human mind does not carry any innate traits- is well composed through the use of philosophy, sociology, and psychology. His intent to provide a better understanding of three major tenets is what makes The Blank Slate a riveting and balanced novel.
Steven Pinker focuses on challenging the idea that the mind is not entirely a blank slate and exemplifies his point by valuing the evidence proposed by neuroscientists who also can validate that our minds have innate tendencies and characteristics. The three tenets Pinker attacks are explained thoroughly throughout the novel; 1. The Blank Slate: the human mind does not carry innate traits, 2. The Noble Savage: all people are born as moral human beings until they become corrupt by society, and 3. the Ghost in the Machine: individual’s minds are separate from the body. His criticisms about these three theories are interpreted through philosophical work done by Charles Darwin on Darwinism and other science related research. More specifically, Steven Pinker essentially argues that humans have natural and innate tendencies and proves it by documenting how language is learned. According to Pinker, language is an innate mechanism because it is seen through the way children first learn it. Developing children use mental algorithm from sound waves that help them understand sentence structures. This is crucial to their mental growth because it is the interaction of genes and the social environment that aid them in learning language, not the environment alone. However, the blank slate theory suggests that everything is believed to be learned which makes it possible for mankind to change for the better. Thus, Pinker includes numerous controversial topics such as crime, education, race, inequality, parenting, and more to explain his knowledge about human innate traits. For example, he discusses different parenting styles and how the interaction between genes and social learning affect how kids will grow up to be. Thus, his perspective on social environment is that it becomes a great factor in shaping us, although everyone has different innate tendencies, drives, and temperaments. Another interesting topic he discusses is the connection with culture and sciences when talking about learned behavior versus human nature. Within this argument, he therefore claims, that the way we learn culture is depended on neural circuitry. Pinker’s phenomenal application of his own work on a highly controversial topic augments his book that reaches out to both sides of the argument.
Pinker’s style of writing is consistent because he proposes many different perspectives in which he incorporates with his own on society versus nature. The Blank Slate consists of interesting remarks regarding the brain, innate tendencies, social learning, feelings, and behavior. With that in mind, he presents his perplex thoughts on social psychology, in that there are two rationales to the reason behind human conformity. Pinker claims that the two rationales are; “there is a desire to benefit from other people’s knowledge and judgement”, and because “there is a desire to follow the norms of a community, whatever they are”. Thus, not only does he argue for having innate tendencies and qualities, he helps support the idea that genes and the environment work together to help shape human beings. Although, Pinker’s general focus is to make us aware of certain notions that our minds do not necessarily come from a clean slate and, therefore, cannot be entirely shaped from the very beginning of life. This is Pinker’s criticism because he provides substantial amount of information that disproves these views. For one, he values the work of behavioral geneticists, who found that traits are heritable. His criticisms of other theorists and their work bring just as much importance to his claim about the blank slate as does the evidence he provides for attacking the notion of the blank slate. For example, his chapter on violence carefully examines environment’s role in shaping humans to be aggressive and executioners. His claim is that human nature cannot explain violence, however, culture within a society can, because it is something that is learned. This chapter is well explained by Pinker because he establishes that violence does not come from nature and decides to include a bit of history to support this claim. For instance, he incorporates Lyndon B. Johnson’s proposition on violence and war that interestingly goes back to learned behavior in social psychology. In Lyndon B. Johnson’s quote, he asserts that the causes of violence are in our social system, such as discrimination, poverty, and a poor education system, not the genes we inherit. Pinker takes on many perspectives and ideas in an effort to better understand human behavior and explain them in a manner that makes it easier to interpret. His collection of ideas from numerous philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and neuroscientists is what makes The Blank Slate a strong and compelling book.
The concepts presented in Steven Pinker’s book are well worth reading about because it engages one to think about human life. More importantly, it provides valuable information on social constructivism and the role of genes that shape us who we are. The Blank Slate is worth a read for anyone who is simply interested in learning about early and modern scientific thinkers, how the three dogmas may act on one’s behavior, and the criticisms of many contemporary beliefs about the human nature and behavior.

Pinker confronts those whose notion of "mind" does not jibe with biological, psychological and evolutionary evidence. As expected, he has been attacked by the Right but especially the Left. William Kelleher of the Empathetic Science Institute, savages Pinker through a Marxist lens for concluding the primacy of the individual (and markets) over the group.

