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.)
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.)