Pinker pred anđelima bolje prirode

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.