Alissa Carlson - Blog #1

         After reading through Steven Pinker's article once, and re-reading many long strings of sentences that I originally struggled to comprehend, I decided on a short blurb in which I felt I could argue on and form an opinion on. Pinker talks about four fears within human nature and the scientific and political connections between them. The fear of inequality, determinism, nihilism and imperfectability are all fears that are shown throughout human nature. The fear of inequality and imperfectability seemed easier to understand, but the fear of determinism took me for a whole other loop. Pinker describes this fear as: "If behavior is caused by a person's biology, he can't be held responsible for it." Here I am, reading this sentence with my mouth half open saying, "what?!" because I didn't believe thats what I just read. Pinker states that a suitable response for the fear of determinism is based on the belief that there is someone that needs to be held responsible for the action and that there will be contingencies imposed based on their behavior. This is a statement that I believe; if you do something that is against the law, you need to take responsibility for it and do the jail time or pay a fine. But Pinker states that if you do something that is against the law, it is because it was in your genes and they made you do it. To an extent, I do think that there is a behavior that runs in the family, it will be passed down from generation to generation (like a disease or an illness), but I think this most definitely runs into the nature vs. nurture debate.

          Personally, I find myself on both sides of the argument. To an extent, I do believe that a certain behavior (that of committing a crime or breaking the law) can be reflected in other generations. I think that there is some essence of heredity with certain genes and the behaviors and reactions of people. However, I have a hard time believing/understanding the concept that if it is in their genes, they can't be held responsible for it. Is this the same as pleading insanity? Why can't they not take responsibility for their actions? If they killed someone and there is no doubt in the evidence are they not going to be committed for the crime? How!? What!?

          I can tell you right now that if Pinker and I were ever in a room together, I don't think I would walk up to him and start a conversation because either I would have no idea what he is talking about or he would start talking and I would look at him and respond but my head would be in space. I think he definitely has some good arguments, but I don't want to say that I agree with him about everything that he as said. And thats fine! You don't have to agree with everyone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and are allowed to speak their mind. BUT - like I said earlier. If there's direct evidence that points you to a crime, does that mean that you didn't commit it? Or that you committed it because it was a trait or an allele thats in your human genome? He also stated in the following blurb that, "Some of the most bogus defenses for bad behavior that have been concocted by ingenious defense lawyers are more likely to be environmental than biological in the first place." Excuse me, but are you saying that if a person grew up in a neglectful or abusive home, that it would not add to their case? That, is most definitely something that him and I do not agree on. But again, great that he's got his own opinion but yikes.