Last year, there was a slightly embarrassing moment in the race to become Republican nominee for the White House. In answer to the question “do you believe in evolution?”, at least three of the candidates indicated that they did not. Senator John McCain, it must be said, passed the test with flying colours. The question was in fact directed at him and, after a short pause to weigh up his options, he plumped for a straight “yes” – though he then rather spoiled things by saying, “I also believe when I hike the Grand Canyon and see a sunset that the hand of God is there also.” Doubtless with this addendum, he sought to retrieve a few of the votes he had so recklessly thrown away a moment before.
But just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water from which we first emerged over 300 million years ago, along comes the delightful Sarah Palin who appears to be some sort of creationist, or so it is being widely reported in the media. It shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise I suppose; polling regularly reveals over half of Americans to be creationists. But even so, the question has to be asked: how is it that views which are considered crazy amongst intelligent Europeans have come to seem almost normal in the context of American political discourse, particularly that of the right-wing?
I have a somewhat convoluted and highly speculative theory about all of this which borrows heavily from a very important book – perhaps even the most significant book published so far this century. But despite its relevance to political thought, I have yet to see it mentioned in any of the book lists that political types are often asked to draw up as essential reading matter. It wasn’t listed among the favourite books of Chris Huhne or Nick Clegg, nor indeed among those of our leading Lib Dem bloggers (here and here). The book in question is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
Pinker’s book concerns a question that is as old as the hills, and yet in many ways remains central to one’s entire outlook, be it political, philosophical, or moral. The question is: which is the greater determinant of human behaviour – nature or nurture? Yes, that old chestnut! Are we principally fashioned by our genetic inheritance, or are we instead shaped by the environment in which we find ourselves situated? Do we start out in life with a “blank slate” so to speak, or is the slate already covered with writing before we even begin?
The answer, of course, is that there is plenty to be said in support of both of these positions but, once the argument begins, it is astonishing how rapidly tempers flare. For some reason, this stuff is dynamite. Opposing viewpoints are often characterised as being on one extreme or the other. So people like Pinker are “genetic determinists” who believe that our genes control every aspect of our lives, and every decision we make; while Pinker’s opponents are the “out-and-out blank-slaters” who think that every child is born with equal potential, and how we turn out as adults is entirely due to social conditioning. In reality, virtually nobody holds these positions today.
But leaving these caricatures to one side, Pinker’s thesis is that we have, for far too long, erred towards the blank slate end of the philosophical spectrum. I have to say that in general I agree. While I have yet to meet the mythical out-and-out blank-slater, I would nevertheless like to suggest that we are genetically determined to a far greater extent than many people would appear to be comfortable with. The principal opponents of this viewpoint are some on the political left, and the Marxist or feminist academics with whom Pinker seems to have been battling for most of his adult life.
So why all the discomfort? Pinker sets out four “fears” that might make us hesitate in the face of what the science is increasingly telling us. These are the fear of inequality, imperfectibility, determinism, and nihilism. I can’t possibly do justice to all of these – you’ll have to read the book – but the fear of inequality is probably the one which most offends left-wing sensibilities. The blank slate theory of human nature is totemic to the left because it acts as a guarantor of political equality – or so they think. All men (and women) are born equal, and so it follows that whatever differences emerge later in life must be due to the pernicious inequities which we tolerate in society.
In fact we are not born equal. The truth is that the angels handed out our key physical and behavioural attributes in varying quantities and, worse still, these attributes are largely heritable. To some, this is simply too unpalatable and leads in extremis to outright denial of the science. But this fatal misstep does incalculable damage to the cause of equality. For political equality was never a scientific theory; it is a moral principle. It is a declaration that everyone, of whatever colour or sex, has a right to equal treatment under the law; and it is a commitment to treat everyone on their individual merits, and never as representatives of some arbitrary group. Deciding a priori what the science ought to say merely serves to offer up a needless hostage to fortune, as and when more of the data rolls in.
So it would appear that Sarah Palin is not the only one who might be in denial of science. If Pinker is right, the political and academic left have long been resisting scientific findings which threaten to upend their cherished world-view. This is why I am now finding it hard to join wholeheartedly in the chorus of sneering which has been directed at Palin since her name first emerged. Feminists, in particular, seem to have been thrown into total confusion by the appointment of the Alaskan bombshell. It would certainly be easy enough to slam her for being a creationist, but even here I’m starting to wonder whether this embarrassing state of affairs might not play to her advantage.
