Pluto

How the mind works

Steven Pinker
看了一下書背，發現作者是MIT的大頭~_~

唔...可以說是很有趣的書，作者旁徵博引引經據典口吻幽默風趣偶而還兼自嘲一下，怎能不有趣？而且用的字彙從艱深到俚俗，範圍之廣會讓人覺得英文不夠好該回去多背單字才行。

最有趣的一章叫做Family values。裡頭洋洋灑灑花了將近一百頁試圖從天演論來解釋親情倫理的產生。唔...崇拜天演論的人自然能說是毫無破綻，但是怎麼看都有點怪怪的啊。

該怎麼說呢。只能說作者果然是"white heterosexual male" 花費的篇幅大部分都在說男性如何如何為了後代的繁衍去戰鬥、去偷情、去確保女性的貞操跟忠誠，那麼女性呢？難道女性不會想著要繁衍後代？另外說女性會為了權勢跟今年出賣性，因為如此才能打入男性主導的圈子裡，而女性並不會特別想要性，就像中年的國會議員 並不如中年的國會女議員有吸引力，這實在是個很有趣的論點。如果說女性不如男性般對性有obsessiion，then how could women find middld-aged congressmen attractive? I mean, if congresswoman seems not as attratctive as congressmen, that's because congresswoman doesn't tend to buy sex as men do or less men tend to be bouught by women.

再如家庭暴力來自於sexual jealousy，這也是太過武斷的，有些人訴諸暴力不一定是因為被背叛（或誤以為被背叛），有時也來自於無法控制生活加諸的挫折感。最好的例子是James Joyce的Counterpart。

至於其它奇怪的論點（例如沒有解釋同性戀為什麼會存在），族繁不及備載。我想作者的盲點在於認為"the mind is created by soceity" is bad psychology. 或許大腦演化的歷史對於心智的運作的確有影響，但文化的manipulation 是不能忽視的。或許可以用天演論解釋為什麼現在某些convention 為何會出現，但是不能因此就粗率的解釋為什麼會繼續保存或被廢棄（convention changes and that's not noted) ，society and culture must play some role in this.

What I try to say last is even though all the arguments I refute are all correct in the end, the explanation is not justification. We can't say, "well, this man beats his wife for he fears that his wife would leave him, so we should forgive him." Or we can't say that for the continuing of the human race, all women should stay home, nurturing the young and waiting for the beating of men and thinking "Oh my husband beats me because he still cares for me and wants me to be near him." That's sick. If that's what natural selection wants, then I don't know why bother the culture and civilization. Human beings shouldn't evolve to human beings and write such trash, human beings should stay in the primitive age, living the animal life. And then, the earth will gain its peace again.

kith and kin: 親友
primogeniture: 長子繼承權
fetus: 三個月後的胎兒
lethal:致命的
ubiquitous:到處存在的
pulp fiction: 低級黃色書刊

由 drinker 發表於 December 2, 2003 11:45 AM | 引用