Another Steven Pinker article for perusal. I picked up his The Language Instinct on the weekend.
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Search
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by was published on October 8, 2002 11:15 AM.
Things to be happy about was the previous entry in this blog.
New Neal Stephenson finally! is the next entry in this blog.
This is marginalia.org, a weblog by Bill Stilwell. I take the occasional photo.
Categories
Monthly Archives
- March 2009 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- November 2006 (4)
- August 2006 (1)
- July 2006 (5)
- June 2006 (4)
- April 2006 (3)
- March 2006 (1)
- February 2006 (5)
- January 2006 (5)
- December 2005 (3)
- July 2005 (3)
- June 2005 (11)
- May 2005 (7)
- April 2005 (3)
- March 2005 (22)
- February 2005 (22)
- January 2005 (15)
- December 2004 (13)
- November 2004 (21)
- October 2004 (14)
- September 2004 (10)
- August 2004 (4)
- July 2004 (5)
- June 2004 (4)
- May 2004 (6)
- April 2004 (4)
- March 2004 (8)
- February 2004 (6)
- January 2004 (5)
- December 2003 (5)
- November 2003 (6)
- October 2003 (14)
- September 2003 (12)
- August 2003 (3)
- July 2003 (3)
- June 2003 (1)
- May 2003 (7)
- April 2003 (14)
- March 2003 (5)
- February 2003 (7)
- January 2003 (13)
- December 2002 (11)
- November 2002 (9)
- October 2002 (17)
- September 2002 (21)
- August 2002 (26)
- July 2002 (29)
- June 2002 (10)
- May 2002 (19)
- April 2002 (14)
- March 2002 (10)
- February 2002 (12)
- January 2002 (16)
- December 2001 (14)
- November 2001 (14)
- October 2001 (11)
- September 2001 (18)
- August 2001 (10)
- July 2001 (20)
- June 2001 (17)
- May 2001 (21)
- April 2001 (20)
- March 2001 (20)
- February 2001 (13)
- January 2001 (14)
- December 2000 (12)
- November 2000 (15)
- October 2000 (17)
- September 2000 (43)
- August 2000 (55)
- July 2000 (65)
- June 2000 (54)
- May 2000 (65)
- April 2000 (60)
- March 2000 (38)
- February 2000 (3)
Don't bother reading Pinker! I started reading How the Mind Works and burst out laughing when I read his theory involving female sexuality and how women are "naturally" more monogamous than men. Is this a wistful male fantasy, or what? Any observant cultural scientist would know, based purely on empirical evidence, that this is simply not the case. Mr. Pinker based his conclusion in part on that out-dated, antiquated theory that women are monogamous because of the fact that they invest more when it comes to pregnancy. However, one learns in Anthro. 101 that people in primitive societies often had absolutely no clue that the sex act resulted in a baby nine months later. Indeed, in one culture, it was thought that a woman became pregnant by stepping over a grave when a spirit would enter and impregnate her. The sex act was thought to be totally unrelated to procreation.
In addition, one would have to wonder why there exists all over the world many restrictions and harsh penalties for women engaging in sex outside of marriage especially with more than one partner. Obviously, if women were not so inclined, there would be no need for all of these sometimes very harsh restrictions when it comes to sex. For example, even today in our society, females are told to avoid engaging in sex with many partners, or they will be ostracized, unmarriageable and called sluts.
Furthermore, Mr. Pinker argues that evolutionary principles are at work in making a woman naturally monogamous. However, it would seem that common sense would dictate that it would be evolutionarily advantageous (like with other animals) for a woman at ovulation to have multiple partners such that the "best" most viable sperm would succeed at making the "best" offspring.
For these and many other reasons, I was astonished that a scientist like Mr. Pinker would continue to espouse such blatantly false assertions that have little basis in reality. Any scientist worth his salt knows that what people or women may say in public can differ from what they do or believe in private in part because of cultural expectations.
Accordingly, as a result of his erroneous assertions with respect to female sexuality, I lost interest in his book.