The Blank Slate

There have traditionally been two ways to understand society. The first is the sociological tradition, which views society as cohesive (Plato, Marx, and others fall into this camp). Reciprocal altruism is the idea of the social contract in biological terms. Social groups are an evolutionary outcome in which the benefits of living together outweigh the costs.

On the other hand, the economic or social contract tradition views society as the arrangement of self-interested people (Smith, Hobbes, and others). This second approach aligns with the theory of evolution since it emphasizes an individual’s motivation to benefit itself.

The sociological tradition has clashed with scientific understandings of human nature, and the rift between the political right and left more or less aligns with the division between the social contract and the sociological division.

According to American social theorist Thomas Sowell, there are two visions of human nature and its constraints: (1) the Tragic Vision, which considers people to be limited in knowledge, and (2) the Utopian Vision, which considers humans to be limited by social arrangements. The Tragic Vision regards humans as inherently selfish and society as the means that keeps us from our inherent barbarism. In the Utopian Vision, however, human nature is meant to change along with conditions in society, and traditions are meant to be shed. The very existence of suffering gives us the moral imperative to try to improve society. Those with a Tragic Vision advocate trusting mechanisms such as the free market in the hopes that they will work even when people are not wise or moral; those with a Utopian Vision advocate not trusting these mechanisms because their failures can hurt people. Many political arguments—the role of government, taxes, trade, crime, war, interpretations of the Constitution—follow from these two different philosophies.

E.O. Wilson’s ideas about evolutionary biology were attacked by those with a Utopian Vision since adaptations benefit individuals, not the society as a whole. The science of human nature, in Pinker’s view, vindicates more of the aspects of the Tragic Vision, including the primacy of family over communal sharing, the universality of dominance and ethnocentrism, and the partial heritability of intelligence, among other factors.

Pinker writes that liberal democracy evolved from the Tragic Vision, which, in the writings of Hobbes and others, advocated a system that controlled for humans’ inherent desire to take what others have (the psychology of dominance) and the system of reciprocal altruism. He writes that the United States Constitution is designed to implement reciprocal altruism and reign in the human desire for dominance and war. This does not mean that the Constitution guarantees happiness and a moral society, but it suggests its authors had an advanced understanding of human nature.

Biological facts challenge the tenets of both the political left and right. While the Utopian Vision has, in Pinker’s view, been discredited, he does not support the Tragic Vision either. Human nature is at times selfish, but it can also be moral. He concludes the chapter with several thinkers on the left who are able to combine the idea of human nature with left-wing ideas, including the philosopher Peter Singer and Chomsky, who are on what Pinker calls the “Darwinian left” (300).

Anthropological findings suggest human violence goes back at least 800,000 years. Some have suggested that violence is not part of our inherent nature and that it is instead a learned behavior. Writers such as Richard Rhodes have, for example, posited childhood abuse as a predictor of violence. Others blame the violence inherent in celebrated ideals of American masculinity.

Pinker discusses studies that show that adopted children do not act more like their adopted parents than their biological parents and that American society is not uniquely violent. Using environmental factors to explain violence is popular because it enshrines the ideas of the Blank Slate and Noble Savage, but Pinker writes that it is a “moralistic fallacy” (313) to believe that violence is not something that rational people do or that people have to be deranged to be violent. In fact, it is understanding that rational people can be violent that helps us prevent violence.

Pinker writes that violence is “part of our design” (314), and some individuals, namely young men, are more prone to violence than others. Men across cultures kill men twenty to forty times as often as women kill women. In addition, 7% of men with a specific profile account for 79% of crimes (315). This does not, however, mean that certain ethnic groups are more likely to be violent, as groups change their levels of violence over time. Moreover, even though people may be designed for violence, it does not mean that they cannot help themselves from being violent.

Where does the impulse to violence come from? Aggression is a goal-directed behavior that is present even in young children, before they learn it. People fantasize about violence, and watching sports is a proxy for violence. Pinker looks at the logic of violence to understand why some people act on violent impulses only in certain circumstances. In evolutionary terms, violence can be beneficial as Hobbes wrote in The Leviathan. Natural selection is driven by competition, and violence can help us win that competition. Young men who lack status in particular are likely to use violence to increase their chances in the sweepstakes for mates and status.

If people lie outside of the circle of moral concern, we are capable of treating them as we would treat animals. Atrocities are often committed by dehumanizing people so that they are no longer in this circle. Our goal should be to enlarge the moral circle so that it includes all of humanity.

In practice, humans must also defend themselves against others, and they often band into groups to do so. Even people who do not want to cause harm may have to do so in types of “Hobbesian traps” (322). An example is when a homeowner surprises a thief, both are armed, and one of them must act. Often groups who act in self-defense are families, or ethnic groups, which can be considered as families writ large. One defensive strategy is making a pre-emptive strike, and another is the idea of eye-for-an-eye retaliation. In these cases, getting revenge acquires a veneer of morality. Many feuds and wars have started in this way.

