The Blank Slate

The Blank Slate Plot Summary

Introduction

For much of the 20th century, intellectual discourse was dominated by the notion that humans are born as "blank slates" - minds without innate traits, waiting to be written upon by experience and culture. This view, often accompanied by the idea of the "noble savage" and the "ghost in the machine," became deeply embedded in academic disciplines and public policy despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary. The blank slate doctrine persisted not because of scientific merit but because of its perceived moral implications - if humans have no innate tendencies, then differences in achievement must reflect differences in opportunity rather than ability. Modern science has thoroughly dismantled this view through converging evidence from evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, genetics, and cognitive science. These fields reveal that humans possess a complex, universal nature that evolved over millions of years - one that includes not only capacities for language, reasoning, and cooperation, but also tendencies toward violence, tribalism, and self-deception. Understanding this nature, rather than denying it, provides a more solid foundation for human dignity, equality, and moral progress. By examining the scientific case for innate traits and addressing the moral and political fears that have sustained the blank slate doctrine, we can develop a more nuanced and ultimately more humane understanding of ourselves.

Chapter 1: The Three Doctrines That Denied Human Nature

Throughout the 20th century, intellectual life was dominated by three influential doctrines that together formed a particular view of human nature. The first was the "Blank Slate" (tabula rasa), the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and is formed entirely by environment and experience. This doctrine, associated with John Locke, suggested that humans are born without innate traits and that all knowledge comes from perception and learning. The blank slate became particularly influential in psychology, where behaviorists claimed they could shape any person into any kind of specialist regardless of innate talents. The second doctrine was the "Noble Savage," which held that humans in their natural state are peaceful, cooperative, and egalitarian, and that problems like violence, greed, and oppression are products of civilization rather than human nature. This view, often associated with Rousseau, suggested that removing the corrupting influence of society would allow human goodness to flourish. Cultural anthropologists like Margaret Mead provided apparent support for this view through studies of supposedly peaceful primitive societies, though later research would question many of these findings. The third component was the "Ghost in the Machine," a phrase coined by philosopher Gilbert Ryle to criticize Descartes' mind-body dualism. This doctrine maintained that the mind exists in a realm separate from the physical world and cannot be explained by physical processes. This view suggested that human consciousness and decision-making operate outside the causal network of biology, giving humans a special status distinct from other animals and the physical world. Together, these three doctrines created a vision of humanity as infinitely malleable, naturally virtuous, and metaphysically unique. These doctrines became deeply embedded in academic disciplines and public policy not primarily because of scientific evidence but because of their moral and political implications. If humans have no innate tendencies toward violence, selfishness, or prejudice, then utopian social reforms seemed possible. If differences between individuals and groups are entirely due to environment, then discrimination based on race, gender, or ethnicity is clearly irrational. If the mind is separate from biology, then we are not constrained by our evolutionary history or genetic makeup. The blank slate view was particularly appealing because it seemed to support political equality. If we are all blank slates, then differences in achievement must be due to differences in opportunity rather than innate abilities. This aligned with egalitarian political movements and seemed to provide scientific justification for social reform. However, this well-intentioned moral stance increasingly required ignoring or dismissing growing scientific evidence about the nature of the human mind, creating a tension between scientific understanding and moral values that would eventually become unsustainable.

