Steven Pinker is a linguist who studies how we think and use words and how we learn. He is cited a great deal in the Sousa book for PSYC 362 (chapter 5). Here is the TED talk about his latest book.
Click on the link in the right hand column to access the movie/talk. Remember to include your course number in your post.
I thought Steven Pinker was a good public speeker. However, the only thing I realy found interesting was when he was discussing twins. being a twin myself, I find information on this topic very interesting. The example of the twins who were seperated at birth and had many of the same characteristics was facinating. I thought it was interesting that twins seem to be shaped by culture, chance and most of all genes.
By: Ashley Moyer Psyc 362 on November 17, 2008
at 5:15 pm
I found Pinkers topic to be a bit boreing and not much about his talk grabed my attention. In fact im not sure what the concept of a blank slate has to do with the decline or arts and that was what the majority of his presentation was on. Other than that i found the twin research to be interesting. Also, after 4 years of psyc classes I was surprised to find out about the validity of parenting studies pinker disucsses.
By: jason amarena psyc 362 on November 17, 2008
at 7:58 pm
I found Steve Pinker was a bit boring. I did find the whole twin part of this presentation interesting, like the others who have already posted. I found it very intriguing that the correlation between identical twins and fraternal twin is different. The identical twins had the most correlation, which was not surprising. I found that fraternal twins were not as similar as the identical twins. I would think just twins, fraternal or identical, would have similar correlations.
I was confused on what the blank slate had to offer to the presentation, which was the majority of the time. I did not understand his point about blank slate….maybe I just missed his point.
PSYC 414
By: Ashley Hamilton on November 17, 2008
at 9:30 pm
wow the brain is a miraculous thing..
It makes sense what Pinker was talking about
how twins are similar I think it also relates to single birth siblings. My sister and I are very similar in both dress style and the way we think, everyone asks if were twins. It seems like all relatives think and dress alike.
Its funny how out of all those subjects the ones
that people cared about were the arts and parenting.
Probably because of the “nature vs nurture” dilema.
Over all i didnt really enjoy this video as much as the other ones, I think Its cuz he didnt really go into detail in any of the topics thats he talked about.
By: Daniella Galaviz (psy 362) on November 17, 2008
at 9:37 pm
I enjoyed Pinker’s talk though I found that the direction that he was going was a little confusing. I have read a couple of his other works and have a general idea as to what he was trying to explain.
Pinker’s topic, from what I can understand, is extremely controversial in that he is saying that there is a phenomena called human nature, and its development can be explained through social/cultural interactions etc., but human nature can also be seen through the development in our genetics.
If this is the case, then it seems Pinker is saying that we do have a blank slate in which one aspect of this requires certain genetic patterns that were passed down from the individual.
This is problematic in that it upsets the two dominant views about human nature. Then again I don’t think that it’s Pinker’s aim to provide evidence for one group over another, but rather to say that they are both aspects to even bigger questions about human nature.
PSYCH 362
By: Michael Garcia on November 17, 2008
at 11:52 pm
Wow, that was a lot of information. It’s quite a controversial topic as Pinker had stated. I don’t know that everyone just has a blank slate from the start, I don’t agree with him on that. It did make sense that he described the structure of the brain as being your culture, your parents, etc. I thought that the two “hot buttons” found were funny compared to many others that he had like marxism. It as an interesting video with concepts that I would of never thought of though.
Psyc 362
By: Jena Wagner on November 18, 2008
at 12:21 am
I, like a few others, found this presentation to be a little bit boring. Pinker had my attention when he was giving reasons to doubt the blank slate idea, but he lost me when he began talking about analyzing correlations of gray matter in the brain. (This could be due to the fact that I had a lab test in my biological psychology class today.) I did not see or understand the connection between the “hot buttons” and the idea of the blank slate. Yes, the things he mentioned are quite controversial but I was unable to find the relevance. However, I was surprised when he pointed out that siblings separated at birth end up as similar as siblings reared together, yet adopted siblings are not similar at all. I have to admit, that is pretty interesting!
PSYC 401
By: Cassie Alcocer on November 18, 2008
at 3:02 am
Like most of the people who have posted, I found Pinker’s talk a little boring and confusing at times. He covered so much information in his talk and didn’t go into too much detail about any particular subject matter. I think this was the reason it was so hard for me to follow in what he was talking about. I found it interesting that even when identical twins are separated, they have many scientific similarities. On the other hand, fraternal twins do not have the same result. I also found it interesting that siblings who are separated at birth end up as similar as siblings reared together. By proof of adopted siblings, parents are not the main thing that shapes children like many people believe. He discusses the way they are formed is mainly by chance, genes,peers and culture. Yes, I do believe all of these things shape us, but I do believe also that whoever we grow up with, parents or grandparents or siblings, etc. also has a large part in what shapes us into the person we are today.
