Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Share
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:26 am

ej, ali blank slate, potpuno blank slate, je bio veoma uticajna ideja u psihologiji. ima onaj poznati citat dzona votsona, cini mi se iz dvadesetih godina proslog veka: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.

to nije neka usputna misao, fringe ideja usputnog naucnika, nego ideja koja je snazno oblikovala psihologiju u narednih nekoliko decenija. sve do tamo negde sedamdesetih se cak nije ulazilo u kognitivne procese, jer se smatralo da se sve u vezi sa psihom moze opisati kombinacijom spoljasnjih poticaja i opet spolja merljive reakcije. sve je nauceno: sposobnosti, licnost, samosvest, sve. dolazak kognitivizma je bio prava revolucija. i ja jasem na tom talasu, posto izucavam mozak, nesto sto se nalazi izmedju poticaja i reakcije. zato ideja o uticaju gena na licnost jeste bila radikalna, ma koliko bila istorijski prisutna izvan (tako mlade!) psihologije. 
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:36 am

Da, kontam da je to u struci ipak bilo nešto više od stromena, posebno zbog te biheviorističke ekipe. I da se zadržao na toj vrsti polemike, ili kritike, verovatno ne bih imao ništa da kažem na tu temu.

Moji probemi nastaju kad on stane da se svađa sa Lokom - a Lok nikad nije zastupao blank slate, svakako ne u smislu koji mu Pinker pripisuje. Kad se svađa sa prosvetiteljstvom od koj je napravio strašilo koje se na da prepoznati. Kad kritikuje feminizam, a predstave o femininizmu skuplja iz republikanskih pamfleta. Kad se obračunava sa modernom u umetnosti, a o njoj pojma nema.

Ova knjiga je u velikoj, ako ne i najvećoj meri, a piece of cultural polemic, i mislim da je se mora i tako čitati.

Inače, na mene su profeionalno isto uticale neke knjige koje su mi otvorile neke nove horizonte i naterale da mislim o nekim stvarima na za mene nov način, a čije nedostatke sad prilično jasno vidim. Pa su mi opet bitne i vidim da negde u glavi polemišem sa njima i danas.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:03 am

William Murderface wrote:Da, kontam da je to u struci ipak bilo nešto više od stromena, posebno zbog te biheviorističke ekipe. I da se zadržao na toj vrsti polemike, ili kritike, verovatno ne bih imao ništa da kažem na tu temu.

Moji probemi nastaju kad on stane da se svađa sa Lokom - a Lok nikad nije zastupao blank slate, svakako ne u smislu koji mu Pinker pripisuje. Kad se svađa sa prosvetiteljstvom od koj je napravio strašilo koje se na da prepoznati. Kad kritikuje feminizam, a predstave o femininizmu skuplja iz republikanskih pamfleta. Kad se obračunava sa modernom u umetnosti, a o njoj pojma nema.

Ova knjiga je u velikoj, ako ne i najvećoj meri, a piece of cultural polemic, i mislim da je se mora i tako čitati.

Inače, na mene su profeionalno isto uticale neke knjige koje su mi otvorile neke nove horizonte i naterale da mislim o nekim stvarima na za mene nov način, a čije nedostatke sad prilično jasno vidim. Pa su mi opet bitne i vidim da negde u glavi polemišem sa njima i danas.

Na sta mislis kad kaze da kritikuje feminizam? On kritikuje teoriju prema kojoj nema kognitivnih razlika izmedju muskaraca i zena, sto je, bilo tacno ili ne, legitiman stav u naucnoj debati. Ali ne izvodi iz toga (koliko znam) politicke ili moralne zakljucke o jednakosti polova. Ovde recimo kaze, i ja se potpuno slazem sa njim:

"But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, "I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all," or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism."


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:34 am

bemty wrote:Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.


Na casu psihologije, u II razredu gimnazije, moj drugar Bata (koga smo iz miloste zvali Bata Som*) odgovara na to pitanje - kao i uvek uz pomoc dosaptavanja - "on je rekao... on je rekao, hmmmm... on je rekao: DAJTE MI ZENU, NAPRAVICU DETE!"


_____
 
*:
Bata Som je ispao sposobniji od svih nas, i danas ima lanac fotografskih radnji u Srbiji.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 20246
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:30 am

Ointagru Unartan wrote:
William Murderface wrote:Da, kontam da je to u struci ipak bilo nešto više od stromena, posebno zbog te biheviorističke ekipe. I da se zadržao na toj vrsti polemike, ili kritike, verovatno ne bih imao ništa da kažem na tu temu.

Moji probemi nastaju kad on stane da se svađa sa Lokom - a Lok nikad nije zastupao blank slate, svakako ne u smislu koji mu Pinker pripisuje. Kad se svađa sa prosvetiteljstvom od koj je napravio strašilo koje se na da prepoznati. Kad kritikuje feminizam, a predstave o femininizmu skuplja iz republikanskih pamfleta. Kad se obračunava sa modernom u umetnosti, a o njoj pojma nema.

Ova knjiga je u velikoj, ako ne i najvećoj meri, a piece of cultural polemic, i mislim da je se mora i tako čitati.

Inače, na mene su profeionalno isto uticale neke knjige koje su mi otvorile neke nove horizonte i naterale da mislim o nekim stvarima na za mene nov način, a čije nedostatke sad prilično jasno vidim. Pa su mi opet bitne i vidim da negde u glavi polemišem sa njima i danas.

Na sta mislis kad kaze da kritikuje feminizam? On kritikuje teoriju prema kojoj nema kognitivnih razlika izmedju muskaraca i zena, sto je, bilo tacno ili ne, legitiman stav u naucnoj debati. Ali ne izvodi iz toga (koliko znam) politicke ili moralne zakljucke o jednakosti polova. Ovde recimo kaze, i ja se potpuno slazem sa njim:

"But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, "I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all," or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism."
ali ko tvrdi da su muskarci i zene bioloski isti? ovde je sam metod upitan.pokupis neke studente pokazes im paletu boja i onda izvedes zakljucak da su zene evoluirale da vole crvenu kako bi efikasnije skupljale bobice.
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:11 am

Ointagru Unartan wrote:
William Murderface wrote:Da, kontam da je to u struci ipak bilo nešto više od stromena, posebno zbog te biheviorističke ekipe. I da se zadržao na toj vrsti polemike, ili kritike, verovatno ne bih imao ništa da kažem na tu temu.

Moji probemi nastaju kad on stane da se svađa sa Lokom - a Lok nikad nije zastupao blank slate, svakako ne u smislu koji mu Pinker pripisuje. Kad se svađa sa prosvetiteljstvom od koj je napravio strašilo koje se na da prepoznati. Kad kritikuje feminizam, a predstave o femininizmu skuplja iz republikanskih pamfleta. Kad se obračunava sa modernom u umetnosti, a o njoj pojma nema.