You see Palin doesn’t make the mistake of hitching her moral outlook to some half-baked science – heck no, she just gets her morality straight out of the Bible! Not for Palin the false promise of a socialist Utopia – she believes literally in the Genesis story – in the “original sin” of Adam, now passed on from generation to generation. But here’s a strange and wonderful thing: the doctrine of original sin has in fact been partially vindicated by modern science. For we principally inherit the genes required to survive and reproduce, not those required to be nice! In her innocence, could it be that Palin is in fact closer to the truth than all the lefty social science academics in the world?
Of course Palin’s naive world-view can never be more than half correct. Her pro-life views will do little to empower women. I hear she has a few doubts about climate change – hardly surprising if she has been taught that man has been granted “dominion” over the world’s resources. Doubtless she will see aggressive tax-cutting as some sort of moral imperative. After all, we have all been bestowed with the divine gift of freedom, with which we may either choose to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, or not as the case may be. Personal responsibility is everything – never mind that from a scientific standpoint, the concept of “free will” has never looked more shaky than it does today. So it’s a mixed bag.
Well that’s the theory (and it is “just a theory” as a creationist might say about evolution). I’ll briefly summarise it in case you weren’t paying attention: It is that the American liberal left is gravely at fault for remaining too long (on account of a variety of misplaced fears) in a state of denial regarding a modern scientific understanding of human nature, thus allowing the religious right to punch through with their grossly inferior (yet still vaguely credible) theory of human nature based essentially upon scripture which (though it pains me to say so) does actually contain the odd useful insight. What do you reckon?
Do you know there is a part of me that actually wants Sarah Palin to win in November? Frankly she hasn’t got a clue, but she is in possession of a simple childlike honesty that is really quite endearing. By contrast, the political left can just leave one feeling so tired.
* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1030
"Fire Watch", by Connie Willis
Unite votes to oppose first past the post
COP26: two dodges
Fireworks over Folkestone & Hythe Revisited
What kind of Tory Government have we actually got?
Johnson's levelling down agenda
Leaked climate report: UK oil drilling and Cumbria coal mine must be cancelled
Michael BG
Simon R
George Thomas
Jeff
65 Comments
If peoples’ behaviour is are genetically determined to a large extent, why do so many white Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent believe in creation, while very few of their cousins on the other side of the channel to likewise?
Well because there are other factors at work. But there is a God gene (as well as a God particle). Some people say it proves that we were put here to worship Him.
If you read the Wikipedia article you just linked to, you’ll see that it would be more accurate to say “there isn’t a God gene”…
Is the balance even fixed? Are we all either one thing or another, or isn’t it possible that there is infinite space for variation between different individuals over the extent to which different principles effect us?
That’s an interesting idea. But in either case I would say that the first step to freeing oneself from one’s genetic inheritance (insofar as one can) is to come to terms with and accept it.
This Sarah Palin also believes that dinosaurs are Satan’s Lizards…!!
[Well, actually she’s never really said this – but no reason not to spread it around – she probably thinks it]
Chris, all that matters is that I believe in the God gene. Ultimately, God genetics is what you make of it . . .
I don’t think there is a scientific understanding of human nature. That is why there are so many psychological therapies around. A therapy works for at least one person. If it worked for everyone, we would need so many therapies.
We can be confident that genes determine our physical characteristics, but it is very hard to say that they do with what goes on inside the mind. It is close to impossible to identify a cause-effect relationship between specific genes and nuerons.
I do not see the point in having a view on this. Those that do would appear to be prematurely concluding on what the scientific research is indicating. I am suspicious when this happens, I wonder if there is an ideological motivation, similar to a belief in creationism or a belief that science will inevitably solve global warming before it destroys us.
My contention is that we can only generalise about human nature in a pragmatic way.
There have been beliefs in the past, in the name of science, that have also led to appalling errors.
Eugenics was once a respectable science that lead to genocide in Nazi Germany. We now know of course that that science was flawed.
Anyway, John Gray explains it better than I can;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society
Wahey! Geoffrey, you win the prize (a pristine replica SS uniform) for being the first to mention the Nazis!
Nevermind that, did you read the link? The speed of your response suggests not. Tut tut.
But here’s a strange and wonderful thing: the doctrine of original sin has in fact been partially vindicated by modern science. For we principally inherit the genes required to survive and reproduce, not those required to be nice!
