My beef with Steven Pinker

steven pinker

Now, I am very much a fan of Steven Pinker, I enjoy reading him very much, my problem is with one particular chapter in his book THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT.  The problem revolves around the fact that I am a soft linguistic determinist, and he argues completely against linguistic determinism being flippant and sarcastic, and bias mining to look only at how Linguistic Determinism is wrong, and not how it is right.  I am going to call him out on his bias and expose some of his obfuscations and bifurcations.  Linguistic Determinism doesn’t have to be a hard yes or no…


First of all, we see that the Democrats and the Obama Regime are using this strategy right now, and it is having an effect on the majority of human beings.  Steven ignores emergent properties in his analysis.


Now I would like to point out that Pinker is not making an assertion here.  He is asking a leading question.  If he were making an assertion he would have to support it with proofs.  Instead he is making a tacit emotional appeal.  There is a rule in psychology that states, “Psychopaths don’t reform, they just become more manipulative.”  The example might be a psychopath.  To use Bertrand Russel’s Reductio ad absurdum on Pinker I might point out that he doesn’t examine how much time much pass before a person is not himself which suggests that I could say something and then immediately change my mind, because time has passed and now I am a different person.  Ludwig Wittgenstein is often studied as Wittgenstein 1 and 2 but that is because he disagreed later in life with some of his theories earlier in life, so there was an actual difference.

Next he Bashes Sapir-Worf for their proofs about the Hopi Indians used to support linguistic determinism.  He asserts that they didn’t actually study the language, which might be true, but then he argues that Hopi’s don’t have a different perspective on time.  What he is actually doing is making the Argument from fallacy Fallacy, just because there was an error made doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong.  And if he had studied the religious beliefs like I have he would know that Hopi’s do indeed have a different perspective on time.


This is called Prophecy Rock, and it shows that the Hopi believe that we can actually change the future by our actions in the present and that there are divergent timelines.  And that there are worlds that mark the end of time.  We are currently in the 4th world and will be entering the 5th world.

It is said that if the True White Brother is successful in finding those who still follow the true Hopi way of life, the world will be created anew and all the faithful will be saved from destruction. However, the Hopi mythology also details an alternate version of the prophecy, one in which the True White Brother fails in his mission and is unable to find uncorrupted men and women. Then it is said that the earth will be completely destroyed and none will be spared.[8]


The argument that he is falsifying is that language and thought are ONLY, ALWAYS, IDENTICAL and he uses the lack of evidence as the proof.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I am going to show the flaws in his argument.  Every language predisposes itself to a certain type of thought.  English has become the lingua franca of Science.  Every action, or thought creates neural myelination which is then passed on to the next generation via epigenetics.  Research shows that German babies cry differently from French babies.  (

If we examine what words are we find that it is like taking a lasso and throwing it around a bunch of random things and describing the relationship between them.  Pinker is essentially arguing for a blank slate, which Chomsky falsified, and then he later quotes Chomsky to support his argument.  There is in words and languages certain emotional data that is communicated, and relational data.  Let’s do a test on Arab or Persian people that haven’t learned their own language and find out how many of them hate Jews, sympathize with ISIS, and want Israel removed from the map.  Boko Haram means western knowledge is forbidden.  The word “Harem” means forbidden, it is also the place where you keep your wives, daughters, and your sex slaves, as well as your child brides.  That’s right, in Islam “wife” can mean a 6 year old girl.  Also, in the Harem, your “family members” are allowed to enter.  So Steven Pinker, Who is forebidden?  Who is family?  and Who is sexual property?

Next he attacks sapir whorf for suggesting that Apache’s think differently.  Well Mr. Pinker, perhaps you have never heard of Tom Brown Jr.

According to Brown, he grew up in New Jersey being trained by his adopted grandfather (a Lipan Apache) until he was 17. For the next decade, Tom traveled and lived primitively in various places across North and South America. Returning to New Jersey, he became a professional tracker, which in turn led to him forming the “Tracking, Nature and Wilderness Survival School”,_Jr.

I don’t know how many languages predispose themselves to the ability to track people through the wilderness, but I am assuming that they might be similar.    Now, yes, Tom Brown knows English and that was the medium through which the ideas were conveyed.  But the ideas were similar expressed and understood more naturally in Apache.


He suggests that babies have an innate understanding of mathematics and uses this again to support that Language and thought are completely different.  However, again he forgets about neural myelination.  Babies are not mathemeticians because they have object permanence, and they wouldn’t acquire  higher math skills without being Taught new words/ideas (thought tools).

He uses arguments to suggest what sounds like Wittgenstein’s picture theory of language of language.

He says that Language is not like, math.  I disagree, higher math such as calculus is very much like language.   A word is an empty set for the definition of the word.

I suggested that people actually use syllogisms to slip logical errors past themselves.

Richard Nixon, “What I am saying is, if the president does it, it’s not a crime.?

The president = virtuous.

I = the president.

I = virtuous.

The paint sprayed sam onto the wall.  3:})


Here is the thing.  In order to say that Language and Thought are completely different, you are suggesting that every person is equally smart.  I have included several neologisms that I have made.

How many people make neologisms?  How many of those new words are adopted by others?  How many of those new words are useful?  How many of those new words are about something real?

