Student’s Response. Response To Locke/Pinker. Psychology Essay

The main difference between Locke's Tabula Rasa, and Pinker's conceptualization of Locke’s idea as The Blank Slate (this is how I understood this question), is that Locke’s Tabula Rasa focuses on the microcosm, development of personality and learning, whereas Pinker’s Blank Slate focuses on the macrocosm, societal moral and political implications. Pinker dissects Locke’s idea and after identifying serious flaws that exist within it, concludes with a different approach, both of which are discussed further.
I think a metaphor that illustrates these two points of view is the earth and everything that grows from it. Locke’s approach is comparable to the environmental factors and influences of climate, weather, soil, etc. upon everything that grows. Pinker’s approach is similar to the seed, its genetic makeup and DNA, that creates each individual growing being.
I will begin by discussing the merits of Locke’s point of view. I do believe that there is a freshness and newness that exists at the beginning of life that shapes and influences the rest of life. When a child learns it is comparable to writing on a blank piece of paper, whereas, when an adult learns it is comparable to writing on a paper that was already written on and erased. I find this regularly in my work with clients in which their early childhood environment and the messages they received left a profound imprint on them that, to a certain extent, remains with them for life. I can imagine that if they had grown up in a different environment and received different messages they would be very different. It is quite obvious and provable that people learn through their senses and the associations they make between their sensory experiences. I agree with Locke’s argument that it is very difficult to identify universal truths that are known by every human being.
However, overall I believe that Pinker’s point of view is much more foundational and accurate due to the following questions. Where does intelligence that interprets sensation come from? Where does subjectivity in human perception come from? Attributing difference in human perception to subtle difference in sensory experience doesn’t adequately explain these very significant differences. How can genetics and DNA determine human personality and character traits? Why are identical twins who grew up in radically different environments so similar and vice versa with adopted twins? Locke’s approach seems to overly simplistic and inadequate.
Pinker’s approach posits that there are innate characteristics and qualities that combine with the myriad of human experience to produce the complete picture of the human being. I find that this approach more fully explains the complexity of human nature and the human condition. I find this to be true in my clinical experience working with siblings. I have worked with siblings who were close in age, grew up in the same home environment, went to the same schools, and had similar experiences but perceived and processed their experiences in radically different ways which produced two very different people.