This isn’t even close to being right; a moral sense – niceness, if you will – is obviously innate to (non-psychopathic) humans and part of our genetic inheritance.
“A moral sense – niceness, if you will – is obviously innate to (non-psychopathic) humans and part of our genetic inheritance.”
That is true Ranald. Altruism is as much part of the genetic inheritance as is fierce competition. There’s no contradiction – both are about maximising survival. That is why Palin is only half right about original sin. That is why it’s best to throw away the Bible, and get scientific about this. Because if we want to encourage the good, and mitigate against the evil, the first step is to clearly understand what is going on here – coolly, calmly, dispassionately. Until we do, Palin has the advantage.
Geoffrey, I’ll get back to you . . .
I was inwardly groaning when I saw your name in the by-line Laurence, but actually this is a fine post.
Yes, political equality is a moral principle not a scientific theory. Much of the left has confused the two ever since Marx claimed that his justified moralizing about the plight of industrial workers wasn’t moralizing but science.
Thanks Joe – no offence taken! Marx certainly has a lot to answer for. Though I don’t really blame him as such. None of this stuff was properly understood then.
Our genetics give us a range of possibilities and our environment allows us to realise one of these.
The brain is plastic so the relationship to an individual neuron is pointless to know, but how it relates to them all.
I agree with Joe Otten, down to the letter!
I agree, an excellent article Laurence.
Geoffrey @12.58,
If you don’t have a view on nature v nurture, then you have already learned the lesson. The OP is about the dangers of being too attached to a particular point on the nature/nurture spectrum.
Eugenics was never a science. Genetics is a science, it studies how traits may be inherited. But as soon as you say that because of some scientific fact or theory, we OUGHT to do this or that, that is no longer science, it is politics.
It would frankly be bananas to say that because I don’t think people should be killed or sterilised, that I am against genetics. If you do that, you are advertising that you cannot cope with the truth of the science – that your position is irrational and your opponents are rational. But this is not the case. The test of our moral character is not what evidence we believe, but how we respond to it. An “is” cannot imply an “ought” (David Hume), and so we should not be afraid that knowing more will lead us to do evil.
Your John Gray article seems to be the usual rant against ‘secular fundamentalists’, and doesn’t address the topic of this thread at all.
The John Gray article does relate to the religious aspect of Laurence’s article, and also provides a critique of memes which is another inaccurate allegory.
Eugenics was a science until science later proved that it was bogus. We should always bear that in mind when we are presented with “thories”, or more accurately hypothesis such as genetic determinism or evolutionary psychology.
“theories”.
I wish I had a way of correcting my spellings on this website.
Geoffrey,
“We can be confident that genes determine our physical characteristics, but it is very hard to say that they do with what goes on inside the mind. It is close to impossible to identify a cause-effect relationship between specific genes and neurons.”
Well it’s certainly very complicated. This is because the brain is partly responsible for its own development in the womb, by using fire-together wire-together techniques. But ultimately, it’s all following the genetic recipe. At the higher level, the cause-effect relationship is incontestable (unless one thinks that God is fiddling with the works).
“There have been beliefs in the past, in the name of science, that have also led to appalling errors.
Eugenics was once a respectable science that led to genocide in Nazi Germany. We now know of course that that science was flawed.”
But what if the science was good? Would that have made the genocide OK? I sincerely hope not. That is why we must be clear about what is science and what is morality, and separate the two. Joe explains this very well. The point is that being in denial of the science has led to just as much carnage. Here’s Chairman Mao describing the blank slate in his own words: “A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it.” How many millions did Mao kill directly or indirectly? And his head is still on the bank notes.
“Anyway, John Gray explains it better than I can.”
I’m far more optimistic than Gray. I believe in human progress. Not Utopia. Just faltering human progress – three steps forward, two steps back. I believe in progress because it’s what has happened in the past. We get there in the end, even though we have to battle the enemies of reason all the way.
By the way, there’s a great discussion between Gray, Pinker, and Oliver James available here (mp3 45 mins). Pinker and Gray are mostly in agreement. James isn’t of course, and completely loses it at one point.
Laurence, I like your line “there is no contradiction” and would like to expand on that theme.
Science and religion are different things, yes, but even they can both be reconciled to each other if we learn to understand them differently and apply the lessons of one correctly to the other.
