Danger, Will Robinson!!
by MikeGene
Over at Uncommon Descent, Denyse O'Leary has some fun with Stephen Pinkers "Dangerous Questions." Pinker comes across as an Establishment Guy desperately trying to look dangerous by cutting up his milk toast in a new pattern. After all, he packs his dangerous essay with no less than 22 dangerous questions. Did you get that? 22! That's not SuperDanger, that's SuperDuperDanger. And just how dangerous is this danger-packed essay? It's signed as follows: Steven Pinker is professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. His new book, The Stuff of Thought, will be out in September. Sorry Dr. Establishment, but if any of those questions were truly dangerous, you wouldn't be signing your name to them. 
July 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I can't wait to read his new book.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Mike wrote:
That's an odd criticism, Mike, considering that nowhere in the essay does Pinker claim, or even imply, that he is personally dangerous. He makes it clear that it is the ideas that are regarded as dangerous, and not by him:
Do you have a substantive response to the theme of Pinker's essay, or is an attack on his motives the best you can muster?
Mike again:
Sorry Mr. Pseudonymous Pajama-Blogger, but Pinker doesn't think those questions are dangerous. The whole point of his essay, which you apparently missed, is that society would be better off openly confronting and evaluating these so-called dangerous ideas, rather than suppressing discussion of them due to irrational fears.
Comment by keiths — July 29, 2007 @ 1:05 am
July 29th, 2007 at 3:37 am
I really have about as little respect for Pinker as I could possibly have for any academic. He's a real jerk, IMO.
Here's a dangerous question fer ya:
How did such an arrogant, ideological sophist ever acquire full professorship at the world's premier higher learning institution?
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something stinks.
Comment by Crandaddy — July 29, 2007 @ 3:37 am
July 29th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Mike: Sorry Dr. Establishment, but if any of those questions were truly dangerous, you wouldn't be signing your name to them.
No, of course not Keiths. He poses the idea that others are trembling in fear over them and that he is the intrepid provider is wisdom- all in the interest of hyping his up and coming book.
No, the whole point of his essay is that society would be better off adopting a Pinkeresque worldview; particularly when it puts money in his pocket.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2007 @ 6:23 am
July 29th, 2007 at 6:37 am
What's really strange is that Pinker compares what proportion of people were killed by 'religions' with the proportion done in under Nazism, given that the most infamous atrocity committed by the Nazis was the one they perpetrated against, er, a religious minority.
That, and his failure to mention anything about the millions upon millions of folks who were done to death under the auspices of avowedly atheistic ideology over the last 90 years, which far outweighs the death toll over a comparable time period that can be laid at the doorstep of religiously motivated violence.
Truly bizarre, in fact, given his deep concern to ask supposedly dangerous questions. I suppose Tens of Millions Slaughtered By Atheistic Tyrannies During The Last Nine Decades is still a taboo truth among Pinker's circle.
Comment by stunney — July 29, 2007 @ 6:37 am
July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I think all the original author is trying to say is that these are 20 questions upon which society is emotionally, morally and scientifically conflicted. Each of the 20 questions merits a great deal of study, and to adequately answer these issues would take more that the two sentences that Denyse seems to think is sufficient.
I found D.O.'s response rather trite and dismissive, even by her bizarrely low-standards. I do find her to be one of the more preposterous figures that the ID community seeks to present as an expert.
She seems to have utterly missed the point that the reason that these questions are "difficult" is not because because we cannot think up answers to them, but there are a large number of conflicting answers to these questions.
Anybody who is not yet familiar with Denyse and her opinions should immediatly listen to Jason's interview with her. It can be found on his "darwin or design" website.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 29, 2007 @ 7:21 am
July 29th, 2007 at 11:40 am
i had heard of pinker's dangerous book awaile back, but hadnt bothered to look into it, mostly because i prefer simply to follow the questions i am interested in, and dont much care what is or is not oh so dangerous to ask. after reading pinker's questions, i was very unimpressed at their "dangerousness". are these questions dangerous to ask most of the population? sure, as is ANY question. there are few people i have met, religious or not, who arent horribly conflicted over the most mundane issues. most people i come in contact with, wouldnt get upset about pinker's questions at all, instead theyd say "what? speak english, please. i dont get it". denyse's comments are rather idiotic and seem to miss the point a bit i suppose.
Comment by dantedanti — July 29, 2007 @ 11:40 am
July 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Well, this is amazingly content-free. Pinker is a jerk, he's doing it for the money, he's an establishment tool, he's an "arrogant, ideological sophist". Nobody has bothered to engage with any of Pinker's ideas, dangerous or otherwise. Obviously he must be doing something right to generate such blind hatred from you folks.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I think the fact that Pinker's ideas have generated so much response in this forum really is an indication that they are questions worth asking and considering, preferably by somebody with a little more intellectual rigor than Ms Oleary.
