tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post114169387045860771..comments2023-11-22T04:10:49.266-05:00Comments on Dispatches from Zembla: Do They Really F@#$ You Up?Alokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-1143587683968902042006-03-28T18:14:00.000-05:002006-03-28T18:14:00.000-05:00Also I think, personally, his chapter on Art was e...Also I think, personally, his chapter on Art was entirely wrong-headed. It is just crass and vulgar philistinism to define aesthetic impulse as a quest for attaining social presige.<BR/><BR/>And I love the modernist writers who he so unjustifiably denounces.Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-1143587439293120312006-03-28T18:10:00.000-05:002006-03-28T18:10:00.000-05:00thanks for the link. I had read some of the crtica...thanks for the link. I had read some of the crtical reviews. the common theme among all the critics, at least the sensible ones, is that while he is good in science and gathering and studying data, there are problems when he tries to interpret the theories and starts putting them in some kind of socio-political narrative... And yes we can forever debate parenting, feminism, prison policy, laissez-faire capitalism etc etc but the point is to base these debates on stable scientific grounds rather than tallking in the air. at least, for me, he convincingly demolished the Lockean amd Rousseauean romantic position in philosophy.<BR/><BR/>one of the best critical reviews of the book I remember reading was in the new yorker. it makes some really good points. worth reading.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?021125crbo_books" REL="nofollow">link<BR/></A>Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-1143582272747483782006-03-28T16:44:00.000-05:002006-03-28T16:44:00.000-05:00For example? Which idea did you find unscientific?...For example? Which idea did you find unscientific? <BR/><BR/>I think, if you compare scientific theories in psychology with those in physics or chemistry, they will certainly appear to be biased and tendentious. You can not have a mathematical proof of something like this...<BR/><BR/>the best that you can do is propose something and gather data to verify the predictions of the theory. most of the truth, as is with all science, will always remain provisional, subject to falsification and update in the light of new evidence but at a particular stage we have to accept a particular theory that best explains the situation... And I think Pinker makes a convincing case that his (or evolutionary psychology) theory is the best so far.<BR/><BR/>Hope it is what you meant...Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-1141838612231281822006-03-08T12:23:00.000-05:002006-03-08T12:23:00.000-05:00Of course hands-off approach doesn't mean emotiona...Of course hands-off approach doesn't mean emotional distancing. the child of course will always need emotional and physica support from the parents. but the idea that you can influence your child to have a personality of what you think he/she should have is misguided. also more important is that parents shouldn't blame themselves or feel guilty if their kids don't grow up into what they wanted them to be. i mean there is no harm in trying, just don't think you will always succeed in moulding the child's personality to your ideas!<BR/><BR/>I haven't read Nurture Assumption yet but Pinker's book Blank Slate is extremely good. I can't recommend it highly enough.Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.com