PDA

View Full Version : Dangerous questions by Steven Pinker? Materialists have NO dangerous questions.


Petr
07-24-2007, 05:07 PM
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/07/dangerous-questions-huh-materialists.html


23 July 2007

Dangerous questions? Huh? Materialists have NO dangerous questions.

O'Leary


At Mindful Hack I have put up some information from a neurosurgeon on why the mind obviously isn’t merely the brain. Amazing stuff, and certainly NOT what you would hear from materialist cognitive scientist Steven Pinker.

Pinker posed a whole bunch of “dangerous questions” in the Chicago Sun-Times. What strikes me as remarkable is how UNdangerous his questions are.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/469317,CST-CONT-danger15.article

Anyway, I decided to list and answer his questions, as follows:


Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?

[From Denyse: Yes, of course. Get pregnant, have and raise a baby, and you will understand. But so? (If you cannot carry out this program, not to worry, you have just made my case. Thanks much. Read on anyway.)]

Were the events in the Bible fictitious — not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires?

[From Denyse: Well, Steve, do you have any INFORMATION about that? Thousands of archeologists and other scholars would love to hear your news. Otherwise, take a number and wait. Anyone can have a mere opinion about events described in the Bible.]

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?

[From Denyse: Improved for whom? For me, yes. I live in a much cleaner city, and a nicer neighbourhood, too. For people in coastal China … probably not. But they eat more regularly, and that may be worth their while.]

Do most victims of sexual abuse suffer no lifelong damage?

[From Denyse: How much damage victims suffer depends in large part on their culture. Is the victim considered “damaged goods”? Does the society offer tacit rewards for long-term unemployment or abnormal relationships? I was sexually assaulted several times when I was young but in every case managed to fight off my assailants with a ferocity that they clearly did not expect. Was I damaged? I don’t know. I’d do it again today, only faster and more lethally. Is that evidence of damage or not?]

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?

[From Denyse: Yes. The Iroquois wiped out the Canadian Hurons (and the Canadian martyr priests along with them). Plains Indians ran thousands of buffalo off cliffs. But so? Europeans perpetrated the Holocaust. Who dare point a finger?]

Do men have an innate tendency to rape?

[From Denyse: If they do, they better keep it in check. Almost all societies have agreed not to tolerate it. Interesting, in view of the fact that feminists claim that men run everything … In The Spiritual Brain , neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and I recap evidence from his study showing that men can and do suppress sexual arousal when asked by an investigator to do so. There is no basis for the belief that they cannot do that.]

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence?

[From Denyse: No. The “crime rate” went down because (1) the population aged (old guys don’t do second story jobs or stickups) and (2) the government started jailing more perps (guys in jail don’t do second story jobs or stickups). Enron still happened, and destroyed the pensions of thousands - far worse than yer average street shakedown - but those are the crimes old guys commit. Most people - for some strange reason - don’t think of that stuff as “crime.”]

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven?

[From Denyse: Only if you think “well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven” are terms that have no intrinsic meaning.]

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized?

[From Denyse: No. Rapists get off on forcing themselves on the UNwilling. If all they wanted was a hooker, they could easily find one, unfortunately, irrespective of laws.]

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?

[From Denyse: So what if they do? See the question on rape above. An elderly mission priest told me years ago about the severe floggings that occasional rapists would receive in the African community he ministered to decades ago. I would think that a guy’s t-level is his own business if he hasn’t done anything he shouldn’t. And in a multicultural society, I can’t see the social value of making a policy issue out of ethnic/racial/class comparisons. Basically, here or there, you either observe the law or else.]

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?

[From Denyse: No, it isn’t. People who believe otherwise (usually expressed as “It’s just The Man throwing his weight around”) form the usual population of prisons around the globe. The entire spiritual tradition of the human race is against that view, and for good reason.]

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?

[From Denyse: Only if your society has unlimited funds to pay for treatment facilities. Write and tell me which society that is, and I will recommend that our Canadian hard cases move there ASAP.]

