a bonobo humanity?

‘Rise above yourself and grasp the world’ Archimedes – attribution

Posts Tagged ‘Steven Pinker

inspired by writers’ week, sort of – the internet, violence, testosterone and our future

leave a comment »

Hmmm – needs further investigation. Vive les bonobos!

I spent some time at the Adelaide Writers’ Week tents yesterday, and heard a couple of remarks from speakers that exercised me in a negative way, so I thought I might air my grievances and expand on my thinking here. One was a quote taken, I think, from the historian and ‘public intellectual’ Bernard Lewis, on the influence of the internet on modern culture, and the other was a dismissal of the ‘better angels of our nature’ thesis of Steven Pinker.

I know Lewis only as a name, never having read any of his work, and I note that he died in 2018, just a few days shy of his 102nd birthday, so I can’t imagine him being an early adopter of the internet. I put his ‘public intellectual’ status in quotes largely out of jealousy, as I think I yearn to be a public intellectual myself, though I’m not sure. Anyway, from the little I heard of the quote, selected and spoken by Waleed Aly, Lewis was considering the double-edged sword of the internet in something like the manner of Marshall McLuhan in The Gutenberg Galaxy and The Medium is the Massage, only rather more negatively. I do recall dipping into McLuhan’s work decades ago, and finding it a bit over-hyped, and hyper. Anyway that’s enough of McLuhan. The concern being expressed about the internet was really mostly about social media and the ideological balkanisation it appears to foster. There’s some truth to this of course, which is why, without really thinking it through, I’ve been avoiding social media outlets more and more. Facebook lies dormant on my devices, and Twitter has come and gone.

But that is a minor part of the internet for me. Its advantages far outweigh the distractions of clickbait sites, and I personally consider it the greatest development in the dissemination of human knowledge at least since the invention of writing – and far more consequential than Gutenberg’s invention. For example, just in the past few months, without stepping outside my home, I’ve watched a lecture series from Yale University on the history of Russia, from the Kievan Rus to 1917 and the end of Tzardom; another lecture series – an Introduction to Neurology, from MIT, and a number of lengthy lectures from the Royal Institution, on palaeontology and on epigenetics, for example. I’ve subscribed to Brilliant.org and have completed 115 of their lessons on everyday science, and I’m boning up on the basics with Professor Dave’s Introduction to Mathematics series. Meanwhile, over the years I’ve observed Wikipedia growing in stature to become the first and best go-to site for learning about historical figures and events, as well as complex scientific subjects. And full scientific papers on just about every possible subject are becoming increasingly available online. I now have access to the greatest library in human history, which leaves me, at times, with a confused feeling – sometimes a dwarf, sometimes a titan. Bliss at this time it is to be alive, but to be young… I recall watching a video (online of course) about how a young African boy was able to build a wind turbine via online instructions, and so bring cheap electricity to his village. .. In short, the internet is an instrument – as is writing and the printing press. It can be used for a multiplicity of purposes, positive or negative. It’s up to us.

Second little irritant. I heard a brief segment of an onstage discussion between the philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer and a writer unknown to me, Samantha Rose Hill, author of a study on Hannah Arendt, about whether they viewed the future positively or negatively. Singer described himself as essentially an optimist, and spoke of his ‘expanding circle’ thesis. He also referred to Pinker’s The better angels of our nature, a book with which he was in broad agreement. The female writer, in her turn, said that she was definitely not in agreement with Pinker, after which I petulantly switched off.

I read The better angels of our nature, probably not long after it was published in 2011, and Pinker’s follow-up book, Enlightenment now, in 2018 or 2019. Right now I can say that I can’t recall a single sentence from either book, which is also the case for the hundreds of other books that have been consumed by the gaping maw of my mind. I might also say that I’ve written more than 800 pieces on this blog, and I’d be hard put to remember a line or two from any of them. In fact I’m sometimes moved to read an old blog piece – somebody has to – and find it amazing that I once knew so much on a topic about which I now know nothing.

But I digress. I don’t have to dig up my copy of Better angels to confirm my agreement with Pinker’s thesis. He wasn’t putting forward an argument that we’d become less violent as a species. He didn’t need to, because it was so obviously true, as anyone who reads a lot of history – as I do – knows full well. The real key to Pinker’s book lies in its sub-title, Why violence has declined. It seems to me that nobody in their right mind – or, I mean, nobody with an informed mind – would argue that the human world, a hundred years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, or, taking advantage of the knowledge provided to us from ancient DNA, 10,000 years ago, was more peaceful than it is today, on a per capita basis. The question is why.

Of course it’s impossible to keep track of the daily violent acts among a current global population of 8 billion, and to compare them to those of say, the year 1600, when the population has been estimated at about a half billion. And, yes, we’re now capable of, and have committed, acts of extreme, impersonal violence via nuclear weapons, but anybody who has read of the gruesome events of the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Scottish slaughters of England’s Edward I (a recent read for me), the centuries-long witch-hunts of Europe, and many other brutal engagements, as well as the public hangings, burnings, decapitations and tortures that were commonplace worldwide in earlier centuries, would surely not want to be transported back in a time machine without a cloak of invisibility or the support of a very powerful overlord – supernatural by preference. 

Pinker’s book seeks to answer his own question with data and the possible/probable causal linkages, while recognising the complexity of isolating and independently weighing causes and correlations (he returns to this theme in his latest book Rationality, especially in the chapter entitled ‘Correlation and Causation’), including the spread of democracy, the growth of globalism and internationalism, the developing concepts of human rights, feminism, international monitoring agencies, and improved, less dangerous technologies re industry, medicine and transport, to name a few. Deaths can be no less violent, that’s to say violating, for being slow and accidental, after all.

Note that I snuck ‘feminism’ in there. Unsurprisingly, that’s the factor that most engages me. In the WEIRD world, thanks largely to Simone de Beauvoir (ok, a bit of flagrant heroine-worship there), feminism has been on the rise for several decades. During the same period, in the same regions of the world, male testosterone levels have been dropping. I would rest my case there, but I hear Mr Pinker tsk-tsking in the background. Seriously, the rise of feminism is surely one of a multiplicity of factors leading to a situation that medical researchers describe as ‘alarming’ – I’m not sure why.

Of course, testosterone is an important hormone, especially for men. On this medical website, Dr Kevin Pantalone, an endocrinologist, points out that, for males, testosterone helps maintain and develop:

  • Sex organs, genitalia and reproductive function.
  • A sense of well-being.
  • Muscle mass.
  • Bone health.
  • Red blood cell count.

So, questions arise. Why are testosterone levels dropping (pace feminism), and is the drop significant enough to seriously compromise WEIRD men’s health? Well, according to the same website, different figures are given for what counts as a low testosterone level – 250 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dl), according to Dr Pantalone, and 300 ng/dl according to the American Urology Association. We’re not there yet, on average, but we’re inching closer, apparently.

So why the drop, apart from feminism? Some suggested factors include obesity (elevated BMI), reduced physical activity (however, endurance activities such as long-distance running and cycling have been shown to lower testosterone levels)., poor diet (but ‘several studies indicate that low-fat diets may lead to slightly lower testosterone levels‘), chronic and excessive alcohol consumption, lack of sleep (e.g. sleep apnea), and environmental toxins such as EDC (endocrine-disrupting chemicals – which sounds a bit vague).

That’s it. It all seems a bit thin to me – apart from the obesity bit. One factor they don’t mention, probably due to our overly polite society – or is it ‘wokeness?’ – is the serious drop in recent decades, and perhaps even centuries, of good old raping and pillaging. Nothing better for boosting ye olde testosterone, surely?

Seriously, would it be a terrible thing if male testosterone levels were reduced to those of females?  And what about my darling bonobos?

So, human males typically have testosterone levels ranging from 265 to 923 ng/dl, while females range from 15 to 70 ng/dl. That’s a big big difference. Which raises the question – if females have such low testosterone levels, what about their bone health, muscle mass and sense of well-being? I suppose this is where we get into the finer details of endocrinology and evolution, but my uneducated guess would be that, over time, the endocrine systems of male and female humans have diverged somewhat, perhaps in response to different activities between the sexes. One way of getting more information about this – and this rather excites me, I have to say – is to look at the endocrine systems of largely female-dominated bonobos and compare them to those of chimpanzees. So that’s what I’ll be looking at in my next post. I can’t wait.


Stephen Pinker, The better angels of our nature, 2011

Stephen Pinker,Enlightenment now, 2018

Why Are Testosterone Levels Decreasing?



Symptoms of Low Testosterone


Written by stewart henderson

March 10, 2023 at 10:25 am

me little mate Stevie Pinker and me

with one comment

the famous and the nutso famous


So this piece is not in dialogue form, though I still see myself as a female-type male (rather than a male-type female), trying to transcend gender in ‘rising above myself and grasping the world’ as Archimedes putatively put it. Sometimes the dialogue form stimulates my slow-acting mind to some sort of thesis-antithesis-synthesis delusionary state that’s temporarily satisfying – like when my mind tells me she’s made of truth (I believe her though I know she lies). And I’ve always ‘liked’ Chekhov’s apparent remark that the best conversations we have are with ourselves, though again, what really best shakes us are our communications with others, in writing or, even better because always more hard-hitting, in person. I’m not sure where I’m going with this except to say that my reading is a kind of communication, if only one way. And sometimes I feel a real itch to communicate back, in spite of nobody listening…

I’ve read a number of books by Steven Pinker – let me see, I was introduced to his work by a young philosophy tutor about eighteen years ago, when, as a volunteer at my local community centre, I happily joined its philosophy group’s weekly meetings. The tutor assigned Pinker’s The blank slate as the book to be read and discussed. I found the book’s general thesis – that the idea we’re born as a blank slate is a dangerous myth, in political, educational and other contexts – to be congenial enough, and Pinker’s overall mode of thinking struck me as sensible, rational and positive, if some of the wordiness and smart-aleckiness grated a bit. But after all, wasn’t I sometimes guilty of same? At least in my head.

So later I read other Pinker books – The language instinct and The sense of style (I was an ESOL teacher for a couple of decades), as well as The better angels of our nature and Enlightenment now. And all of this stimulated me and grated with me in no doubt unequal levels. After all, I’ve continued to read him.

And so to Rationality, his most recent book. But first I’d like to look at Pinker’s academic and general background as it compares to mine, which should be amusing if nothing else.

Pinker was born in September 1954, while I was born in July 1956, so we’re pretty much contemporaries. He was born in Montreal, Canada to a ‘middle-class Jewish family’ (I quote from Wikipedia), and I was born in Dundee, Scotland, to a working-class family. His father was a lawyer. My father was an unskilled labourer and factory worker. His mother ‘eventually became a high-school vice-principal’. My mother eventually became a teacher of mental-deficiency nursing (an occupation that has since become largely obsolete due to the de-institutionalisation of the intellectually disabled, if that’s the current term). Pinker’s grandparents ’emigrated to Canada from Poland and Romania’ in the 1920s, and owned a small business in Montreal. Wikipedia doesn’t specify whether these were paternal or maternal grandparents. I know very little about my own grandparents – our family emigrated to Australia when I was five years old, so I only have vague memories of my paternal grandparents, and none of my maternal ones. There was little discussion of the extended family when I was growing up, but I believe my paternal grandfather was a shipwright in Dundee, which sounds pretty impressive, and my maternal grandfather was a coal-miner.

So, education. Pinker graduated from Dawson College in 1973. So he was then nineteen. Dawson College gets its own Wikipedia article (harrumph) which tells us that it ‘became the first English-language institution in the new CEGEP network’. CEGEP comes from the French Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel, though it has become a word of its own in the Canadian lexis. So, as a Québécois Canadian, Pinker must have had early exposure to French, as did I to a much lesser degree. When I was a ten-year-old my older brother, who shared a bedroom with me and was learning the language at high school, used to teach me at night before lights out, and I absorbed these dribs of French like a sponge. But more of that later.

Nothing is mentioned of Pinker’s primary education, so I can dominate that period with my own experience. I did spend a brief time at school in Dundee, and my principal memory was of someone shouting about throwing stones at the Catholics. I rushed to the school fence with everyone else, and craned to see the kids passing by outside, trying to discern their Catholic features. On the ship coming out to Australia I joined a makeshift class of kids my age, with my mother as the teacher. On arrival in South Australia, we were housed at Smithfield Hostel, north of Adelaide, the state’s capital (where I currently live). I attended Smithfield primary school for a year, where my principal memories were of being shouted at for forgetting my books, and being sent to the headmaster for some misdemeanour (I didn’t go, being too scared, and hid in some bushes outside before returning to class).

The rest of my primary schooling was at Elizabeth Downs primary from grade 2 to grade 5, and Elizabeth Fields primary for grades 6 and 7. Elizabeth was a newly built town, named for the Queen, centred mostly around the car industry. General Motors Holden was building a factory there, and when it was finished, my father got a job on the assembly line, for a while at least. The town was built about 18 miles north of Adelaide, and has since been absorbed as a northern suburb of that city. The Elizabeth Fields primary school made headlines in the state newspaper, about a decade after my period of attendance, for being the most violent and dysfunctional primary school in the state, which came as a shock to me – my memories of the place are pretty bland. It might’ve been a hatchet job.

From the age of 12 I was sent to Elizabeth West High, which I attended until I dropped out at age 15. I have a story to tell about that. At the end of my last primary year, we all sat a test, and on the first day at the new high school – it had only been running for a couple of years – a crowd of kids my age gathered in a quadrangle to be ‘streamed’ into eight first-year classes. We all had been previously asked, probably at the time of the test, to name which language we wanted to learn, French or German, so that we’d be streamed into F1, F2, F3 or F4, or G1, 2, 3 or 4. I chose French of course, and my name was called first for the F1 class. This rather shocked me and made me wonder, but I wasn’t too surprised to be in F1, as I’d been a ‘straight A’ student (apart from Art and PhysEd) in grade 7, without putting in much effort. Then, a week or two into the year, another boy told me excitedly – ‘do you know you got the top marks? I was in teacher’s office and all the tests were on his desk, and I got to look at them – yours was at the top…’ Looking back, I suppose they were IQ tests, or something like. Anyway, I loved my first year of high school – it was a very cheeky, smart-alecky class, which brought me out of my shell a little. I even had girls flirting with me. I felt I’d really made it. I topped the year in French and English, but was well down the list in other subjects, and by second year, even my favourite subjects were suffering. At home, my parents’ relationship had become increasingly toxic, and I was becoming something of a teenage runaway. At fourteen, I was put on a fifteen-month bond, with a group of friends, for stealing. I spent a lot of time at the local library, and developed a passion for nineteenth century English lit, reading the whole of Thomas Hardy’s oeuvre, as well as Dickens, Austen, Eliot and the Brontës. My two older siblings, now at university, filled the house with books – Nietzsche, Freud, and the new feminists – Germaine Greer, Eva Figes, Betty Friedan. I began to hate school and often wagged it with friends, or just stayed home, filling my head with music and philosophy or at least the philosophy contained in fiction – I read Sartre’s Roads to Freedom trilogy and The Outsider, The Plague, The myth of Sisyphus, and 1984. Animal Farm, one of the school’s set texts, was a particular pleasure, in a sense, as was Huxley’s Brave New World.

Meanwhile, my formal education was going down the tube. I was caned by the headmaster (a repulsive brute) for not doing some homework (or probably a lot of homework), and when on another occasion I was slapped across the face by same for chewing gum while he was chiding me, I left the building never to return.

So this was around 1972, a little before Pinker graduated from Dawson College. I got work, first on a pig farm in Nuriootpa (ok that lasted one day, but it felt like weeks), then at Wilkins Servis, a washing machine factory. Then at Atco Structures, building temporary school classrooms. In 1973, I somehow managed to land a job as an accounts clerk at Iplex Plastics, makers of PVC pipes, where I lasted nine months and became wealthy enough to to create my own record collection, becoming a lifelong fan of David Bowie and looking to get out of a house that was driving all its inhabitants crazy.

Pinker, meanwhile, had become a student of McGill University in Montreal, and was perhaps going through his own crises. Anyway, by the time he’d graduated in 1976 (with a BA in psychology) I’d spent seven memorable days in prison for ‘insufficient means of support’, in between working at another washing machine factory (Simpson-Pope), a small family foundry (Ellis wireworks) and a very depressing hospital (The Home for Incurables, later renamed the Julia Farr Centre, to the relief of all), which for all that I found to be one of the most rewarding jobs of my young career. My parents had separated by this time and in 1976-7 I lived for a few months with my father then my mother in the inner suburbs of Adelaide.

In 1977 or 1978, from memory, I was invited to moved in with a social worker I’d met at a youth camp. He’d taken a shine to me, it seems. He was about 8 years older than me, homosexual and a wee bit eccentric. He never wore clothes inside the house, sometimes answering the door naked. A more important connection for me, though was the other tenant, a visual arts student, ‘ages with me’, as the Scots say. He was smart and exploratory and through him I met a crowd of more or less interesting students, and began to feel I’d found my ‘scene’ at last.

It was while living with these two, and later with a maths and philosophy PhD student who introduced me to geeky science types who seemed even more congenial than the often anti-social arts crowd, that I started keeping a journal. That was about 1979. I kept the journal until 1995 when I bought my first computer. Or I should say journals, about 14 foolscap books covered in tiny inked print, presenting ideas, memories and tales of very varying quality no doubt. Two ‘self-obsessed’ individuals  in particular influenced my turn to diary-writing, or made me feel justified in the indulgence – Michel de Montaigne and Franz Kafka.

So this takes my life to 1979-80. Pinker went to Harvard University, I believe in 1977. Wikipedia tells us that Harvard ‘is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and one of the most prestigious and highly ranked universities in the world’. So he was doing okay, and no doubt working hard. He graduated with a PhD in 1979, after engaging in ‘doctoral studies in experimental psychology’. We’re then told he ‘did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a year, then became a professor at Harvard and then Stanford University’.

So, presumably he was at MIT in 1980. That was an interesting year for me. The federal government had introduced CAEs (Colleges of Advanced Education) in the late sixties (they died in the nineties) as something intermediate between universities and the TAFE (Technical and Further Education) system, and for some reason I was advised or impelled to enrol in one of them. I know that during much of my early twenties I was proud of my ‘autodidact’ status as a smartarse who’d opted out of formal education at fifteen, but I was also feeling the pressure. I hadn’t worked since my last factory job, as a slinger at a metal pipe factory, in late 1977, and going to college would at least keep the government off my back, and it might even lead somewhere. So I enrolled in a course called ‘Communication Studies’ at Hartley College, which involved classes in anthropology, philosophy, mathematics and I forget what else. I recall not ‘getting’ the maths stuff, though both anthropology and philosophy piqued my interest (I’d been reading bits and pieces of philosophy for years). I recall two proud moments – when the sociology lecturer called me into his office to discuss my essay on the potlatch system – which to my amazement he’d never heard of – and when the philosophy lecturer, who was also the senior administrator of the college – also called me in to commend an essay of mine and told me he could recommend for me a transfer to the Flinders University philosophy department at the end of the year.  However, when I blurted out that I was failing in all my other subjects, his interest cooled quite noticeably.

So I dropped out of Hartley College at the end of the year. But the 1980-1982 period was interesting for me housing-wise and in other ways. We’d been turfed out of our rental accommodation in early 1980, and spent a few months squatting and being moved on, until in mid-1980 I was accepted as a tenant in a very swish multi-bedroomed home set back from the road in a beautiful garden with a driveway lined with hibiscus bushes. And due to a sudden move-out of tenants after I moved in (hopefully not my fault), I soon found myself the inheritor of a huge furnished bedroom with an ensuite bathroom. The other tenants were mostly students, and the environment salubrious beyond my deserving. And as I soon became the most long-standing tenant, I was treated with unwonted deference by the others, which tickled me greatly. I also picked up a job in a nearby restaurant, my first paying job in about four years…

But, back to the other bloke, with his 1979 PhD. In 1980 he was presumably either a Harvard professor or just shy of becoming one. Not bad for someone around 26 years of age. And in 1982, while I was still working as a kitchen hand… well let me quote from the Wikipedia summary of his academic activities and movements over the next couple of decades :

From 1982 until 2003 Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, was the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Science (1985–1994), and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience (1994–1999), taking a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 1995–96.

Pinker was particularly interested in ‘cognitive linguistics’ at this time, methinks, which I also became somewhat interested in in the nineties. Generative grammar, and the way children pick language up so effortlessly, by and large, learning the exceptions along the way, does seem to suggest some sort of innate capacity. His first book was Language learnability and language development, published in 1984, and subsequent works  promoted a ‘nativist’ view of language acquisition, no doubt influenced by Chomsky’s work, but this is all controversial and much disputed, and I don’t feel expert enough to hold a solid opinion on the matter.

Meanwhile, back in Adelaide, we were turfed out of the share-house in mid-1982, for which I blame the tenants (not including me of course!) rather than the landlord – shameful behaviour I’d rather not go into. I soon found further share accommodation though, and continued my restaurant job well into 1983. And so it went, with lots of reading and writing and amateur discussion. I should mention that my reading, in 1981-2, of Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, in particular a central section in which Hans Castorp reflects, with a lot of time on his hands, on the origin of life and even of matter, had a strangely exhilarating impact on me, and from that time on I became more of a non-fiction than a fiction reader, starting I think with Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, and each monthly issue of Scientific American. 

My peripatetic housing situation continued through the 80s and 90s, but, feeling that time was running out, I applied in 1985 for mature age entry to university, and received offers from Flinders and then Adelaide University, where I began as an arts undergraduate in 1986, breezing through with a degree majoring in French language and literature in 1988. I did actually start a biology class in my first year – presumably dumbed down for arts students – but I found that it took up all my time, and I kept botching up the lab work, so I gave it up, a decision I’ve always regretted.

In 1989 I accepted an offer to do honours French, while realising that it was all going nowhere in terms of earning a living. There was also the obvious fact that my French writing wasn’t of high quality, and that I could only dream of visiting that country to improve my usage, if in fact it would do so. Even so, I planned to write my thesis on the work of Stendhal, a writer of romantic inclinations, come moi, though I try to hide it, and a feminist avant la lettre, and also, like me, a writer more or less completely unknown in his lifetime, though he expressed some confidence that his time would come…  So the major pleasure of my honours year lay in acquainting myself with all of Stendhal’s works, major and minor.

I say my honours year – but I should say that I dropped out well before finishing (quelle surprise!), considering it all a bit pointless, again. In 1990 I began a post-graduate Diploma of Education, but my experience of ‘prac teaching’ turned me off teaching as a career – though later, when I started teaching English to adults, a much more interactive process (and not driven by a particular syllabus), I enjoyed it very much.

So we’re into the nineties now. Pinker was teaching at MIT and had written or co-written works on cognition, language and learning. Meanwhile, as mentioned, I dropped out of my one-year post-grad course near the end – in fact, this time I would’ve finished but for a very serious financial crisis which forced me to find work. So I spent the last couple of months of 1990 working at another factory, this time Griffin Press, the largest book printing and binding facility in the Southern Hemisphere, owned by one Rupert Murdoch. I worked there pretty well non-stop until mid-1993, loading bound but uncovered hardbacks onto a conveyor belt. I worked a permanent afternoon shift, from 3pm till near midnight, but sometimes, in the pre-Christmas period, I worked thirteen or fourteen hours straight, and I used some of the money to pay for undergraduate studies in English Lit, which I attended, somewhat listlessly, in the mornings. I’d discontinued English studies after the first year of my undergraduate course, considering it all too easy-breezy. Now I decided that I’d work towards an English honours degree… I mean, why not?

Some time in 1993 I was helped by a friend to jump from the then-ailing Griffin Press into a temp office job for the government’s Department of Social Security. And then, in 1994, I commenced full-time English Honours at the University of Adelaide.

Meanwhile, Steven Pinker was fully establishing himself as a writer of works for the common, albeit educated reader. The first of these was The Language Instinct published in 1994, which, inter alia, argued that language is a uniquely human trait. I (or we) may have more to say on that in another place. There’s been much controversy about the issue for decades.

I completed my honours year but not with great success. I had to support myself on my dwindling savings, and I couldn’t afford one of those new-fangled items called ‘word processors’ or ‘computers’, which most of my fellow-students had bought. Moreover, I couldn’t type to save myself, or my thesis (this was the first piece of typing I was asked, or forced, to do in my ‘academic career’).

So, I missed getting a first-class honours by a percentage or two, and I was again at a loose end as 1995 rolled around. Having kept journals for over 15 years by this time, I naturally fancied myself as a halfway talented writer, so I wrote what I deemed to be a wittily begging letter to The Adelaide Review, a local arts and politics rag, suggesting a few diverting or enlightening topics I could discourse upon. To my surprise I received a positive response, and I duly wrote a little piece on my childhood in Elizabeth, which was duly published some time in 1995 or 1996. I was now a ‘published writer’, and things started to run smoothly for a while. I added more to the piece until I had the makings of a novel, which was accepted by the only publisher  I approached and in 1997, after an endless editing process, my worst-selling novel In Elizabeth was published. I thought this was a new beginning, but it turned out to be the beginning of the end.

So I’ll try to be more brief, as I’ve gone on too long. In Elizabeth received some local publicity, I had my face plastered on the cover of the weekend magazine section of the local paper, but reviews were scarce, and mixed. Our principal national paper, The Australian, carried an article which dismissed my work briefly and attacked Wakefield Press, the publisher, at some length, for promoting inferior writers. This so shocked me that I could hardly get out of bed for a few days. I was later told by the head of Wakefield Press that the reviewer was miffed because Wakefield had rejected his poetry collection. Even so, Wakefield rejected my second novel, Sextet, explaining that they’d henceforth be focussing on non-fiction. Which in fact turned out be true. Apparently the lack of sales for In Elizabeth was the deciding factor?

So I tried another publisher, Text Publishing, a rather elite Melbourne-based outfit, and to my surprise the book was accepted within weeks. I had a charming phone conversation with the senior editor who found the work witty and insightful and looked forward to working with me. But then a couple of weeks later, I received another call from her, apologising profusely. The CEO had come back from holiday and, in his wisdom, reversed the decision. I didn’t have the heart to try another publisher, and thus ended my literary career.

A few words about Sextet. It told the tale of a shy, sex-obsessed young man who had the grand idea of geeing up his life by writing letters he hoped would be found amusing, charming and enlivening, to six different young women he more or less knew, and whom, as far as he knew, didn’t know each other, in the hope of captivating at least one heart, and the delightful body that went with it. And of course it all ends in tears, as far as I can recall. And of course it wasn’t remotely autobiographical.

So that MS remains archived in a box somewhere, rendered largely obsolete by the modern social media world.

We’re now into the late 90s, when I entered into a rather stormy but more or less permanent relationship with my current partner, did some further study in TESOL, and started teaching English to immigrants and foreign students in various locations, as well as doing a seven-year stint in the 2000s as a foster carer, feeling that my unhappy childhood experiences would be of use in handling sometimes difficult kids. Not sure if that turned out to be true.

I don’t know if much more needs to be said about Pinker, who I last left in the 90s, and who has since become a high-profile public intellectual in the manner of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris et al, and has published increasingly ambitious works about the general tenor of society and where it is and should be heading. Having read his earlier Big Books, I’m currently half-way through Rationality, and have become stuck on the matter of Bayesian inference/probability/statistics, which I’ve written about before, and which always strikes me as both more simple and more complicated than my curious intellect allows. I’ll let Canto and Jacinta mull over it yet again in an upcoming post.





what is Bayesian inference?

Written by stewart henderson

January 11, 2023 at 3:36 pm

Posted in biography

Tagged with

on free will and libertarianism 2: character and punishment

leave a comment »

I hope I have dispelled two fallacies that have allowed the sciences of human nature to sow unnecessary fear. The first fallacy is that biological explanations corrode responsibility in a way that environmental explanations do not. The second fallacy is that causal explanations (both biological and environmental) corrode responsibility in a way that a belief in an uncaused will or soul does not.

Steven Pinker, ‘the fear of determinism’, from The blank slate

Canto: I’m currently reading Jane Goodall’s book Through a window, about the chimp communities in Tanzania observed and monitored by herself and her team over twenty-odd years – the hierarchies, the friendships, the brutalities, the shifting allegiances and the tragedies. It’s all very recognisable to me, a fellow primate – enough to bring tears to my eyes on occasion.

Jacinta: So we were talking about free will and all that.

Canto: Precisely. We don’t get to choose our species, or our parents, or in the case of chimps, our mothers in particular. Nor do we choose to get crippled by polio, pushed from a high tree-branch, or killed in infancy, for no apparent reason, by an enraged or jealous, or perhaps insane, adult female. Are these environmental or biological events? Does it really matter?

Jacinta: And if we survive them, they shape our character, is that your point?

Canto: Well, I’ve just reread a section of Steven Pinker’s The blank slate, which deals with what he considers our ‘unreasonable fear of determinism’, and it reminds me of what I found so unpalatable about certain academics’ disdain for the idea that determinism diminishes personal responsibility. Pinker, in this essay, reminds me of those typical sons of privilege who mock the ‘his genes/environment made him do it’ legal defence that lawyers sometimes use to get their clients off. I should remind Pinker and his ilk that most individuals who find themselves in legal trouble due to the environment they didn’t choose to grow up in can’t afford lawyers, so they usually don’t get a chance to make those arguments let alone win them. They have to throw themselves on the mercilessness of the court, whose bewigged officers make it clear which class they belong to and and are there to uphold.

Jacinta: So I take it that the above Pinker quote isn’t entirely kosher to you.

Canto: Yes, it’s bullshit. Pinker gives himself away with the examples he chooses to use. He mocks the environmental determinist ‘defence’ without coming remotely close to examining environmental determinism itself (which cannot, by the way, be disentangled from biological determinism, and I don’t find the distinction a particularly valid one). Instead he smugly recites a list of lawyerly tropes – ‘the abuse excuse, the Twinkie defence, black rage, pornography poisoning, societal sickness, media violence, rock lyrics’, etc, without showing a moment’s insight into the kinds of lives I saw around me while growing up, and which have been recounted by those lucky enough to survive, or by those who stood witness to the misery of others.

Jacinta: So your point is that the fallacies Pinker ‘identifies’ in the quote at the top of this post are not fallacies at all?

Canto: Well, my point is that Pinker oversimplifies the issue to a risible degree. Or rather, he doesn’t even address it. For example, he mocks ‘the abuse excuse’, as if abuse is an ‘excuse’ for something rather than a trauma with lifelong effects, depending on its intensity, its type, its duration and other variables including the enormously complex background against which it occurs. These events shape the very being of that person, pig, rat or butterfly. And yet Pinker has the chutzpah to claim that he and his white horse have ridden into view to dispel for us the ‘fallacy’ that such abuse corrodes any responsibility we have for our actions. Yeah, but… nah.

Jacinta: So what about this concept of responsibility? And how we relate it to crime and punishment. Can we really say that we’re not, or never, responsible for our actions?

Canto: I think we’re tricked into thinking we’re responsible by the felt complexity of our own thoughts. When we look at less complex animals – dogs, for example, or birds, we’re much less liable to attribute responsibility to their actions. So what’s the difference between those creatures and ourselves? Surely it’s only complexity.

Jacinta: And the fact that we can speak for ourselves – which is part of our complexity – and other creatures can’t. We can voice the claim that we were free to do otherwise, as no other creature can, as far as we know. But what does all this mean for apportioning blame and punishment? Is our court and justice system obsolete?

Canto: Well the justice system is, I suppose, designed to keep us safe from each other. You see this, again in a less complex way, with wild animals. I recall watching a video of pack animals, I can’t recall, maybe hyenas or wolves, in which the pack leader for some reason started behaving dysfunctionally – that’s to say, to the detriment of the pack. He was biting and wounding other pack members for no apparent reason. Eventually, it got too much, and the pack rose up against him, hurting him badly, and sending him to the back of the pack. From then on he behaved more like the runt of the litter, living off the scraps of the others. You see this sort of thing too, in gorilla and chimp groups. The group deals with the alpha male turned miscreant But if we can only agree on the evidence that free will is a myth, then we should be able to develop a far better justice system than the one we have.

Jacinta: How so?

Canto: Well, take one very toxic issue. Paedophilia. There’s at least one person I know well who has a kind of zero tolerance, ‘worst of the worst’ attitude to serial paedophiles, and simply doesn’t want to hear any kind of free will argument that might ‘exonerate’ them. It’s easy to understand this attitude being held by a victim whose life has been seriously damaged by a paedophile, and as we know, they’re a favourite tabloid newspaper villain. But, as has been pointed out by Sam Harris among others, arguments that paedophiles are the worst of the worst and are incorrigible, ‘never to be released’, are essentially arguments for a lack of free will. If they can never be ‘corrected’, how can they be held responsible for their ‘incorrectness’ in the first place? It follows that ‘punishment’ for such people not only doesn’t work, but is unfair. A justice system should of course be about protecting people from the malpractices of the minority, but surely it needs to be accompanied or tied up with an understanding of how these malpractices arise, and how to fix them.

Jacinta: Do you think serial paedophilia is fixable?

Canto: I have no idea, but I’m saying that should be the aim. To take a simpler example, I don’t know if a broken diff in a car is fixable (I don’t even know what that is), but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, and if it can be fixed obviously it should be. As Robert Sapolsky points out, we’ve fixed schizophrenia largely with medications, and knowing more than one schizophrenic as I do, that has improved their lives massively.

Jacinta: Okay, so maybe that’s enough about free will for now. There’s another kind of freedom that’s been in the air for decades, and that’s political freedom – freedom from the tyranny of Big Government. It has generally gone by the name ‘libertarianism’. I suppose that if there’s no free will, that kind of freedom doesn’t even get out of the starting gate?

Canto: Well political libertarianism brings up a whole different set of issues, though clearly it’s dependent on and assumes free will. But we’ll leave all that for next time.

Written by stewart henderson

February 10, 2022 at 7:51 pm

giving nuclear energy a chance, please

leave a comment »

Compared with nuclear power, natural gas kills 38 times as many people per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, biomass 63 times as many, petroleum 243 times as many and coal 387 times as many – perhaps a million deaths a year.

Steven Pinker, ‘The Environment’,  Chapter 10 of Enlightenment now. 

an unfortunate slow-down

I’ve written about nuclear energy before, here and here. It comes to mind again due to my reading of Pinker’s new book, so I’ve decided to venture into the field again, despite not having improved my paltry readership over the years.

Clearly the spectre of radiation hangs over the nuclear industry, and many green polemicists have done their best to darken that spectre, but if facts count for what I wish they would count for, Australia could solve all its considerable energy woes with a few nuclear power plants.

Take the case of France, a nation with almost three times our population. Thanks largely to its nuclear power program, which was boosted after the seventies oil crisis in order to deliver national energy security, it’s the world’s largest net exporter of electricity, because once the plants are built and paid for, electricity generation is cheap. In fact, some 17% of this electricity comes from recycled nuclear fuel. It currently earns 3 billion euros annually from exported electricity, and that’s not factoring in its exports from reactor technology and fuel products and services.

Australia has far more land than France, and given its small population, it would stand to gain substantially from exporting nuclear-derived electricity to the world, after finally putting an end to its frankly ridiculous domestic energy woes. I recognise though, that such a far-reaching project is beyond the imaginations, let alone the negotiating skills of today’s adversarial pollies. We need more entrepreneurs and non-partisan public intellectuals to get behind such projects, accompanied by realistic schemes and hard data.

There’s also the problem of winning over the public. The facts on nuclear energy should speak for themselves, but the largely human tragedies of Fukushima and Chernobyl, together with the perceived and perhaps actual connection between nuclear energy and weapons, and also the general fear of radiation and its relation to storage, leakage and accidents, have created polarised outlooks that impede progress in the field. This is well illustrated by a three-part set of videos on the subject, including an intro and two others, ‘nuclear energy is awesome’ and ‘nuclear energy is terrible’, suggesting that its authors have found little common ground.

As the negative part of the videos points out, weapons technology has been developed in five countries – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea – through reactor technology. As the current debate over Iran illustrates, it’s hard to distinguish between nuclear energy technology and covert weapons technology. There’s also the waste problem. Radioactive and toxic chemical materials such as plutonium remain a problem for tens of thousands of years. A stable and remote underground environment, such as exists right here in South Australia’s north, would be one of the safest bets for burial, but beware of apoplectic rage when anyone suggests such an idea, even though, as one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium, we’re deeply involved in the industry and would likely get plenty of help from nations grateful for our raw material.

Of course, there have been accidents.

To put the nuclear energy scare in perspective, it’s worth noting that if you mention the word Tohoku outside of Japan you’re likely to get little back but an unknowing shrug. Mention Fukushima and you’ll likely get a more animated response. The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami killed approximately 16,000, with over 6,000 injured and 2,500 still missing. Almost 250,000 were left homeless. The Fukushima meltdowns resulting from this disaster killed nobody – though there are ongoing tests regarding radiation and cancer incidence, which suggest that increased risks are small.

I’ve written in one of my earlier posts about the obvious inappropriateness of building nuclear plants in earthquake-prone areas, and about the boys’ club mentality of Japan’s nuclear oversight system, but what about the accident itself and the associated radiation spill? As the most recent serious nuclear incident, and therefore the most relevant to the future of a developing industry, it’s worth taking a close look at it.

The Fukushima facility, one of the world’s largest, was made up of six boiling water reactors, of which three were in use at the time of the earthquake. The oldest of these was built in 1967, the other two in the early seventies. The seawall protecting the plant was ten metres high. The largest tsunami wave to hit the plant was 13 metres (a 2008 in-house study suggesting that the plant was unprotected from waves above 10.2 metres was dismissed, as purveying ‘unrealistic’ concerns). There were failures of the emergency cooling system, including piping and valve problems that hadn’t been monitored sufficiently. A number of hydrogen-air explosions occurred in the days after the tsunami, further damaging the plant. Clearly, there were maintenance problems in the lead-up to the failure, communication problems during the crisis, and a general culture of complacency throughout, deadly to such high-risk geographical locations. However, none of this should necessarily act as a complete brake on the industry. The lessons to learn would seem to be obvious. More openness, more active monitoring, sensible placement of nuclear plants, and ongoing research towards improved and safer facilities.

As far as I can see, there’s much more to be said about the positives of nuclear energy. In spite of the recent massive pause, or reversal, in our reliance on it, nuclear is by a huge distance the safest – and greenest – form of energy in terms of lives lost, health problems and any other indicator we can think of. There is plenty of data to back this up, but it involves far more than workplace safety. The damage from global carbon emissions is, of course difficult to calculate and the subject of endless debate, but there’s no doubt that nuclear has the smallest carbon footprint of any current energy technology. More importantly, it’s the only non-fossil fuel technology capable of providing reliable electricity on a global scale, at a time when the battle against global warming is very far from being won. The Trump debacle won’t last of course, but there is a greater threat from increased industrialisation in China, India, and the developing countries of the world – though any casting of blame would be unfair term considering the carbon being pumped out by the fully industrialised west.

The critics of nuclear point to the past, and to the radiation hazards of storage. They’re not interested in acknowledging modern developments which have made nuclear power increasingly safe and cheap, due to streamlining and standardisation of design, the plausibility of cheaper thorium reactors, and a host of innovations that have led to gen-III and gen-IV systems waiting to be brought online. Sadly, we may have to wait a while to see them. France, Germany, Japan and the USA are reducing their reliance on nuclear, and turning back to dirty energy, due only to its largely undeserved public reputation. It’s likely we’ll have to wait until the climate crisis deepens before we return to seeing the sense of nuclear energy. It will be interesting to see just how long it takes.

Written by stewart henderson

June 27, 2018 at 8:48 pm