Pinker's Blank Slate
 

As recommended by the moderator, I've finished the first part of The Blank Slate- titled The Blank Slate, The Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine. Pinker states that he makes his case for hereditary determinism here in these first five chapters - and then uses the remaining sections of the book to discuss the implications.

I did not find that he made his case here. I found an old history of mistaken notions about psychology and epistemolgy from a few hundred years ago. I found circumstantial evidence for his case but nowhere did I find the slam dunk I was expecting. One problem may be that I have never doubted that genes have a lot to do with who we are. My problem comes when someone tells me that those genes will make it impossible for women to be good at science or that some racial subgroups could never handle democracy. But I also disagree with the cultural determinists about many things.

I think both sides - in fact all the human sciences - are stuck in a cognicentric view of human nature that causes their practitioners to look scrupulously under the wrong rocks to find their answers. IMO the rocks that reveal who we are are labeled emotions. The already proven genetic connection to the systems that mediate our neurotransmitters, hormones and other brain chemicals hold the answers to who we are. Those emotions can act over long periods to shape our minds, as our identity emotions do. Or, they can act violently over shorter periods of time to shape our minds, as happens to those who experience combat or natural disasters find that their minds (the emotional responses that direct their cognition) no longer fit into a more normal existence - PTSD.

But, the title of the book, The Blank Slate, is a bit of a Red Herring. I heard about the blank slate in school, not in psychology but in philosophy. And it was introduced as an interesting part of the nature - nurture question, not as dogma. That was way back in the sixties. I haven't read any contemporary books supporting the concept of the blank slate. Everyone these days seems to think it is still an interesting question that's about to find some new evidence as nuero-biologists find new clues every day. Like at Scans suggest IQ scores reflect brain structure

Using Pinker's metaphor I'd say that our minds are not a blank slate at birth, but are a slate with a grid pattern on it, like a scheduling board in a factory. Certain kinds of information are processed in the various grid boxes. There are probably some small differences in the sizes of those boxes between genders and racial sub-groups. But, the gridded slate called human is different in very regular ways from other mammals. I suspect the number of functional boxes and their relative sizes are similar for all humans. The variations that do exists between genders or racial sub-groups are the genetic treasure that carry the adaptability that we may need as global and long-lasting environmental changes come along.

Here is my bias. I find it very strange when one group of humans claim that their particular box sizes and connections - that are due to a million years of both genetic and environmental influences - are superior to those of other humans. This is a question that our genome will work out by itself over the next millenium and it will be reflected in changes in that genome. It is not a question that can be effectively answered by human minds conceptualizing their own existence, driven by their own egos. IMO the task of science is to figure out how to make life better for this human genome and whatever variations may exist - not to use science as just another version of the ancient claim for tribal privilege.

I think the lines that separate the grid zones in our minds are wide and do not have sharp edges. Adjacent zones share some information processing characteristics so that according to the recurring emotional experiences we have in life - some kinds of information can work its way over into an adjacent zone making its box relatively larger than the genes originally specified. I also suspect that the innate efficiency of the connections between the functional boxes could vary somewhat by gender or racial sub-group - and even more so by individual. But, I believe that our emotional experiences in life constantly refine those connections to make them more efficient (adaptable) to our life experience and the particular world we live in.

That all says nothing about the particular mental images that are processed in those zones - which I believe are almost entirely cultural.

Back to The Blank Slate. Before I read about the implications of herditary determinism I'm going back to read this first section again to make sure I've given him the best shot I can at making his case. I'd appreciate anyone here who has read this book and who does see where he proves his case in there to tell me where I should be paying most attention. Or better yet, restate what you consider to be his best case for proof of hereditary determinism here in your own words.

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Margaret:

1) There are possibly more than a few genetic differences between me and thee, some of them related to differences in our minds that emerged from differences in our genes. Some of those differences may lead to your rejection of Pinker's work and to my rabid acceptance of it.

In any event, your blindness is yours to manage.

2) You're working on a book and using this forum as a resource. As Bob Wright once commented to me, "It happens more than you would believe."

JB

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

JimB said, Isn't that the question? Did our differences emerge from differences in our genes or in our experiences? I'd say probably both. With the genes laying down a structure that may have been fairly similar, who knows? But our separate experiences seem to have the most to say about our opinions on this - I'd think. I went through a pretty intense attachment to Ayn Rand in the early sixties. I then went through some very emotional times (the anti-war years) and came out of that quite liberal - but emotionally more than intellectually. I didn't think much about those things for many years but then when Newt Gingrich said that people who think like me were responsible for the death of Susan Smith's children - I started paying more attention.

Well, I'm not exactly rejecting Pinker's work. I'm asking for help in understanding his main argument supporting his position. And, I don't understand why a scientist would rabidly accept anyone's work. Shouldn't that be left to the ideologues?

You said, In any event, your blindness is yours to manage. I've never been able to appreciate the conservative tendency to see everyone as an enemy or an ally. No wonder Fred is so comfortable here.

You said, I'd like to think I had a book in me about human nature. I haven't reached the place where I feel that I have a good overview of the subject. I've written things in the past that seemed really stupid not long afterward. I think if I tried to write a book about this stuff now that's what would happen. Besides I have no credibility in this area. It would be a really tough sell.

Cultural determinism feels like the stronger side of the argument to me but I need to really understand your side better before I can believe that I am right or wrong. That's why I wrote the last post. It's just a fascinating question to me. Most of my writing experience has been technical writing. Although you're sort of accusing me of dishonesty - I am somewhat pleased that you would think I'd be working on a book.

But, I'm not writing a book and I'm not looking for a fight - although I have regrettably responded to some of your posts that way. I just want to discuss these ideas (hereditary determinism which seems to be the underpinning of EP) with someone who is capable of defending them. Someone with PhD who runs a forum on EP that is open to people like me should be able (and willing) to do that - I would think.

So far you've only told me to read certain books and then I'd apparently see why I was wrong. I have been doing that but have not found what you said I would. So, now I'm asking you to tell me in your own words (or your rewording of Pinker's) why you are right.

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Consider that the primary emotions of we humans are essentially equivalent to that of many mammals—fear, anger, disgust, etc. What primarily distinguishes us from other mammals is the reality of our enhanced cognitive ability, our intelligence, the “cognitive” in Ledoux’s mental trilogy. What other mammal can comprehend the objective truth of infinite primes or of pi; or can comprehend concepts like “mental trilogy” or self ?

Your inability and/or refusal to accept or acknowledge this reality, despite the overwhelming evidence that has been provided here and in the excellent resources you’ve recently been reading, suggests that your cognitive capability is less than optimal and/or or that you’re blinded by your emotions.

