Is Steven Pinker Right?

But wasn't "How The Mind Works" the book that made him a celebrity in the first place?

Nope, it was the very worthwhile "The Language Instinct."

Celebrity scientists are mostly horrible.

^

also evolutionary psychology in general=dud

i really shouldn't have said "terrible", though. more like...irritating, for several reasons that have little to do with science or psycology or whatever.

But wasn't "How The Mind Works" the book that made him a celebrity in the first place? It's better if some chump like me has a basic grasp of these ideas than none at all.

-- Bodrick III, Monday, April 28, 2008 4:44 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Link

the problem is when chumps treat pinker's "basic ideas" as though they were widely-accepted and agreed-upon, which to the best of my knowledge they arent

yeah pinker and chomsky both are two guys that had decent enough ideas but instead of treating them like levi-strauss people treat them like darwin which is fucking braindead and pathetic

#1 problem with cognitive scientists is that they fuck up observation with hypothesis and vice versa at least half the time. cart before horse (but oh wait semantic determinism do u see) shut the fuck up

whoa I kinda went luriqua there (is shaniqua there? hell no)

#1 problem with cognitive scientists is that they are a bunch of losers

aren't you all up into some post structuralist semiology shit though? pot kettle black on black crime

nah dude my new thing is gardening

also english lit chicks are seventeen times hotter than cog sci chicks, ipso facto ergo sum

sum vagina better than eo ipso vagina tho amiritus

i dunno man i just garden now

zen prick

anyway I am going to check this one out soon enough
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lq2c-a2aL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
which seems at least rooted enough in observation and the physiology of the brain enough that it might have a few good points, but we'll see

http://z.about.com/d/gardening/1/0/R/9/OverviewSonny.JPG

Am on How the Mind Works now, and quite enjoying it. I like the way he points out that explaining questions on traits etc by "culture" isn't explaining them, but putting them away in a drawer to pretend they aren't there -- ie the question still remains of why culture has come to engender those traits.

It's not putting them away in a drawer to pretend they aren't there, it's just admitting that your field doesn't give you the tools to explain it! Sociology & anthropology don't work the same way as cog sci, and they're not "scientific," but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant. Maybe their approach toward some questions is more helpful than trying to be scientific about them.

The role of evolutionary psychology is not to explain EVERYTHING ABOUT HUMANS.

(Sorry, "science must explain this strange behavior!" is a pet peeve. That rant was not set off by you.)

That rant was not set off by you.

Oh it might just as well have been, no need to be sorry! :) ie I think I disagree with you here.

it's just admitting that your field doesn't give you the tools to explain it!

Doesn't give the tools now, or is doomed to be forever incapable of giving the tools? If the latter, OK point taken, but then I feel a bout of metaphysics coming on; if the former ...

The role of evolutionary psychology is not to explain EVERYTHING ABOUT HUMANS.

Sez you? Why not? OK not necessarily evolutionary psychology per se, but why cannot that be a role of science? I don't buy humans being such a special case.

Sociology & anthropology don't work the same way as cog sci, and they're not "scientific," but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

Agreed, of course it doesn't. Relevance depends on the goals of the enquiry, I suppose. Even if I feel that explanations from "scientific" science may seem more likely than from the fields you mention, they also seem less useful.

Has Steven Pinker's lovely hair been mentioned yet?

I think the triple photo of 28 April covers the basics. But by all means elaborate!

but why cannot that be a role of science? I don't buy humans being such a special case.

because there's science, and then there's history. read stephen jay gould on contingency. some stuff just happens. there's no "explaining" why the mountains are where they are, or why the meteor hit at that point in the cretaceous, or why arthropods lived and trilobites died.

read stephen jay gould on contingency.