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

[From Denyse: Huh?]

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?

[From Denyse: Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give the surviving kids the option of euthanizing parents who face age-related defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? Surely, in the interests of justice, the two bills should be passed together. That way, neither group would have the obvious advantage. (I pray that neither bill will be passed in Canada.)]

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?

[From Denyse: Are home-raised children better than street children? Why do we even wonder about this? If love doesn’t matter, what does?]

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism?

[From Denyse: No. The mortality from World War II was catastrophic. Human sacrifices at the pagan summer solstices and occasional burnings of heretics by monotheistic religions were nothing by comparison with the eugenic ambitions of the twentieth century, to get rid of whole nations deemed genetically inferior.]

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances?

[From Denyse: No. The damage done by undermining traditional legal systems in the Western world that have protected witnesses and suspects for many centuries would quickly exceed the benefit from the information gained from an occasional tormented suspect.]

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe’s nuclear waste?

[From Denyse: How much would cleaning up the mess cost? We need figures here. Without figures, it is not a reasonable question.]

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people?

[From Denyse: Is average intelligence declining at all? Is this a trick question? The fact that lots of people enjoy watching Ann Coulter or Michael Moore does not prove that they are getting stupid. They may be getting something they shouldn’t be getting, but that is a matter for their spiritual advisers. I think Coulter should wear more obvious clothes on TV and Moore should lose weight and grow up. But so?]

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder?

[From Denyse: If you want to avoid raising a criminal, would you rather a child be raised by Tony Soprano or by the family of “Daddy was an old time preacher man”? Is this another trick question? It must be …. Pinker must be running out of sensible questions altogether … isn’t he?]

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?

[From Denyse: The lives of potential donors would NOT be saved, from what I hear from China. They execute lots of young adherents of Eastern and Western religions, and use organs for executed prisoners - and could probably underbid anybody. Here in Canada, we wait for a fatal accident and hope that the victim signed a wallet card. Not very enterprising, are we? But would you rather be in trouble here or there?]

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?

[From Denyse: Who wants to be responsible for the failures? Isn’t nature’s bounty enough to manage? Taxpayers underwrite the current sustainable number of failures because we assume that no one simply chose to produce failures as opposed to successes. What if they did?]


Pinker goes on, “Perhaps you can feel your blood pressure rise as you read these questions.”

No, in my case. All this stuff is way, way past its stale date.

If you are into dangerous ideas and you are a materialist, you are nowhere. In reality, the only really dangerous idea nowadays is non-materialism.

Pinker is QUITE right to point out that “Writers who have raised ideas like these [listed above] have been vilified, censored, fired, threatened and in some cases physically assaulted.” But that is principally because the vile doctrine of political correctness - the business arm of materialist social policy - currently has so much power.

People are only permitted to advocate a materialist doctrine that is obviously popular at any given time. If you want to help stop that, support The FIRE. (Anyone who knows of other similar groups, please write in and I will add them to this post. The FIRE isn’t perfect but it does clean up a lot of sludge.)

But ultimately, you can’t stop the effects of materialism if you do not think that the mind is real. And you need to know why and how it is real.

ironweed
07-24-2007, 06:02 PM
Pinker has as at least as much of an axe to grind with what he considers politically correct social science dogmas as he does against religion. Not sure why this gal won't acknowledge that. I say "at least" because he's actually collided with politically correct types and not religious ones when trying to speak at a few college campuses. He and Stephen Jay Gould also butted heads quite frequently. And some of her responses are downright moronic, viz:


Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?

[From Denyse: Are home-raised children better than street children? Why do we even wonder about this? If love doesn’t matter, what does?]


What Pinker's referring to here is the slew of adoption studies that show to what a great extent adopted children reflect their biological and not adoptive parents. If the author of this had bothered to read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2478865-3911355?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185299824&sr=8-1) she could at least frame some legitimate criticisms. At least I hope she hasn't read it, otherwise she's being downright dishonest.