Have you ever had a dream, Margaret, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Sooner or later, Margaret, you’re going to have to accept that there's often a difference between what you feel, and what is real. Free your mind, Margaret—we can only show you the door—you're the one that has to walk through it.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Fred, You said, I am responding to your post despite my stated determination not to respond to such ad hominem attacks. You might say that I'm giving you one last chance to stop being a jerk. I am doing this because you are obviously smart and I hate to dismiss your ideas. But I will not respond to any post in the future that like this one, suggests that I am stupid because I don't agree with you. This is a common way that you respond. It is something that you seem to have developed to a high skill. I realize you must have a had a troubled childhood but using educated prose to insult people is not the best way to get back at those who picked on you so many years ago. In any case, I will not be your enabler.

Also, you should try to understand that differences of opinion are not attacks on your identity. They can easily become that way if you start attacking the intelligence of those who disagree with you. That's what I'm trying to avoid so that the substance of what we are discussing can be considered - without the strong personal emotions that you insist on bringing in. It's called objective discussion. Despite my misgivings I will attempt to have one of those with you now.

You said, What other mammal can comprehend the objective truth that negroes are subhuman and should be held as slaves for white men, that women were created from Adams' rib 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden or that Jews should be exterminated as a race? There are many humans today who would claim the objective truth of each of those assertions - and some perhaps who would consider killing you if you did not agree.

My point is not that humans do not a have a powerful intellect. It is that our intellect only affects our decisions according to the emotional strength that we attach to the various ideas or concepts that we create or consider. And that is something that we have little control over. It depends on how well those concepts support or grate against the beliefs that we already hold in our minds - beliefs that we probably adopted when we were very young.

I would go so far as to say that belief is an emotional response to an idea that conforms to our existing higher level identity beliefs.

In that way, our intellectual conclusions are first guided by our existing beliefs (in that some ideas won't fit with our identity beliefs and will be rejected before we consider them) and those that we do consider will only be weighted in our decisions according the emotional strength we subconsciously grant them.

You said, I would counter that what anyone actually believes (to be true) is only that which they feel to be true. Without that emotional validation they can not truly believe - no matter what they might say. The difference between us is where we find our emotional validation. Is it in facts about human nature that can be observed - or in bromides about free will and atheism that make you feel so good when you hit the submit button? I know this will make no sense to you - but I offer it to consider if you wish.

But, this is similar to my free will challenge. We can not choose any behavior that does not optimize the predicted emotional outcome for our benefit. In that same way we can not believe anything that emotionally violates our existing higher level identity beliefs.

Michael Behe, despite his PhD in biochemistry believes that some supernatural intelligence designed life in the universe. He has proposed no falsifiable theory to explain this. Like Behe, most of us spend far more mental energy justifying our existing beliefs than logically and objectively examining them before we adopt them.

You said, Who is the we here? Your conservative admiration for authority and your need to feel that you somehow belong to that grand structure is showing. Try making your own arguments and stop seeking validation from those who have their own ideology to promote. Consider yourself on double secret probation. :rolleyes:

Margaret

PS - I have no need to convince you of anything. Only the quality of your arguments will make any difference to me. If you screw this up there are plenty of interesting forums where I'd rather be spending my limited time. The only door I'll be going through is the one outta here.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

This is just the sort of thing I was hoping to prevent with my initial warning about Fred. I hope you'll consider staying on this site regardless of Fred's problems; it would be a shame if Fred's was the face of Evolutionary Psychology for those who pass through. I know it's hard but I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks!

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I realize that the argument I am making - that we only believe what feels good to us, that we only believe what supports our higher level beliefs - makes me equally subject to the charge of subjectivity. Also, that any claim I make that my pov is less subjective than someone else's, is rightfully suspect. I think that's what makes science so difficult to pursue - and why it is so commendable when real scientists do it right.

Whether we are scientists or not, I think what it takes is a constant effort to understand where our own prejudices come from and to account for those in our opinions and conclusions. The one thing that can destroy any attempt to reach a better objective understanding of any topic is for either side to question the motivations or the intelligence of the other. It's impossible to be reasonable with someone who is beating you with a baseball bat - unless maybe your last name is Ghandi. But, I'm not Ghandi and it makes me feel like an idiot for letting them do it. And then you then have to choose to either respond in kind and destroy any future attempt at understanding - or try to ignore the bat, which doesn't work too well either.

Evolutionary Psychology is full of concepts that violate or support the higher level identity beliefs that we all have. Those beliefs form the cognitive dimension of our identities - and we will all defend our identities if they're threatened. It is important in these discussions to remember that most EP topics are therefore likely to push someone's buttons one way or the other. That's why when we question others' beliefs on these things we have to go out of our way to do it very respectfully.

That is assuming that the purpose of the discussion is to examine these things and gain a better understanding of them. If anyone is here to be a warrior for their particular camp then a better understanding of any EP topic will not be possible. That's why it is so maddening to constantly have to deal with that.

As I have stated before, it seems to me that some EPists discount the effect of environment and culture on behavior and they seem to do so ideologically - in an inti-PC way. I did not get that message from my initial reading in this area (The Moral Animal, The Third Chimpanzee, The Naked Ape long ago, etc.). But, maybe I just wasn't getting the message. I certainly haven't gotten that message from Le Doux, Damasio, Calvin, Blackmore and others.

Pinker doesn't seem to be saying that only genes determine behavior and that culture has no effect. He makes the point that some behavioral psychologists try to avoid seeing any genetic influences on behavior. I haven't found any of those yet but I'll take his word on that because he does not seem to be so ideologically motivated to me.

Last Thursday I went to an award ceremony in Seattle at the U put on by the "Foundations for the Future". Bill Calvin accepted the 2006 award for his book, "A Brain for All Seasons". In an FFF brochure I read this regarding a March 2005 workshop on human evolution where both Calvin and Pinker participated. It said,

The phrase complexity of neural development says to me that Pinker believes that questions about cultural and genetic influences on neural development are complex and not well understood at this time - which seems like a reasonable opinion that coincides with most other books I've read.

Since human behavior is determined by the results of that neural development then I prefer to see EP (as exemplified by Pinker's pov) as devoted to understanding more about the role that both genes and culture have on behavior - not as devoted to some ideological battle to prove that one or the other is determinative.

Added for clarity: It seems obvious to me that if we have the capacity for our environment to shape our personality and behavior in various ways, that it is a genetic capacity that evolved and that we inherit from our parents.

Tom, Thanks for the encouragement. I'll be here as long as we can discuss that question, if not always objectively, then at least politely. I admit that I tend to see neural development and behavior as more influenced by culture than most others here. I'm willing to be persuaded to see a stronger effect of genes but it will take a good non-ideological argument. Can anyone here make one of those?

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

My 'hearing what I want to hear' says that "complexity of neural development" is more about neural development itself being complex, without saying whether there are any genetic or cultural effects, much less their respective influences. In other words, I think you might be reading a bit more into the statement than the words convey to me.

And I don't think anyone here argues with your statement in an earlier post:
except for the subjective term "small".