By: Amy Parshall PSYC 414 on November 18, 2008
at 4:54 am
It must be overwhelming to raise a child nowadays. There are so many theories that call for the appropriate psychological, physical, and social development of a child. With every generation there is shift in child rearing theories, so one has to debate on whether to follow his/her parents practices to raise their own children. I agree with Steven Pinker’s claim about the little or no correlation between parent practices and their lasting effect on their children. I see where the controversy might come. Parents try to do their best at raising their children because they believe that whatever they do will have a lasting effect on their life, as Pinker claims. Then he comes around saying that it is not true. As he proposes, I think we must acknowledge that how a child will turn out to be is a combination of “genes,” “culture,” and “chance of events,” and none of them should be neglected.
By: Juana Barcenas on November 18, 2008
at 4:10 pm
PSYCH 441
By: Juana Barcenas on November 18, 2008
at 4:34 pm
I’m sorry I forgot to write what class I’m in the first time. Then I posted, but it was the wrong, inexiststing class. So one more time.
PSYCH 414
By: Juana Barcenas 414 on November 18, 2008
at 4:36 pm
This was not one of the best talks I have listened too and like others have said it was boring to me too! I didnt get that much from it and talking about the blank slate was confusing to me. The one thing that I thought was interesting was the twins and how separated at birth they still have the same characteristics. Same with siblings separated at birth end up as similar as siblings reared together. The blank slate was just to confusing to me for me to understand.
By: Megan Webster - psyc 414 on November 20, 2008
at 3:02 am
Steven Pinker was an interesting speaker with an interesting topic. He was a bit boring…not really energetic but I thought the material he was discussing was interesting. I like how at the beginning he compared a baby and a cat I think and how the baby would pick up language because ultimately there is something innate in humans that makes us able to learn language, while a cat would not be able to learn language. So, the blank slate idea doesn’t really fly with him and I think I would agree.
By: Cinthia Orozco(psyc 362) on November 20, 2008
at 4:13 am
I didn’t like him at the begining because the direction was very confusing. The presentation that he presented was very controversial. I felt that he was strong on how genetic factors affect human beings. At lease the evidence that he presented stood up for genetic influence. I don’t know if human beings are like the blank slake. I don’t neither one decides who we are. I don’t really feel that I learned anything from his presentation.
By: SHIH YA HUANG PSYCH 362 on November 20, 2008
at 4:48 am
I have to agree that each individual has their own completely unique genetic make-up which is going to influence our temperament, personality and our propensity for being certain ways. I believe that our nature, or innate genetic make-up provides us a with a range for how we can possibly be on various characteristics (mood, temperament, aggression, flexibility, energy, sensitivity, intro/extroversion) and then how we are raised is going to determine what end of that range we end up being on (highly sensitive, extremely extroverted, or very aggressive, etc).
I really do think that how we are raised has a big affect on us, of course our parents’ genes (which they pass on to us) is going to influence this, and how our personality affects them is also going to play a part, so in reality our genetic make-up is going to affect our rearing also. But think about how kids learn directly through their parents’ modeling, and how children placed in new homes or whose parents learn more about parenting change their behavior and how they are.
I think environment has a huge affect, and I think parents still need to really pay huge attention to how you parent your child–it will have a huge affect on their brain and their emotional stability and their ability to function later in life. You know how many people are in counseling to deal with things they learned to do or ways they learned to be during childhood that cause them huge problems now? I know you can’t control everything as a parent, and the kid is going to have experiences due to their personality and how people react to them, but you can control a lot about what they come into contact with and what you model and what you expose them to and have a positive impact.
I understand that twins with identic genetic make-up will turn out more similar because of it, but that says nothing about how positive or negative a parenting experience you have as a child and how that will affect you.
I wonder if he is really using his research result for constructive, useful purposes.
psy 362
By: Emma Schutz Fort on November 20, 2008
at 7:02 am
I suppose I’m a little biased being a psych major, but the end of Steven Pinker’s presentation where he says we are shaped by genes, culture (country and peer group), and chance makes me wonder where the shaping from parents comes in. I’ve learned and experienced my whole life that behaviors are shaped mainly by genes, by experiences/environment and by how we are shaped (or not shaped) by our parents. I have a hard time believing that parenting does not have a significantly strong bearing on how our personality and our behavior is shaped. He makes it sound more like our parents are just gene doners.