He attacks three modern interpretations of mind: (1) Blank Slate - all learning is imprinted on a bare mind; (2) The Noble Savage, primitive peoples are/were uncorrupted by modern society and (3) The Ghost in the Machine - the mind is a mystical, immaterial "soul". With wit, tenacity and caseloads of analogies and studies, Pinker begins his demolitions. The fact that babies learn to speak and recognize emotions suggests innate circuitry. The Noble Savage idea has driven professional anthropologists to ignore evidence of vicious savagery, warfare and even cannibalism in our ancestors. The Ghost of the Machine permits religion to set a moral agenda based on doctrine and blames spirits or devils for bad behavior. Some movements, like ideologically driven Deconstructionism and post-modernism, use a combination of ideas (Blank Slate and Noble Savage).

Pinker stresses that our views on current cultural hot-button issues flow directly from our view of the mind. Paradoxes abound: Radical scientist conduct research through a "Marxist" lens (shades of Lysenko). Utopian "blank slate" advocates engage in disastrous social engineering project in an attempt to mold minds to their liking; The view of the Right (Tragic Being) busily denouncing evolution is actually closer to evolutionary truth than the Utopian Left's notion of group supremacy. We find ourselves led in strange and absurd flights of fantasy: Gender is phony; Sex is rape; Language is power: Bad words are replaced by other words with the same meaning; nutrition, games or cartoons cause violence; despite huge differences in behavior, gender differences are illusory.

Finally, PInker addresses the deepest concern: Biological Determinism. If our actions are the results of brain chemistry, where is free will? If lofty goals arise from proteins and synapses, is life meaningless? If genes ultimately control our behavior why should we attempt to behave? He stresses repeatedly that explanation is not exculpation and that humans can and do exercise control.

A masterful, wonderful read. My Grade - A

Steven Pinker has a strong grasp of the human psyche. Both it's innate cores and how it reached it current state. Any human being is a blend of nature, nurture and personal will.

Most collective psyches fall into 3 categories. Those that revere nature, and blame society for all problems. Those that hate/fear human nature, and believe it needs to suppressed. Those that revere only the soul/spirit, but not mind or body - that blame/despise both society and nature.

The main fears that drive people, and that are used to control/manipulate/dominate the masses are fear of Nihilism, Determinism, Imperfection, and Inequality. Basically people fear that if traits are innate, then wickedness is unavoidable and therefore justifiable. They fear the differences of race, sex, and sexuality - fear that different will always lead to violence. They fear behavior preordained by genetics or the brain, would mean that people aren't in control of their actions. Finally they fear cynical, self serving, and exploitative behavior.

Most modern political and social activists are mismatch of those psyches and fears. Often utilizing each when convenient. Steven Pinker gives detailed examples of the beliefs they have, and deconstructs each. Shows their hypocracy and out right lies.

Every chapter is full of insight, wisdom and knowledge. This book is a treasure.

Pinker makes a good case that there's a widespread bias toward a blank-slate world-view. But when dealing with serious scientific literature, his attempts to find clearcut enemies seem mistaken.

Pinker's claim that "The second scientific defense of the Blank Slate comes from connectionism" is pretty puzzling. This "defense" consists of modeling the mind as "a general-purpose learning device". But the books that Pinker references (Rethinking Innateness, and Parallel Distributed Processing), are both careful to point out why their models are completely consistent with the kind of genetic influences on behavior that evolutionary psychologists are talking about. Their disagreements with Pinker seem to be at most about how those influences are implemented, and even there I can't find anything in Pinker's arguments that clearly rejects what the connectionists believe.

Pinker's attacks on Gould's quasi-defense of the blank slate mainly convinced me that Gould didn't want to think clearly about the subject, probably because he considered that any mechanistic explanation of the mind (genetic or environmental) was demeaning.

Pinker's arguments that it's silly to believe in the tabula rasa and noble savage world-views are eloquent and compelling, but his response to the "it's demeaning" attitudes will convince fewer people, because he ignores the very real benefits of holding an unrealistically high opinion of one's self (overestimating one's abilities seems to be an effective means of advertising one's strengths). To those who want to portray themselves as angelic or as wiser than software of the future, an accurate model of the mind is genuinely demeaning.

Pinker seems somewhat inconsistent about how important it is to know whether the mind is a blank slate.