Maybe IQ differences are 'small', maybe they're not. I don't know. But, if there ARE differences the question that might get a lot of argument here becomes what should we do about it? We're dealing with people's children here and if anyone thought that aggression over personal opinions brought up emotions and irrationality, that's nothing next to having someone's children being short-changed, which is what much of evolutionary psychology is about. I don't think we can answer that question here.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate & Doors
 

While we humans may “feel” that something is “real” we nevertheless are quite capable of knowing, cognitively, that it isn’t—e.g., phantom pain, the feeling of pain from tissue damage of part of a limb that no longer exists—although the pain itself may be “real,” and may even trigger various other emotions, we’re capable of knowing, cognitively, that the tissue damage that the pain portends is not.

And whether or not one is able to achieve the required “emotional validation” to “actually believe” that there are an infinite number of primes, that there are is nevertheless an objective mathematical truth; and it was true (as is all objective mathematical truth) before humans (the ancient Greeks in this case) evolved and discovered the unassailable proof showing that it is true.

Margaret, while I may empathize with the emotional turmoil, and perhaps cognitive dissonance, that your circumstances may have engendered; and while I may appreciate that your own “intellectual conclusions are first guided by [your] existing beliefs,” and then “weighted” by the “emotional strength [you] subconsciously grant them”; I nonetheless do find your predilection for projecting that MO onto everyone else to be childishly presumptuous.

At the beginning of the 20th century, virtually all scientists believed that our universe always existed, was static, infinite, and unchanging. But current science and evidence now tells us that our universe in fact had a beginning and is expanding; and most scientists no longer “believe” or “feel” what they once did. You see, Margaret, we simply follow the science and evidence wherever it leads, and then modify our beliefs and emotions accordingly—LeDoux’s downward causation . . . no one is saying that this is easy Margaret, it’s just the door to reality, a door that some seem unable or unwilling to go through.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate & Doors
 

Fred, a good forum moderator would insist that you remove the term 'childish' from your post. Could you please do the adult thing and remove it yourself?
Interesting page at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/mi...medicine2.html including Fascinating.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate & Doors
 

You are confusing Margaret's point, "we really don't believe even 'facts' until we feel that they're true" with "if we feel something it is obviously true". I don't know if this is on purpose.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Hi Tom, You said, You may be right. Perhaps I'm trying to find moderation in his position where it does not exist. If you are right, does that mean that he and JimB agree? That white males of European descent are the rightful rulers of civilization and therefore for the good of all, they should (continue to) get to decide how the earth's resources should be distributed?

So far, I have been resisting the notion that EP (or any scientific discipline) would have a purpose of justifying political ends. But maybe I am missing something important here.

When the disciples of EP finally overcome the weak sentimentality of other evolutionary scientists, who will finally accept the bitter truth about human nature, will we then get to live in a world that will be more properly ordered by group genetic differences? Will poor brown skinned children and all girls no longer have to grow up with the heartbreak of unreasonable expectations?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I may be wrong about what EP actually is. I'd really like to know where the line lies between science and politics in this field. What do you think the purpose of EP is? Where does the statistical analysis of IQ scores end and the genetic re-organization of society begin?


Margaret

Fred, Notice how Tom used a self-depracating statement to make his point? Instead of suggesting that I was being childish or something, he prefaced his point with a suggestion that he might be seeing something that was not there - but this is what he saw. That actually makes his point stronger, not weaker - both to me and to others who may be reading his post.

I like to use a method of argument that is both effective and polite. You provisionally accept your opponent's point and then ask him or her to justify whatever outcome it may reasonably lead to. That may not provide the emotional satisfaction of a sarcastic insult but it allows a rational discussion to proceed.

You seem to think Tom and I are allies against you. I think we both appreciate the others' attempt to argue politely - but we strongly disagree on fundamental ideas here. I really enjoy having a polite but purposeful discussion with people I disagree with. I find Amen choruses boring. That's why I'm here - and hoping to stay.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

We're getting pretty far afield when asking for my opinion, so I'll keep it short:

It would be best for everyone (except the elites) if everyone were able to reach their fullest potential. That requires equal opportunity, a valid goal which we're nowhere near. Science in general and EP along with it might be telling us that equal opportunity and equal results are mutually exclusive. That's all I see and wish we could follow the science as best we can, keeping the politics out of it, though I can see why you'd want to extrapolate that to eugenics to head off the extremists. I don't know that anyone here is an extremist.

Re: Pinker's Slate & WWJD?
 

Tom & Margaret, you both might consider asking JimB if there’s any truth in your speculations here regarding my “troubled childhood” and/or alleged “problems,” since you both seem to find some sort of comfort in making them, having made similar charges multiple times now. And consider this: If your assertions in fact have any truth in them, then making such unnecessary and hurtful comments only reveal your own pettiness and cruelty; OTH, if your assertions are bogus, which, alas, they are, then they simply reveal your own pettiness and childishness—either way, it puts you in a bad light.

I’d suggest that, in the future, whenever you feel that you’ve been unfairly attacked, and feel a need to counterattack, ask yourself this question: “WWJD?”—i.e., “What would JimB do?”

Re: Pinker's Slate & WWJD?
 

Anyone who feels comfortable calling an adult "childish" has a problem, whether he knows it or not. You can call that a "bogus assertion" but I know better. And I notice that you didn't edit the term out.

But, you still defend a widely held opinion about "objective moral truth", and I value the opportunity to reply to it. I'm glad you're here.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Tom, Obviously I was correct in predicting the futility of appealing to Fred's sense of fairness and objectivity to stop enclosing his posts in personal attacks. At least, there is some value in having fresh evidence to support my premise - that people believe what feels good to them, and mostly use their brain to justify it.

This latest round prompts me to point out the extreme case of this hypothesis - what I call the ideological mind - that is so vividly on display here. As I previously stated, I believe that behavior choice is a process of emotional negotiation. Intellect can play a part when we emotionally choose to engage our intellect and then emotionally weight our intellectual conclusions so they can be considered along with instincts, emotions from past memories, emotions from our beliefs, etc.

I also stated previously my hypothesis that our beliefs are the primary source of our emotions in most voluntary behavior decisions. i.e. what we think of as reasoning is usually simply referencing the emotions from our existing beliefs about a particular topic.

For example, when considering something like Intelligent Design, creationists generally think it's a great idea. Almost none of the theists who are jumping on the ID bandwagon have any understanding of the intellectual / scientific argument being made on its behalf by Dembski, Behe, etc. They simply harbor a belief in God and understand that ID is a way to get God into the classrooom in public schools. So, it must be true. Whatever intellectual reasoning they apply to their conclusions will be applied in justification - not in examing the logical reasonableness of the argument - which they are largely incapable of in any case.

But, it would be wrong to say that this emotionally driven belief mechanism operates in everyone in the same way. There are large differences between people in how strongly their belief emotions influence their decision-making over the emotions that encourage them to engage their intellect and the weight they give to those conclusions. i.e. there's a characteristic difference between persons in where the emotions that most influence their voluntary behavior choices come from. Some persons are more willing to retest their beliefs for logical validity and are more willing to change them if necessary.