Denyse's writings are a treasure trove of idiocy.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 29, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
If we're all just slaves to our genes and that stuff, then what is racism and the like? Aren't racists simply racists because everything is determined by genetics and environment? If we have no true control over our destinies, then we shouldn't attack racism or any other form of "hate". I don't subsribe to such a worldview, so I'm free to bash racism all I want.
Also- in response to another comment, can you point to this supposed "blind hatred" of Pinker? I see no hatred posted here yet, and if anyone dislikes his ideas, I have a feeling it's based on the craziness of his ideas, and not a "blind" dislike of the ideas. (I have to wonder what person here actually supports Pinker's ideas, and maybe we can hear why you support them?)
I see Salim is keeping up the pattern of responsible, mature comments by calling names. If only we all had the "intellectual rigor" of ol' Salim, we wouldn't be so lost.
Comment by HaroldJenkins — July 29, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
We are slaves to gravity and stuff, but that doesn't mean we don't try to build tall buildings, airplanes, and spacecraft. This tired argument against naturalism is being chewed over in another thread, so please don't start it up again here.
Oh please, I just listed a bunch in my last message.
I support some but not all of Pinker's ideas. His basic point of view (that there is a biological component to human nature that imposes constraints and biases on the way we think) seems pretty solid, and I don't really understand why it should be controversial. But he is quicker than I to draw general conclusions from the rather scanty arguments of evolutionary psychology.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
mtraven:
So… we get to play 20 Questions (plus two) with Pinker? What fun! Because Pinker tells us these questions represent "ideas," let's see if we can parse them, answer them with a simple yes or no, or if they are too ambiguous to HAVE answers…
Idea: Women have different aptitudes and emotions than men have.
Answer: Yes.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: "The" events in the Bible are fictitious, both miracles and Judaic history.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Specifics, please.
Idea: The environment has improved in the last 50 years.
Answer: Yes.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Most victims of sexual abuse suffer no lifelong damage.
Answer: Depends.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Native Americans engaged in genocide and despoiled the landscape.
Answer: Depends on which Natives you're talking about.
Qualification: Plains nomads/warrior tribes versus the urban/agricultural "civilized" tribes.
Idea: Men have an innate tendency to rape.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Men (and women) have innate tendencies to seek mating partners.
Idea: The crime rate reduction in the 1990s happened because more poor babies weren't born.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Suicide terrorists are well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven.
Answer: Yes, no and no.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Men wouldn't rape if they could buy a willing prostitute.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Rape is not primarily about sex.
Idea: Black men have more testosterone than white men.
Answer: Maybe.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Morality is a product of brain evolution, thus has no inherent reality.
Answer: What the hell kind of question is that?
Qualification: If morality is a product of evolution, it is inherently real.
Idea: Society would be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Decriminalization would probably benefit society.
Idea: Homosexuality is the result of infectious disease.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: It would be morally consistent to euthanize babies with birth defects.
Answer: No.
Qualification: None.
Idea: Parents have effects of the character and intelligence of their children.
Answer: Yes.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Religions have killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism.
Answer: No.
Qualification: Data.
Idea: Damage from terrorism would be reduced if police could use torture.
Answer: No.
Qualification: None. The data is in.
Idea: Africa would have a better chance of rising from poverty if it hosted more industry and accepted nuclear waste.
Answer: Depends on who is "Africa."
Qualification: Lots.
Idea: The avg. intelligence of rich white people is declining because stupid brown/black people have more children.
Answer: Hahahahaha!!! Dumb question – Nope.
Qualification: I'd love to see these arguments!
Idea: There should be a market where people can sell their unwanted children.
Answer: No.
Qualification: None. The buying and selling of human beings is rightfully outlawed.
Idea: Lives would be saved if we had a free market in human organs.
Answer: No.
Qualification: None, until such time as people can grow their own.
Idea: People should have the right to clone themselves and genetically design their children.
Answer: No, ambiguous yes.
Qualification: Data, technology.
Where the qualification reads "Data" it means there are or should be actual studies to enter into discussion, and possible arguments either way on detail.
These "ideas" don't look so dangerous to me. Most have straight yes or no answers – even on multiples and abiguities, it breaks down to Yes – 5; No – 15; Unanswerable – 5.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Now, mtraven, if you've any issues with any of those answers (or interpretation of what "ideas" Pinker was postulating), there's food for discussion.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I'm not sure why you think your unsupported thumbs-up/thumbs-down opinions on Pinker's questions are at all interesting. Here's some random reactions of mine:
7) Treated at some length by Stephen Levitt in his Freakonomics book — not sure whether I buy it or not.