Ova knjiga je u velikoj, ako ne i najvećoj meri, a piece of cultural polemic, i mislim da je se mora i tako čitati.

Inače, na mene su profeionalno isto uticale neke knjige koje su mi otvorile neke nove horizonte i naterale da mislim o nekim stvarima na za mene nov način, a čije nedostatke sad prilično jasno vidim. Pa su mi opet bitne i vidim da negde u glavi polemišem sa njima i danas.

Na sta mislis kad kaze da kritikuje feminizam? On kritikuje teoriju prema kojoj nema kognitivnih razlika izmedju muskaraca i zena, sto je, bilo tacno ili ne, legitiman stav u naucnoj debati. Ali ne izvodi iz toga (koliko znam) politicke ili moralne zakljucke o jednakosti polova. Ovde recimo kaze, i ja se potpuno slazem sa njim:

"But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, "I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all," or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism."

E, ali pazi, kao i uvek, Pinker ne može da se zadovolji ovom tvrdnjom, nego mora da se upetlja u nešto o čemu zna vrlo malo, na bazi užasno biased izvora. Npr:


Anyone familiar with academia knows that it breeds ideological cults that
are prone to dogma and resistant to criticism. Many women believe that this
has now happened to feminism. In her book WhoStole Feminism? the philosopher
Christina Hoff Sommers draws a useful distinction between.two schools
of thought. 11 Equityfeminism opposes sex discrimination and other forms of
unfairness to women. It is part of the classicalliberal and humanistic tradition
that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism
and launched the second wave. Gender feminism holds that women continue
to be enslaved by a pervasive system of male dominance, the gender system, in
which "bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities,
the one destined to command, the other to obey."12 It is opposed to
the classical liberal tradition and allied instead with Marxism, postmodernism,
social constructionism, and radical science. It has became the credo of
some women's studies programs, feminist organizations, and spokespeople
for the women's movement.
Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no
commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender
feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about
human nature. The first is that the differences betweenmenand1YPmen have
nothing to do with biology but are socially constrl.\S. tgeir entirety. The
second is that humans possess a single social motive2lfiWei-4-and that social
life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that
human interactions arise not from-the motives of people dealing with each
other as individuals but from the motives of groups deidmgwith other
groups-in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.

E, sad, , ukratko, Hoff Sommers je right-wing blenta koja piše anti-fminističke paškvile, uz pomoć neo-con American Enterprise Institute-a, čiji je resident scholar. Nešto između našeg Antonića i našeg Milivojevića -knjige joj po pravilu bivaju pokidane u komade in reviews, ali publika to čita za sve pare - rasprad tradicionalnih uloga, feminizam uništva našu decu, itd. A kad zatreba, bogami, oće da napiše i ovako nešto:


This sublime poetry has been unappreciated in American society for more than a quarter of a century. But that appears to be changing. The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors. But fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects.The gender activists who fill our schools and government agencies will continue with their efforts to make boys more docile and emotional. But fewer and fewer Americans will support them. Maleness is back in fashion. And one reason is that Americans are increasingly aware that traditional male traits such as aggression, competitiveness, risk-taking and stoicism—constrained by virtues of valor, honor and self-sacrifice—are essential to the well-being and safety of our society.

Eto to je ta velika equity feministkinja u čiju se knjigu pouzda Pinker. Kad smo kod toga o tzv. equity feminizmu najbolje kod PZ Meyers-a:

I like much of what Steven Pinker writes, but I thought his book, The Blank Slate, was terrible for its black-and-white version of the nature/nurture argument. As a developmental biologist, I’m probably about as far to the plastic, environmentally-influenced side of the argument as you can get, and I don’t believe the human mind is a “blank slate”. I don’t know anyone who does (I’m sure they exist, spinning out endless wordy fables in humanities departments…but they’re not operationally significant at all in the biology departments).
Now Pinker gets cited by a British loon who wants to use his arguments as veiled racism, and of course he’s also anti-feminist. So he cheerfully cites Pinker in support, and unfortunately, this is Pinker setting up a false dichotomy…but it’s also Pinker writing wonderfully clearly and economically.
Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
Oh, man, where to begin…
First, that’s straight from Christina Hoff Sommers, the one ‘feminist’ (she’s more of an anti-feminist) writer the misogynists love to quote. I have heard so many raving nutcases throw around the terms “gender” and “equity feminism” as authoritative put-downs of any attempt to promote feminist issues, when what they really are are silencing tools to misrepresent people’s views.
Equity feminism, as presented in that quote, is nonsense. It’s like those people who claim they “don’t see color”, and therefore they aren’t racist and are treating all non-white people equally. You can’t pretend to be color-blind or sex-blind in a culture that privileges white maleness! Yes, we want to promote equal opportunity for all, but you won’t achieve that by pretending that the historical and social consequences of sex and race don’t exist. Respect human beings as male, female, or trans; as black, brown, or white. Recognize the realities of culture and biology, neither of which are as discrete and binary as postulated there.
It’s like we’re all running a hundred meter dash, and some people get a 95 meter head start, while others begin 100 meters behind the starting line…and we’re all going to agree to turn a blind eye to those inequities because we’ve sworn to pretend that everyone gets a fair start. So no, I’m not an “equity feminist”.
But now look at that definition of gender feminists. I’m sure such creatures exist — in a country with a Tea Party, we all know by now that caricatures do come to life — but look at the details there. Pinker lists 3 defining characteristics, and I don’t agree with a single one of them. 1) Men and women have different biological predispositions (which cannot be reduced to trite cliches, like women are good at housecleaning and men like football), 2) social interactions are complex and cannot be distilled down to a single factor, and 3) there are multiple levels of interaction — individual, race, sex, class — that affect motives and outcomes. Gosh, I differ because I think human interactions are actually complicated!
So I read that nice clear statement by Pinker, and I have to conclude that I must not be any kind of feminist at all.
Either that, or Christina Hoff Sommers is full of shit.

Ukratko, equity feminism is no feminism at all, tj to je stav da je feminizam već pobedio garantujući formalnu jednakost pred zakonom i da su sve nejednakosti koje i dalje ostaju samo odraz ličnih izbora i prirodnih razlika. To je inače nešto što je Pinkeru jako blisko - on otprilike smatra da su sva dosadašnje dostignuća u emancipaciji pokazatelj toga koliko smo daleko stigli kao civilizacija, ali da su sve preostale nejednakosti prirodne, a ko to poriče, poriče nauku. Drugim rečima, on radi ono što je svaki branilac status quo-a kao najboljeg od svih mogućih svetova, oduvek i radio, naturalizuje status quo.

