A Thought about Steven Pinker

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress; Paperback; Author - Steven Pinker

I suspect I've mentioned Steven Pinker in this blog before, although I'm too lazy to look it up right now. I've got a Big Thought about Pinker, but I have to get to it in stages. First: who is he? Second: what is the Context of the Big Thought. Third: the Big Thought.

Who Is He?

The lengthy wikipedia article attached to his name will tell you. But in case you're lazy: Pinker teaches psychology at Harvard. He got his Ph.D. in the field with a thesis on "The Representation of 3D Space in Mental Images," which suggests that cognitive psychology is his especial concern.

Aside from his scholarly works -- to which I will return in a bit -- he is the author of several books aimed at broad audiences, including THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE (2011) and ENLIGHTENMENT NOW (2018). He is generally considered a conservative intellectual, but since "conservative" still often means counter-Enlightenment, and Pinker is an Enlightenment enthusiast, that may not be the best moniker.

The Context of The Big Thought

I had my Big Thought about Pinker soon after someone on Quora asked me my view of Pinker's relationship with feminism.

I replied,

"So far as I know, he has never defined himself as such, nor has he described himself as opposed to feminism.

"Pinker is an essentialist as to sex. He does not believe that what one means by the term 'woman' is solely a matter of social construction or conditioning. This may put him at odds with some contemporary conceptions of feminism. He once participated in a debate on this subject with Elizabeth Spelke, a cognitive psychologist who does self-identify as a feminist."

Then it occurred to me ....

The Big Thought

Pinker's reputation amongst the 'educated laypeople' he seeks to educate about psychology is in amusingly direct contrast to his actual work as a professor of psychology, and the sometimes quite technical writings by which he made his reputation there.

Pinker made his bones in recent years as a sort-of conservative by denying that human nature is a 'blank slate' on which society can write as it wants. He believes, and he says contemporary psychology as a science leads him to this, that biology has written on this slate before society can get to it. Biology has written certain facts about sex roles, for example.

After Lawrence Summers, then the President of Harvard, made some comments (I won't quote or parse here) about the possibility that more men than women go into the quantitative sciences because of natural facts about the workings of brains, there was a big brouhaha. That was the context for the Spelke-Pinker debate. And that kind of debate is often seen as something that plays out on a left/right axis, with Spelke to the left of Summers and/or Pinker.

Intellectual history is seldom simple. Surely Noam Chomsky, who is after all a key figure in a field adjacent to Spelke's and Pinker's, is opposed to any view of human nature as a blank slate. And would be aghast at the thought that this makes him a figure of the right.

But that isn't my thought here: rather, it occurred to me that in his technical/professional work, Pinker seems to have been on the social constructionist, or blank slater, side!

Take past-tense verbs. There is a post-Chomskean debate among both psychologists and linguists about how growing children in the Anglosphere learn the proper past tense for verbs. They learn the general rule, to add "ed" after a present-tense verb, quite early. Then they often misapply it, and they are corrected in their mis-applications, so one by one they learn the exceptions. At least that SEEMS to be what happens. A kid will say, "I runned down to the store." Then he'll be corrected, "You mean you RAN down to the store, Johnny."

Is there anything more to be said about the learning of the past tense of verbs than that? The connectionist literature posits that there is more to be said: that there are patterns in the learning of the exceptions.

But Pinker responds, "no, sorry, but it is what it seems to be. We learn the irregular verbs one at a time and commit them to memory."

https://www.scribd.com/document/160032575/Pinker-The-Past-Tense-Debate

In that debate, then, the connectionists are saying that language capability is NOT a blank slate, and Pinker, the anti-blank-slate guy, is replying "yes it is."

This is my Big Thought: simply that that is odd.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog