What does /lit/ think of Steven Pinker? I'm trying to get

>>9858270
Blank Slate is great. He's hit or miss though.

>>9858274
Pretty sure he calls himself a 'Feminist'

ass

>>9858270
Thanks. I promised myself I'd finish this book but so far it's just a bunch of scientism and very little to do with the topics at hand.

>>9858293
meant for >>9858274

>>9858270
>he pulls ten fedoras out of his ass

>>9858305
Is that seriously how all his books are though? I'm not even a theist and this guy comes off as having some Dawkins level pent up frustration. I feel like I'm reading liberal Bill O Reilly does linguistics.

File: chomsky.jpg (85KB, 976x810px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 976x810px

Read Edward Herman's critique of "The Better Angels of Our Nature", it's brutal and exposes Pinker as the charlatan he is

http://www.globalresearch.ca/reality-denial-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/32066

>>9858328
Thanks. I knew nothing about him before picking up the book and am now starting to regret having given him my money.

>>9858328
"muh Western Imperialism"

>>9858328
literally who?

>>9858341
You regret giving an academic money because of a single critique of a book you haven't even read?

>>9858280
Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed this board was smart enough not to get triggered by this. Even if you don't like third wave feminism, what kind of reverse-SJW idiot aspies out just because someone "calls himself a 'Feminist'"

>>9858344
The guy that wrote Manufacturing Consent with Chomsky

>>9858375
I'm against all forms of egalitarianism this includes universal suffrage.

>>9858362
No I regret giving him money because of the book I am currently reading was falsely advertised as one of the best books on the subjects of linguistics. Instead he's fellating Dawkins while jerking off Chomsky but Chomsky doesn't get to cum because he doesn't fully agree with natural selection. This goes on for several pages and it's ridiculously weakly tied into the subject matter by the speculation that language is a natural human function much like a spider's knowledge of web spinning.

>>9858270
Pinker is jewish figurehead like Bloom who is propped up by the jewish establishment in the west and ranges from unoriginally semi-insightful to subversively wrong. And, like Bloom, he exists merely to parch information from actual professionals and promote the parts that further jewish interests.

>>9858386
>a book about the innate structures involved in language aqusition have nothing to do with Chomsky or Dawkins!
Are you mentally deficient?

>>9858342
Kek

>>9858416
Are you? It has nothing to do with passive aggressive defenses of natural selection nor arbitrary bullshit statistics claiming Chomsky has been referenced as much as the bible. Maybe YOU need to read the book.

>>9858391
Jew Gatekeepers

>>9858428
You don't believe in natural selection?

>>9858450
Where did you get that idea? Not everything is vs them. And a book the purports to dwell in science and linguistics shouldn't waste the majority of its content on thinly veiled political assertions. I'm trying to fucking learn. Instead this reads like a satire of an extremely insecure hyperliberal pseudo celebrity. I don't give a FUCK about natural selection or creationism or any other fucking theory unless it is decently linked to the material. I've read books on diets that are more scientific than this.

>>9858469
*us vs them

>>9858469
>Instead this reads like a satire of an extremely insecure hyperliberal pseudo celebrity

Pinker is more Sam Harris tier, that's not exactly "hyperliberal" but it's very smug

>>9858469
1. Natural selection is vitally important when it comes to understanding inherent brain structures relating to language acquisition

2. Pinker is a moderate who calls for intellectual diversity on campuses all the time and gets attacked by leftists for not towing the line when it comes to the social constructionist view of human nature. He's not a left wing ideologue.

3. How can you simulationsly complain about the book's lack of science while complaining about it dwelling on natural selection?

>>9858498
>3. How can you simulationsly complain about the book's lack of science while complaining about it dwelling on natural selection?

Because it doesn't dwell on natural selection. It dwells on the cults of personality surrounding the subject, how virtuous they are, and how flawed they are for not practicing scientific talking points verbatim. Read the book before you choose to defend it.

he was the first alt-right canadian pseud, truly ahead of his time

>>9858536
Honestly a lot of it does read like a /lit/ shitpost.

>>9858432
Gatekeepers, precisely.

>>9858375
>assuming
>ass

I like his books, but not so much his politics. Have read "the stuff of thought", which was meh, alright. But "How the mind works" was really good. Though Pinker can't help himself with his sneers.

Want to read the "blank state". Not interested in "The better angels of our nature".

>>9858385
Thats because youre a sad and pathetic little man

>>9858280
Most normies due, because they buy into Feminism = Womenz not beeing treated like CATTLE. Doesn't say much.

File: 6863843524214787.jpg (207KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x960px

>>9858328
>chomsky
>western imperialism
>denial
You don't even try to hide your bias calling others charlatans, anon. Please try again.