Konačno - ovo je još jedan primer onog demon move-a koji Pinker upotrebljava u celoj knjizi - prilepiti svojim ideološkim protivnicima da zastupaju tako blesave stavove, da na kraju mr objective science himself mora da pobedi po difoltu. A to što se on podacima napaja na Enterprise Institute-u, nema veze, jer gledaj - one poriču nauku!!!


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:58 pm

William Murderface wrote:
Ointagru Unartan wrote:

Na sta mislis kad kaze da kritikuje feminizam? On kritikuje teoriju prema kojoj nema kognitivnih razlika izmedju muskaraca i zena, sto je, bilo tacno ili ne, legitiman stav u naucnoj debati. Ali ne izvodi iz toga (koliko znam) politicke ili moralne zakljucke o jednakosti polova. Ovde recimo kaze, i ja se potpuno slazem sa njim:

"But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, "I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all," or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism."

E, ali pazi, kao i uvek, Pinker ne može da se zadovolji ovom tvrdnjom, nego mora da se upetlja u nešto o čemu zna vrlo malo, na bazi užasno biased izvora. Npr:


Anyone familiar with academia knows that it breeds ideological cults that
are prone to dogma and resistant to criticism. Many women believe that this
has now happened to feminism. In her book WhoStole Feminism? the philosopher
Christina Hoff Sommers draws a useful distinction between.two schools
of thought. 11 Equityfeminism opposes sex discrimination and other forms of
unfairness to women. It is part of the classicalliberal and humanistic tradition
that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism
and launched the second wave. Gender feminism holds that women continue
to be enslaved by a pervasive system of male dominance, the gender system, in
which "bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities,
the one destined to command, the other to obey."12 It is opposed to
the classical liberal tradition and allied instead with Marxism, postmodernism,
social constructionism, and radical science. It has became the credo of
some women's studies programs, feminist organizations, and spokespeople
for the women's movement.
Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no
commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender
feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about
human nature. The first is that the differences betweenmenand1YPmen have
nothing to do with biology but are socially constrl.\S. tgeir entirety. The
second is that humans possess a single social motive2lfiWei-4-and that social
life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that
human interactions arise not from-the motives of people dealing with each
other as individuals but from the motives of groups deidmgwith other
groups-in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.

E, sad, , ukratko, Hoff Sommers je right-wing blenta koja piše anti-fminističke paškvile, uz pomoć neo-con American Enterprise Institute-a, čiji je resident scholar. Nešto između našeg Antonića i našeg Milivojevića -knjige joj po pravilu bivaju pokidane u komade in reviews, ali publika to čita za sve pare - rasprad tradicionalnih uloga, feminizam uništva našu decu, itd. A kad zatreba, bogami, oće da napiše i ovako nešto:


This sublime poetry has been unappreciated in American society for more than a quarter of a century. But that appears to be changing. The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors. But fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects.The gender activists who fill our schools and government agencies will continue with their efforts to make boys more docile and emotional. But fewer and fewer Americans will support them. Maleness is back in fashion. And one reason is that Americans are increasingly aware that traditional male traits such as aggression, competitiveness, risk-taking and stoicism—constrained by virtues of valor, honor and self-sacrifice—are essential to the well-being and safety of our society.

Eto to je ta velika equity feministkinja u čiju se knjigu pouzda Pinker. Kad smo kod toga o tzv. equity feminizmu najbolje kod PZ Meyers-a:

I like much of what Steven Pinker writes, but I thought his book, The Blank Slate, was terrible for its black-and-white version of the nature/nurture argument. As a developmental biologist, I’m probably about as far to the plastic, environmentally-influenced side of the argument as you can get, and I don’t believe the human mind is a “blank slate”. I don’t know anyone who does (I’m sure they exist, spinning out endless wordy fables in humanities departments…but they’re not operationally significant at all in the biology departments).
Now Pinker gets cited by a British loon who wants to use his arguments as veiled racism, and of course he’s also anti-feminist. So he cheerfully cites Pinker in support, and unfortunately, this is Pinker setting up a false dichotomy…but it’s also Pinker writing wonderfully clearly and economically.

Oh, man, where to begin…
First, that’s straight from Christina Hoff Sommers, the one ‘feminist’ (she’s more of an anti-feminist) writer the misogynists love to quote. I have heard so many raving nutcases throw around the terms “gender” and “equity feminism” as authoritative put-downs of any attempt to promote feminist issues, when what they really are are silencing tools to misrepresent people’s views.
Equity feminism, as presented in that quote, is nonsense. It’s like those people who claim they “don’t see color”, and therefore they aren’t racist and are treating all non-white people equally. You can’t pretend to be color-blind or sex-blind in a culture that privileges white maleness! Yes, we want to promote equal opportunity for all, but you won’t achieve that by pretending that the historical and social consequences of sex and race don’t exist. Respect human beings as male, female, or trans; as black, brown, or white. Recognize the realities of culture and biology, neither of which are as discrete and binary as postulated there.
It’s like we’re all running a hundred meter dash, and some people get a 95 meter head start, while others begin 100 meters behind the starting line…and we’re all going to agree to turn a blind eye to those inequities because we’ve sworn to pretend that everyone gets a fair start. So no, I’m not an “equity feminist”.
But now look at that definition of gender feminists. I’m sure such creatures exist — in a country with a Tea Party, we all know by now that caricatures do come to life — but look at the details there. Pinker lists 3 defining characteristics, and I don’t agree with a single one of them. 1) Men and women have different biological predispositions (which cannot be reduced to trite cliches, like women are good at housecleaning and men like football), 2) social interactions are complex and cannot be distilled down to a single factor, and 3) there are multiple levels of interaction — individual, race, sex, class — that affect motives and outcomes. Gosh, I differ because I think human interactions are actually complicated!
So I read that nice clear statement by Pinker, and I have to conclude that I must not be any kind of feminist at all.
Either that, or Christina Hoff Sommers is full of shit.

Ukratko, equity feminism is no feminism at all, tj to je stav da je feminizam već pobedio garantujući formalnu jednakost pred zakonom i da su sve nejednakosti koje i dalje ostaju samo odraz ličnih izbora i prirodnih razlika. To je inače nešto što je Pinkeru jako blisko - on otprilike smatra da su sva dosadašnje dostignuća u emancipaciji pokazatelj toga koliko smo daleko stigli kao civilizacija, ali da su sve preostale nejednakosti prirodne, a ko to poriče, poriče nauku. Drugim rečima, on radi ono što je svaki branilac status quo-a kao najboljeg od svih mogućih svetova, oduvek i radio, naturalizuje status quo.