OK! Do you happen to have a specific reference handy?

well its sort of a central theme of his work. one classic is "wonderful life," his book on the burgess shale (long story short: when you look at what survived what he calls the "permian debacle" (the 96% die-off of post-cambrian marine species, happened about 250 mil years ago) you see that a lot of it is based on luck rather than evolutonary fitness. among a lot of quite fit competitors ... certain stuff died and certain other stuff didn't. quite randomly. even allowing for darwinian mechanisms. some stuff just makes it, some stuff just doesn't,.

you can say there's "reasons", but you can't explain in that the sense that inverse-square gravity "explains" elliptical orbits. there's simply no way to have a square or triangular orbit with gravity the way it is. every orbit around a mass is going to be a conic section, no matter what. but replay the evolution tape (or the geology tape or whatever) enough times and you could end up with quite different species and quite different humans and quite different societies. there's parts of science that work like the former, and are quite good at explaining in the sense of describing and providing a motor and saying why it's this way and not another way. and yet there's other parts of science that are equally as "good" as the others that work like the latter, and are equally good at explaining in the sense of describing and providing a motor, but very bad at saying "why like this" and "why not like that".

so i think you have to be very careful when you talk about "science" not to conflate the two parts, and realize that the part dealing with describing very complex systems is going to fall into the latter set (and SJG has done a really good job of explaining - in a way that anybody off the street or on ILX can grasp - why evolution in particular and evolutionary psychology, too, is part of that second set)

^^ this is a very badly edited post, but i hope you take my meaning. here's a quote from "wonderful life":

I am not speaking of randomness, but of the central principle of all history—contingency. A historical explanation does not rest on direct deductions from laws of nature, but on an unpredictable sequence of antecedent states, where any major change in any step of the sequence would have altered the final result. This final result is therefore dependent, or contingent, upon everything that came before—the unerasable and determining signature of history.

Assuming evolutionary psychology can explain all behavior really amounts to assuming genetics can explain all human behavior AND assuming that we can intuit all the correct explanations without proving the genetic element.

Besides, evolutionary traits have only two purposes - to help us survive and to help us mate. But life is pretty long and complex and we only spend a small portion of it evading danger or mating.

Complex systems are complex!

moonship:

Good summary (well it seems so to me at least), thanks. Off-the-cuff I think I sense a conflation of the power to predict the future and the power to explain the present somewhere deep in there, but I'll have to have a think about it.

Re the quote: yes exactly, picks up same dichotomy

well ... a physical scientist wouldn't see any difference between those two things!

i can predict the future: if i drop this egg, it will fall.
i can explain the present: i dropped the egg, it fell

i cannot predict the future: no idea when this sand piling up in the bottom of the hourglass will shift
i cannot *explain* the present: not really sure "why" the sand collapsed when it did ... "because it reached an unstable configuration" <-- ho ho whiff of tautology

er, "it will fall, and hit the ground in exactly (square root of (2/9.8 * height in meters) seconds ..."

and i could explain yesterday's egg drop results in exactly the same way

Aren't you just saying science is better at modeling simplified ideal scenarios than inherently complex ones?

re hourglass:

Hmm what I don't quite accept there is that because I cannot explain why the sand collapsed when it did, I should be resigned to never understanding the mechanics of sand collapse!

Or is the point that the observable states preceding *that particular* sand collapse are lost forever and that particular present cannot be explained?

ie I can't wait for the next evolution of man (or given other organism), I've only got this data point?

yeah exactly ... especially since evolutionary psychology is very concerned about deducing organizing principles from a very, very, very particular present (whereas the broader field of evolutionary biology is working with, you know, the whole fossil record)

here's another gould classic (From wikipedia, sorry, i'm damn lazy)

In both the giant panda[1] and the red panda[2], the radial sesamoid has evolved to be larger than the same bone in counterparts such as bears. It is primarily a bony support for the pad above it, allowing the panda's other digits to grasp bamboo while eating it. The panda's thumb is often cited as a classical example of exaptation, where a trait evolved for one purpose is commandeered for another[3].

a very common critique of evolutionary psychology is that given how tenuous the link is between human culture and human brain (we use only what, 5% of the damn thing?!? most days my brain works about as well as a panda thumb ...) it's not impossible that all culture is just an exaptation

evolution of man

lol sorry abt 19th century species terminology there

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

Basically saying you can explain all human behavior scientifically is making the claims that:

1. chance is not a significant factor
2. choice and conscious action have physical sources that are ultimately traceable AND, once traced, as predictable as sand falling in an hourglass
3. societies do not develop enough complexity to require explanations on their own terms, they are always reducible

You can't explain why turbulence in air spiraled the way it did as the egg as the egg passed through it, either. You can't explain the particular splatter pattern of the egg once it hits the ground, if it indeed breaks.