On pages x - xi he says "the conviction that humanity could be reshaped by massive social engineering projects led to some of the greatest atrocities in history." But in the chapter on fear of inequality, he claims (more convincingly), while defending his views from the charge they will encourage Nazism, that the differences between Nazi beliefs in genetic superiority and the blank slate viewpoints of Stalin and the Khmer Rouge didn't have much effect on whether those tyrannies engaged in genocide - it was the greater tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups that best distinguishes the worst of the genocidal tyrants.

Pinker exaggerates the importance of finding the correct answer to the nature-nurture debate in other ways as well (I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that an author overestimates the importance of what he's selling).

He gives examples such as forcing people to live in drab cement boxes (as if their taste for a more natural surrounding could be reversed by social engineers), or releasing psychopaths (because societal problems caused their insanity).

But a genetic component to these behaviors doesn't prove that they can't be altered (I have genes for brown hair - does that mean I can't dye my hair blue?). It only gives hints as to why they might be difficult to alter.

It sure looks like careful scientific studies of whether we knew how to alter these behaviors would be a more reliable way of debunking the faulty conclusions.

This is a great critical overview of the common view held in social science that human beings are born empty and totally moulded by the culture they grow up in. The author does not approve of this view and provides a counterargument. However, the focus of the book is to describe the view that that the author does not like. We both get an historical expose and a good understanding of the consequences of this view. Particularly important is that the author exposes some of those academics that do not care about scientific methods and facts, but mostly care about their own personal values. The author's view is clear but I think he gives the competing view a pretty fair hearing.

Academics, politicians, and others should read the book. To right-wing people it shows how the left-wing has infiltrated academia by not being scientific. To left-wing people of the 21th century it shows how not to repeat the left-wing methods of the people of the 70s. As the author makes clear, you can be a left-winger and still accept modern social science.

I love voices of reason; scientific methods (there are more than one) and facts should rule. The facts should be debated and others can try to refute the facts. With such an approach our knowledge grows and that is good for mankind. I wish more tenured faculty members would be brave enough to expose the charlatans.

The style of the book is a bit more heavy that the typical pop science book. Since the book is almost ten years old, it is not totally up to date. That can somewhat be defended because a big portion of the book has an historical focus. Still, it would have been nice to get a bit more on evolutionary biology. The style is also a bit too angry for my liking. I like a polemic, but in this book the author is very hard on his critiques. I don't mind hard critique, but on several occasions the critique is more nagging than hard.

It's an important book which should, or should have, offered a way out for political theorists trapped in almost medieval-scholastic moral obsessions. In this review, I'll discuss objections to this book's thesis.

1. While some call Pinker a popularizer of science, the book is not fundamentally about science. It uses arguments from neuroscience, genetics, and anthropology to rebut a durable prejudice in favor of the tabula rasa. Ergo, this is a book of cultural criticism from a scientist.

2. This book has received a lot of responses to the effect that: "I didn't know anyone believed in nurture versus nature." It's true that your impression about this "controversy" may depend on who your friends are. Pinker's book - the fact that he wrote it at all - points to stark divisions in our culture. In the scientific community, the going assumption may be that people are the product of genetics and hormonal/bodily influences. While Pinker frames his argument as a rebuttal of right wing traditionalism, particularly religious beliefs, and left wing social constructionism, his real target is the left. His reassertion of the importance of genetics is intended as a curative to those who, believing that matters like sexuality or intelligence are the product of social and cultural influences, set out on vast initiatives to reprogram everyone in society. Sure, most people have a lot of faith in science and genetics, and they simply haven't thought of the disjuncture between the argument that most capabilities are inherent and the belief that playing Mozart to your kid will make him or her smarter.

3. A common criticism is that Pinker uses extreme examples of social constructionism - such as those who believe that sex differences are simply a matter of early training and the only difference between the sexes is genitalia. However, these are not "straw man" arguments; such assumptions represent the establishment of intellectual institutions - schools, universities, publishing, etc. They also lie behind obsessions with "dispositions" - such as prejudicial beliefs - as determining our social fate.

4. Pinker, or any writer for that matter, can be dismissed once he is accused of being "right wing" or a "racist." As a scientist, Pinker's views are received somewhat differently than those of a political pundit such as (economist) Thomas Sowell, from whom Pinker borrows a lot. For those who take an interest in labels, it's clear from Pinker's references - Sowell, Christina Hoff Sommers, F.H. Hayek, and so on - that he tends to be a libertarian, although his view of human motivation would differ radically from that of Ludwig Von Mises. He frames his argument for the "tragic vision" (Sowell's phrase) - the vision that believes human nature is to some extent fixed - in a way that is friendly to progressive ideals, showing consummate tact, and proposes a progressivism which is really a return to classical liberalism. (Note that, following C.H. Sommers, Pinker favors "equity feminism" (or liberal, equal-opportunity feminism) over "gender feminism" (over neo-Marxist theories about "sytematic oppression" and the like).