Cultures of violence are present not only in America but all over the world because they come from universal human emotions such as pride, anger, and the love of family. The social psychologists Richard Nisbett and Dov Cohen have shown that violence often arises in cultures that are far from the reach of the law and in which assets are easily stolen. This described the early society in the South, and Southern culture is still marked by violence arising out of questions of honor.

In sum, violence is not a pathology but a result of the desires of self-interested organisms. Adjudication by an armed authority is the surest way to reduce violence, as pre-state societies have very high rates of violence, as do societies beyond the reach of the law. Although democratic governments are the best way to curb violence, they must also be policed to prevent corruption and abuse. There has been an overall decline in violence in western society, perhaps because cosmopolitanism enlarges our moral circle to include more people.

Pinker notes that one of the problems with using violence is that it necessarily produces a reaction from an opposing side; violence may beget more violence. Pinker discusses the brinkmanship and concessions which marked the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and observes that diplomats who try to pursue peace are constantly hobbled in their efforts by ethnocentrism, a sense of honor, and self-deception. However, the human mind’s recursive functions allow it to go back again and find other solutions to problems. Therefore, both violence and, ultimately, the solutions to it are essential parts of human nature.

Women’s status has changed dramatically in the last few decades, the result of the expanding moral circle, technological advances, and feminist political action. According to Pinker, feminist advances have also resulted in baseless support of the Blank Slate and Noble Savage ideas. At the same time, conservatives such as the political scientist Harvey Mansfield rely on “dubious sex differences” (339) to criticize the women’s choices.

Pinker writes that there is “no incompatibility between the principles of feminism and the possibility that men and women are not psychologically identical” (340). What we know about the differences between groups does not extend to the differences between individuals and should not produce unequal treatment between women and men. Some feminists may decry the idea that there are any differences between the sexes, but Pinker says that these differences cannot be ignored.

Pinker relies on the philosopher Christina Hoff Summers to differentiate between equity feminism, which opposes discrimination based on sex, and gender feminism, which holds that women “continue to be enslaved by a pervasive system of male dominance” (341). According to equity feminism, women should be treated the same as men, no matter what science says. Pinker believes that gender feminism is handcuffing the goals of feminism, as neuroscience and other fields are showing us that there are differences between the genders. He cites the many women researchers who do not agree with the conclusions of gender feminists and observes that many people do not consider themselves feminists per se—though they actually do embrace feminist ideas—because they equate feminism in totality with gender feminism specifically.

People are invested in the idea that the sexes are completely the same, but the differences that exist cannot be assigned value; men and women have equally good strategies for survival, and their brains are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable from each other. Some differences that do seem to be supported by research: Men tend to be better at solving math word problems; women are better at mathematical calculations. Women have more intimate social relationships; men are more likely to use violence to compete.

Pinker observes that cultures around the world tend to give women more child-rearing duties while men are in control of public arenas. In many mammalian species, women tend to invest more time and energy in the young, and men are more polygamous. Different male and female hormones affect brain development, and male and female brains are different (men have larger brains, but women have better connections between the two halves). Men and women are equally intelligent overall, however. Pinker uses these findings, and others, to substantiate the idea that the differences between genders extend beyond genitalia, but, he says, “This does not mean that one sex is superior” (350).

Acknowledging these differences can anger some people since sex discrimination still exists. For example, women are still underrepresented in science, technology, and other fields. Some social scientists believe that overall, men are more interested in realistic, investigative, and theoretical work, while women are more interested in social and artistic work. However, the existence of a gender-specific professional gap in both presence and pay is something feminists still want to fix.

Pinker endorses the idea that women should never be dissuaded from pursuing their interests and that they are still negatively affected by sexism. However, he writes that people’s inability to think in statistical terms makes them reluctant to accept the idea that the statistical distribution for men and women in certain fields is likely to remain unequal. Some people think that the attributes of women, including facility for language and cooperation, will soon be more valued in business than the traits of men. In today’s world, men are still favored, in part because of discrimination. However, men and women also possess different attitudes towards work, as women are more likely to want to invest time in their children, while men often favor jobs that involve more risk-taking and are more invested in their work and status. A truly meritocratic society would value the contributions of both men and women and would allow for parent-friendly policies that benefit everyone, removing institutional barriers to women’s advancement. Pinker cautions, however, that advocating for complete professional gender parity may push people into jobs that they don’t like.

Pinker then considers the issue of rape with the idea that considering any associated biological factors could help reduce its occurrence. He writes about the idea that rape is not an expression of sexuality but instead a culturally perpetuated act of violence, but he believes that rape is sex-based, in part because rapes occur in almost every culture and victims of rape are predominately in their childbearing years. The scientists who have written on this issue would like to see rape eradicated and believe that a better understanding of men’s capacity to rape will protect women. Researchers also provide a deeper explanation of the agony women face when raped, as their choice of mate has been removed from them. This helps challenge the idea that women’s suffering is a neurotic, rather than logical, reaction to rape.

Ultimately, Pinker believes an understanding of the biological basis for rape, rather than an attack in the patriarchy, will help society reduce and prevent acts of sexual violence. 