You "know" how long the egg will take to hit the ground from a particular start, and you "know" how long the sand will take to drain to the bottom of the hourglass.

Orbits aren't *really* conical, but nearly so.

On and on...

i'm not really sure what you're getting at, dr ian malcolm

Gimmi your hand Ellie Sattler.

CONDORS!

Maria: Agreed that 1-3 would be necessary conditions (and obv far far far from sufficient ones).

But conceding that you can't explain all human behaviour scientifically doesn't mean having to concede that area X of human behaviour is unexplainable. And since we can't decide in advance which areas are and which aren't, I'd be reluctant to declare something a priori out of bounds.

(btw do you have a ref on the 5% thing, moonship?)

I'm not conceding that it's unexplainable, I'm just saying maybe science isn't the right tool! Maybe in some areas, a sociological approach is just better.

(i mean, i disagree that sociology is just applied psychology, and i think sometimes sociology is more useful.)

no, that's just a joke

Yeah, that's surely the wrongest link up there. ;)

I'm not conceding that it's unexplainable,

Sorry I was unclear, I meant if one (well, I) were to concede that it is unexplainable "scientifically".

I'm just saying maybe science isn't the right tool! Maybe in some areas, a sociological approach is just better.

Yup, got it. But I think we may be talking about different sets of questions here -- to simplify, questions about how A causes/correlates with B in societies, vs questions about how this whole mechanism came to be.

Just on Stephen Jay Gould, I gather his stuff on contingency is heavily contested, not least by the Burgess Shale analysts he writes about in Wonderful Life.

WL is still a great book, if you like reading about crazy animals.

Short postscript to moonship & Maria's posts yesterday: yeah I was on/off whether to bring up determinism too -- I'm pretty much pro, but (similar to what Maria said) then I'm then veering into metaphysics and I can't argue it well.

in my mind, 'mismeasure-of-man' (not 'determinism') is the key word moonship brings up in relation to evolutionary bio and everything mentioned in this thread so far that i can make heads or tails of. and not just 'mismeasure,' but the practices of science, beyond 'mis'.. i'm just diving into sts at this point (bruno latour etc), but it's helping me dig on the idea of the practice of science in sociological (where it all begins amirite) systems. (disclaimer: liberal arts major speaking).

full disclosure of bias: i majored in anthropology & sociology, and am applying to grad schools in archaeology. so i'm not an expert but i am opinionated! (and irritated by the "it's either science or bullshit" point of view.)

that's kind of amazing hair, by the way. i would probably want to believe someone who looked like that if i saw him talk. i've only read the blank slate, thought it was interesting. (my father actually found it comforting. he said it meant his parenting could only screw us up so far, and he was glad to be not totally responsible for how we turned out. thanks, dad!)

Haha, reading The Stuff of Thoughts yesterday, I saw something that made me wonder if he's an ilxor lurker: talking about datives etc, he used the example sentence (something like)

Norm was given the pashmina

-- which struck me as an unlikely name/object combination to occur in two places independently... :)

peven stinker

Lolita Express passenger!

http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971

Me (dumb guy): They wrote "exposes Pecker." Heh, heh.
You (smart guy): Thanks to my graduate degree in psycholoinguistics and studies with Noam Chomsky, I notice they wrote "exposes Pecker." Heh, heh. https://t.co/e5yE5ovYVG

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) February 10, 2019

I thought this book review did a good job of summarizing his strengths and weaknesses as a writer (see the second half):

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/pinker-rosling-progress-accentuate-positive/

lol pic.twitter.com/BeAzo1FLoM

— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) August 6, 2023

Peven Stinker strikes again

would love to see this dude meet a horrific violent end