Chapter 2: Scientific Evidence Against the Blank Slate Theory

The scientific case against the Blank Slate comes from multiple converging fields of research. Cognitive science has demonstrated that the mind is not a general-purpose learning device but contains specialized systems for language, face recognition, intuitive physics, and social reasoning. These systems appear to be universal across cultures and develop on predictable schedules in children, suggesting they are part of our biological inheritance rather than products of culture alone. Children across the world master complex grammatical rules without explicit instruction, recognize faces with remarkable speed and accuracy, and develop intuitive theories about how physical objects and other minds work, all following similar developmental trajectories regardless of cultural context. Neuroscience has revealed that the brain is not an undifferentiated mass of tissue waiting to be inscribed by experience but has a complex, genetically guided structure with specialized circuits for different mental functions. Brain imaging studies show that the same neural regions activate when people perform specific mental tasks, regardless of their cultural background. When neurosurgeons electrically stimulate different parts of the brain, they elicit specific sensations, memories, or emotions, showing that mental processes are tied to particular neural structures. Studies of brain damage further demonstrate this specialization - damage to specific brain regions causes predictable deficits in language, face recognition, or moral reasoning while leaving other abilities intact. Behavioral genetics provides some of the most compelling evidence against the Blank Slate. Studies of twins separated at birth show remarkable similarities in personality, intelligence, and even specific habits and preferences, despite being raised in different environments. Adoption studies consistently find that adopted children resemble their biological parents more than their adoptive parents in many psychological traits. Statistical analyses across numerous studies indicate that genetic factors typically account for about half the variation in personality traits and cognitive abilities within a population. These findings indicate that genes substantially influence not just physical characteristics but also mental ones. Evolutionary psychology explains why certain psychological traits are universal. Natural selection has shaped our minds just as it has shaped our bodies, equipping us with adaptations for solving problems that were recurrent in our evolutionary history. These include finding mates, cooperating with others, detecting cheaters, avoiding predators, and acquiring language. Cross-cultural studies have documented hundreds of human universals - patterns of behavior, emotion, and cognition found in all known societies - from facial expressions of emotion to moral intuitions about reciprocity and harm. These universals make sense as evolved adaptations but are difficult to explain if the mind is truly a blank slate. The development of language provides a particularly clear example of how nature and nurture interact. Children around the world master the complex grammar of their native language without explicit instruction, on roughly the same timetable, and in similar stages. When children are exposed to a pidgin (a simplified trading language without consistent grammar), they spontaneously transform it into a creole with complex grammatical rules. These observations led linguist Noam Chomsky to propose that humans possess an innate language acquisition device - specialized neural circuitry that enables language learning. This doesn't mean language is "in the genes" in a simplistic sense, but rather that our genes provide the framework that makes language acquisition possible through interaction with a linguistic environment. Evidence from anthropology further undermines the Noble Savage myth. Contrary to romantic notions of peaceful pre-state societies, archaeological and ethnographic research shows that violence was pervasive in prehistoric and traditional cultures. Many hunter-gatherer societies had homicide rates far higher than modern industrial states. This doesn't mean violence is inevitable or that we cannot create more peaceful societies, but it does suggest that aggression is not merely a product of civilization that can be eliminated through social reform. Understanding the evolutionary and psychological roots of violence may actually be essential for developing more effective strategies to reduce it.

Chapter 3: Why Acknowledging Human Nature Doesn't Threaten Equality

The fear that acknowledging human nature undermines equality rests on a fundamental confusion between empirical claims about how people are and moral claims about how they should be treated. Political equality is a moral stance about how people should be treated, not a factual claim about human sameness. When the American Declaration of Independence proclaimed "all men are created equal," it referred to equality in certain inalienable rights, not equality in every human attribute or talent. As Abraham Lincoln later clarified, the declaration meant "equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," not that all were equal in color, size, intellect, or moral development. Human genetic variation is a biological reality, but this variation does not align with traditional racial categories, which are largely social constructions. Most genetic differences are found within rather than between population groups. While there may be average differences between groups on certain traits, these differences are typically small compared to the variation within groups, and they tell us nothing about any individual person. Treating people according to stereotypes about their group rather than as individuals is both morally wrong and factually misguided. The case against discrimination does not depend on denying human variation but on the moral principle that people should be judged as individuals. The existence of some genetic influence on individual differences in traits like intelligence or personality does not justify discrimination or inequality of opportunity. Even if people differ in their talents, everyone deserves equal rights and respect. In fact, acknowledging human diversity strengthens rather than weakens the case for political equality. If we falsely believed that all differences were due to environment, we might blame disadvantaged people for their failures, assuming they simply hadn't tried hard enough in a supposedly level playing field. Recognizing that people start with different advantages and disadvantages, some of which are biological, makes the moral case for compensatory support and equal opportunity stronger, not weaker. The philosopher John Rawls provided a powerful framework for thinking about equality in a world of natural differences. He asked what principles of justice we would choose if we were behind a "veil of ignorance," not knowing what natural talents or social position we would have in society. Under these conditions, rational people would choose principles that protect the disadvantaged, precisely because they recognize that unearned advantages and disadvantages exist. This approach acknowledges human nature while supporting egalitarian policies. It suggests that a just society should compensate for natural inequalities rather than pretending they don't exist or using them to justify social hierarchies. Moreover, the science of human nature actually reveals psychological mechanisms that support equality. Humans appear to have evolved a sense of fairness and reciprocity that makes us sensitive to exploitation and unfair treatment. Studies show that even young children and some non-human primates react negatively to unequal distributions of resources. These innate moral intuitions provide a biological foundation for ethical principles of equality and justice. Understanding these evolved mechanisms can help us design institutions that work with our natural moral psychology rather than against it. The fear that biological explanations will be used to justify inequality also ignores the historical record. Some of the most horrific violations of human rights occurred under regimes that explicitly rejected biological human nature. Soviet communism, which was founded on the idea that human nature is shaped entirely by social conditions, committed atrocities against "class enemies" who supposedly could not be reformed. The blank slate view allowed them to justify eliminating people who stood in the way of creating the "new Soviet man." Far from protecting equality, denying human nature can enable totalitarian attempts to remake humanity through force.