As far as I’m concerned this is something inherent and essential to liberalism.
“Belief is knowing that you certainly don’t know, and knowledge is belief in the certainty of your belief.”
“Science and religion are different things.”
No they are not. Religions claims to be distinct from science, but only when it suits. The rest of the time, they are full of (bullshit) scientific theories – about virgin births, resurrections, what happens after you die, etc.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy famously explains the difference between religion and science – and I know Douglas Adams was an athist, and I may be misquoting as it is from memory:
“Prove that you exist” they said to God.
“I couldn’t possibly do that” says God. “Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing”. And then He disappears into a puff of logic.
Top posts from Mr Boyce.
I look forward to listening to the 45 minutes discussion on the link at some point. All I can say about genes and nuerons is that genes may effect the chemical composition, but I think it is a false choice to say that if our thoughts are not determined by our genes then the only other explanation (which according to you is wrong anyway) must be down to God.
It is better not to be hubristic and simply say that “We don’t know. Maybe we never will.”
Geoffrey @2.19, even Gray does not call memes “inaccurate”, rather an ill-judged metaphor. I would call them, in most cases, a well-judged metaphor. The difference between the two, it seems, is whether you like the point being made.
But this is another digression, as was Eugenics. Whatever you say, Eugenics involves value judgements and is therefore by definition not a science, and never was. Even good value judgements are unscientific.
For such a supposed intellectual, Gray seems to write with the crassness that Godwin’s Law was invented for. You want to dis science? Say that the Nazis supported it. It doesn’t matter that it is flatly untrue, that, for example the Nazis actively suppressed quantum physics, calling it “Jewish physics”.
Science is intrinsically a liberal discipline: what matters is the quality of your arguments and evidence, not your authority or orthodoxy.
But by all means be skeptical of scientific evidence, nobody is asking any different. But there is a difference between skepticism and refusal to engage with the argument.
I’m so glad (and so should you be) that others can put my views across so well.
I have read that heredity of religious fervour has a strong genetic component (I think in Matt Ridley’s Nature via Nurture – summary “It’s a false dichotomy”, although I don’t have my copy with me so can’t check). There isn’t necessarily a single god gene. More likely genes, or gene combinations, that increase the likelihood of religious belief/fervour.
In response to Chris’ question, I’m certain genetic factors are only part of the story, but it would be interesting to look at what proportion of anglo-saxon immigrants to the US were fleeing religious persecution.
There’s rarely just one gene involved. The gene “for” something is usually just a form of shorthand, but not an unreasonable one. But for a long time, it’s been known that there is something specifically within the temporal lobes of the brain which is conducive towards religious experience. A guy called Michael Persinger actually built a gadget called (wait for it) a “God helmet”, with which he has succeeded in inducing religious experience among a wide variety of people, believers and non-believers alike. However, his apparatus was famously put to the test on Richard Dawkins and completely failed!
But as far as the spread of specific religious tenets is concerned, the memetic analysis is far more compelling to me. I can’t quite work out why John Gray doesn’t like memes – possibly because he didn’t think of the idea first.
I think there’s a risk of confusing religious experience with more broadly drawn transcendent experience.
There are many occasions where people can end up interpreting the evidence of their senses in a radically different way to what anyone would call reality.
That’s true, though in fact the research is a little more specific than that. The extreme case of temporal lobe sensitivity is temporal lobe epilepsy. Patients who suffer from TLE demonstrate a particular response to religious iconography called the “galvanic skin response.” The leading scientist in this field is Vilayanur Ramachandran who talks about this stuff here.
Gosh, I’m late to this particular party!
@Lawrence: A great article, which I largely agree with. Just a quick clarification:
‘The extreme case of temporal lobe sensitivity is temporal lobe epilepsy. Patients who suffer from TLE demonstrate a particular response to religious iconography called the “galvanic skin response.”‘
Galvanic skin response is a pretty standard thing to measure in relation to all sorts of psychological experiments, and it’s pretty hard to say exactly what one might take away from such an experimental result in isolation. I’d be interested in a reference for it if you have one? Meanwhile, results like this one leave me wary of just-so stories about what subjectively religious experience might mean neuropsychologically. Inquiry into this kind of thing within the cognitive sciences has undergone a recent spurt of activity, with the result that there are a few different thoughts on it at the moment in circulation. Radio 4 did a programme on the field not so long ago – let me know if you want the mp3 of the podcast, I still have it somewhere.