In some persons, especially those with very strong religious or philosophical beliefs, almost all of their mental energy in life can be focused on justifying and supporting their ideological beliefs. They can not have a conversation on any topic that does not end up supporting their beliefs. I am reminded of a seriously infected young Christian man I know who can't talk about the weather without ending each statement with a, "Thank you Jesus" or a "Praise Jesus". They see everyone in life as either allies who share their beliefs or enemies who must be despised. They have no interest in discussing any topic unless they percieve a way to use it to support their beliefs.

Another example, closer to home, is Fred's need to personally attack those who have opposed his most cherished beliefs. There is nothing I can say here that would not result in a personal attack from Fred, as these last few posts make abundantly clear.

If I didn't understand so well why he does this it might make me angry enough to retaliate in kind. As it is it just makes me weary. I love discussing these things but it just might not be possible to do it around persons whose minds are so heavily infected. It's like trying to reason with a drunk. If you've ever tried that then you know how hopeless I am feeling about remaining in this forum.

Strong ideology is an addiction. It is a chemical dependency. The only difference between ideologic belief and alcoholism for example, is the particular brain-affecting chemicals involved. Ideologues and their adreniline pumped relatives, zealots, are just as addicted to those brain chemicals as any alchoholic or any junkie. In fact, many people go through life simply trading one of those addictions for another. That's what AA is all about. Insulting immoral atheists is Fred's crack and he's not about to give that up for polite discussion.

Todd asked me previously if I thought there was a genetic basis for where somone lies on the psychological conservatism / liberalism spectrum. I replied possible but not probable - based on my suspicion that a cultural capacity for that determination would be more adaptive and more likely to have evolved through natural selection. I'm still not ready to categorically deny a direct hereditary component - but this study of children is interesting in that regard. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...g_politics.php

The relevance here is that I suspect that there is a connection between psychological conservatism and strong ideology. Strong ideological systems like evangelical Christianity and today's version of political conservatism have the message "Here are all the answers to life's questions". They also say that those who don't agree with those answers are bad people who must be publicly exposed as immoral and punished. JimB and Fred's angry responses to my posts here have caused me to suspect that evolutionary psychology is more a strong ideology than it is a scientific discipline - at least for them.

I suspect that that may be why it is so impossible to discuss EP here objectively. Ideologues resent even the implication that their belief system would be subject to such questions - and I have been called intellectually and / or morally blind by each of them - for bringing it up. The emotional need to punish heretics will always trump their desire for intellectual discussion of a topic. That's a testable prediction of my hypothesis that seems to be valid for the time I have spent here anyway. Will their response to this post close the case in my favor or show me to be wrong?

I think your explanation of "Equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcome" is a very reasonable statement that deserves a thoughtful response. Yesterday, I composed one but then decided that reasonable responses feel so futile and impotent knowing they will just provoke another personal attack. I guess I'll wait a while to see if I feel better about posting it. I'll hang in there for a while Tom, but it's getting pretty dreary.

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Excellent point. I would go even further: the more their egos are invested in their beliefs, the more their brains will filter out any evidence to the contrary; they are completely incapable of incorporating any challenge to their beliefs.

Of course, they don't offer evidence either, and often even admit it all depends on 'faith'. Or they stand behind crowds of humans who are just as ignorant as us about this illusion of free will and ask why we're so different.

I'm getting pretty weary myself, perhaps JimB's site deserves the low headcount if he refuses to call off the person that has driven just about everyone else off the forum. And I was really surprised by JimB's first response to you, I thought there must have been some history between the two of you.

Regardless, I resolve to stay forever; I'm really very subborn. I hope you'll stick it out in the hopes that others find us more helpful.

PS Just in case I win a prize or something for noticing this, I've always been leery of Todd's AI folks concentrating on building a computer that can pass as a human in a forum. Just plug in an opinion and have it search the web for supporting text; no need to accept others' arguments or even understand them. It will certainly be the end of open forums when they succeed...

And feel free to send anything you'd like as a personal message if you don't feel good about posting it.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Hi Margaret,

Let me say that it's great to have consistently active and thoughtful members, such as yourself, in this forum. The purpose of this post to impart some advice, which I hope you will not find patronizing, about your rhetorical style and interaction with Fred that may allow future conversations to proceed a bit more smoothly. Granted, one should not expect to experience his rosy side (but I know you have one, Fred).

Your seed post on this thread began by stating that you were unconvinced by Steve Pinker's argument. Immediately thereafter, you describe a just-so story involving rocks that represent emotions. Later on in the post, you begin a paragraph with "I think . . ." and then reformulate Pinker's metaphor to your own liking. This kind of argumentative style will never fail to spike BS-o-meters, especially Fred's, which is hyper-sensitive. I am not saying that the content of your post is BS - but without reference to bona fide research of some kind to distinguish your hypothesis from Pinker's, you won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Fred's penchant for insulting others is frustrating, sometimes even infuriating, but if you take it as an indication that your argument needs clarification (or maybe overhaul), then sometimes you can benefit from his feedback (though he won't acknowledge it).

Whatever you do, remember that Fred enjoys fights and fishes for them: don't take the bait.

Best,
Carey

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Hi Carey, Thanks for the constructive criticism. I'll try to keep your points in mind.

I tried to make my seed post, not an argument against Pinker, but a request to JimB to help me see what his argument was. JimB had suggested that by reading this book I would understand (apparently why I was wrong about genetic determinism).

For that, I was accused of dishonestly using the forum as a resource for a book and told that I'd have to manage my own blindness. Then, Fred tells me I have to ask, instead of attacking my intelligence and honesty why did neither of them simply give me a one paragraph synopsis of Pinker's thesis in their own words - as I had asked? I suspect the reason they did not do this is that Pinker is not saying in The Blank Slate that culture is not part of the equation as JimB maintains. And therefore he can not restate that thesis because it does not exist.

I think what Pinker is saying is that the outmoded philosophical notion of the blank slate does not exist - at least among any serious psychologists. I agree with Pinker on that and I don't know any psychologists who disagree. I have not read any such things by Gould or Lewontin. They both assert however, that culture has an important part to play in behavior and ability - and they probably would disagree with Pinker over how large that part is. But that seems like a fair scientific question to ask - not necessarily an ideological question.

I could be wrong about that but no-one has yet offered to clarify this for me.

Another question would be why didn't Fred point out my supposed bullshit rather than calling me emotionally blind and stupid? If it was so obvious then it should have been easy enough to do and it could have even proven me wrong.

But, beyond all that - discussing my theory would be really interesting to me as I know there are people here (like you) who know much more about this stuff than I do. It seems to me that one of the strongest pieces of evidence for my theory is the story of Phinneas Gage - who I assume is known to all students of psychology these days.

When his prefrontal cortex was destroyed, what changed was not his basic intelligence or language ability - which was thoroughly tested. It was his ability to choose appropriate behavior. More modern science has determined that the prefrontal cortex is the part of the human brain associated with social emotions.