Konačno - ovo je još jedan primer onog demon move-a koji Pinker upotrebljava u celoj knjizi - prilepiti svojim ideološkim protivnicima da zastupaju tako blesave stavove, da na kraju mr objective science himself mora da pobedi po difoltu. A to što se on podacima napaja na Enterprise Institute-u, nema veze, jer gledaj - one poriču nauku!!!

Moj je utisak, na osnovu Pinkerovog opisa "standardnog modela drustvenih nauka", da on nije bas podrobno upoznat sa njima. I onda pozajmljuje ideje od drugih autora, pri cemu se vidi i odredjena ideoloska pristrasnost. To je jedna stvar.

Druga stvar je kad Pinker vise ne govori uopsteno o drustvenim i "objektivnim" naukama, o tipovima feminizma itd, vec govori o konkretnim pitanjima, naprimer o razlozima nejednakog broja muskaraca i zena medju naucnicima. Pitanje ideoloske motivisanosti tu prestaje da bude relevantno, bitan je samo kvaliet naucnih argumenata, a tu se on mislim ne snalazi lose.

Drugim recima, razlikujem Pinkera ideologa i Pinkera naucnika. Kao ideolog mi ne lezi (i slazem se, posle tvog objasnjenja, da na kvarno napada feminizam), kao naucnik mi je povremeno interesantan, bas zato sto dovodi u pitanje neke pretpostavke drustvenih nauka koje sam uzimao zdravo za gotovo (opet, ne kada prica u opstim crtama vec kad se radi o tumacenju specificnih fenomena).
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:23 pm

Jebi ga, to je gore vrlo pristrasno... ali, nemam ja ni vremena ni zivaca da idem kroz taj kupus. A ima i cele 3 god. otkad sam pomenutu knjigu procitao i nije mi vise prisutna u svakodnevnici.

Meni je, s druge strane, zanimljivo zasto je par forumasa toliko motivisano da ide u najsitnija crevca u dekonstrukciji Pinkera. Kanda je on tu pogodio neki nerv.

Ali, u ime mira u kuci... over & out.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:38 pm

William Murderface wrote:Ova knjiga je u velikoj, ako ne i najvećoj meri, a piece of cultural polemic, i mislim da je se mora i tako čitati.

nije nikakvo opravdanje, ali moguce je i da su te povrsne vizije filozofskih sistema deo povrsnih vizija koje psihologija ima. psihologija se dodirne sa filozofijom svako malo, ali po pravilu traljavo. moje profe su mislile da nam donose nesto uzviseno kad bi nam pricali o filozofiji (uostalom, drzali su hegela i kanta na polici, ej!), a u stvari bi se mahom frljali s poluinformacijama. tako da i dalje mislim da je osnov knjige reakcija na dinamiku unutar psihologije, koja vodi do niza neosvescenih implicitnih ideja tokom citanja podataka. jedna od tih ideja, glavna kojom se evoluciona psihologija bavi, rule number one, je da su geni i sredina nerazdvojivi. sto puta sam naisla na tumacenja gde se eksplicitno to potvrdjuje ('da, naravno da postoji nesto urodjeno u licnosti') a onda implicitno ipak ne ('kazes da geni uticu na ponasanje, a gde je tu kultura?). posto sam se u tom periodu i bavila psihologijom licnosti, jako mi se dopalo otvaranje niza kompleksnosti u tumacenju odnosa geni-sredina, i mogla sam da vidim da se i u strucnoj literaturi te kompleksnosti cesto svode na naivnu ideju o razdvojivosti biologije i kulture, ili na naivnu ideju da se jednom moze pripisati iks posto medjuljudskih razlika, a drugom ipsilon posto. a sama ideja bavljenja istrazivanjima koje bi ceprkale po genetskim razlikama itekako nije bila kosher jako dugo. tako da, iako postoji cultural polemic tu, vrlo veliki deo se bavi stvarnim stanjem u sopstvenoj nauci. 

e sad, how the mind works koji je prethodio blenk slejtu je bio okrenut kognitivnoj psihologiji (percepciji, pamcenju, paznji...) i opisu istrazivanja kojima nastoji da pokaze da postoji niz univerzalnih psihickih karakteristika i da su medjuljudske razlike samo jedno blago mreskanje talasa nad okeanom slicnosti. onda u blank slate dublje ulazi u te talase, analizira onaj delic koji se moze pripisati genima, da bi se u better angels okrenuo onome sto se moze pripisati drustvenim promenama. sto se vise udaljava od univerzalija to je losiji, i generalno sto je stariji i popularniji sve je spremniji da prosto daje svoje misljenje, sto je izgleda nekakva kletva popularnih profesora. 

imam jos toga da kazem, budem cim stignem.


ali stvarno je iritantna ova polemika gde se izgleda slazemo oko svega 


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 20246
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:42 pm

mislim da je problem bila, u jednom trenutku, uzasna dominacija tog diskursa. drugo, moj problem, s celom tom linijom misljenja, je bio sto su svi lovili meme poput nekih leptira dok su svi mehanizmi ideoloskih levijatana ostajali netaknuti. 

sto se vilijama tice njemu je posao da ide u sitna crevca:D
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:11 pm

timur chevket wrote:mislim da je problem bila, u jednom trenutku, uzasna dominacija tog diskursa. drugo, moj problem, s celom tom linijom misljenja, je bio sto su svi lovili meme poput nekih leptira dok su svi mehanizmi ideoloskih levijatana ostajali netaknuti. 

sto se vilijama tice njemu je posao da ide u sitna crevca:D

Gde je bila ta dominacija? Za sve vreme skolovanja u drustvenim naukama Pinker niti bilo ko iz te skupine nisu kod mene ni jednom recju bili pomenuti, kao da je to sto tvrde neizreciv tabu. Verovatno je stvar nesto drugacija kod Anglosaksonaca, a u Srbiji ne znam kako je.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:31 pm

u srbiji nisu culi za evolucionu kad sam ja studirala. otprilike, istorija psihologije se zavrsava sa skinerom. to jest nije ni otprilike, predmet 'skole i pravci' je tacno tu i stao, a i neki drugi predmeti.

mislim da timur misli na antropolosku rasisticku misao kasnog 19. i ranog 20. veka, posle koje je dosao humanizam. iz tog humanizma se rodila savremena psihologija, koja je onda ponovo otkrila ideje koje su bile odbacene u drugim drustvenim naukama. odnosno ljudi iz drugih bransi vide budjenje tih starih demona u pinkeru, i meni se nekad cini da se vise razracunavaju sa njima nego sa onim sto on zbilja govori.