@underblog:
‘I think in Matt Ridley’s Nature via Nurture – summary “It’s a false dichotomy”, although I don’t have my copy with me so can’t check‘
Correct – the phrase Ridley coins, if I recall correctly, is “nature via nurture”, his argument being that the activation of certain parts of one’s genetic heritage is very much dependent on one’s environment throughout development, and that genes don’t so much prescribe your thoughts and actions as predispose you in certain directions, which interact in complex ways over the course of your developmental trajectory with your environment.
@Geoffrey:
‘All I can say about genes and nuerons is that genes may effect the chemical composition, but I think it is a false choice to say that if our thoughts are not determined by our genes then the only other explanation (which according to you is wrong anyway) must be down to God.
It is better not to be hubristic and simply say that “We don’t know. Maybe we never will.”‘
Erm… correct me if I’m wrong, Lawrence, but.. you appear to have pretty much summarised Lawrence’s point.
But on a wider point: Nobody’s saying your thoughts, from moment to moment, are predetermined by your genes (at least, not that I’ve noticed). The point is that the ways in which you think are to a large extent constrained by your genes. That becomes more obvious when you think about the bits of our psychology that are common to all of us – the faculty of language is the obvious example to take here, since it is the overspill into psychology of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics that more or less put psychological nativism (“nature-ism”, if you will) back on the map in the last 50 years, sweeping aside much of the sillier behaviourism (“nurture-ism”) that had been building up steam in the first half of the 20th century.
A pretty water-tight case (though not unassailed by some – which is perfectly healthy) has now been assembled that there are some pretty complex but fundamental things about the structure of language that children innately seem to know without sufficient experience of the world to have worked them out from scratch. Similar examples in other areas exist. The point is, if we are happy to accept that much of our psychological commonality is genetic (because we share most of our genes with our fellow humans), then we also surely have to accept that variations in those genes are going to produce individual differences in those same systems.
As for whether it isn’t better to say “We don’t know. Maybe we never will.”: I would say that rather depends on whether the next sentence is “But it’s going to be a lot of fun trying to find out.” or “Let’s not bother.” The latter tendency is what religious apologists like Grey would prefer, of course.
Oh yes, as for Gray, I reacted to that article at the time, though obviously not with a mind towards this particular discussion. For anyone interested, this is what I wrote.
Random little notes aimed at nobody in particular:
1. The question of whether or not our faculty of language is largely determined by our genes is separate from the question of whether or not it evolved purposely. Interestingly, Pinker and Chomsky disagree on this.
2. Can I just say that I’m not entirely with Pinker on everything he says; much of evolutionary psychology as a sub-field strikes me as pretty unscientific, actually.
3. It’s all very well to argue that we shouldn’t be too attached to the idea of nature or nurture for moral reasons, because it isn’t a moral question. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t want to say that scientists weren’t allowed to have their own preferred sides of the debate, because that is mostly what motivates a lot of the most interesting research in this whole area: the hope of producing a piece of evidence that brings the theory of your opponents crashing down. That’s how science works; it might look like a lofty building of a consensus from the air, but at the front lines of science people can be very “ideological” indeed in what motivates their research.
OK I have listened to the Pinker/Gray/James/sociologist whose name I forget mp3.
I’ve made some further comments on my blog at joeotten.blogspot.com/2008/09/perils-of-genetics.html
I see Obama has woken up to the difficulties posed by Palin’s nomination:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/10/article-1054101-029A7F1200000578-189_468x597.jpg
Seriously, (the Palin threat and Obama’s need for a change of presentation aside) my own view on Lawrence’s topic is that, while we may have varying levels of genetically determined brain capacity at birth, few of us ever use more than about 10 or 20% of what we have. So it ought to be possible for most people (excepting those born with significant impairment)to attain a high level of achievement, so long as they are brought up in a sufficiently nurturing environment.
I remain a lefty, Lawro!
Thanks Joe. Andy, I didn’t mean to imply that the GSR was unique to TLE patients seeing God! Sorry. The best reference would be this book which I’m guessing will lead you to the original research papers. The trouble is that none of this stuff has the slightest impact on the believer who just says, “clearly God designed the temporal lobes to communicate with us!”