I do think Pinker goes too far to the biological end of the spectrum, personally, and that there's probably plenty there to criticize. But this is just silly. Too bad, because that book she's ceaselessly pimping on the site looked kind of interesting. But if I do decide to pick it up it will be in spite of her blog.

Brechun
07-25-2007, 10:01 PM
What Pinker's referring to here is the slew of adoption studies that show to what a great extent adopted children reflect their biological and not adoptive parents. If the author of this had bothered to read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2478865-3911355?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185299824&sr=8-1) she could at least frame some legitimate criticisms. At least I hope she hasn't read it, otherwise she's being downright dishonest.

Better examples of that would be "The Nurture Assumption" or the "Limits of Family Influence". They've known this ever since they started adoption studies, it just took awhile to become more widely known.

I do think Pinker goes too far to the biological end of the spectrum, personally, and that there's probably plenty there to criticize.

Pinker's abit naive with this thing- largely stemming from the fact that he's the only public intellectual to have spoken in favor of hereditarianism, and to a degree, race realism, with his sackriding of the ashkenazi intelligence research. Of course with that territory so little treaded, you've got crap like this from people as experienced as him, unfortunately.

Vindex
07-25-2007, 11:28 PM
When I turn on the t.v. or even when I was in church the pastors and preachers are always asking you to give them more and more money without end. As they stand up on stage in their expensive suits and then drive home in their expensive cars to their expensive homes......yep pretty materialistic.

Helios Panoptes
07-26-2007, 09:44 AM
Better examples of that would be "The Nurture Assumption" or the "Limits of Family Influence". They've known this ever since they started adoption studies, it just took awhile to become more widely known.

Quite true. As I stated in another thread, psychological research indicates that parental behavior is far less important for offspring outcome than most people believe, provided that gross negligence is avoided. This is based on empirical research and number crunching. It cannot be refuted by pointing out an extreme example(homelessness) and by asking a trite, gushy tear-jerker of a rhetorical question.

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?

[From Denyse: Yes. The Iroquois wiped out the Canadian Hurons (and the Canadian martyr priests along with them). Plains Indians ran thousands of buffalo off cliffs. But so? Europeans perpetrated the Holocaust. Who dare point a finger?]

Completely misses the point, which is that NAs are presented to us as protectors of nature and noble savages. I.e., they are uniquely singled out as representing something good. The matter has nothing to do with singling them out as bad('pointing the finger'), but rather with setting the record straight.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people?

[From Denyse: Is average intelligence declining at all? Is this a trick question?


The most cited work is Vining's 1982 study on the fertility of 2,539 U.S. women aged 25 to 34; the average fertility is correlated at -0.86 in IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women, and indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 per generation for the white population and 2.4 points per generation for the black population. A 2004 study by Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court returned similar results, with the genotypic decline measuring at 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics#Dysgenics_and_IQ_testing

The fact that lots of people enjoy watching Ann Coulter or Michael Moore does not prove that they are getting stupid. They may be getting something they shouldn’t be getting, but that is a matter for their spiritual advisers. I think Coulter should wear more obvious clothes on TV and Moore should lose weight and grow up. But so?]

But so? A fine question indeed. The correct answer is 'so...maybe you should conduct a modicum of research before spouting off; if not because you have integrity, then at least to avoid publicly embarrassing yourself.'

There is more stupidity to be found. A more inspired person who is not as tired as I am right now could have a field day with this.

omni
07-26-2007, 10:22 AM
I posted his original article on here a few weeks ago:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25960

The thread turned into more arguing over jews... but as for this Pinker guy, he's obviously playing it safe. "Dangerous" enough to generate some publicity and boost his ego for thinking of something "creative", but he obviously doesn't want anyone to act out on their dangerous ideas because if things changed it might threaten his comfortable lifestyle.

He probably doesn't want to compromise having a tenured position at one of the more prestigious universities in the world by calling people to actually act on any of these thoughts.



When I turn on the t.v. or even when I was in church the pastors and preachers are always asking you to give them more and more money without end. As they stand up on stage in their expensive suits and then drive home in their expensive cars to their expensive homes......yep pretty materialistic.