Chapter 4: The Political Opposition to Biological Explanations

The idea of an innate human nature has faced fierce opposition not primarily because of scientific evidence but because of its perceived moral and political implications. Critics have argued that biological explanations of behavior could be used to justify inequality, discrimination, violence, and the status quo. If differences between individuals or groups have any genetic basis, they fear this could rationalize social hierarchies as natural and inevitable. This fear has led to what has been called "the moralistic fallacy" - the tendency to believe that what ought to be determines what is, rather than basing our moral values on an accurate understanding of reality. This opposition often takes the form of associating biological approaches to human behavior with unsavory political movements. Scientists who study genetic influences on intelligence or sex differences have been accused of promoting eugenics, racism, and sexism. When E.O. Wilson published "Sociobiology" in 1975, suggesting that some aspects of human social behavior might have evolutionary origins, he was met with protests and denunciations. Critics claimed that such ideas could provide scientific cover for oppression and exploitation. This guilt by association fallacy has made many researchers reluctant to investigate politically sensitive topics, creating what some have called a "chilling effect" on certain areas of science. The political left has been particularly suspicious of biological explanations, seeing them as threats to progressive social change. If human nature includes competitive or hierarchical tendencies, this might seem to validate capitalism or undermine egalitarian reforms. If men and women have some innate psychological differences, this might appear to justify gender inequality. If aggression has biological roots, this could be seen as making violence inevitable rather than preventable through better social arrangements. These concerns reflect a deeper fear that acknowledging constraints on human malleability might limit the possibility of social progress. However, the political right has also opposed aspects of the science of human nature. Religious conservatives reject evolutionary explanations of human origins and behavior as contradicting divine creation. They resist evidence that sexual orientation has biological components, preferring to see it as a chosen lifestyle. They often invoke "human nature" selectively to defend traditional practices while ignoring evidence that challenges their worldview. This selective skepticism reveals that opposition to biological explanations crosses political lines and often reflects ideological commitments rather than scientific considerations. The opposition to human nature research has sometimes gone beyond academic debate to include personal attacks, disruption of lectures, and attempts to prevent publication of research findings. This climate has made many scientists reluctant to investigate politically sensitive topics, creating a situation where certain questions are avoided not because they lack scientific merit but because of their perceived political implications. This politicization of science ultimately harms both scientific progress and effective social policy, which should be based on accurate understanding rather than wishful thinking. Ironically, both the extreme left and right have misunderstood the implications of human nature research. The existence of innate tendencies does not mean behavior is "determined" in a rigid sense that eliminates free will or moral responsibility. Nor does it mean that social reform is futile. Understanding our natural inclinations can actually help us design more effective institutions and policies that work with human psychology rather than against it. The fear that acknowledging human nature leads to fatalism or reactionary politics is based on logical fallacies rather than a careful reading of the science.