Pinker argues in favor of evolutionary psychology in this book rather than a blank slate view of human nature (i.e., a view that claims that the mind is formed purely by sensory input with no innate characteristics). Although the arguments in the book mainly focus on the blank slate theory of the mind, Pinker also argues against both the noble savage and the ghost in the machine views; the first view claims that humans are corrupted by civilization (such that the pre-civilization communities lived in a sort of utopian setting) while the second view claims that human thought is controlled by something outside the mind (e.g., a soul). Pinker cites a number of studies in this book to support his thesis that the mind is not a blank slate but that it has some characteristics that cannot be explained by environment alone (many of the studies involve identical and fraternal twins where identical twins have identical DNA but fraternal twins have distinct DNA) and argues that human nature is heavily influenced by the evolutionary process from which the human species arose.

This is the first Pinker book that I have read and I found it very thought-provoking. Pinker is a gifted writer and made what I thought were compelling arguments against both strictly environmental and, to a lesser extent, strictly nativist theories of the mind (i.e., the views that human minds are influenced either entirely by nurture or entirely by nature). It took me a little while to get into this book simply because the idea that our minds are silly putty never has held much appeal for me; thus, I had little motivation to read arguments against a viewpoint that I did not subscribe to in the first place. However, Pinker brought up many familiar views in areas like children, violence and politics and tied these views back to underlying, fundamental assumptions of human nature to illustrate how the various theories of the mind have influenced many popular views in ways that are not always apparent, even to those who hold these views.

Pinker argues that our social views and attitudes, especially the most important ones involving ethical values, should not be made dependent on what may turn out to be a faulty view of human nature. For example, Pinker argues that a concern for human rights is important because a society full of inequality, abuse and torment is one that the majority of humanity would not desire to live in; the fact that we have the ability to empathize with our fellow humans and, in some sense, "feel their pain" creates an even greater moral imperative to work towards a reduction of suffering. Conversely, Pinker states: "It is a bad idea to say that discrimination is wrong only because the traits of all people are indistinguishable. It is a bad idea to say that violence and exploitation are wrong only because people are not naturally inclined to them. It is a bad idea to say that people are responsible for their actions only because the causes of those actions are mysterious. And it is a bad idea to say that our motives are meaningful in a personal sense only because they are inexplicable in a biological sense." I am inclined to agree with these sentiments and I would recommend this book to others who are interested in a discussion on human nature with an evolutionary bent.

This finely crafted work has a dual purpose. The first is to confound, refute, and rebuke the fatuous critics of sociobiology. The second aim is to strengthen that nascent science with further research. Pinker wants us to shed the notion that we have no evolutionary roots for our behaviour - that our actions come wholly from parents, schools or churches. While that sounds largely reasonable, he continually reminds us that many public pronouncements and policies continue to reflect the mistaken stand. Otherwise, he argues, we are infinitely malleable, vulnerable to anyone able to direct our actions. Birth with an empty mind is the ultimate condemnation of free will, not the reverse, Pinker argues. This excellent work demonstrates how evolution provides a framework for how we think and how our cultural environment finishes the structure.
The blank slate view of the mind, along with its fallacious fellows, the noble savage and the "ghost in the machine," have a long tradition in Western culture. All three concepts detach humanity from the rest of nature. "Nature is what we are born to rise above," said Rose in The African Queen, reflecting, says Pinker, the universality of the triplet in our society. He urges a more reasonable basis for considering who we are and how we react to life. Scorning any accusations of "biological determinism," Pinker doesn't insists nature drives our behaviour. He merely wants us to bring its impact into clear view. We've allowed the myths to conceal our real roots.
Simply stated, the slate is first written on in the womb. He outlines the structure of the brain, showing how the embryo's physical growth and the brain's development relate. Given the many brain-controlled operations that are in working order at birth, it seems unlikely the "slate" could be blank. Pinker stresses "the computational theory of the mind" which places process before content. The mind, then, is a form of software. The software comes with birth, but the input varies with different environments. It's important we understand this, he urges. Every software has built in limitations and constraints. Pinker contends these limitations are exhibited in every individual in unique fashion. Groups or cultures, in themselves, don't manifest patterns of these limitations. Cultural change are simply observed averages, not predictable or inevitable manifestations.
Pinker goes on to examine facets of our views of life - politics, gender, children, violence, all collected under his rubric: "hot buttons." He analyses in some detail how our genetic heritage [but, emphatically, not a "gene for . . . "] impacts these topical areas. More significantly, he indicates how we might address these issues better than we do. His suggestions aren't even recommendations, but a call for a broader outlook before attitudes on behaviour are expressed. His discussion of these topics is the real value this book holds for the general reader. The examples are practical and addressable by policy makers and those who elect them. The more scientific material in the first chapters of the book provide strong background for his more concrete examples further on.
Pinker is under no illusions that his ideas will be implemented quickly, nor will they fail to be targeted by those still holding to "the modern denial of human nature." That mind-set is the reason he is very clear in pointing out where research is needed. He recognizes where resistance will arise and meets it effectively. He explains the tactics and reasoning of those who deny human nature has a biological basis, and counters with excellent examples and suggestions. That he is able to achieve this with such lucidity is refreshingly welcome. Anyone with children should read this book. Anyone who's been a child should read this book.

Steven Pinker's THE BLANK SLATE: THE MODERN DENIAL OF HUMAN NATURE takes on the deeply held and energetically protected notions of the individual's mind as a blank slate, as a human as a "noble savage" and the concept that our biologically mechanisms are run by a "ghost in the machine." Pinker hammers inexorably away at these concepts with evidence from various sciences and with a logical drumbeat that, at the very least, moves the reader to agree that a case for an innate human nature has been made.

Pinker is a cognitive psychologist who is clearly an advocate of evolutionary psychology (how fascinating is THAT?!) and outlines a computational theory of mind throughout this book as a foundation of his argument against a blank slate. Currently at Harvard, Pinker is a lucid rhetorician, who is also a pleasure to read (he inserts pop culture example such as The Onion into complex elucidations of his subjects) and is quite fascinating to read.

Pinker takes on the idea of the blank slate, that humans come into this world without any preprogramming, preferences or inherent personality or temperament but rather are products of "culture" - an omnipresent superorganism that feeds these things to individuals. He also addresses the fallacy of the "Noble Savage," which is the idea that left to a natural state, humans are peaceful, nonviolent creatures. And by taking both these on, he also undercuts the notion that our biologies are machines "run" by a spirit or "ghost."

I find it difficult to summarize here all that Pinker covered, and I think that would not be useful either. I can illustrate to you how he makes the argument over the course of the book. In Part I, "The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine," Pinker takes on these theories and lays out the necessary underpinnings which must be assumed to support them (such as culture and its role in shaping blank slates). In Part II, "Fear and Loathing," he discusses the defense of these concepts and the emotion often involved in shoring up arguments for them. In Part III, "Human Nature with a Human Face," Pinker outlines the fears people have of this computational theory of mind and evolutionary biological and psychological components to our nature and refutes them. Part IV, "Know Thyself," discusses more overtly how human nature impacts our "public and private lives" (p. 195). Part V, "Hot Buttons," is downright fun to read as Pinker addresses how human nature plays a role in various (not all) areas in which individual flare and flame, politics, violence, gender, children and the arts. (This final section is where Pinker gets to take on postmodern aesthetics and prinicipals!)

Pinker presents such a wealth of information and calls on so many fields to make his case, that the book is an amazing education, whether or not you agree with his thesis. Often I felt the desire to read whole books on items he referred to in a single sentence. This book challenges its reader to assess his or her own assumptions about what makes us individuals, how we function, and to what we attribute our abilities and talents - and how those assumptions could be proven or supported with evidence. These are not easy or pleasant challenges with which to be confronted, but they are valuable and Pinker's book, I think, could be a catalyst for many to thoughtfully sort through and to understand what they fight to believe. For example, the discussions of how individuals' selves take shape beg significant consideration of those who believe in an essential human self or soul.

Pinker's work goes well with other authors such as Sapolsky (Monkeyluv), Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse), Fukuyama (The End of History and the Last Man) and Friedman (The World is Flat). His ideas enrich what those authors have to say and vice versa.

