The theory of the Blank Slate is deceiving to those who continue to embrace it under the false assumption that different implies unequal. Pinker explains that genetic variation does not suggest that one gender is superior to the other, rather that men and women have genes specialized for distinct purposes. Genes that develop certain adaptations may express relatively high fitness in a female and retain relatively low fitness in a male. Pinker argues that misunderstanding the effects of our genes is not the worst offense that a person can make, though. He claims that the intellectuals who misunderstand the effects of the environment pose an even greater threat to society. In his discussion on gender and children, Pinker hopes to resolve any existing confusion.
Acknowledging sex differences is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for many women. Most feminists would agree that there is a division made between men and women in the work force. Pinker responds by encouraging these people to consider the role of each sex throughout our species’ evolution. A history of selection for high-stakes competition may incline men to take bigger risks to secure a job. A history of selection for child-rearing may incline more women to stay at home to nurture their children. It is possible that fewer women hold positions in a specific job field because their brain has evolved to problem solve differently than a man’s. Areas of study that demand systematic problem solving are more likely to appeal to a male. Women tend to deal with people, while men tend to deal with numbers and things. I agree with Pinker’s opinion that conflicting interests, not discrimination, are the decisive factor influencing how each of the sexes represent themselves within the professional world.
One of Pinker’s stronger arguments is for the role of genetics in a child’s sexual development. He describes a case in which a baby boy loses his penis during a surgical procedure. The parents decide to build their child an artificial vagina and raise her as a female. At an early age, she revealed feeling like a boy trapped inside of a girl’s body. The child exhibited male behaviors like playing rough and favored guns and toys over dolls and dresses. Pinker reasons that several similar cases provide enough evidence to write off the social construction theory. He makes the claim that children raised with two mothers will develop no different had they grown up with a mother and a father. This is where I feel that Pinker makes a bold and even contradictory statement. He agrees that experiences unique to every person influence their identity, so why is this an exception? A child with two mothers resides in a very different environment that offers very different experiences. I agree that genes play a decisive role, but I think Pinker does a child’s family an injustice.
While I disagree with Pinker’s opinion on child-rearing, he does make other sound points concerning children. He describes various studies investigating the behavior of identical twins raised in the same home. Researchers found that children often developed a unique identity among their peer groups. Pinker argues that this indicates a large part of a child’s behavior is an effect of the approval that they seek from peers. He attributes the remaining uncertainty about behavioral explanations to free will. I think that the ability to look beyond genetic and familial origin is something that sets Pinker apart from his contemporaries. Science is not always a matter of having the perfect answers, but a matter of providing new ideas.
My concern with Pinker’s opinion on both gender and children is his obvious inconsistency. He often contradicts himself about the emphasis placed on Nature vs. Nurture, and I think this severely weakens the significance of his argument. Pinker’s shortcomings are likely due to the fact that conducting behavioral studies is often challenging. Interpreting the results of a behavioral study is difficult because there are a number of indirect effects at play. The information that they give is only useful when comparing differences within groups, not between them. Pinker offers some really great ideas, but I take everything that he says with a grain of salt.