In America, a lot of these religious types seem to think that material success is indicative of being "saved" or "one of God's chosen". It's probably a remnant of Protestantism that many of them think that as long as you have faith, who gives a shit about anything else and live it up like there's no tomorrow.

Brechun
07-26-2007, 08:50 PM
Quite true. As I stated in another thread, psychological research indicates that parental behavior is far less important for offspring outcome than most people believe, provided that gross negligence is avoided. This is based on empirical research and number crunching. It cannot be refuted by pointing out an extreme example(homelessness) and by asking a trite, gushy tear-jerker of a rhetorical question.

Judith Rich Harris, the author of the Nurture Assumption, said it's simple, though quite easy to look over- parents have less of an effect because their offspring spend a greater duration of their lives away from them, thus leaving more room for everyone and everything else. Or atleast up until the time the twin study surveryors come up to them.

It's that kind of overlooking that's characterized the dominance of extreme environmentalism in the social sciences for so long. Why does a child reflect so greatly the king of upbringing the parents provide? Must be how the upbringing effects the children, right? Well, not by much- that's actually the offspring reflecting the genomic profiles of their parents.

And that's just one prominent example. I cannot fucking wait until biology pops back up into the social sciences- probably not for awhile, since extreme egalitarianism is so entrenched in the west. I mean, when's the last time you've seen a sociology professor actually consider IQ, at all?

But on parental influence, that's not to say abuse, neglect and corrosive treatment don't have long-term effects- just normal treatment does very little.

Completely misses the point, which is that NAs are presented to us as protectors of nature and noble savages. I.e., they are uniquely singled out as representing something good. The matter has nothing to do with singling them out as bad('pointing the finger'), but rather with setting the record straight.

Reminds me of a few exceprts from the Blank Slate that I've been wondering about:

From Rousseau to the Thanksgiving editorialist of Chapter 1, many intellectuals have embraced the image of peacable, egalitarian, and ecology-loving natives. But in the past two decades of anthropologists have gathered data on life and death in pre-state societies rather than accepting the warm and fuzzy stereotypes. What did they find? In a nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.

To begin with, the stories of tribes out there somewhere who have never heard of violence turn out to be urban legends. Margaret Mead's descriptions of peace-loving New Guineans and sexually nonchalant Samoans were based on perfunctory research and turned out to be almost perversely wrong. As the anthropologist Derek Freeman later documented, Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night, a young man who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping, and the family of a cuckolded husband may attack and kill the adulterer.

The !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert had been described by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as "the harmless people" in a book with that title. But as soon as anthropologists camped out long enough to accumulate the data, they discovered that the !Kung San have a murder rate higher than that of American inner cities.

And this is what confuses me:

Many intellectuals tout the small numbers of battlefield casualties in pre-state as evidence that primitive warfare is largely ritualistic. They do not notice that two deaths in a band of fifty people is the equivalent of ten million deaths in a country the size of the US.

Exactly how can you extrapolate deaths on such a tiny scale to what would be expected of them in a larger setting? I've actually seen that used with quite a few studies on the murder rates of hunter-gatherer populations- Yanomamo have a murder rate of 4/1k? Must mean a murder rate of 400/100k if you threw them into modern society, TWENTY times higher than US blacks and FIVE times higher than SA blacks. The Jivaro of Papua New Guinea have a murder rate of 8/1k? 800/100k in a large-scale population setting, the equivalent of near-unimaginable constant warfare.

Really. Pinker then goes on to detail how one study found that 90%+ of hunter-gatherers are known to engage in warfare today. Is it really true that nearly all, if every hunter-gatherer population was so profoundly violent? What's the mechanism behind this?

Then again it's pretty obvious that such behaviors are, and would be reflected to an extent in a modern society. I've mentioned how SA blacks are a prominent example of this, and there's literally loads- there's Venezuelan cities that go at 100/100k+ for murder rates, not too surprising when Venezuela's home to some of the most vicious known hunter-gatherer peoples on Earth, such as the Yamonamo. That holds true for much of latin america, especially since governments still have problems with local peoples.