Chapter 5: How Understanding Our Evolved Psychology Enables Moral Progress

Far from being an obstacle to moral progress, human nature provides the psychological foundations that make moral advancement possible. Humans possess innate moral emotions and cognitive capacities that enable ethical reasoning, empathy, and cooperation. These evolved capacities don't determine the content of our moral codes, but they provide the mental equipment that makes morality possible. Without these natural capacities, moral progress would be inconceivable; with them, we can build increasingly sophisticated ethical systems that transcend our evolutionary origins. The philosopher Peter Singer has described moral progress as an "expanding circle" of moral concern. Throughout history, humans have gradually extended moral consideration beyond immediate family and tribe to encompass larger groups, including people of different races, nationalities, and eventually all of humanity. This expansion wasn't achieved by overriding human nature but by engaging innate capacities for empathy and reasoning. Our evolved ability to take others' perspectives, combined with our capacity for abstract thought, allows us to recognize the interests of distant others as similar to our own. This process of moral expansion continues today as we extend ethical consideration to non-human animals and future generations. Human moral psychology includes both tribal impulses and universalizing tendencies. We evolved in small groups where cooperation was essential for survival, developing strong attachments to in-group members and suspicion toward outsiders. But we also evolved capacities for impartial reasoning that can override these tribal instincts. The tension between these aspects of our nature drives moral debate and progress. When Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to Americans to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, he was invoking universal moral principles that resonate with our evolved sense of fairness, while challenging us to overcome our tribal biases. The capacity for cultural learning is another aspect of human nature that enables moral progress. Humans are uniquely able to accumulate knowledge across generations, allowing moral insights to be preserved and built upon. The abolition of slavery, expansion of women's rights, and growing concern for animal welfare represent cumulative moral achievements that each generation doesn't have to rediscover. This cultural transmission of moral knowledge depends on innate human capacities for language, teaching, and social learning. Understanding these capacities helps explain how moral progress occurs and how it might be accelerated. Moral progress also depends on our evolved capacity for self-control. Humans can override immediate impulses in favor of long-term goals or abstract principles. This ability emerges from the prefrontal cortex, which developed to manage complex social interactions. It allows us to resist violent or selfish urges when they conflict with moral values. Far from being a ghost in the machine, moral choice is implemented by neural systems that evolved precisely to navigate social dilemmas. Understanding these systems doesn't eliminate free will but explains how it works at a neurological level. The recognition that morality has biological roots doesn't imply moral relativism or nihilism. The fact that our moral intuitions evolved doesn't mean they are arbitrary or invalid. Evolution equipped us with moral emotions because cooperation and fairness enhanced survival in social groups. These emotions provide a starting point for ethical reasoning, even if they don't dictate final moral conclusions. Just as our evolved capacity for language doesn't determine which specific languages we speak, our evolved moral psychology doesn't determine the specific content of our ethical codes. Understanding the biological basis of morality can actually strengthen moral discourse by helping us recognize both the universality and the limitations of our moral intuitions.

Chapter 6: Reconciling Biology with Human Dignity and Freedom

One of the deepest concerns about biological approaches to human nature is that they threaten human dignity and freedom. If thoughts and feelings are just neural activity, and if behavior has genetic influences, does this reduce humans to mere mechanisms without free will or moral responsibility? This concern reflects a misunderstanding of what modern biology actually implies about human experience and agency. Recognizing the biological basis of mind doesn't eliminate the reality of human experience or the significance of human choice. Understanding the neural basis of consciousness doesn't make subjective experience any less real or meaningful. Consciousness, reasoning, and choice remain real phenomena even when we understand their physical underpinnings. Just as understanding the physics of light doesn't make colors any less beautiful, understanding the neuroscience of decision-making doesn't make choices any less meaningful. In fact, it enriches our understanding of these experiences by explaining how they're possible in a physical universe. The fear that materialism leads to nihilism confuses different levels of explanation - physical, psychological, and philosophical. Human dignity doesn't require a non-physical soul or complete freedom from biological influences. It rests on our unique capacities for reflection, moral reasoning, and cultural creation - capacities that evolved through natural selection but transcend their evolutionary origins. We can use our evolved intelligence to understand our own nature and, to some extent, transcend its limitations. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett argues, this capacity for self-reflection gives us a kind of freedom that matters, even in a deterministic universe. We can evaluate our own desires, consider alternative possibilities, and make choices based on principles rather than immediate impulses. The fear that biological explanations undermine responsibility stems from a false dichotomy between complete freedom and complete determinism. In reality, human behavior emerges from multiple levels of causation. Genes influence brain development, which shapes psychological tendencies, which interact with experience and culture to produce behavior. Each level in this causal chain introduces new complexities and possibilities. The fact that behavior has genetic influences doesn't mean it's immune to environmental influences or conscious intervention. Understanding these causal pathways actually enhances rather than diminishes our ability to influence behavior through education, social policy, and personal choice. Modern neuroscience reveals that the brain is not a simple stimulus-response machine but a complex system that models the world, evaluates options, and adjusts behavior based on anticipated outcomes. The prefrontal cortex allows humans to inhibit impulses, consider alternatives, and make decisions based on abstract principles. These neural systems implement what we experience as choice and self-control. They don't eliminate determinism in a philosophical sense, but they create the psychological reality of choice that grounds our practices of holding people responsible. Understanding these mechanisms helps explain why responsibility practices work rather than undermining them. Responsibility practices don't require the kind of metaphysical free will that would violate physical causation. They require only that people can respond to reasons and modify their behavior accordingly. We hold people responsible not to punish them for exercising metaphysical free will, but to influence future behavior - both their own and others'. This understanding of responsibility is entirely compatible with biological approaches to human nature. Indeed, it explains why responsibility practices evolved in the first place - because they effectively regulate social behavior in species with complex brains capable of anticipating consequences. The biological perspective also enhances rather than diminishes our appreciation of human uniqueness. It shows how evolution produced a species with unprecedented capacities for language, abstract thought, cooperation, and cultural creation. These capacities emerge from neural systems that evolved gradually but eventually crossed thresholds that opened up qualitatively new possibilities. Understanding these evolutionary processes doesn't reduce human achievements to animal behavior; it explains how our unique achievements became possible through the remarkable complexity of the human brain and the cumulative power of cultural evolution.