How many people are linguistic philosophers?  How many people know what a morpheme is?  Is Steven Pinker an expert on phlogiston?  Until you know the word, your brain can’t move in that direction or make that association.  What Pinker is tacitly suggesting is that everybody is equally as smart as everybody else, which is patently false.  It presupposes that every person can recognize every pattern in the world around them and come up with all solutions and sciences by themselves.  It presupposes that the individual has an infinite capacity, infinite time, and/or infinite intelligence.  

Most people don’t do science themselves, most people don’t do higher philosophy, most people don’t create their own neologisms.  Most people know what they know because of received knowledge.  In order to come up with a new word, or to recognize a new pattern, something nobody else has ever become aware of before, or to change the way you yourself think or act.  You have to be a different kind of person.  You have to be a wizard, a sage, a lunatic, an idiot savant, or a drug addict.

Languages were created by the people that were part of that culture, and those cultures predisposed themselves to certain types of individuals who concerned themselves with certain things and thought about them.  They created words.  It is not just knowing the word, it is understanding what the word is a symbol of.  To be initiated into the correct understanding and use of that word.  In order to make a new word, or to disagree you have to be capable of breaking pattern.  People are acquisitively mimetic.  The majority of people don’t create their own patterns they copy patterns that were created by other people.

When I was a little boy I had a recurring dream of myself on a roller coaster, it was a great frustration for me that I couldn’t visualize myself on a roller coaster ride without seeing myself holding onto the seat as my legs dangled behind me cartoon style.  I puzzled over this for years.  I would try to physically pull myself into the carriage, but no sooner had I done so than the force of the roller coaster pulled me back out again.

I propose an experiment by which my Theory on Epigenetics and Neural Myelination can be tested.  Take a female bonobo baby & raise her with chimpanzees, at the same time take a male chimpanzee baby & raise him with the bonobo.  See how well each assimilates and whether they have the behaviors of the Primate Group from which they descend…

Have Women Transcended Sex?




One of the premises that women like to force and that western society doesn’t scrutinize is that women are good and morally superior because they have transcended sex and are not motivated by it.  Women show disgust at men that approach them sexually or that express sexual desires.  This goes back to how male and female brains are different.  The mind is an association making machine.  Men associate everything with sex.  This actually makes them smarter.  Men incentivize themselves by believing that they will be rewarded with intimacy and found desirable by a woman.  On a subconscious level this means that the man will survive into the future in the form of a child but the man doesn’t actually consciously think this, he just wants the affection of a female a positive interaction with a woman.  Men don’t all have sex for children they have sex for the sake of having sex.


Women on the other hand are only aroused by a man that they might want to have a child with.  The female brain associates everything, including sex, with children and that means her increased authority over children and her increased ability to provide well for those children (by using the resources of others, society or a rich man or men assuming she cannot earn enough money on her own to provide for them which presupposes the woman actually desires to provide financially for herself and her children, which is often not at all the case…)  Even the act of sex is associated by the woman with children.  You stick your penis in her vagina which is where babies come out of.  You suck her nipples like a baby.  These rituals prepare the woman for sexual arousal because you are reminding her body of babies.  Women infantilize men by thinking of them as babies and treating them like babies.  In this way they presuppose their authority over men.


Another of the premise forced by women is that having children is a 100% altruistic endeavor on the part of the woman, which is patently false.  The existence of the child solidifies the authority of the woman, not only is she the authority on the child, she is the authority on how she and the child should be provided for by the man.  Historically men can survive quite well without women for their life time, they only need women if they feel the desire to reproduce.  Women, however, when survival is difficult, need to be protected and fended for, by men, this is true when survival is difficult.  When times are easy, feminine values dominate, when times are hard masculine values dominate.  The western mind has been feminized, and especially the united states, because survival has been so easy for so long.

When you create a society in which the government provides for all of the needs of women and women get paid the same as men whether they have demonstrated proficiency or not, getting promotions because they are women, how does this effect the relationship between men and women in society?

“Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.”


Women naturally look for a man that has more prestige or money than she has.  Women, in general, sleep up.  What this means is that as women depend less and less on men, they will become less and less aroused by and interested in men.  They will become less sympathetic to men.  Women naturally edit their consideration sets to think only of themselves, their authority and stature, and their children.  Masculine authority is always considered a foreign invasive threat to the authority of the woman.  If women had everything their way they would make the entire world safe for babies, because their mind is in relationship with babies, puppies, and kittens and anyone that participates with their authority over them and accepts their mercy and charity.


Women are naturally less sexually aroused and this has nothing to do with any innate spirituality that women are supposed to have.  Women need to feel desired, they need to be pursued, they need to be turned on, often times the man that is willing to lie to and manipulate the woman is the one that wins her affections.  The man that conceals what he really thinks and reveals himself falsely is the one who is rewarded by the female.  Why does society punish men for wanting sex?  Why does society punish men for having children?  Why does society blame men for having children?  What if we did away with marriage all together?  That way women would be responsible for their own decisions and they would make better choices.  Women haven’t transcended sex, in order to transcend something it has to be an addiction.  The spiritual woman is the one that has transcended the natural instincts of women and has risen above the feminine ego consciousness, and unconscious reasoning in which she doesn’t recognize or scrutinize her natural impulses and the emergent properties of Feminine Conquests.