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:40 pm

Ointagru Unartan wrote:
Moj je utisak, na osnovu Pinkerovog opisa "standardnog modela drustvenih nauka", da on nije bas podrobno upoznat sa njima. I onda pozajmljuje ideje od drugih autora, pri cemu se vidi i odredjena ideoloska pristrasnost. To je jedna stvar.

Druga stvar je kad Pinker vise ne govori uopsteno o drustvenim i "objektivnim" naukama, o tipovima feminizma itd, vec govori o konkretnim pitanjima, naprimer o razlozima nejednakog broja muskaraca i zena medju naucnicima. Pitanje ideoloske motivisanosti tu prestaje da bude relevantno, bitan je samo kvaliet naucnih argumenata, a tu se on mislim ne snalazi lose.

Drugim recima, razlikujem Pinkera ideologa i Pinkera naucnika. Kao ideolog mi ne lezi (i slazem se, posle tvog objasnjenja, da na kvarno napada feminizam), kao naucnik mi je povremeno interesantan, bas zato sto dovodi u pitanje neke pretpostavke drustvenih nauka koje sam uzimao zdravo za gotovo (opet, ne kada prica u opstim crtama vec kad se radi o tumacenju specificnih fenomena).

Ali tu je glavni problem. Nauka svakako ima puno toga da kaže na ove teme, ali teško da se one mogu nedvosmisleno naučno rešiti, jer je prosto previše toga u igri. Naravno da je loše ignorisati naučne razultate zbog ideološke dogme, but of course, to je toliko banalno da ne vidim ni da ga treba posebno isticati. Ali neke ideološke, moralne, političke i ostale commitments itekako imaju udela u tome kako ćemo ugraditi izvesne naučne nalaze u svoju širu sliku sveta. Tako je i sa samim Pinkerom uostalom, pri čemu je njegova šira slika jako simplifikovana, on ogromne rupe popunjava prosto ideološkim pamfletima. ALi ja čak ni sa tim nemam problem. Veći problem je u nečemu drugom - što on jedan u suštini ideološki spor pokušava da šortkatuje navodnim naučnim dokazima, ali to neće da može, ne zato što naučni dokazi nisu bitni, nego zato što nisu dovoljni. Pritom bi da to učini ne kao partizan jedne ideologije - što je opet meni sasvim okej - nego kao mr objective science, što zapravo, čim iz laboratorije pređe u forum, prestaje da bude. Konačno, naučni dokazi na koje se pozvia su u najmanju ruku sporni, odnosno, bemty to svakako bolje zna od mene, samo jedni u nizu različitih naučnih istraživanja sa vrlo protivrečnim razultatima.

Imaš dve jako dobre kritike Blank Slate-a, jednu Blekbrnovu, drugu Malikovu, koje sažimaju i većinu mojih primedbi. Ključna je čini mi se ova Malikova:



Drawing on the work of the American economist Thomas Sowell, Pinker suggests that there are two broad visions of what it is to be human: the Tragic and the Utopian. The Tragic Vision recognises that humans are 'inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtue, and all social arrangements must acknowledge those limits'. Such limitations highlight the importance the importance of tradition: 'Religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature.' It is a vision associated with Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper - and now John Gray.
In the Utopian Vision, by contrast, 'psychological limitations are artefacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possible in a better world.' Traditions are regarded as 'the dead hand of the past, the attempt to rule from the grave', and hence must be subject to the scrutiny of reason. Only in this fashion have we rid ourselves of practices such as absolute monarchy, slavery and patriarchy 'that were once thought to be rooted in human nature'. It's a vision Pinker attributes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith and Ronald Dworkin.
'The new sciences of human nature', Pinker suggests, 'vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook'. Science has revealed the primacy of family ties, the limited scope of communal sharing, and the universality of violence, dominance and ethnocentrism. It has shown human nature to be fixed, human beings to be flawed and human politics constrained by the inadequacies of the human psyche. Since 'our moral sentiments, no matter how beneficent, overlie a deeper bedrock of selfishness', so Pinker suggests, 'we should not aim to solve social problems like crime or poverty, because in a world of competing individuals one person's gain may be another person's loss. The best we can do is to trade off one cost against another.' Or, as John Gray puts it, 'The good life is not found in dreams of progress, but in coping with tragic contingencies.'

Evolutionary psychology has certainly thrown light on many aspects of human behaviour. But it has not revealed humans to be innately ethnocentric or selfish, nor that crime and poverty are ineradicable aspects of the human condition. It is not the science of human nature that has undermined utopian visions. Rather the political demise of utopianism, has given credibility to certain interpretations of evolutionary psychology.
The barbarous history of the twentieth century - two World Wars and the Holocaust, gulags and ethnic cleansing, global warming and species depletion - has left many people disillusioned about what it means to be human. Every impression that Man makes upon the world, many have come to believe, is always for the worse. 'For the first time since 1750', Michael Ignatieff wrote in Prospect, 'people experience history not running forwards, from savagery to civilisation, but backwards to barbarism'.
The result, as Straw Dogs so strikingly reveals, has been a growth of anti-humanism, of despair about human capacities, a view of human reason as a force for destruction rather than for betterment. These views have been strengthened by changes of past two decades - the collapse of Marxism, disillusionment with ideas of social transformation, the seeming irrelevance of politics to our lives. In this process utopianism has become a dirty word, standing for the hubristic belief that human reason can solve human problems, a belief that, many feel, can only lead to totalitarianism.
The consequence of all this has been the increased acceptance that we should limit our political horizons, that we should look to manage rather than to overcome problems, and that we should look to science to explain why we cannot do certain things rather than to politics to see how we can. Against this background many have read evolutionary accounts of human nature as explanations of human limits, as scientific validation of the impossibility of social solutions to our most deep-seated problems.


Inače, samo jedna kratka primedba - meni se čini da Pinker iz Blank Slate nije isti kao i Pinker iz Better Angels. Prvi je mnogo pesimističniji, baš konzerva po mnogo čemu, oslanja se na Sowella i Berka, a drugi je neka vrsta trijumfalističkog klintoniste - sve je super, mi smo super, i bićemo još bolji. Pinker iz BS ciguliše o "tragičnoj viziji" čovečanstva, a ovaj iz Better Angels je baš onako jedan liberalni utopista. Mada panglosovski kontinuitet svakako postoji.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:41 pm

e da, spomenula sam gore dzona votsona. nije dzon nego dzejms, glupi brzi prsti. dzon je naucni brat od krika, dzejms je tvorac bihejviorizma. 

(hint: vredi kliknuti na link!)