8) Too vague to answer as stated, but it is clear that the terrorists are in some sense "morally driven".
13) This is a really interesting theory that deserves investigation. I have no particular opinion, but given the prevalence of infectuous agents and how little we know about them, it is very likely that they are involved in a lot of different phenomena. It is only recently that stomach ulcers were shown to be the result of an infectuous agent, rather than stress.
14) This is something Pinker has written about at length. It leads into the abortion controversy, personhood theory, and a host of interesting ethical questions. This is a very tender area, I shudder to think of trying to have an intelligent discussion of it here.
What was the point again? Pinker threw up a whole bunch of questions which are controversial and (in most cases) have an empirical component, and suggested that we ought to investigate them. Not all the questions are equally interesting, controversial, or well-defined. But people here seemed to be abusing him simply for raising them, or for claiming they were dangerous, or (more likely) simply for being a respected scientist with materialist views.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
mtraven:
Then what's your problem with my answer of "No?" If Levitt (or Pinker) want to claim abortions in poor women decades before are causal, he'd have to explain away a great deal of sociological, educational and economic evidence that such factors more strongly and directly influence crime rates over time than birth rates ever did or do.
If there is actual data to correlate (for causal conclusions) birth rate and crime rate, show it. If you believe it overrules evidence from sociology and economics (including educational factors), make your argument.
People who commit suicide for a political cause must believe their cause is worth the sacrifice. The same is true of soldiers. And the morality of such sacrifice is dependent upon the morality of the act itself as means to the invested cause. Mainstream Muslim clerics have, like everybody else, strongly denounced both suicide and mass murder of non-combatants as un-scriptural and immoral. That's never stopped cult-type leaders from brainwashing the acolytes, or using them as weapons toward their own political ends. Religion has always been a popular justification for unethical political policies and acts.
But statistics show that among "the usual" suicide bombers, a fair-to-good education is norm.
The person who is suicidal is either mentally unhealthy, weak-willed (and under the power of others), or backed into a corner from which s/he sees no honorable escape. The truly evil don't kill themselves. They kill other people, including those who willingly kill themselves on order to accomplish that vicariously.
You think this is a "really interesting" explanation for why homosexuals don't have as many children as heterosexuals? I've gotta ask… WHY does this need explaining to you?
If environmental factors are involved, I'd much more strongly (and reasonably) suspect phyto-estrogens and other questionable chemicals prevalent in the food supply, either genetically engineered into the crops or sprayed regularly in mass quantities into the general environment. And sometimes added in processing. And heavily concentrated in cattle, pigs and chickens raised for consumption. A developmental issue with systematic and hormonal overtones.
But I guess it's less troubling to blame some mysterious and undetectable superbug accident-of-nature instead of our own stupidity and bad habits.
I know what Pinker thinks about this. I disagree with him strongly. Post-term abortion is called "homicide." If defects are serious enough, the infant will die. There are arguments to be made about non-intervention in some sad cases, though pain relief and basic fluids shouldn't be withheld. There is no "right" to kill for Pinker's comfort or some parents' convenience. Such a "right" should not be extended.
Pinker's "ideas" aren't dangerous. Preventing poor people from having children has been tried. It didn't work to reduce crime rates decades down the road, but it did lead to the Holocaust. In all societies throughout human history, there have been sanctions against murder. Terror as a political weapon is ancient as well. Suicide is just something some people do when they can't live here anymore. In all societies throughout human history, there have been a small minority of homosexuals born every generation, even though homosexuals mostly don't reproduce. Societies used to have useful roles homosexuals could fill (mystics, monastics, priests, harem-guards, etc.), and most societies have displayed some strong tendencies toward bisexuality among the elite. Until and unless there is a recent dramatic increase in the percentage, and a responsible pathogen is identified, pretending it's a disease is harmful.
Maybe we should fund some "interesting" studies from any number of radical angles into what makes people like Pinker tick. Maybe we could find a cure for materialist views, if these are what those are.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Levitt's a statistician, what do you think he did? Your answer of "no" is unsupported by any evidence or argument.
Same goes for the the other questions, most of what you said is bald assertion and often completely irrelevant. Since you already know the answer's to Pinker's questions, there's not much point arguing about them, especially since Pinker isn't advocating anything but that the questions should be asked, which you are trying to turn into something else.
