By: Brian Redmond, PhD
This post revolves around Steven Pinker’s (2002, 2016) book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, in particular how it relates to human nature, and of course, leadership development. The book was both confirming of some things I understood about human nature but also very eye-opening at the same time. I’m going to avoid details as I think that anyone who wishes to be educated more on human nature should read this book as it synthesizes ideas from a wide array of life’s domains.
Pinker’s basic premise is that myths such as the blank slate (i.e. tabula rasa), the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine have become so entrenched in modern ideologies that even empirical evidence to the contrary of each cannot be rationally discussed because to oppose these myths is seen by their supporters as confirmation of their negative (which logically is not something that can happen). Like I said I don’t want to give away Pinker’s exact arguments as he has much more experience in his repertoire to draw from, and as a linguistic scientist also can write in a much more appeasing literary verbiage than I, but a simple example is the notion of the tabula rasa that so many people are familiar.
For those who may not know, tabula rasa is Latin for “blank slate” and has long been associated with human development. In particular, it assumes that humans come into the world as a blank slate without any predispositions and need to be taught everything and can be molded into endless possibilities.
Many people assume based on this centuries old non-empirical reasoning that humans are infinitely malleable. However, genetics has shown us that we are not. People all have limits. This is not to say that people are not capable of learning, simply that they cannot bend certain features they were born with and can only maximize others to their own individual limits. For instance, intelligence. Research time and time again has shown that intelligence is inherited somewhere between 25 and 75% from parents, and as such everyone ends up with a finite potential, but we educate kids as if they had limitless potential, which leads to policies that flush money down the toilet because we elect to ignore the facts when making those policies.
Similarly with leadership development, there is a lot of wasted money on training in organizations because the blank slate argument leads to the mindset that “training will fix everything”. But that isn’t the case. Sometimes issues need to be fixed with changing organizational processes, others by changing actual leaders, and sometimes by training. And sometimes, nothing at all.
“But Brian, don’t you educate and train people about leadership? Why would you be pointing out that education and training can’t solve everything? That seems counterproductive to your business model.”
That may be so, I could have made a lot more money if I oversold what can be accomplished, but that’s not who I am. I’m a scientist at heart as well as a humanist. I want to do what is right for an organization, so that people can thrive. Instead, I start with a needs assessment when a client approaches me. If training is the right fit, then we go with training. If organizational change is the right fit, then we go with that option. If it ain’t broke, I also don’t try to fix it. I have walked away from clients before because they were searching for a solution to a problem that doesn’t actually exist and I have told them that.
Back to the myth of tabula rasa. I’m not going to argue as vehemently as Pinker against the myth, as I see myths in the more anthropological definition of the word. Similar to the way that Sidanius and Pratto (1999) use it in their theory of human behavior: “Our use of the term myth is not meant to imply that these beliefs are epistemologically true or false, but rather that they appear true because enough people in the society behave as if they were true” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; p. 104). Rather than the way that Pinker uses it; in the sense that it is simply false. Pinker doesn’t really allude to this, but each of the previously mentioned myths has served its purpose to help move society forward prior to the empirical evidence that exists now. While they may be retarding progress now, successful human strategies die hard.
I am reminded of Prentice’s (1961, 2004) point that the golden rule (“do unto others as you would have done unto you”) that is taught to so many people as a useful life strategy, is actually an ineffective leadership tool. His point was that the golden rule was ineffective because while it does get people thinking about being empathetic to others, it ignores the point that other people may not want to be treated the same way that you yourself want to be treated. That said, being empathetic with the golden rule is better than treating people like parts in a machine. In other words, while the myth isn’t really right, it is better than nothing at all.
It’s like the science of leadership development, versus the art of leadership development. There is a lot of social science research that can inform us of the right way to develop leaders. But the jargon often doesn’t align with the myths of leadership development, such as the tabula rasa or the memes that often get posted on social media. That’s why the best leadership development translates the science into everyday language (i.e. the mythology of leadership). The best leadership development specialists can talk both languages and shape the mythology of leadership with the actual data.
As I mentioned before Pinker’s area of study is linguistics and that is apparent in his ability to choose words. He also is very good at synthesizing ideas from many different domains to make a coherent picture of human nature. Almost to a fault. I have two dislikes about this book. Neither of them pertain to the actual merits of his arguments which are near flawless in logic and evidence. The first, is that he delves into fictional pop culture examples too often, which weakens his points compared to using actual cases. I know that the purpose of the book was to introduce genetics and evolution to a broad based readership, but I found in some areas of the book that he relied so heavily on this “touching base” with his readership that it detracted from the strength of the evidence he was presenting. My only other complaint was the passion behind his arguments in places; he himself alludes to true science’s strength being in its dispassionate (and therefore objective) presentation of facts but then he passionately raves for one thing and rants against the other.
Overall, I think that this is a great book to add to any leader’s reading list as it touches on how sociobiology (i.e. the brain, genetics, etc.) can influence the arts, politics, child rearing, and in general accepting ourselves for who we are as humans. Which of course influences leadership development.
References
Pinker, S. (2002, 2016). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking.
Prentice, W.C.H. (1961, 2004). Understanding Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 1-8.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.