By: Ryan Prior Psych362 on November 20, 2008
at 7:54 am
I surprisingly liked this video clip, although I’m still on the fence as where nature or nurture has a more influential effect on how someone develops. I was a little lost when he started talking about art and the changing nature of art, but the comparison of the “Venus de Mi….” to the modern day sculpture was pretty funny. And I personally found the remark about the identical twins sneezing in elevators particularly funny since I lend to lack a certain volume control on my sneezes.
By: Andrew Lowenhaupt on November 20, 2008
at 6:39 pm
This was not one of my favorite movie mondays. I agree with a lot of people that my favorite part was the twin part I did fine that to be interesting. I enjoyed hearing about the different similiarities and differences fraternal and identical twins have. Identical twins are much more similar that fraternal.
By: Danielle Pallavicini on November 20, 2008
at 9:02 pm
PSY 404
Again like people have said before this wasn’t my favorite movie monday. However, I really did enjoy the section on the twins. The similiarity between twins is always so interesting .
By: Jennifer Cissell on November 20, 2008
at 10:18 pm
I tried pretty hard to pay attention to this movie, but it just wasn’t happening. There were some interesting points that he touched on, like the identical twin studies as opposed to adopted twins. Other than that he just seemed to ramble on about twins, parenting, art history, and culture. I’ve always felt that there is a stronger correlation between nature and personality, as opposed to nurture and personality, but I would not go so far as to discount the role of parenting and upbringing on child development.
By: jack coplen (401) on November 20, 2008
at 10:21 pm
Even though this guy comes out as smart and edgey he really dosen’y have anything new to say at all. This is one of the guys that makes people say psychology is just telling us what we already know. One fact that I liked is how he pointed out the adopted twins would grow up more diverse from eachother than biological sibilings.
By: Robert Plante on November 20, 2008
at 11:22 pm
i really couldn’t get a clear idea of what he was trying to say. he was not all that interesting and was kind of hard to follow. i felt that there were some things to agree and disagree with the things that he mentioned. i don’t believe that you are born with a blank slate. i don’t think that everything is learned by experience and environment. there are so many different things that are seen at birth. even though the other side to that is that while being in the womb that environment is what shapes you. it is hard to say what a blank slate consists of and then makes it hard to say that one is born with one. overall i felt as though the speech was boring.
By: stephanie insler on November 20, 2008
at 11:34 pm
I agree with many of the others in that it was rather boring, esp. in the 1st 2/3. A lot of it was way over my head and he moved so quickly through the different topics and subjects that I really didn’t have enough time to more fully grasp all that he was saying. However I liked his enthusiasm and sense of humor and he is obviously super intelligent. It’s just that some people are so intelligent but they don’t realize that some people may be a little slow in comprehending all the details and nuances of what they’re saying. I would need to watch the movie again to really get much of the message. The funny parts included the advice from colleagues and I really liked the quote from Judith Butler!
By: Paul Hubbard (Psyc 362) on November 20, 2008
at 11:43 pm
I’m going to agree with everyone on this one and say it was kind of boring. I was paying attention at first when he was talking about the blank slates, which I’m not too sure if I agree with, but then I just lost focus. What did catch my attention again was when he was talking about twins. I was surprised that twins who grew up together and twins who were seperated at birth are as much alike as the other in either situation. I would have thought different!
Psyc 401
By: Desiree Ribolin on November 21, 2008
at 12:04 am
I could relate to class the fact what when he says “the idea of fairness is not equal to sameness” It is impossible for all of us to be the same, making fairness impossible. He goes on to describe the fact that becuase we are not all equal, some will have more then others. This could be one reason for racism and discrimination. Although he talks at length about the controversiality of his topic, his information seems to be simple and at times, obvious. We’re not all the same; we’re not all equal…
By: Chris Bunt(401) on November 21, 2008
at 12:27 am
I agree with most others in that this talk was very boring! I thought that a lot of the content was very interesting. However, Pinker did not grab my attention with his presentation. He was dry and he would say like three words and then fade out with a short pause. One part that I did find particularly interesting was the section when he talked about the twin studies. I find twin studies fascinating in general. I think that it is amazing that they find similar mannerisms and characteristics in twins separated at birth. The little cartoon was cute too!
However, I do always find myself being skeptical of these kinds of findings. How similar are they really? How many sets of non related strangers would produce similar findings??
By: Liz Simmons on November 21, 2008
at 7:31 am