In my undergraduate days, I could have, but it's been a while... In any case, Steven Pinker's an interesting guy and a solid writer. The Blank Slate is well worth reading.
I've actually read it before and it mostly stroked my own preconceived notions. I want to lend it to someone, but decided to re-read it first, so it would be fresh in my mind when (as I half expect) she attacks it.
I suppose I could just take the most likely looking items from his bibliography or footnotes, but there's no guarantee that he's cited the strongest examples of the theory he disdains (though I believe that he has!).
I think actually Pinker's bibliography is pretty safe to judge. He's well respected as a scholar and he wouldn't be if he didn't use seminal works. I just don't remember who the biggest proponents of the theory are.
The short version, if I remember right, is the nature vs. nurture thing, as I'm sure you've gleaned from the book already.
It probably is safe to use it, I agree. I just want to be as fair as possible, on the (unlikely) chance Pinker's left out some powerful thinker and is, in effect, attacking straw men.
Basically, I have always "known" that people nature makes a difference - or at least since I watched my younger brother see a piano at the age of 6 or 7 and start picking out music by ear. (Funnily enough, when he picked up music as a teenager, he quickly became a very good musician.)
I want to understand social constructionism from a believer's point of view, not a critic's. I'm almost certain (as in 99% certain) that they're dead wrong, but almost all of my information on them has come from the likes of Pinker, Diamond and Dawkins - which might be kind of like asking a Jihadist about the finer points of Hinduism.
That's what I inferred from your initial reply. But what I want is the (up-to-date) equivalent of E.O. Wilson or Dawkins, but from the opposing side. The unmediated version, in other words.
Just say the words "evolutionary psychology" to any humanities grad student. When they catch their breath after exhausting themselves with damning exhortations and, they'll re-iterate their point of view more slowly and clearly.
I can see that becoming a cruel but entertaining sport for intellectual sadists. "If you believe that homosexuality is innate, how can you deny that verbal intelligence also is?" Etcetera.
When I started my smut-filter, I decided to be a good boy and follow LJ's rules. I hesitated, but finally decided that anyone under 14 who might actually be interested in reading me would probably be clever enough to light about their age.
Are you saying "Gross" to the question, to social constructionism, or to Dawkins/Pinker? (Or something else entirely? In which case I really missed the point.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-01 11:20 pm (UTC)Oh Yes!
Date: 2008-08-01 11:27 pm (UTC)I suppose I could just take the most likely looking items from his bibliography or footnotes, but there's no guarantee that he's cited the strongest examples of the theory he disdains (though I believe that he has!).
Re: Oh Yes!
Date: 2008-08-02 11:36 am (UTC)The short version, if I remember right, is the nature vs. nurture thing, as I'm sure you've gleaned from the book already.
Re: Oh Yes!
Date: 2008-08-02 03:32 pm (UTC)Basically, I have always "known" that people nature makes a difference - or at least since I watched my younger brother see a piano at the age of 6 or 7 and start picking out music by ear. (Funnily enough, when he picked up music as a teenager, he quickly became a very good musician.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-02 12:58 am (UTC)Doesn't Quite Sound Like What I'm Looking For
Date: 2008-08-02 01:08 am (UTC)Re: Doesn't Quite Sound Like What I'm Looking For
Date: 2008-08-02 01:39 am (UTC)Re: Doesn't Quite Sound Like What I'm Looking For
Date: 2008-08-02 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-02 01:31 am (UTC)"Bait the Humanities Student!"
Date: 2008-08-02 03:43 pm (UTC)don't know any books but...
Date: 2008-08-02 04:06 am (UTC)Re: don't know any books but...
Date: 2008-08-02 03:45 pm (UTC)GROSS
Date: 2008-08-02 06:01 pm (UTC)Re: GROSS
Date: 2008-08-04 01:45 am (UTC)Are you saying "Gross" to the question, to social constructionism, or to Dawkins/Pinker? (Or something else entirely? In which case I really missed the point.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-04 05:09 pm (UTC)I can blow bubbles with my spit.
:D
Now I Understand!
Date: 2008-08-05 05:41 pm (UTC)Ahem.