And with the Jivaro of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, that nation's capitol, is said to have one of the highest murder rates on Earth.

There's some exceptions to that. Japan's behavior in WWII compared to how they are today, not to mention the city-states of pre-colonial Ghana (though they had formed those relatively recently) engaged in loads of warfare, yet now Ghana has a murder rate just slightly above that of most European nations. Probably reliable, since Ghana is one of the very few decent african states.

This kind of violence seems true of pre-modern societies in general: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM

I like this one.

Yet another type of government killing whose victims may total millions is infanticide. In many cultures government permitted, if not encouraged, the killing of handicapped or female infants, or otherwise unwanted children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters.116 Among 79 families near as many had one child as two. Among all there were only 28 daughters to 118 sons.117

Unwanted children were thrown into rivers, dung heaps, and cesspools. Wild animals were everywhere. Feeding upon children was part of their sustenance, as Euripides noted in his play Ion, "A prey for birds, food for wild beasts, too. . ." . . . .
Cities became deserted and the land became barren. Family life was disappearing.118

South African behaviors in Ancient Greece?

And in 1236 when the Jews of Anjou and Poitou refused to be forcibly baptized, the Crusaders reportedly trampled 3,000 of them to death with their horses.

LOL

The most cited work is Vining's 1982 study on the fertility of 2,539 U.S. women aged 25 to 34; the average fertility is correlated at -0.86 in IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women, and indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 per generation for the white population and 2.4 points per generation for the black population. A 2004 study by Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court returned similar results, with the genotypic decline measuring at 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics#Dysgenics_and_IQ_testing

Has this ever been found to show up, at all, on large-scale IQ and general testing assessments? That'd be pretty blatant.

Helios Panoptes
07-26-2007, 09:09 PM
Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?

[From Denyse: No, it isn’t. People who believe otherwise (usually expressed as “It’s just The Man throwing his weight around”) form the usual population of prisons around the globe.

Ad hominem.

The entire spiritual tradition of the human race is against that view, and for good reason.]

Appeal to authority.

Whatever you think the answer to this question is, this woman's response is sorely lacking.

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

[From Denyse: Huh?]

I, for one, had no difficulty comprehending the question.

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?

[From Denyse: Yes, of course. Get pregnant, have and raise a baby, and you will understand. But so? (If you cannot carry out this program, not to worry, you have just made my case. Thanks much. Read on anyway.)

Hmm....I think he's asking if they have different cognitive profiles. I'm taking a wild guess here, but he's probably aware that they have different sexual characteristics.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?

[From Denyse: So what if they do?

Let me unpack it for you. If black males have higher t levels and higher t levels produce increased violence and the higher t levels are explained in part by genetics, then it becomes a relevant consideration when, for example, policy is being determined for which populations are accepted as immigrants.

An elderly mission priest told me years ago about the severe floggings that occasional rapists would receive in the African community he ministered to decades ago.

Fascinating. What's the point?

I would think that a guy’s t-level is his own business if he hasn’t done anything he shouldn’t.

Please see above.

And in a multicultural society, I can’t see the social value of making a policy issue out of ethnic/racial/class comparisons. Basically, here or there, you either observe the law or else.]

It is no wonder the 'dangerousness' of the query is not appreciated by this writer. Our 'multicultural society' presumes that there are no significant hereditary differences between human populations that influence their social performance. Our motto is 'if you fix the environment, everything else will follow.' The foundation is shaken if it is demonstrated that the presumption is erroneous.

Kamandi
07-27-2007, 02:38 PM
Quite true. As I stated in another thread, psychological research indicates that parental behavior is far less important for offspring outcome than most people believe, provided that gross negligence is avoided. This is based on empirical research and number crunching. It cannot be refuted by pointing out an extreme example(homelessness) and by asking a trite, gushy tear-jerker of a rhetorical question.
The most currently popular explanation is that children spend much more time with their peer group than parents.