Some things that 2i2 said in another thread spurred me to post this, but not to pollute that thread with it.

I just finished listening to Steven Pinker discussing his book The Blank Slate at a TED conference and found it fascinating. I have the book, but haven't found the time to read it yet. It seems to show that contrary to popular delusions, children grow up into who they are almost exclusively as a result of who they were when they were born rather than because of the parenting skills, or lack thereof, of their homes or other environments. This would tend to support a lot of what I have suspected, but as to it's interest here at LiMi it flies flat out in the face of much of what the Stefmonster preaches and screeches. (not to use weighted language or nuthin' ... )

It's not too long and it is fun material to listen to. He's a good speaker. I recommend it (that would be obvious by now, wouldn't it?)

As to what relief this might provide a potentially guilt-ridden parent, I have no idea. You'll have to figure that out on your own. Likewise those of you who are so proud of your parenting skills.

- NonE

Funny how all the Pinker talks show empiricle evidence to refute FDR doublespeak.

So does Pinker say the empirical evidence refutes the possibility of indoctrination and the influence of dogma, doctrine, propaganda, and fear?

And as often as it happens I don't know why such surprises me, but it does here, in that I hear Pinker arguing for Stefban's premise-- or a least one key one. That being, he often says individuals (Pinker's "long list of human universals") are born brilliant ("the true self"), diametrical to "the blank slate" theory IMHO. And that it is only after parental indoctrination/bombardment/pain that the (social) brilliance, by a natural/inherent (non-blank-slate?) preventative/pain avoidance mechanism, becomes everything from perplexing, to horribly confused, to suppressed --hence the emergence of a "false self" (or multi-"personalities").

Hmpf.

* I am not wishing to canonize Sir Stefban (see how I spell his name), hardly; I only seek to sift the valuable from the invaluable akin to eating fish but not the bones; the pain reactions/emotions/personality differences from the potential for knowledge. I have no idea actually, if the premise I've commented on is actually his or if he's expounding upon someone elses.

Although both my parents raised me pretty much "agnostically", and religion or skygods were never talked about when I was growing up; I remember that at about 13 and 14 years of age I was very religious, although I wouldn't go to church.

This of course is completely counter to the Stef "methodology", according to which people adopt religion because they're afraid of being abandoned by their providers at an early age.

Bigus, immediate parental is not the only influence of cult`ure such as influencing "very religious", no?

And I don't think "universal" is implied here as being without exception(s). [side bar: IMO, too many around are still addicted to the either/or dichotomy propagated in contemporary AEnglish cult`ures]

Out of curiosity, did you in your childhood get Santa Claus/Christmas, Easter Bunny, Fairy Tales, etc from your parents? (primarily, where fictions are linked with empirical manifestation ie Santa "brings" literal gifts, the Easter Bunny gets the credit as really bringing/hiding literal gifts/eggs, etc)

If I recall correctly, nonStef sources bear out that the overwhelming majority of offspring, if and when they adapt a religion, adapt that of either their family or their cult`ure, no? [see "christian nations" versus "islam nations" etc]

I'd also toss out additional influence potential, generationally, in that there may be something to consider in the theory of "cellular memory"/"genetic memory", phrases for something akin to biological memory transference (or influence).