Summary

The scientific case for innate traits reveals a complex human nature that includes both universal capacities and individual variations. We are neither blank slates shaped entirely by culture nor rigidly programmed automata determined by our genes. Instead, we possess evolved psychological mechanisms that interact with environmental influences throughout development, creating both the commonalities that unite humanity and the differences that make each person unique. This nuanced understanding transcends the false dichotomy between nature and nurture, recognizing that both biological and cultural factors are essential to explaining human behavior. The most profound insight from this exploration is that acknowledging our biological heritage doesn't undermine human dignity, equality, or moral progress - it actually provides a more solid foundation for these values. By understanding our evolved capacities for language, reasoning, empathy, and cooperation alongside our tendencies toward tribalism, violence, and self-deception, we can design institutions and practices that work with human nature rather than against it. This scientifically informed approach avoids both the utopian fantasy that humans can be reshaped without limit and the fatalistic view that biology is destiny. Instead, it offers a realistic optimism based on harnessing our natural capacities for cooperation, learning, and moral reasoning while creating environments that minimize our darker impulses. The path forward lies not in denying human nature but in understanding it deeply enough to create a more humane world.

About Author

Loading...

Steven Pinker

Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of numerous books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, The Stuff of Thought, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and most recently, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.He was born in Canada and graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, then became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2004 and one of Prospect and Foreign Policy's 100 top public intellectuals in 2005. He has also received honorary doctorates from the universities of Newcastle, Surrey, Tel Aviv, McGill, and the University of Tromsø, Norway. He was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, in 1998 and in 2003. In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, whose comments about the gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. On May 13th 2006, Pinker received the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year award for his contributions to public understanding of human evolution.In 2007, he was invited on The Colbert Report and asked under pressure to sum up how the brain works in five words – Pinker answered "Brain cells fire in patterns."Pinker was born into the English-speaking Jewish community of Montreal. He has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969. His father, a trained lawyer, first worked as a traveling salesman, while his mother was first a home-maker then a guidance counselor and high-school vice-principal. He has two younger siblings. His brother is a policy analyst for the Canadian government. His sister, Susan Pinker, is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Sexual Paradox and The Village Effect. Pinker married Nancy Etcoff in 1980 and they divorced 1992; he married Ilavenil Subbiah in 1995 and they too divorced. He is married to the novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, the author of 10 books and winner of the National Medal of the Humanities. He has no children.His next book will take off from his research on "common knowledge" (knowing that everyone knows something). Its tentative title is: Don't Go There: Common Knowledge and the Science of Civility, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Taboo.

Read more

Related Books by Steven Pinker

Loading...

Rationality

Steven Pinker

What It Is, Why It's Scarce, and How to Get More

★★★½☆3.8

Loading...

Enlightenment Now

Steven Pinker

The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

★★★★☆4.2

Loading...

Everybody Lies

Steven Pinker

Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are

★★★½☆3.9

Loading...

The Language Instinct

Steven Pinker

How the Mind Creates Language

★★★★☆4.0

Loading...

The Sense of Style

Steven Pinker

The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century

★★★★☆4.0

Loading...

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Steven Pinker

Why Violence Has Declined

★★★★☆4.2

Loading...

The Stuff of Thought

Steven Pinker

Language as a Window into Human Nature

★★★½☆3.9