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:46 pm

William Murderface wrote:bemty to svakako bolje zna od mene, samo jedni u nizu različitih naučnih istraživanja sa vrlo protivrečnim razultatima.

e, bas o tome hocu kad uhvatim momenat bez detata, meni je i taj deo njegove knjige bio bas dragocen u momentu rascepljenosti izmedju aktivizma i nauke gde sam dobijala potpuno razlicite poruke i cinilo mi se da su mi ti svetovi neporljivi. ali to zahteva ozbiljan post, o stanju u jednoj maloj pod-discriplini. lejter gejters.


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:48 pm

bemty wrote:u srbiji nisu culi za evolucionu kad sam ja studirala. otprilike, istorija psihologije se zavrsava sa skinerom. to jest nije ni otprilike, predmet 'skole i pravci' je tacno tu i stao, a i neki drugi predmeti.

mislim da timur misli na antropolosku rasisticku misao kasnog 19. i ranog 20. veka, posle koje je dosao humanizam. iz tog humanizma se rodila savremena psihologija, koja je onda ponovo otkrila ideje koje su bile odbacene u drugim drustvenim naukama. odnosno ljudi iz drugih bransi vide budjenje tih starih demona u pinkeru, i meni se nekad cini da se vise razracunavaju sa njima nego sa onim sto on zbilja govori.
 
Bojim se da je sličnost jasna - odbrana status quo-a kroz petrifikovanje ljudske prirode. Pri čemu je naravno status quo bio drugačiji tada, a drugačiji je sada, pa je i odbrana drugačija. Tako Pinker može da bude univerzalista i po mnogim bitanjima ba jedan dobar liberal, ali mora da objasni da je svaka politika uzaludna, da nam se najbolje promene dešavaju iza leđa, kroz tržište (tj reciprocitet) i da je najbolje što možemo da radimo da budemo zahvalni Levijatanu što nas štiti i da čekamo da tržište odradi svoj posao of expanding the circle.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:49 pm

bemty wrote:
William Murderface wrote:bemty to svakako bolje zna od mene, samo jedni u nizu različitih naučnih istraživanja sa vrlo protivrečnim razultatima.

e, bas o tome hocu kad uhvatim momenat bez detata, meni je i taj deo njegove knjige bio bas dragocen u momentu rascepljenosti izmedju aktivizma i nauke gde sam dobijala potpuno razlicite poruke i cinilo mi se da su mi ti svetovi neporljivi. ali to zahteva ozbiljan post, o stanju u jednoj maloj pod-discriplini. lejter gejters.

Mislio sam prvo da si htela da napišeš - "bez detalja"


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:02 pm

William Murderface wrote:
Ointagru Unartan wrote:
Moj je utisak, na osnovu Pinkerovog opisa "standardnog modela drustvenih nauka", da on nije bas podrobno upoznat sa njima. I onda pozajmljuje ideje od drugih autora, pri cemu se vidi i odredjena ideoloska pristrasnost. To je jedna stvar.

Druga stvar je kad Pinker vise ne govori uopsteno o drustvenim i "objektivnim" naukama, o tipovima feminizma itd, vec govori o konkretnim pitanjima, naprimer o razlozima nejednakog broja muskaraca i zena medju naucnicima. Pitanje ideoloske motivisanosti tu prestaje da bude relevantno, bitan je samo kvaliet naucnih argumenata, a tu se on mislim ne snalazi lose.

Drugim recima, razlikujem Pinkera ideologa i Pinkera naucnika. Kao ideolog mi ne lezi (i slazem se, posle tvog objasnjenja, da na kvarno napada feminizam), kao naucnik mi je povremeno interesantan, bas zato sto dovodi u pitanje neke pretpostavke drustvenih nauka koje sam uzimao zdravo za gotovo (opet, ne kada prica u opstim crtama vec kad se radi o tumacenju specificnih fenomena).

Ali tu je glavni problem. Nauka svakako ima puno toga da kaže na ove teme, ali teško da se one mogu nedvosmisleno naučno rešiti, jer je prosto previše toga u igri. Naravno da je loše ignorisati naučne razultate zbog ideološke dogme, but of course, to je toliko banalno da ne vidim ni da ga treba posebno isticati. Ali neke ideološke, moralne, političke i ostale commitments itekako imaju udela u tome kako ćemo ugraditi izvesne naučne nalaze u svoju širu sliku sveta. Tako je i sa samim Pinkerom uostalom, pri čemu je njegova šira slika jako simplifikovana, on ogromne rupe popunjava prosto ideološkim pamfletima. ALi ja čak ni sa tim nemam problem. Veći problem je u nečemu drugom - što on jedan u suštini ideološki spor pokušava da šortkatuje navodnim naučnim dokazima, ali to neće da može, ne zato što naučni dokazi nisu bitni, nego zato što nisu dovoljni. Pritom bi da to učini ne kao partizan jedne ideologije - što je opet meni sasvim okej - nego kao mr objective science, što zapravo, čim iz laboratorije pređe u forum, prestaje da bude. Konačno, naučni dokazi na koje se pozvia su u najmanju ruku sporni, odnosno, bemty to svakako bolje zna od mene, samo jedni u nizu različitih naučnih istraživanja sa vrlo protivrečnim razultatima.

Imaš dve jako dobre kritike Blank Slate-a, jednu Blekbrnovu, drugu Malikovu, koje sažimaju i većinu mojih primedbi. Ključna je čini mi se ova Malikova:



Drawing on the work of the American economist Thomas Sowell, Pinker suggests that there are two broad visions of what it is to be human: the Tragic and the Utopian. The Tragic Vision recognises that humans are 'inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtue, and all social arrangements must acknowledge those limits'. Such limitations highlight the importance the importance of tradition: 'Religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature.' It is a vision associated with Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper - and now John Gray.
In the Utopian Vision, by contrast, 'psychological limitations are artefacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possible in a better world.' Traditions are regarded as 'the dead hand of the past, the attempt to rule from the grave', and hence must be subject to the scrutiny of reason. Only in this fashion have we rid ourselves of practices such as absolute monarchy, slavery and patriarchy 'that were once thought to be rooted in human nature'. It's a vision Pinker attributes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith and Ronald Dworkin.
'The new sciences of human nature', Pinker suggests, 'vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook'. Science has revealed the primacy of family ties, the limited scope of communal sharing, and the universality of violence, dominance and ethnocentrism. It has shown human nature to be fixed, human beings to be flawed and human politics constrained by the inadequacies of the human psyche. Since 'our moral sentiments, no matter how beneficent, overlie a deeper bedrock of selfishness', so Pinker suggests, 'we should not aim to solve social problems like crime or poverty, because in a world of competing individuals one person's gain may be another person's loss. The best we can do is to trade off one cost against another.' Or, as John Gray puts it, 'The good life is not found in dreams of progress, but in coping with tragic contingencies.'