Toward the end of Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens he offers his Somatic Marker Hypothesis. Here he establishes that mental images are tagged with emotional markers - and describes the implications of that. Based on the story of Phinneas Gage I extended the Somatic Marker Hypothesis to what I call the Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis.

I'm not sure whether this is the laughable idea of an engineering/physics major trying to think about neuro-psychology - or if it may actually have some merit. I'd love to get into a discussion about that but so far I've been stuck defending a place for some level of cultural influence within the EP paradigm. Or, more accurately, defending my honesty and intelligence from attack because I suggested that cultural influences have some place within that paradigm.

I don't see how anyone could deny that evolution and genetics are the ultimate cause of human behavior. Our central nervous systems are obviously a product of evolution. It seems that the arguments are over the proximate causes of particular behavior choices. Are they direct genetic influences or indirect genetic influences by way of an inherited ability to adopt behavior provided by our culture.

If one sees behavior choice as the result of emotional negotiation, then the EP question becomes deciphering those direct and indirect genetic causes. Or, using my Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis, discovering the source of the particular emotions that are negotiated when we make behavior choices.

For example, the question of what motivates a young boy or girl to adopt an identity as a future scientist and then apply a huge amount of mental energy over the rest of their lives to fulfill that identity seems like a much more interesting question than whether males or females have a bigger range of IQ's scores and whether those are completely inherited or subject to developmental influences.

It seemed to me that an EP forum was a great place to discuss these questions perhaps because EP seemed like a more grounded form of psychology than most of the others. Unfortunately, I found myself in an ideological tempest defending questions that I wasn't that interested in.

In any case, I'd love to hear your opinion on any of the above (cringe). I'll accept your previous criticism as an indication of my poor communication skills. These are difficult concepts to discuss clearly but well worth the effort IMO. You must admit though, that discussing difficult concepts is easier when you're not defending yourself from personal attacks. :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: Pinker & BS-o-meters
 

Thanks for the compliment Carey, but I think that JimB may have even less patience when it comes to Margaret’s type of BS.

FWIW, Margaret and I were having a reasonably civil dialogue until she was the first to “raise the stakes,” as it were, with me in her hissy-fit here, http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...7&postcount=49 when she inappropriately personalized whatever it was she perceived I was “suggesting” (at which point Tom seemed to join in her attack); and it was Margaret who started playing the racist card with her hideous post, to JimB, here http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...92&postcount=2 , revealing her self-righteous ideology using accusatory words/phrases directed at JimB, such as the “Full Monte” of a “famous racist,” his“attraction to this area” of general intelligence differences, “the attraction of some Evolutionary Biologists to what [she] had always considered to be the pseudo-science of Eugenics,” etc., etc.

That it was I who suggested LeDoux’s groundbreaking work/book on the biology of emotion to Margaret, and that I’ve really been the only one here to actually discuss, with some vigor, the implications of that biology, has apparently been completely discounted by Margaret b/c I dare to also expose her sanctimonious, preconceived ideology for what it is.

Also, note that I‘ve been the only one here to actually “empathizes with the emotional turmoil, and perhaps cognitive dissonance, that [Margaret’s] circumstances may have engendered [the gender identity thing]”; and appreciate, using her own characterization, that her “intellectual conclusions are first guided by [her] existing beliefs,” and then “weighted” by the “emotional strength [she] subconsciously grants them”—But when I then dare acknowledge that I also “find [her] predilection for projecting that MO onto everyone else to be childishly presumptuous,” her knee-jerk, snooty response is that I lack any “sense of fairness and objectivity to stop enclosing [my] posts in personal attacks.” (And yet is it not Margaret (and Tom) who persist in making gratuitous, not to mention laughable, assertions regarding my supposed “troubled childhood” and/or alleged “problems?”)

Again Carey, thanks for the compliment—if people like Margaret (and Tom) paid a little more attention to detail, and were perhaps a bit less insecure/hypersensitive, they’d see that I rarely, if ever, truly make “personal attacks,” but rather I expose (perhaps with too much relish/disdain?) the lack of consistency, rigor, or honesty in their own arguments/ideologies.

And Bravo, Carey—your above comment suggests that you yourself are beginning to realize what the Margarets and Toms have yet to grasp, and what another Fred once opined: “What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.” (While I personally find Nietzsche’s sentiment less than spot on, I do find such an attitude to be somewhat more efficacious than the whine coming from the Margarets.)

How’s your love life?

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Good to hear from you, Fred.


I agree with this, although I can see why other members take offense at your rhetorical aggression. But, as they say, if you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

...

My social life is a bit dry at the moment, as I'm heavily pre-occupied with the final 5 weeks of my undergraduate degree. This reminds me: I happened upon this forum when I was a junior in high school . . . time sure flies.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I'm not sure: my guess would be that both individuals feel Pinker's thesis is self-evident. I haven't read that book in a long time, and so cannot comment further.

Another reason you're not receiving responses, particularly from JimB, is that your posts are too long: write succinctly and you'll have a much better chance of drawing JimB out of his shell.


First: labeling your idea a theory and giving it a name long enough to warrant an acronym is practically an open invitation for a beat-down from Fred.

Second: using terms like "mental image" and "emotional marker", for which no physical basis has been empirically described, [edit] makes me wary. I could well be mistaken here, but this problem seems to be characteristic of all psychology.

I don't believe your commuincation skills are poor; I think psychology is a messy science, and no one can satisfactorily explain the truly proximate causes of behavior (yet). The draw of evolutionary psychology is its focus upon ultimate causes and its tolerance of black boxes around the vast tangle of neural mechanisms that have been moulded by millions of years of natural selection. It's great that you're interested in those black boxes, but in my opinion you're never going to get anywhere with verbal models and frontal lobotomy case-studies.

Best,
Carey

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Darn, I did it again. I always give people far too much credit for intelligence and good intentions. I should have known from your past fawning posts to JimB that your previous post would be a thinly veiled insult.

This particular post is even more laughable. Reading back through the archives it seems that there were were some interesting discussions at first. That's what sucked me in. It now seems that JimB's main or only interest in moderating this forum is in spreading his ideology. Unless someone supports those views or otherwise praises him he only responds with insults.

The rest of your post is about what one can expect from an undergrad psych student - self-important and largely ignorant of the real world.

This is a forum about evolutionary psychology. It's a place where people should be able to politely discuss complicated ideas in a free-form way - and maybe learn something. All that should be required is a sincere interest, a willingness learn and the ability to be respectful. I think I have proven myself in that respect (so far anyway) far more than any of you (not including Tom and Todd whose posts have been both intelligent and respectful).

I happen to know some real scientists. None of them have an interest in spreading some ideology. In fact, they avoid that crap like the plague. None of them respond to sincere questions or observations of non-scientists by calling them nonsense or bullshit. Those are the terms used by various flavors of true-believers when they run into heretics - and wanna-be scientists trying to impress others.