Pinker discusses the three laws of behavioral genetics. The first is that “all human behavioral traits are heritable” (373). Heritability is the proportion of variance in traits that can be ascribed to genes. For each trait, such as intelligence or personality, about half is result of heritability.

Any study that attempts to parcel out what part of children comes from the act of parenting versus genes is doomed to fail, however. Pinker acknowledges that it’s impossible to determine the specific weight of each factor.

People have tried to undermine the idea of heritability in different ways, but studies of twins who were initially thought to be fraternal but later revealed to be identical show that they are as alike as twins who were known to be identical from birth. However, these studies have limitations, as they can only explain variation among a particular group (for example, middle-class whites) rather than between groups, and they can only show that traits are correlated with genes, not caused by them.

The second law of behavioral genetics is “the effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes” (378). Pinker says that the effect of the shared environment—what affects everyone in the house—is very small, as proven in studies that involve adult siblings that grew up together versus those that grew up apart, studies of adoptive siblings, and studies of identical twins (though Pinker notes that these studies exclude homes with neglect or abuse and favor houses that tend to be middle class).

The third law is that neither genes nor family explain much of the variation in complex human behavior. This technique compares “the correlation between siblings reared together (who share genes and a home environment) with the correlation between siblings reared apart (who share only genes)” (379). The result is that the unique environment—a set of factors that affect only the individual—explains about 50% of the outcomes. So, the breakdown is approximately: 50% genes, 50% unique environment, 0% shared environment.

The idea that parenting was essential to human behavior has its roots in the Noble Savage concept and continued to influence the modern psychologist Sigmund Freud. As a result, many types of mental disorders were blamed on one’s parents and, today, some people expect parents to be “round-the-clock parenting machines” (382), constantly giving their kids enrichment and love. However, despite all the so-called expert advice out there, parenting has been shown to have little effect on children’s outcomes. A correlation between the behavior of parents and children does not show causation, as the correlation could be because of genes or other factors. That means that kids turn out pretty much the same whether their parents work or not, whether they go to daycare or not, and whether they have siblings or not. Another example: Though not having a father is correlated with dropping out of school and other negative outcomes, but the death of a father is not.

Pinker next discusses how children are shaped by the peers, an idea that is part of the Group Socialization Theory developed by Judith Ross Harris. It may be that the way parents really affect their children, in addition to providing protection and nurturing, is by selecting the right peer group. This theory has irked the left wing, which is committed to the idea of the fundamental malleability of children, while rightwing critics contend that this idea undermines the primacy of the family as a means of transmitting values.

Pinker believes that children’s unique environments explain their socialization but perhaps not their basic personalities. Children differentiate themselves within a peer group by selecting a certain role, such as leader or peacemaker. Pinker also contends that random events can play a role in child development, but these events operate within the context of species’ feedback loops, a concept biologists variously call buffering, robustness, or canalizing.

In this chapter, Pinker examines the decline of the arts in our culture. Though in some ways, the arts are more robust than ever thanks to technology that can, for example, circulate music, books, and visual art more widely than ever before, Pinker thinks that there has been an overall decline in high forms of art such as symphonies, a decline in cultural criticism, and a decline in the overall academe.

The psychological root of art may lie in a recognition of patterns. This recognition helps people better navigate their environments. An enjoyment of art also derives from social status; since it is not strictly necessary for survival, it can be a sign of status and Thorstein Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption, as well as a way to attract a mate.

Pinker believes that the decline of art is because of the rise of modernism, starting in the early 20th century, and the later movement of postmodernism. He believes these forms of art echo the idea of the Blank Slate by reducing vision to its most basic elements. It may be that in the 20th century, art ran out of new ideas, in part because of wide dissemination through mass reproduction. In response, art tried to become novel by looking askance at beauty. Artists tried to distinguish themselves by “conspicuous outrage” (414) in works that shocked the bourgeoisie. This art relied on the need for cultural critics whose writing became opaque and difficult to understand.

On the other hand, Pinker discusses a more recent revolutionary impulse within the arts. For example, the composer Stefania de Kenessey announced in 2000 the birth a movement called Derriere Guard that celebrates beauty, technique, and narrative. In other words, art may come reflect human experience and perception once more.

As a means of fighting racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, the Blank Slate seems attractive. However, Pinker believes it also contributed to totalitarianism and other negative consequences. Eradicating the Blank Slate can help us figure out why we should condemn prejudice and help us do something more effective to implement our values.

He concludes the book with five excerpts from literature that capture the “morals of the sciences of human nature” (423). The first is “The Brain is Wider than the Sky” by Emily Dickinson, which Pinker believes expresses her belief that the brain “is a hunk of matter” (424). The next is “Harrison Bergeron,” a story by Kurt Vonnegut about how a society that implements bizarre methods of ensuring true equality among people. The next is George Orwell’s 1984 about a totalitarian regime that erases individualism. The fourth Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn about the violence that arises in a culture of honor, and the final work is Isaac Bashevis Singer’s Enemies, A Love Story, which is in part about men’s and women’s different takes on relationships.