Not quite sure I follow your argument Terry. 10% of a lot is still more than 10% of a little. Are you a bit thick or something? 😉
The 10% figure is a myth and totally wrong.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain
Our brains are very modular and different areas are dedicated to different things. So yes, if you are doing something that only requires one “module” you might only be using 10% at that time. The other 90% get used when you do other things.
Our brain is a massive energy drain, it uses around 20% of the total energy consumption of our bodies and if we “only used 10%” of it natural selection would have eliminated it pretty quickly, as the wasted 18% of our energy could have been used elsewhere; e.g. going longer between meals.
c.f. Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works.
The biggest evidence to support nature shaping our choices are studies on separated identical twins where despite different upbringings they still have extremely similar hobbies, political views and choices of partners, even how they decorate their houses.
In my view “free-will” is our ability to defy our genes; allowing our reason to override our instincts and pre-dispositions; from using contraception to not attacking someone that makes us angry. That’s where nurture comes in; teaching reasoning, critical thinking and values and allowing people to recognise when their instincts are wrong.
Those with a little could use could use the spare capacity. 10% of a lot could be equal to, say, 20% of a little. Though I doubt that the differences in brian power at birth (for those who are not significantly impaired) amount to a variation wide enough to make that necessary. I am certainly not thick, btw – BA(Cantab), MA (Kent), CQSW.
Though I am capable of mistyping brain…
:-))
I’m not a scientist, but I understand Americans believe in something called ‘intelligent design’.
But surely their very existence disproves it?
“I doubt that the differences in brain power at birth amount to a variation wide enough . . .”
But why do you think that (leaving to one side the 10% hypothesis)? I take it that you are reconciled to innate physical characteristics? So why do you baulk at the idea of innate mental capacity, when the brain is just a physical organ? If we lived in a society which prized physical strength above everything, would your thinking be the other way round? Would you argue that, “it ought to be possible for most people to attain a high level of physical prowess, so long as they are brought up in a sufficiently nurturing environment.” Would you still be a lefty?
@Lawrence:
‘The trouble is that none of this stuff has the slightest impact on the believer who just says, “clearly God designed the temporal lobes to communicate with us!”‘
Indeed, some of the psychologists and neuroscientists who are part of the current push to investigate where religious beliefs and sensations come from are religious themselves. Then again, you’ve still got the “you can’t analyse religion scientifically, it is a misunderstanding/category mistake to try” brigade.
I’ve just got around to listening to this morning’s “Discussion on Social Mobility” chaired by Baroness Barker. The whole thing was a pretty lamentable lefty love-in. George Hosking of the WAVE Trust was one of the worst offenders. He repeated the tired old nonsense that a propensity towards violence derives from the childhood environment, particularly (and isn’t this amazing?) the first three years. Hosking urgently needs to read this book. It’s like he hasn’t even considered the possibility that boys (because it’s boys who are the problem) have simply inherited the same Y-chromosome as their violent father. If I had been at Bournemouth this morning, I might just have had a little violent eruption of my own!
I’m always amused that articles bashing lefties on here get such a good back-slapping response. I didn’t realise the Libdems had been taken over by the right-wing nutjob Tories, but ho hum.
This article does a good job of raising a starw-man in order to justify the stupidity that comes out of Palin’s mouth.
Laurence says:
American liberal left is gravely at fault for remaining too long … in a state of denial regarding a modern scientific understanding of human nature, thus allowing the religious right to punch through with their grossly inferior…
The ‘left’ (I love generalisations, don’t you?) only reacts to genetic determinism because most of the discussion is dominated by ‘blacks and women are inferior’ sort of rubbish posted on Neo-Nazi websites etc.
But even more broadly, lefties would be more concerned about genetics being used as a way of justifying policy (“black kids do worse at school because they’re naturally stupid”) or inequality (“women are stupid, that’s why they don’t dominate the Dow Jones top execs”), rather than including them in any discussion.
This article seems to imply that lefties see the world purely in a monochrome manner… that we don’t recognise the various factors such as class, race, religion, social mobility have on attainment. That lefties don’t want to recognise any difference at all. This is rubbish.
A simpler explanation is that religious societies generally are more likely to believe in creationism. It’s got nothing to do with the left, but it is amusing to watch people using any excuse to bash ‘the left’.
Slightly off-kilter comment considering the thread, but I had to pop in and say that this an awful reason for supporting Palin. The sole reason for her selection – and I don’t say this in order to demean her own skills as a politician – is her symbolic value. She’s very useful in promoting a) an image of a ‘reformed’ Republican Party and b) the ideas and ambitions of John McCain’s predominantly neoconservative advisers.