Evolutionary psychology has certainly thrown light on many aspects of human behaviour. But it has not revealed humans to be innately ethnocentric or selfish, nor that crime and poverty are ineradicable aspects of the human condition. It is not the science of human nature that has undermined utopian visions. Rather the political demise of utopianism, has given credibility to certain interpretations of evolutionary psychology.
The barbarous history of the twentieth century - two World Wars and the Holocaust, gulags and ethnic cleansing, global warming and species depletion - has left many people disillusioned about what it means to be human. Every impression that Man makes upon the world, many have come to believe, is always for the worse. 'For the first time since 1750', Michael Ignatieff wrote in Prospect, 'people experience history not running forwards, from savagery to civilisation, but backwards to barbarism'.
The result, as Straw Dogs so strikingly reveals, has been a growth of anti-humanism, of despair about human capacities, a view of human reason as a force for destruction rather than for betterment. These views have been strengthened by changes of past two decades - the collapse of Marxism, disillusionment with ideas of social transformation, the seeming irrelevance of politics to our lives. In this process utopianism has become a dirty word, standing for the hubristic belief that human reason can solve human problems, a belief that, many feel, can only lead to totalitarianism.
The consequence of all this has been the increased acceptance that we should limit our political horizons, that we should look to manage rather than to overcome problems, and that we should look to science to explain why we cannot do certain things rather than to politics to see how we can. Against this background many have read evolutionary accounts of human nature as explanations of human limits, as scientific validation of the impossibility of social solutions to our most deep-seated problems.


Inače, samo jedna kratka primedba - meni se čini da Pinker iz Blank Slate nije isti kao i Pinker iz Better Angels. Prvi je mnogo pesimističniji, baš konzerva po mnogo čemu, oslanja se na Sowella i Berka, a drugi je neka vrsta trijumfalističkog klintoniste - sve je super, mi smo super, i bićemo još bolji. Pinker iz BS ciguliše o "tragičnoj viziji" čovečanstva, a ovaj iz Better Angels je baš onako jedan liberalni utopista. Mada panglosovski kontinuitet svakako postoji.

Debata izmedju konzervatizma i progresizma nece biti okoncana naucnim dokazima, tu se slazemo. Sa druge strane, u spor oko objasnjenja nejednakog broja zena i muskaraca u vrhunskoj nauci ne bi trebalo uplitati ideologiju. To jeste i politicko i ideolosko pitanje, (btw, ostavio sam pogresan link pre, hteo sam ovo da linkujem), ali bi ga kao takvog trebalo drzati odvojenim od debate o objasnjenju. Po mom misljenju medjusobni uticaj izmedju te dve sfere, naucne i ideolosko-politicke, je logicno jednosmeran: nauka moze da pomogne u proceni validnosti ideoloskih argumenata, sto naravno ne vazi samo za evolucionu psihologiju, vec i za socijologiju i druge nauke, vec u zavisnosti od teme, ali jedino pod uslovom da sama ostane nezavisna od ideoloskog uticaja (ne u smislu nepostojanja ideoloskih motiva kod naucnika, vec u smislu da nije ideologija ta koja presudjuje o vrednosti teorija, vec naucni metod).

Inace, Spelke upravo pokazuje kako je Pinkerove argumente o tom konkretnom pitanju moguce pobiti (delimicno uspesno, IMO) bez potezanja ideologije.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:08 pm

E, znam tu debatu, odgledao na jućubu (mislim da sam čak i kačio na tamou).


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:20 pm

William Murderface wrote:E, znam tu debatu, odgledao na jućubu (mislim da sam čak i kačio na tamou).

A jel vidis kako lepo razgovaraju? Pinker je mozda samo obrazovanija verzija Dr. Zoce, ali tu nastupa kao naucnik, ne kao sarlatan koji uvija u naucnu oblandu svoje ideoloske predrasude.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 45417
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:11 am

Naravno, slažem se. Konkretna tema, konkretni argumenti, sve ok.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 20246
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:00 pm

Ointagru Unartan wrote:
timur chevket wrote:mislim da je problem bila, u jednom trenutku, uzasna dominacija tog diskursa. drugo, moj problem, s celom tom linijom misljenja, je bio sto su svi lovili meme poput nekih leptira dok su svi mehanizmi ideoloskih levijatana ostajali netaknuti. 

sto se vilijama tice njemu je posao da ide u sitna crevca:D

Gde je bila ta dominacija? Za sve vreme skolovanja u drustvenim naukama Pinker niti bilo ko iz te skupine nisu kod mene ni jednom recju bili pomenuti, kao da je to sto tvrde neizreciv tabu. Verovatno je stvar nesto drugacija kod Anglosaksonaca, a u Srbiji ne znam kako je.

bemty wrote:u srbiji nisu culi za evolucionu kad sam ja studirala. otprilike, istorija psihologije se zavrsava sa skinerom. to jest nije ni otprilike, predmet 'skole i pravci' je tacno tu i stao, a i neki drugi predmeti.

mislim da timur misli na antropolosku rasisticku misao kasnog 19. i ranog 20. veka, posle koje je dosao humanizam. iz tog humanizma se rodila savremena psihologija, koja je onda ponovo otkrila ideje koje su bile odbacene u drugim drustvenim naukama. odnosno ljudi iz drugih bransi vide budjenje tih starih demona u pinkeru, i meni se nekad cini da se vise razracunavaju sa njima nego sa onim sto on zbilja govori.

dugujem pojasnjenje. moguce je da je to stvar rakursa ali, na primer, marko zivkovic, antropolog i autor knjige srpski sanovnik, mi je prepricavao muke koje je imao sa novom generacijom doktoranata koji su dolazili kod njega sa uzasno simplifikovanim i zapravo seksistickim tezama (na primer - u vremenu krize zene vise kupuju ruz i najlonke kako bi lakse privukle alfa muzjake koji se bolje snalaze u toj situaciji) potpuno zanemarujuci kulturoloske, klasne ili ekonomske tangente. naravno, njega je to dovodilo do ludila. 

znaci, postoje delovi naucne zajednice u kojima je darwinian storytelling bio uzeo maha. nije za to kriv pinker kao sto za ekonomski redukcionizam staljinista nije kriv marks ali to znaci da je toga u tragovima vec bilo i u originalnim tekstovima.
avatar

Posts : 20246
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:25 pm

jos samo da dodam da je odnos nauke i ideologije daleko ambivalentniji nego sto se cini na prvi pogled. to jeste jednostavno zato sto cinjenice nikada ne govore za sebe vec cekaju neke ljude. a odredjeni ideoloski narativi obezbedjuju da je taj govornik watson a ne rosalinda franklin.