I find it amusing how the names Pinker and Dawkins and Dennett can generate so much animosity and froth around here.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
My issue with D.O. is that she imagines that 2 sentence answers are sufficient for answering very big questions indeed.
I'd like to think that any of the 20 issues here require a more serious response than could be obtained from a magic 8-ball.
"No" isn't an argument. Neither is "Yes" or "Depends". I've less problem with D.O.'s rather reactionary opinions on these moral issues than I have with the notion that she believes she has given the definitive answers to questions which are clearly not fully resolved.
In case you have not been watching the news, these are precisely the kinds of issues that frequently appear in current affairs. They are controversial.
I think Joy's point-by-point apologetic treatment of D.O.'s original article is somewhat redundant beyond merely pointing out that she shares Denyse's broadly-conservative position. A more rigorous treatment of these issues would at least acknowledge that other positions exist and their reasons for existing.
But like I said, Denyse is not known for her academic rigor.
Yes, quite a splendid amount of kvetching.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 29, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
like her defense of homosexuality as something not to be treated as a disease?
Comment by bipod — July 29, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
mtraven:
I presumed you had arguments to make, mtraven. Otherwise, why would you have insisted someone here answer all Pinker's offered "dangerous ideas?" I merely answered them. Offered to debate any of them you care to debate. You offered 4 for debate, but no evidence to support Pinker's position on those.
I'm not going to do your homework. If you won't do it either, then there's nothing to discuss. So quit bitchin'.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
salim:
I think it's rather odd that you view my answers to Pinker's linked 22 questions are somehow an apologetic for D.O. Since I haven't read her response and am not interested in her answers enough to go look. Your use of the word "redundant" tells me my answers are probably pretty much like hers. No big surprise there. Though I do admit nobody's called me a "conservative" in a long time. My grandchildren would be shocked and dismayed!
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Joy said:
Um, where did I do that? As is so often the case with people on this site, you seem to be having conversations with imaginary beings in your own head and projecting them outwards.
I mentioned 4 but I never said I was particularly interested in debating them, in fact, for most of them I explicitly said I didn't have a definite position. And neither does Pinker, he's raising questions. And I offered more citations to backing literature than you did, which wouldn't be hard since you had zero.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Joy, they were uncannily similar in both style and content, only you used even fewer words than Denyse.
It reminds me of an incident in English lessons at school. Our class had been reading "A Man For All Seasons", a play about the Catholic martyr Thomas Moore. We were set an essay title "It is better to be a dead lion than a living rat", clearly our teacher was expecting some kind of ethical treatment of the issue. One student simply replied with a single word: "Perhaps".
I'm sure it seemed clever to him at the time. He was given detention and made to re-do his homework properly. Now if only somebody could do the same to Denyse Oleary!
Comment by salimfadhley — July 29, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
mtraven:
Ad hom is beneath you, mtraven. Your words were:
"Nobody has bothered to engage with any of Pinker's ideas, dangerous or otherwise."
I though if I treated them as "yes or no" with qualifications indicating where there are areas of argument, that would be an adequate response to your complaint. I see now that I was wrong.
Raising questions is cheap. Anybody can do that, and they don't have to have Pinker's hair or wind-blown scarf. No big deal. I said the questions aren't "dangerous," because IMO they're not. You insist they are, so it's up to you to demonstrate that.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
bipod:
Ssshhhh! They're not supposed to notice that, bipod! I've just been accused of conservatism and being a D.O. puppet apologist! §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
salim:
If you'll insist that Pinker go back and do the same thing, I'm quite sure there would be a lot less than 20 questions in his parlor game. Most of these have ready answers.
Or maybe he's time-jumping. Could be a hundred years ahead of himself, thus merely seriously confused.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I said:
Which you interpreted as:
"
You've packed at least three separate distortions into that tiny transformation, that's pretty remarkable!
You yourself said that one of them is the sort of thing that led to the Holocaust. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Make up your mind.
The homosexuality question is interesting and illustrative. Presumably whether there is really an infectious agent responsible for (some) homosexuality is a matter of fact that will eventually be shown by science, or not. But you are immediately interpreting it in moral terms, as an effort to brand homosexuality as a disease. And you aren't the only one who reacts that way. That's what makes these "dangerous questions" — they combine matters of fact with potentially explosive matters of morality or personal interest. Scientists who take up the investigation of these ideas have to have tough hides and a secure position. And scientists, being human, are not above having their own morals and values invade their supposedly objective investigations.
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
mtraven:
It's not so dangerous anymore, because you know what "The Holocaust" means. That's a good thing – in the free marketplace of ideas where the right to speak, publish, assemble and petition reigns – this one has found its basement. That's how it works. To pretend that bringing it up like it's something new and different now is just plain dumb. What does that say about Pinker?