You say my use of terms like "mental image" and "emotional marker", for which no physical basis has been empirically described, smacks of nonsense. Your classless insult is belied by the fact that those terms come from the writings of the foremost neuroscientists in their field - which I have carefully read and re-read. Your (and JimB's) inability to discuss those concepts intelligently is a matter of your own blindness - to borrow a phrase.

It's interesting that you think those terms are nonsense - while just-so stories about the superior fitness for white males to oversee democracy in the world and occupy the highest positions in academic research are examples of good scientific discourse.

Neither Fred nor JimB has responded once to any of my posts with other than ideology and insults. The fact is I don't share their worldview and for ideologues that's all that counts. Fred is here to insult atheists and JimB wants to express his anti-PC venom and his apparent love for eugenics.

That's it. Neither of them have any sincere interest in evolutionary psychology that I can see - and looking at your posts I see that you don't either. In the future if you want to say something to me then start by being honest about your motivations because my bullshit detector is now set to ten.

Margaret

Re: Pinker & BS-o-meters
 

Again, I have to remind you that Margaret's feelings were hurt for valid reasons, as I did earlier here,http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...=3225#post3225, which says:
You're at least not fooling me.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Well . . . I'm going to try my hardest not to become part of this feud and reply without reciprocating the tone in your most recent post.


Way to take the high road. By the way, I'm not a psych student.


Okay, but how do you justify calling other people self-important, wanna-be scientists when you are willing to invent the "Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis" on the basis of a couple of books and one case study? Can't you perceive how haughty that is?

I'm spreading ideology? I criticized the terms you are using for their lack of empirical clarity, and then you call me an ignorant, wanna-be, fawning idiot . . . why be so defensive unless you yourself are defending an ideology?

Also: the terms you use seem nonsensical to me, yes, but my comment was not designed as a personal insult. Fred has made the same point: by criticizing your ideas, I'm not trying to belittle you. In fact, the only phrase that could be perceived as insulting in my previous post is "smacks of nonsense", but immediately thereafter I made sure to clarify that this was a general problem in the field of psychology, not your problem in particular.


I have not seen JimB address the concepts of which you speak, though it doesn't surprise me that he finds them unappealing. I challenged you to explain the meaning of the terms you are using, but you effectively responded with: "other important people are using those phrases, too" . . . I'm sorry, but that just isn't satisfying. Have you considered that the foremost neuroscientists of which you made mention may be promoting an ideology of their own? Have they defined the operational meaning of "mental image" and "emotional marker"? If so, how have they done it? If you can answer these questions, that's great . . . if not, then there's a problem, which you need to address, rather than defending the orthodoxy unquestioningly.


Okay: a group of current researchers is using those terms, but that doesn't change the fact that their empirical meaning is vague, at best. If I'm incorrect on this point, please do explain further.
I have never once commented positively (or at all, that I know of) on the superior white male fitness idea - I don't know if someone else has used that phrase, or if you're making an inference from JimB's discussion of heritable variation in mathematical aptitude. It seems as though you're taking pot shots at a straw man.


Yes, Fred does insult atheists all the time, but I find it funny more often than I find it offensive (I'm an atheist). Please point me to the post in which JimB condones eugenics . . . I've seen him write about innate differences in mathematical ability between sexes, which are a cold, hard fact, but that's about it. To say that genetic differences between sexes or ethnic groups justify eugenics would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy.


Lastly, you did not address my point about neural networks - it seems to me that any mechanistic theory of behavior that isn't completely rooted in networks cannot be very rigorous. This is NOT to say that environment has nothing to do with behavior: one of the most interesting features of neural networks is their plasticity, contingent on environmental influence. In this sense, your "slate with a grid pattern on it" metaphor is suitable, but I don't think verbal models can go much further than that. If you believe strongly otherwise, please explain your stance.


Certainly, and I'm asking you to discuss a difficult concept, not attacking you personally.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Wow Carey, seems you really pissed Margaret off—imagine how vicious she’d have been if you actually intended to insult her. Margaret seems to have other issues . . . anyway, you know how vindictive those damn atheists can be.

Your post to her obviously was reasonable & discerning, but of course you already know that. OTH, perhaps TomJ (also an atheist who insists that mass murderers are somehow not “morally responsible” for their behavior and that they are “just following their social instincts”), who currently seems to be something of a self-appointed advocate for her, can explain how “Margaret's feelings were hurt for valid reasons,” this time by your comments (rather than mine).

Sorry to hear your social life is a bit dry, but you should have plenty of time for all that social stuff after you kick-ass in these final 5 weeks of school—plus you may even be a bit more marketable with your shiny new degree—all the best.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Carey said, I'm pleased with the thought - even though you took it down. You may find Fred's insults funny but I also notice that none of them were directed at you. As anyone can see once the insults start flying no reasonable discussion can take place - on either side.

Your final paragraph was interesting. That's the first post I've seen from you that indicates an interest in discussing evolutionary biology. Based on your past statements I'm still not sure that you are sincere but for now, let's leave our differences behind. I'm already feeling guilty about my post - especially that part where I was taking the high road. You should have seen it before I took out the bad parts. :rolleyes:

You seem to be saying in your post that unless I have a formal theory to present then there's nothing worth discussing. I disagree. It seems to me that the purpose of an online forum is to trade ideas and learn. No-one is being forced to agree or accept anything here. It's not a peer reviewed journal. It's just exposing others to what you're thinking about - and being exposed to their ideas. That's a very personal and vulnerable thing to do. That's why people generally go out of their way in these situations to be polite and disagree without insulting the other person.

OK, here's a question. If neural networks are one of the last great mysteries of biology how can you be so sure that the true proximate causes of behavior lie within them? That's a rhetorical question. I asked it to suggest that this is all a mysterious area and that any models, verbal or mathematical, could help us (me anyway) understand what's going on in there. I would completely agree with your underlying assertion that behavior in vertebrates is the result of what goes on in neural networks. Also, that we need to understand neural networks to understand brains. Bill Calvin has written some interesting things about neural networks- as has LeDoux in Synaptic Self.

My Somatic Behavior Choice Theory should be called The Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis. That's not even right though because people might think that somatic describes behavior and not behavior choice. Oh well. I'll use hypothesis anyway so as not to be haughty.

But, why would you assume that it is based on a single book and a single case study. I did not list all the books and papers that I've read. I did not describe the theory except in the most general way and I offered little or no support for it. But that does not mean that I did not do that reading or that I don't have support for it. I think a better response would have been, "OK, it sounds pretty far-fetched but let's see what you've got" or something like that. Skepticism is different from derision.

I'd enjoy explaining my reasoning if anyone here was actually interested. I'd also like to hear your specific ideas on how neural networks affect behavior. In either case though we should first agree on what we each mean by proximate cause and behavior. Why don't you go first and we'll see if we can carry on a conversation without others wrecking it with insults.

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Carey, In my last post I said,I suspect that most people feel vulnerable when exposing their ideas to an anonymous bunch of names in a forum - some of whom seem pretty angry. I think we all feel defensive. I think some people (like you maybe) come across as aggressive in their posts maybe to warn others to tread lightly. I think I tend to write too carefully and in an overly articulate way. That probably comes off as haughty or like I think I'm really smart or something.