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 1973
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:09 pm

dugujem odgovor vec neko vreme, ali uhvatio me neki zivotni sjeb.

sta smo ono imali?

viljeme, kazes da pinker sedi na gomili stolica. meni cini da ima jasan princip koji spaja razlicite knjige: da predstavlja nesto sto je (za njegovo okruzenje) nepopularan stav. to spaja i ideju o univerzalizmu u psihologiji, i ideju o uticaju gena na licnost i posebno na m-z kognitivne sposobnosti, i ideju o tome da su standardizovani testovi u obrazovanju dobra stvar (nesto sto trenutno cela amerika mrzi, a on bloguje za), i ideju o svetu u kojem vlada sve manje nasilja. sve to skupa pada pod kapu akademske trzisne ekonomije gde je sokantnost na ceni, even if it's bad publicity. bila je jednom jedna forumasica po imenu sioran koju indy i ja povremeno prizivamo nazad na forume, koja je slusala poneki kurs kod pinkera i bila veliki poklonik. i ona je imala tu istu pricu, smatrala je da je jedna od karakteristika dobrog naucnog rada da je iznenadjujuci - a to je jedna opsta socijalno-psiholoska skola misljenja kojoj se i pinker prikljucio. 

upravo ona skola misljenja koja ovih dana trpi teske udarce jer je proizvela gomilu nereplikabilnih studija birajuci za objavljivanje bas one koje su davale iznenadjujuce resultate (hint: zbog ciste slucajnosti). 

ono sto mi se ipak jako svidja kod njega je sto ima obicaj da prvo predoci sve podatke kojima barata, pa tek onda daje interpretaciju. takva je i better angels ma koliko bila spekulativna: krece od gomile grafika, sto dopusta citaocu, ili makar naucno obrazovanom citaocu, da formira svoje misljenje. i mislim da nije cherry picker (bar ne vise nego sto smo svi mi u nauci cherry pickeri kad trazimo argumente za neki stav), nego cak da ima obrnuti problem, da pokusava da objasni sve zivo nekim principom pa nabacuje sve na sta naidje. tako da sam u blank slate od poglavlja do poglavlja mogla i da se prilicno slozim (decaci sporije razvijaju socijalnu kogniciju) i da se prilicno ne slozim (zene vole roze) na osnovu iznetog. e sad, nekad zauzima bird's eye view naustrb preciznosti, pa se tako desava da ofrlje citira neki zakljucak gde bi dublja analiza stiva ipak pokazala da zakjucak ne stoji. a to prepoznajem zato sto i ja to radim kad pisem preglede, nasuprot detaljisanju kad se bavim empirijom. tesko je tu naci pravi meru. nesto sto mi se takodje cini da ga karakterise, kad sam slusala jedno predavanje namenjenu opstoj publici, je da on ima prlicno maglovitu predstavu o svetu izvan akademskog. na predavanju su samo sevali grafici i tabele, bilo bi intenzivno i za strucnu javnost a kamoli za ucesnike mirovnog skupa na kom je pricao. 

elem, kritika ideje o nuzno identicnim musko-zenskim kognitivnim sposobnostima mi se *jako* dopala. zasto? zato sto je to polje nauke kata-fucking-strofa. znam i literaturu o predrasudama iz prve ruke, a znam i ljude koji su studirali zenske studije (na akreditovanim univerzitetima) i srodne humanisticke discipline i vrlo sam neimpresionirana. skoro mi je drugarica koja privodi kraju phd iz analize narativa ovde u UK konspirativno priznala kako veruje da dogadjaji u telu uticu na dogadjaje u umu, ali da je to stav koji nije dobrodosao na njenoj katedri. obicno se u nauci nadju bar dve suprotne struje koje napadaju jedno pitanje iz razlicitih uglova i time svaka strana postaje sve britkija, ali u feministickim socijalno-psiholoskim istrazivanjima postoji prilicna sloga oko opstih ideja (bias je produkt mizoginije), postoji pomesanost empirije sa prakticnim ciljevima, postoji koriscenje brojki na najgori moguci manipulantski cherry-pickerski nacin uz istovremeno zgrazavanje nad kvantifikacijom ljudske duse. to je polje laznih, napumpanih brojeva i pogresnih interpretacija. mislim, vise nego sto je to inace slucaj u nauci.   pricam recimo o situaciji da se tvrdi da su zene placene 25% manje od muskaraca za jednaki rad - a zapravo nije za jednaki rad. to je stetno, uzasno stetno, to odbija ljude a totalno je nepotrebno. pocelo je da odbija i mene, kad sam naucila dovoljno na faksu da se zapitam nad brojevima kad ih cujem. a feministkinja sam. 

slicno se inace desilo sa rasnim teorijama inteligencije - poljem dominiraju rasisti i proboj za ne-rasiste je bio gotovo nemoguc jer ko ce ti biti recenzent ako ne neko ko je vec u polju. elem, mislim da je naucna argumentacija za suprotni stav vrlo dragocena stvar. u inteligenciji, tek kad su se pojavili herrnstein i murray sa svojim 'bell curve', je nezadovoljstvo toliko naraslo da su najzad prodrli u casopise clanci koji kvalitetno (tj. kvalitetno empirijski a ne samo ideoloski) kritikuju metode i zakljucke, i koji mogu da pridobiju i strebere. elem, ova linija kritike tera ljude kojima sam ideoloski blize da se malo presaberu, naucno gledano. a mislim i da je u nekim argumentima u pravu. 

a kod kriticara me najvise iritira sto mu nabacuju redukcionizam i determinizam, dve stvari koje jasno i glasno odbacuje na pocetku, trosi stranice i stranice na to. zato imam osecaj da ni ne polemisu sa njim, nego sa necim sto misle da tvrdi, ili eventualno sa skupom ideja koje cine ideologiju ciji bi se clanovi eventualno pozivali na njegove knjige. njegov stav je daleko blazi od toga, bez obzira sto se moze videti kao produzetak staaarih rasistickih teza, to nisu sasvim iste teze. 
this post was fueled by lozovaca, ne terajte me da odgovaram veceras jer ko zna kako ce to ispasti 


Last edited by bemty on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:27 pm

Radagast wrote:
William Murderface wrote:Pinker je mozda samo obrazovanija verzija Dr. Zoce 
Znam da sam se pozdravio, ali moram:



Koliko vi zastraniste, bog vas mazo.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:06 pm