Pinker appeals to his reader in the end, in a final chapter titled "The Voice of Species" in which he references authors and their eloquent and insightful depictions of the very human nature he sought to prove scientifically throughout the book, with a summary of what many people likely sense or suspect. "I suspect that few people really believe, deep down, that boys and girls are interchangeable, that all differences in intelligence come from the environment, that parents can micromanage the personalities of their children, that humans are born free of selfish tendencies..." (p. 422). And much of what he writes is indeed intuitive. He makes the scientific and evidentiary case for human nature, while stating that many aspects of why we are the way we are as individuals is still not known. This book gives the reader excitement about the journey to learn about what is left!

If our minds are not exclusively malleable by the "right" ideas about race, sex, religion, child-raising, art, and morality, will we ever come around to the "right" way of thinking? And if our behaviors are to a more-than-zero extent predetermined by our genes and our evolutionary heritage, do we thereby lose our soul, our free will, our very individuality?
Heady questions for a popular science book by a Harvard psychology professor. But Steven Pinker is out to change minds, and he most definitely doesn't assume ours is just an eager vessel waiting for his wisdom. His dense, chaotic, but still very readable 'The Blank Slate' takes few prisoners, attacking not only the primacy of environmental malleability, but also its corollaries the 'noble savage' ("we're all born pure and good") and the 'ghost in the machine' (or, roughly, the equivalent to the religious soul) for good measure. I'd hesitate to say he runs the table, but if you come away from this reading still convinced of a biological tabula rasa, you certainly have some strong arguments to counter.
Pinker is most effective skewering the roots of popular social science, which demonstrably believes in "all nurture" for a variety of largely political reasons. How can we change society, after all, if our brains aren't utterly receptive sponges for expensive, expert-driven, and oh-so-compassionate social policy? (Never mind that the impulse to create a "new man" has strengthened the hand of some less-than-savory social engineers.) Some icons come in for harsh treatment: among many others Emile Durkheim, Margaret Mead and even the late Stephen Jay Gould take it on the chin for their slavish adherence to--or in some cases, creation of-- modern doctrines.
Stylistically the author reasons best within--rather than across--chapters, first laying out the culprits and the political climate, anticipating the various fears supposedly engendered by his thesis, and finally tackling "hot button" areas such as politics, violence, gender, etc. where blank slate myths have taken the strongest root. His organization appears a bit chaotic--and occasionally, if understandably, defensive--but he's admirably thorough. The only content quibble I'd raise is the conspicuous lack of "race" among his contentious issues--though, to be fair, he bravely tackles discussions of racially-based biological differences judiciously throughout the book.
My other criticisms are equally minor compared to Pinker's strength of ideas and style: an occasionally-strained attempt to lay blame on both the political left and right (where his clearest beef is with the left), and some truly painful pop culture references. Nothing against Dilbert or Calvin and Hobbes, but are, say, lyrics from The Who appropriate in a serious science book?
Overall, Pinker has made a strong case that practically begs for a response, especially from sociology scholars and scientists who've become a little too cozy with political institutions. If any aspect of the "nature vs. nurture" debates sparks your interest, by all means read this book. 'The Blank Slate' clearly shows Pinker's scientific optimism, remains nearly jargon-free, and only betrays some minor rough edges where a better editor would have been welcome.

'In his book, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues that there may be no impact of nurture whatsoever on a person’s personality development. He suggests that “the nongenetic component of personality is the outcome of neurodevelopmental roulette” (2002, p. 397) and that personality is shaped largely by random chance and not by any environmental factors. While the idea that environment has no impact on personality may seem a bit extreme, Pinker makes the point that we need to view children not as “lumps of putty to be shaped,” but instead as “partners in a human relationship” (2002, p. 399).'

Read more at: [...]

This book had quite an impact and provided me with a revelation on my thinking.
I've read it, written all over it, made notes, reviewed it and I still get more out of it each time I pick it up.
I have developed fairly clear and succinct views and stances on a variety of diverse subjects over the years, as you do when you get older :-)
Stephen Pinker has revealed however, that there is a surprising coherency in my thought processes on those many subjects of life that I never knew was present.
I am now aware that I have simply employed a general acceptance and understanding of a phenomena called HUMAN NATURE, complete with all its idiosyncrasies, good points and bad. I am now also learning and understanding how it evolved and why it developed the way it has.
Hence no more feeling defensive or on the back foot when debating with the high moral ground takers ie. lefties, gender feminists, child rearing experts, pacifists, postmodernists or religious zealots et al.
I am now happy to leave them to their false Blank state, Noble Savage and Ghost in the machine concepts of human understanding. I'll settle for being a proud Homo Sapien, complete with attached human nature, honed and shaped by a great history of adaptation and survival.