I am not afraid of things we know. Thus I'm not afraid of people who pretend they don't know. I realize that makes me a lot different from your contingent in these debates, because they (and you) *are* afraid. We hear about it endlessly. It's become quite boring.
…yet here you still are, along with all your friends, posting posts about being afraid. I am just not all that impressed. I don't think any of you mean it. Just polemical rhetoric. There's at least a dozen sites on these here inter-tubes that offer 'em up for brunch.
The problem, as stunney mentioned (and was right), is that I'm a "free spirit." I think there is something significant in the idea of intelligent design. I'm not stupid (sometimes), and I'm not a foot-washing worshipper in immediate danger of becoming a Rushdooney-style theocrat. I don't really care one bit whose metaphysical views might be supported by such ideas. Any political shennanigans that might come of such sideways, always-provisional 'scientific' support are best countered in the political arena. The place where bad ideas go to die.
So. Here I say I'm not afraid of ideas, and I don't think Pinker's are dangerous. Is there a response to that which is not fallacious by definition?
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
mtraven:
I am interpreting it in moral terms because in my experience of the world (and I have some), people's sexual preferences are a goodly portion of who they are. I don't make a regular habit of hating or fearing people for who they are. I am perfectly willing to consider genetic and/or developmental factors, as well as sociological factors – including that an increase in number generationally is related to gross species overcrowding. We're all just Lemmings at heart…
But either way you slice it, there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay. Even the Church recognized that, as previous societies did. They restricted practice. That's never been very successful either, as nothing to do with declared sins is ever very successful. We (societies, civilizations) do what we can. What we can do is have laws. If laws turn out to be impractical as well as immoral in execution, we can adjust accordingly.
But a disease agent in this day and age requires an identified disease agent. Being a Dwarf is no more a "disease" than being pregnant. Or being gay, IMO. It's a "condition" of being, and not all conditions of being are (or should be) considered diseased. Questions about what would happen to access rights if doctors routinely advised abortion for offspring who might be dwarfed or homosexual (or female and likely to get pregnant someday) are tied to entirely different questions Pinker did not include in his so-dangerous 22. Those are entirely sociological/political.
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Who said there was?
Pinker probably shouldn't have used the term "disease". The interesting scientific question is whether homosexuality can be caused or influenced by infectious agents. That is a more-or-less objective matter. Whether that gets labelled as a disease or not is a separate issue. There are many beneficial organisms that infect us.
Now, from a strict evolutionary standpoint homosexuality does appear to be like a disease, since it lowers reproductive fitness. That's what leads people to the pathogen theory. But it's a disease that many of the sufferers have no interest in being cured of.
I hope you can see that the very fact that it's hard to separate out the science from the values is what makes this a "dangerous question". Many people have strong feelings about homosexuality, pro or con, and will seize on the science to make their political points, or attack the science if it doesn't seem to be going in the right direction.
BTW, your alternate hypothesis that the causes are more likely to be environmental chemicals is just as plausible as the pathogen theory (as far as I know), and it raises roughly the same set of moral issues. If that theory is true, does it mean we should try to eliminate those environmental chemicals? If so, doesn't that imply we are treating homosexuality as a bad thing?
Comment by mtraven — July 29, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:45 am
mtraven:
I've often mentioned that human fecundity could be managed easily via genetic engineering of staple crops. And I have mentioned that 6.5 billion people is enough to cause serious overcrowding problems on the physical presence as well as consumption end. There may be a reason the poor outproduce the rich. And for why the rich are prone to conditions that affect their reproductive success. And for why the rich tend to blame that on the poor.
I don't think any of it has much to do with religion. But I do think religion is often a self-justification of choice. Abraham wanted to father two great nations. He and his timely kin had more wives than they cared about, and more daughters than anybody thought it relevant to count. The perennial animalist game of "Who's Your Daddy" was a regular big deal to them.
So it was all about who's got access to the women. Why is anyone suprised? It's not like things have changed much…
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2007 @ 12:45 am
July 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I have to correct my parsing of Pinker's "Dangerous Idea" number 15:
Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?
…because Pinker's further musings in the "essay" part of the linked article reminded me that as the author of The Blank Slate, Pinker does NOT believe parents have any significant effect on the character or intelligence of their children.
So instead of my Idea parsing as: Parents have effects on the character and intelligence of their children, replace "have" with "do not have." That changes the answer from "Yes" to "No" (I do not agree with this idea), putting the final score at 4 yes and 16 no. With two laughable throw-aways, some multiple choice, and lots of argumentative wiggle room.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2007 @ 1:41 pm