If I write posts more as a stream of consciousness they get misunderstood in worse ways so over the years I've evolved this style.

I just love thinking about these things and none of my close friends would even understand what we're talking about here. I'm sure others here know a lot more about this stuff than I do (like you maybe) and I'm afraid perhaps of letting that be too obvious in my posts. So I'm really careful about what I say.

Even if my rhetorical style is irritating I can say that I am being as honest as I can.

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I put back up that line so as to avoid confusion for anyone looking into this thread. True - Fred's recent insults have not been directed at me, but he's done it in the past. He and I had a running thread about morality and atheism that must have lasted 2 years and never moved more than a few yards . . . it was just like World War I, except the casualties were my brain cells. The best way to handle it, in my experience, is to realize that the insults are a form of genuine criticism. Fred has a rare "yo momma" critiquing style, but hey, diversity is a good thing.


Agreed - I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have a decent grasp of learning, behavior, and neural networks, and it just strikes me that verbal mechanistic models in this area cannot be expressed unequivocally, because they become so easily separated from the actual mechanisms responsible for behavior itself.


Understanding that your question is rhetorical: we know that networks are the root of behavior because all stimulus processing occurs within them, and all behavioral output originates from them. So . . . information goes in, and behavior comes out. The great mystery is: what happens within those networks to produce the kind of behavioral complexity that we take for granted every day?

Here's a pretty close analogy: ant colonies exhibit a staggering array of collective behaviors, including complex navigation, hunting, and decision-making. We often speak of the colony as a super-organism with intentions and needs to satisfay, which is fine for evolutionary explanations because the colony, in many ways, is a unit of selection. When we wish to know how such collective behavior is executed, however, it's no use to think of the "wants" of the colony. All that matters is the ant-to-ant and ant-to-environment interactions - ant networks, so to say - which together produce behavior at the colony level.

Human brains exhibit arguably more complex behavior than ant colonies, but the principle is the same. It's perfectly suitable to speak of a person having desires, emotions, etc. at the individual level when thinking about the evolutionary explanations of behavior. But if we want to know how exactly a behavior is produced, what matters are sensory systems (receive stimuli), network interactions (process stimuli), and neural output (leading to behavior).


On the other hand, if one asks "why did Bob hit Brad in the face", it's not necessarily constructive to answer "well, the visual stimulus of Brad was received by Bob's retinas, translated into a pattern of neural input that triggered a memory, linked in the CA3 region of his hippocampus, of Brad trripping him yesterday. This in turn initiated a cascade of interactions in Bob's brain, leading to sensations of anger, the will the retaliate, etc., and finally to muscular coordination that resulted in Bob's fist connecting with brad's jaw." One would normally just say "Well, Brad tripped Bob yesterday, so Bob got him back by hitting him in the face." My point is that some kind of balance should be struck between the terminology used to represent emotions, etc. and the neural mechanisms responsible for them, so that we don't go off telling just-so stories.


So: proximate cause, in my understanding, refers to the cascade of mechanical and chemical interactions within (or between, in the case of collective behavior) organisms that result in a behavior, and they are investigated with physics, chemistry, and sometimes simulation modeling (e.g., for ant swarms or fish schools*). This is why I don't like "mental image" and "emotional tag" . . . what quantitative meaning do these terms really have?

Ultimate questions, in contrast, refer to evolutionary explanations that discuss why a behavior was selected for in a particular environment, and can be addressed with verbal, mathematical (e.g. populations and quantitative genetics, game theory, etc.), and simulation models.


because you only mentioned one book and one case study in association with your hypothesis! See:
-Carey

* Good Example: Couzin, I.D., Krause, J., Franks, N.R., and Levin, S.A. (2005). “Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move.” Nature 433: 513-516

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I'd rather you read about this, and see how little we really know, from the experts. If you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you pdf files of the articles I have on hand. Neural networks have been used to understand very simple behavior in model species, but some theoretical models have been developed to explore hippocampal function and learning in humans. We've only scratched the surface . . . it's a very exciting, though humbling, area.


Also - by all means, explain your hypothesis in detail. I appreciate the risk you take in expressing your ideas, and you won't receive any ridicule from me.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

My recollection is a bit different Carey—back in September 2003 when you, Todd, and I were passionately discussing this area (and perhaps trading benign “insults” ) and whether materialist ”atheists” “lacked the balls to be honest-to-god atheists” and “to acknowledge the implications of a cosmos lacking intrinsic meaning and value,” you eventually affirmed that:
And since atheism more or less mandates an “accidental” (i.e. chance) universe, it was concluded that your and Todd’s “atheism” was not a consistent honest-to-god atheism (but more an agnosticism). So I’d say that we actually “moved more than a few yards”— TomJ’s honest-to-god atheism, OTH, is at least consistent enough to acknowledge that in the atheist’s world mass murderers can’t be “morally responsible” for their behavior and are “just following their [evolved] social instincts.”

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Hi Carey, I have reviewed the pdf files you sent. Those are interesting. Reviewing those and re-reading your recent posts I now suspect that we are not talking about the same thing.

You used an example where Bob hit Brad in the face. All human voluntary behavior begins with a choice. In fact making a behavior choice is itself a behavior, though not always voluntary. Bob could have walked away, yelled obscenities at Brad or could have kicked him the shins. Why did he choose to hit him in the face?

The part of behavior that I am most interested in is what happened in Bob's brain that caused him to consider several possible behaviors and then committ emotionally to one of them. I believe that the great mystery of human nature is what goes on in a central nervous system to cause us to choose a particular behavior from our repertoire - not how that behavior gets executed, however interesting that may be.

While science struggles with explaining behavior execution at the neuron / synapse level, as your papers illustrate, behavior choice seems even further from their grasp and is less likely (at least from what I have read) to yield to answers at that level - which seems to be your area of interest. Is behavior choice something you'd even like to discuss?

Margaret

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Okay Fred - I hope you'll pardon my bad memory.


I would need to see the context in which I wrote down that quote you listed. Why was I putting the word "accidental" in quotation marks, for example? And what are those elipsis points replacing? At the moment, it just sounds wrong. Is that post still around, or do you have it saved somewhere?


Without intending to start this debate all over again, my position is that Occam's Razor would suggest that the universe was not created or inlfuenced by a Designer of any kind. Before you respond with your point about early low entropy, let me just say that no matter how complicated and remote the purely physical scenario might be for the beginning of the universe, it is vastly, vastly simpler than the position maintaining that some intelligent Being was there, instead. Hence my reference to Occam. In that sense, I don't see why an accidental universe, i.e., one not involving a Designer, wouldn't be compatible with evolution. In fact, the validity of evolution in the context of life on Earth doesn't even relate at all to the way in which the universe began. That's why I'm curious about the context and elipsis points in the quotation of mine that you posted.