Somewhat ironically, one official has called her “a blank sheet“.
That’s brilliant – I didn’t know that. If the truth be told, I actually quite fancy Palin. Is that a bad reason too?
“I didn’t realise the Lib Dems had been taken over by the right-wing nutjob Tories, but ho hum.”
Sunny, it’s mainly just me! You’ll always be very welcome! But the point is that following on from paragraph two, I could easily have turned this into an article bashing the religious right. A year ago, that is the article I would have written. But it’s too easy, too self-indulgent, everyone else is doing it, and I can’t help thinking that there are going to be a hell of a lot of liberal sore heads come November.
Yes, I casually refer to “the left” in what is a broad brush theory about something subtle which I think is going on here. I’m more chiding “the left” rather than bashing them. (OK, I am bashing them as well.) But the point is that there’s a really useful weapon available here, but “the left” just can’t seem to grasp it because of all the fears that you allude to. So Palin gets away with a half-baked theory of human nature which beats none at all.
If you want an example of what I mean about “the left,” check out Pinker’s leading critic, Oliver James. It’s a fairly lengthy video I’m afraid, in which James manages to combine endless crimes against reason with incurable vanity and no small amount of spite. The audience absolutely love it!
But I admit, Sunny, that my overall idea is a bit strained. The main point of the article (indeed all my articles) is just to have a really big argument!
Heh, well at least you admit that Laurence.
I think you’re may be right in that there are going to be lots of sore heads in November. Even if Obama wins, Palin presents a serious problem in that the world’s most powerful democracy is always on the verge of electing complete religious nutjobs.
But that’s a problem with liberals as well as lefties. And that is a problem in that Democrats haven’t traditionally done the ‘culture wars’ too successfully. Hell, even Labour is crap at them (let’s not get started on the Libdems). We not only fail miserably to convince conservatives, but fail to develop a language that appeals to people’s innate emotions and feelings when thinking about politics.
Thankfull the Tories are much more incompetent than the Republicans in this regard.
But all this is rather irrelevant to your article really. The problem with Palin isn’t that we’re not taking genetic determinism seriously… but we’re not taking her emotional appeal seriously.
“Is that a bad reason too?”
Well, I fancy Audrey Hepburn but I’m not sure that she’d make a good VP/President. Especially in her current condition.
In comparison with John McCain, however…
My local democrat (yes, democrat) candidate for the House declares he is 100% pro-life and 100% pro-gun.
It’s pathetic really that they don’t see the contradiction in these slogans…
No, I don’t fancy John McCain . . .
But I’m not really suggesting we can beat McCain/Palin now by deploying Pinker. It’s too late for that. It’s been more of a long term failure. At the end of the day, the science doesn’t belong to the left or right – it belongs to everybody. It’s just that at present it seems to me that the right are closer to the truth, but more by luck than judgement.
“My local Democrat candidate for the House declares he is 100% pro-life and 100% pro-gun.”
The gun business is an example of where the right go wrong, as it were. “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” This kind of slogan places huge emphasis upon freedom or “free-will,” a concept required by both religionists and libertarians alike. Essentially, if you end up at the bottom of the social pile (or in the everlasting fires of Hell) it’s your own stupid fault. In fact this is very shaky from a scientific standpoint, and Pinker goes a long way towards debunking the “ghost in the machine” as he calls it.
Recently, I was researching the religious thinking of Margaret Thatcher (for some reason) and I came across the following striking manifesto from an address to the Church of Scotland in 1988. According to Thatcher, these are the beliefs that ought to distinguish the Christian in social and political life:
First, that from the beginning man has been endowed by God with the fundamental right to choose between good and evil.
Second, that we were made in God’s own image and therefore we are expected to use all our own power of thought and judgement in exercising that choice; and further, if we open our hearts to God, He has promised to work within us.
And third, that Our Lord Jesus Christ The Son of God, when faced with His terrible choice and lonely vigil, chose to lay down His life that our sins may be forgiven. I remember very well a sermon on an Armistice Sunday when our Preacher said, “No one took away the life of Jesus, He chose to lay it down.”
I got this from a book by Jonathan Raban, who comments on the passage as follows:
The Three Articles of Mrs Thatcher are remorselessly reductive. They boil down Christianity to provide a theological legitimation for the doctrine of the individual’s right to choose. The word choice is hammered into each Article, and by Article 3 the meaning of the Crucifixion itself turns out to be that Christ was exercising His right to choose.