Peace at last.......thank you Stephen.

Nature versus nurture comes down to whether you believe ones personality is built-in "genetically determined", or is determined by ones upbringing -- "the blank slate". Steven Pinkler points out that it is a taboo in many circles to believe in anything other than the blank slate, because of the way this has been used to justify racism, sexism and many other horrors of the 20th century. He attempts in this book to show that either position can be used to support both moral and immoral attitudes, and that current research comes down squarely in the camp of genetically determined.

He further points out that just because we find an idea troubling (we all don't have identical potentials at birth) doesn't make it less true. It is better, he avers, to face facts and set policy based on reality as best it can be determined, rather than the way we would like things to be. This is hard to argue with.

I certainly agree that some families produce athletes, others musicians and others criminals. I believe that no matter what training program my parents put me through, I probably had no chance of going to the NBA or NFL.

Where it seems Pinker has gone too far (although I can't argue with the research, having only this book to go on) is saying that parents have next to no impact how their children turn out. It certainly seems to me that my own parents have had a big impact on me, though I guess Pinker would say this is an illusion.

Pinker exposes a lot of bias an ideology in academic research. He does go on about it a bit but it is probably necessary because of the embedded resistance to being balanced in assessing the effects of our natures. Clearly nature isn't everything but Pinker explains the power of our evolutionary history with a sense of balance and thoroughness that I find impressive. He decouples the debate from the ideologies that see any study of human natures as dangerous and pessimistic. This book is not his best in my view but it is packed with rich content that will make you think fresh thoughts on an ancient topic. His writing can be quite entertaining and he can't be accused of being overly dry. I certainly got a lot out of this book. And when I compare the work of Prinz, who sort of replies in the debate with his book Beyond Human Nature, I see Pinker is more able to see the big themes in a more disinterested way. Whereas I see Prinz has passion but he is arguing at the edges of the debate.

The author bravely discusses the topic of blank slate, its history, controversies, its broad influences on culture, science, education, politics and so on and so forth. He disputes the notion of blank slate, presenting the commonly held fear of the opposites, and the consequences of unscientific fear, and he supports the complexity of human nature. This is certainly a challenging read, it is dense and eloquently written with a lot of research and cultural materials. I can't say I loved it because it WAS a work for me, but I think it was a worthy effort to advance my own education.

Stephen Pinker does an admirable job debunking the myth of the blank slate in this tome. Yes, what he says should be common sense by now. No, it is not.

There are many places in the book where Pinker's values and background become evident. However, these are a small price to pay for a great book.

So, what does Pinker do that's so great?

1) He takes his opponents seriously and mounts his case slowly, step by step, taking the reader along with him.
2) He illustrates that having a blank slate view of human nature is not morally righteous at all. (important for all those disposed to the moralistic fallacy)
3) He does not talk down to the reader. Contrary to another reviewer, this book is not overly simplistic. There are points here and there where debate is possible, but overall it is highly accurate.

When you are done with this book, you should have no doubt that genetics and evolution were and are very important in human life. Natural selection is the only theory which can explain human behavior- period.

On the more controversial side, Pinker devotes many pages explicating Judith Rich Harris' theory about child development. Her views are very contentious, but provocative. Her basic argument is that children are MORE influenced by peer group socialization than the parenting style they lived under. Harris reached this conclusion after studying the behavioral genetic evidence. In behavioral genetics, it is known that all measured traits are heritable. Further, after subtracting genetic influence, unshared environment accounts for most of the left over variation- not shared environment. This is perplexing to most because it suggests that most environmental influences on personality come from WITHIN families not BETWEEN them. In short, two adopted siblings are no more alike than two strangers on the street, even though they share the same environment. Wheras, two twins seperated at birth are no more different than two twins who grow up in the same household.
Pinker largely accepts Harris' theory, with slight reservations. D.C. Rowe presented a similar theory years earlier as well. The controversy still rages. It is a bit premature to pick sides. Pinker seems to, but he does tell the reader that Harris' theory is the minority view.

In the end, this book can be read with pleasure by anyone. It is especially usefull to cite as a reference when having vapid debates with soiciologists. Most of Pinker's statements should be truisms. Unfortunately, they are not; Fortunately, he took the time to synthesize the insurmountable evidence against blank-slaters!