Like you, I don't agree with Tom's stance on this subject. On the other hand, I don't feel that it's inconsistent to say that morality exists in the interaction between people, even in the absence of a Deity of some kind watching over us like a referee.


Again . . . without meaning to start up the debate all over again, my stance is that morality is a human construct . . . it's part of our biology ("social instincts"), and it is also subject to cultural evolution. On the one hand, yes, this means that morality doesn't really exist; but in every important way, morality exists as a property of human interaction. That's the view i remember maintaining in our debate, which is why that quote that you posted seems foreign to me. However, maybe you trumped me in that one, and I selectively blocked out the memory to bury the pain of defeat. Somehow I doubt it, though.


I wrote that the debate did not move more than a few yards because I think that our views remained pretty much diametrically opposed, no matter what each party said in counter-argument. In that sense, the front lines didn't move very much. I did not mean that nothing interesting was written.

-Carey

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Yes, I would have suggested that Carey's "smacks of nonsense" was a bit harsh and could easily be taken as an insult. And I agree with Margaret that her reaction was a bit much for that perceived insult. You see, Carey and Margaret, like reasonable adults, resolved the point themselves to their satisfaction.

And, yes, we have social instincts for altruism, cooperation, crime, etc. That's all we need for "morality" and you have yet to show the source for anything more.

I'm distressed by Carey's point of "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"; far too many intelligent people have already left this now tiny kitchen for that very reason. EP is not a subject that is widely known, much less widely supported, and the loss of even one mind is a terrible thing.

I'm even more distressed by Carey egging you on to spew years more of your rudeness. Apparently he does not share my views on why you're here.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I agree with this statement so I don't understand your disagreement with me. True, I eliminated the term 'morality' from my argument since it's just a synonym for social instincts for me and I feel that it sends the religious on tangents.

Can you enumerate your differences with my views? Thanks!

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

It was my quote of your post in my post, knowmsaying? Anywho, “accidental,” as I recall, was the word we were using to describe a universe lacking a first cause, having no intrinsic meaning or purpose, that was a result of some random uncaused happening—the atheist’s universe—all there ever was, is, will be.

I think the bottom line, Carey, is that these arguments ultimately boil down to whether you believe there indeed is such a thing as “objective truth,” whether objective truth exists (and perhaps also whether we humans can know it); or whether you believe there is only subjective “truth,” whether there are only subjective, mental and/or social constructs.

To me the evidence is overwhelming that there is indeed timeless, objective mathematical truth, that objective mathematical truth does indeed exist, that it exists independent of the human mind, independent of any evolved sentient being’s mind, and independent of the physical world that we currently find ourselves in.

For example, the four-square theorem: In the 17th century Bachet, a mathematician, conjectured whether every positive integer could be expressed as the sum of four squares of integers; e.g.: 31 = 52 + 22 + 12 + 12. In 1770 another mathematician, Lagrange, discovered the unassailable proof for this “four-square theorem.” That every positive integer can be expressed as the sum of four squares of integers is a timeless objective truth—it was true when Lagrange discovered the proof, it’s true today, and it was true before conscious beings evolved.

Although we humans can know and “see” this particular objective truth, the four-square theorem doesn’t actually “exist” in the physical world. Additionally, it is only with objective mathematical truths (e.g., integers, pi, etc., etc., etc.) that we humans are able to begin to truly understand the reality of our physical world.

Once one see the reality of objective mathematical truth, and it’s necessity to do science, the leap to objective beauty, and perhaps even objective morality, is not so difficult; and b/f you know it you’ll find yourself quoting Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man....” Or Max Planck: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Or Roger Penrose: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

Hi Tom,

You and I agree on the biology of social interaction, and how morality is simply a tool in humans' repertoire (I think there's a solid argument that social instrincts evolved to reduce conflict and thereby increase the potency of selection at the group level - in our ancestral environment). Punishment is a kind of programmed apoptosis, but for people rather than cancer cells.

I disagree with you about moral responsibility - I think mass murderes and rapists are entirely responsible for their actions, based on the following interpretation:

Responsibility is not a matter of free will, but rather of establishing the consequences of cheating in a social system. Perhaps a given murderer did not have control over his behavior, but as far as the social group is concerned, he has broken one of the rules, and that's all that matters. The subsequent punishment (particularly if it is on publich display, which is often the case) serves as a warning to others, who may be on the brink of cheating, that the resulting punishment does not make cheating worthwhile. This is essentially the story of altruistic punishing, in which cooperative individuals incur a cost to themselves in order to hurt cheaters, which in the end increases the stability of the whole group by eliminating the benefit of selfishness. Responsibility is the link between behavior and its consequences, and that is maintained by a collective in order to instil a fear of cheating among its members.

I understand that this may be a semantic issue . . . what I call responsibility you may call something else, in which case our views on the subject aren't really different.

-Carey

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I agree with you entirely on the matter of universal, objective, mathematical truths. They can be proven unequivocally and they remain true whether humans are here to appreciate them or not.

But moral truths don't work that way . . . do you think that there will ever be a formal, undeniable proof that it's wrong to steal stuff from your neighbors? Of course not . . . the word "wrong" doesn't even make any sense without a huge amount of information about the social environment. Without people, there's no social environment. Without social environments, there's no such thing as morality.


Whoa, whoa . . . whoa. How on earth does the truth of objective morality follow from the objective truth of mathematics!? EVERYTHING about morality is context-dependent, the exact opposite of mathematical truths, which are valid no matter what the context.

There's an enormous difference between a mathematical proof for objective moral truths (never going to happen) and a genius mathematiciain remarking that he believes in the presence of a higher power.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I haven't been around for a while and don't have a great feel for the forum's member turnover. It's not great to hear that people have been driven away, although based on my experience here, many tend to leave regardless of Fred's commentary, while the most thoughtful people stay. I'm not defending Fred's writing style, but this forum has never had a large membership, anyway.

I didn't encourage Fred to insult anyone, but I would defend the sentiment that aggressive criticism is okay. Otherwise, debates tend to become bogged down and equivocal.

Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
 

I'm not so sure there's as big a distinction between behavior choice and behavior execution, and I'm kinda surprised you feel that way, given your disbelief in any kind of free will . . .

As I understand things, your interest is in the earliest part of behavioral execution . . . before signals are sent to muscles, etc. One of the messages from the papers I sent you is that the processing that occurs for even the simplest of behavior, like an escape response, is very complicated. Decision making (ie should I expend energy to try and escape, or is this a false alarm) occurs in these simple systems, and we only just have a grasp of the network interactions that govern them.

I agree with you that understanding basal network interactions is too primitive a level of organization to examine when trying to understand complex social behavior, but I want to make sure that your verbal models don't depart too far from a grounding in the way networks are constructed and operate, because non-quantitative models are limited in scope and can often be bent easily to fit whatever observations are made. The big problem in the context of humans is that we don't really know that much about the networks underlying our complex behaviors. This is not to say that it's not even worth thinking about, but rather than the limitations of our current exploratory tools are considerable and must be kept in mind.