That phrase! It has been used by Margaret Thatcher so often before, in contexts so far removed from the theological, that an unseemly bathos attaches itself to it here. Christ dying on the Cross joins those folk who have exercised their right to choose – to buy their own council houses, to send their children to private schools, to occupy “paybeds” in NHS-funded hospitals.
An absolute belief in God and an absolute belief in free will… I bet those Republicans like to pick and choose when they apply each argument too!
Clegg today:
Not quite your hypothesis then. Although I suppose he said “with goodness in them” rather than simply “good”.
Yes, he’s pretty much come out as blank-slater. I might have to write another article about this. That’ll learn him!
I think the phrasing of what Nick said is so non-specific that you’d have a hard time arguing that it disagreed with current scientific thinking. It could, of course, be argued that “born with goodness in them” implies anything but a blank slate.
As for Oliver James’s video, he does indeed supply most of the relevant scientific arguments against evolutionary psychology, indeed some of them are the reasons I have never thought of it as a very useful school of psychology myself. As for what he then goes on to claim about its relation to capitalism, I can’t volunteer as much enthusiasm!
It’s true, Andy, that Clegg’s phrasing is open to interpretation. But I think his second line – “of course, people can be selfish, cruel or violent, but I believe no-one starts that way” – is just wrong. It is surely basic that siblings are selfish as they compete for a bigger slice of the pie. So I would say that Clegg has it the wrong way round. We start out selfish, and need to cure ourselves of it. Similarly with violence – if one looks at the history of the world, one could argue that violence is the norm, and it is being peaceful that is the aberration.
The point is that, while this may not be such a great positive message to proclaim at Conference, it actually serves to underpin a jaundiced view of the world which probably leads to better governance. I mean if Nick thinks everyone is so nice, he should lighten up over ID cards and surveillance cameras! Just trust the vast majority of good people not to misuse the technology. There’s quite an irony here when you think about it. How many people ought to understand the fundamental cynicism of evolutionary competition better than a leading politician? Few I would say!
As for Oliver James, I’m a bit biased – I really don’t like him at all. But I would appreciate, Andy, some pointers towards what exactly you think is wrong with evolutionary psychology. It strikes me that there is something of the evolution v creationism debate here – with creationists, in the absence of the complete body plan of every organism that ever lived, claiming a total lack of evidence. Of course the theory of evolution operates at a higher level than that.
Likewise with James. At one point he ridiculously complains of, “a complete lack of f***ing evidence.” There’s absolutely loads of evidence but, depending of your starting point, you might see it as either compelling or wholly inadequate. I see it as blindingly obvious that the genes fashion behaviour as well as bodies. James sees this as something that should require a detailed proof based upon molecular genetics (which we’re not going to have for ages, so he’s safe). But surely we don’t need to have every last detail nailed down to see an overall picture emerging clearly?
More on this on TED
and at Centre Right
Thanks Joe. Having accepted Haidt’s advice to step outside the moral battlefield (so that I don’t think that Conservatives are totally evil!), I think Cuthbertson’s piece is pretty much spot on.
“Feminists, in particular, seem to have been thrown into total confusion by the appointment of the Alaskan bombshell.”
Really? Depends how you define feminism. According to some the of the “feminist” blogs I’ve read, they think that the only qualification a “feminist” needs is to be female, so they’ve switched their support from Clinton to Palin without a moment’s hesitation.
I just said that to be provocative Margaret! We have a number of feminist Lib Dem bloggers with whom I was hoping to have a huge argument, but they all just ignored me. (Where were you Steph, Jennie, Jo?)
But there is a problem with feminism which Pinker sets out very well. He distinguishes between equity feminism (good) and gender feminism (bad). The former is all about equality of opportunity, the later is more of a radical Marxist inspired belief system. The fact remains that men and women are very different and I’m not just talking about the plumbing!
But since I wrote this, Palin’s star has waned and I think Obama now has it quite easily. The economic crisis seems to be hurting the political right far more than the left.
Yes (sigh), I knew you were being provocative. I was just clarifying things :-). Try this for some gender feminism – http://www.reclusiveleftist.com.
Thanks Margaret, will do. But I think that this should make everything perfectly clear.
Grrr!