Exploring Human Nature in The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker

 

Hey team!

Recently, I read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, a renowned rationalist, thinker and prolific writer who we all could learn valuable information from. Pinker writes on human nature and society, questioning assumptions many still hold about what shapes our behavior, personality, and societal roles. The book critiques several myths about the foundations of human nature, most notably the ideas of the "Blank Slate," the "Noble Savage," and the "Ghost in the Machine."

The central concept Pinker challenges is the “Blank Slate,” or the idea that humans are entirely molded by environment, culture, or parenting. In this view, everything about our personalities, behaviors, and even our gender roles is shaped externally, with little biological foundation. Pinker refutes this, drawing on scientific evidence that demonstrates clearly how genetics plays a significant role in shaping who we are. He does not deny the impact of nurture; our environment matters, genes don’t exist in a vacuum of course. However, many traits are deeply embedded in our biology, shaped over millennia by evolution and emerge far from chance of our nurturance.

This evolutionary perspective makes sense when considering that humans are not born with a blank slate. If every trait depended solely on external influences, we would be remarkably vulnerable, reliant on the "right" environment for essential survival skills like breathing, walking, or even thinking. Instead, we seem biologically "primed" to grow and develop in specific ways, almost as if we have seeds within us that require certain inputs to sprout but are still inherently present. In the Blank Slate model, traits like generosity and community-mindedness are often seen as purely shaped by upbringing—leading to comments like “they weren’t raised with community values.” However, Pinker’s argument counters this by showing that many traits, including aspects of personality disorders, are deeply rooted in genetics. For example, schizotypal and antisocial personality disorders both have strong hereditary links that affect traits like empathy, social engagement, and impulse control, demonstrating that not all behavior stems from one’s environment. This perspective underscores that while culture influences us, our core tendencies are not simply molded by it; many are biologically ingrained.

Pinker's rejection of the Blank Slate does not dismiss altruism, cooperation or deep connection to others or groups. The traits are essential for survival and inherent to our species, as seen in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt describes humans as “90% chimp and 10% bee,” where we balance self-interest with a natural inclination for group solidarity. 

Pinker also confronts the idea of the "Noble Savage," the romantic belief that humans are inherently peaceful and kind, with society corrupting this natural goodness. Human history suggests otherwise. Across cultures, humans have exhibited violent tendencies, including cannibalism and warfare. Remarkably, society has evolved to value and uphold peace, and humans today often resolve conflicts through communication and negotiation, which is an impressive feat given our past. In today's age, some extremely isolated natives still live without any signs of modernity. Murder amongst other violent acts are significantly higher than modern society. There is nuance to this phenomena but I see it as demonstrating how far we’ve come even with all our flaws in modern society. 

The third myth, "The Ghost in the Machine," posits that the mind is separate from the brain, acting independently of our biological selves. This is in line with the idea of “soul-ness”, which, according to most religious folks, enters the zygote some time after conception. Pinker, in line with modern science, rejects this dualistic idea. He argues that the brain is the source of all our experiences, emotions, and decisions. Thought, emotion, and consciousness arise from biological mechanisms rather than a soul or “ghost” acting through the body. We have clear and extensive neuroscience findings to support this. 

Studies on identical twins raised apart reveal the powerful role of genetics in shaping personality. Such twins, separated by different environments, often end up with similar tastes, behaviors, and even quirks. Likewise, adoption studies show that adopted children often resemble their biological parents more in personality than their adoptive families. Even siblings in the same household can exhibit vastly different personalities, further suggesting that genetics plays a larger role than shared environment.

These findings also extend to political ideology. Traits like openness and agreeableness (measures of personality) , which are largely genetically influenced, can align with specific political leanings. For example, people high in openness and agreeableness are often more liberal, while those higher in conscientiousness may lean conservative. Though experience can shape our beliefs, these experiences interact with our underlying personalities, suggesting a genetic component in political inclinations that strengthened over time from an early  predisposition.  Obviously this is not hardset from the beginning, that is not an argument that can hold up, however there is a correlation that is important to recognize and one that I think is interesting. 

Pinker also discusses inherent differences between genders, not only physically but psychologically and emotionally. Recognizing these differences is not a matter of assigning unequal value but of understanding diversity in human preferences and inclinations. Studies show that boys and girls, even from infancy, exhibit different preferences. For instance, boys may gravitate toward spatial and mechanical activities, while girls might prefer social play and communication. These tendencies, according to evolutionary psychologists, are not purely cultural constructs but reflect underlying biological inclinations that served our species by delegating tasks based on underlying skill. 

Of course, not every individual fits neatly into these categories; there are women who thrive in engineering (spatial and mechanical) and men who excel in nursing roles (nurturing and interpersonal). However, the general distribution of preferences often reflects these gendered patterns, suggesting an innate component rather than simply societal conditioning. Pinker’s argument promotes a balanced approach to equality, one that respects natural differences without enforcing identical roles. Of course we need to allow all to go down the path they choose and we ought not to push individuals down certain paths however we shouldn’t see it as a societal failure if under equality of opportunity, women still choose the path historically associated with their gender. 

In acknowledging inherent differences, Pinker advocates for a society that allows individuals to pursue strengths and interests without imposing artificial standards. This type of fairness supports equality of access while honoring the natural diversity of human preferences. Equality, in this view, means celebrating diversity in strengths and preferences rather than forcing uniformity.

The Blank Slate invites us to think accurately of human nature and identity. Recognizing that biology and genetics contribute to our personalities, preferences, and even values does not mean we should value people differently. There is no moral panic to be had. Rather, it calls for an inclusive understanding of individuality and equality, one that respects our unique traits and aspirations. These insights encourage us to foster an environment that allows people to be themselves, honoring both shared humanity and individual differences.