paper

Steven Pinker is currently a psychology Professor at Harvard University, and contributes literary publications for The New York Times and The New Republic. Pinker delves into the controversial topic of nature vs. nurture in the article, “Why nature & nurture won’t go away”. In this work, Pinker criticizes the holistic interactionistic view, which states that personality is derived equally from nature and nurture. According to Pinker, they fail to attest for genetic variables that might contribute to personality differences. In contrast to holistic interactionist, Pinker argues that ones genes, culture, peer group, and chanced events contribute to individual personality differences. Steven Pinker exposes and debunks the holistic interactionist stand by effectively using logical evidence to devalue the conformists’ argument. He offers counter-examples, and walks us through the weaknesses in their arguments.
Throughout the article, Pinker emphasizes his opposition’s flaws, in order to weaken and evoke doubt into the reader. Pinker disproves that genes are dependent on the environment, because researchers have continuously made the mistake of placing more weight on the environments role. He agrees however, that genes do not have the potential to directly control certain personality actions, “Two recent studies have indentified single genes that are respectively associated with violence and depression, but have also shown that their effects are manifested only with particular histories of stressful experience”(pinker 6). This is saying that in order for a gene to be expressed, they have to be triggered by the environment. In this example, Pinker uses statistical data to reinforce the invalid argument that genes are not necessar...

... middle of paper ...

... Pinker’s clear use of specific counter- examples effectively persuades the reader to believe the arguments presented are truly invalid and faulty as we are intended to believe. Holistic interactionists are blinded by the belief that nature and nurture are interconnected. In contrast, pinker strongly encourages us to believe that we should tease the two apart and examine them as individuals. Steven Pinker addresses the discomforting topic that most are afraid to proclaim, which is the extremist side of nature for fear of being marginalized. He strategically uses counter-examples to debunk common beliefs that are either faulty or too broad to be precise. By drilling holes into the holistic interactionist perspective, Pinker strengthens his own argument. He chooses to stray away from the safe stance, by not ignoring the value of the brain, despite its complexity.