his strikingly subversive Darwinian claims—subversive not of any of the things we properly hold dear but subversive of the phony protective layers of misinformation surrounding them." Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom endorsed the book in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, writing that it will have "an impact that extends well beyond the scientific academy". English philosopher A. C. Grayling wrote in Literary Review that "Pinker's case is convincing and cogent, and he does a service in presenting the arguments, and the associated scientific evidence, in such an accessible fashion. Given the importance of the questions he discusses, his book is required reading". Magazine Kirkus Reviews wrote that the book makes "a rich, sophisticated argument that may leave pious souls a little uneasy". In 2017, Malhar Mali wrote a review of the book in Aero Magazine, expressing concern for what he sees as a revival of the blank slate view of human development. Mali writes "it strikes me as troubling that there are still those of us who are willing to believe that it is mostly culture and society which shape the individual—and that by focusing only on fixing our systems can we alleviate human suffering", and that it is "concerning is that this book came out 15 years ago and yet we are still bogged down in the conversations that Pinker spent a considerable time in rebutting". Negative Behavioral psychologist Henry D. Schlinger wrote two critical reviews of the book that emphasized the importance of learning. Another behavioral psychologist, Elliot A. Ludvig, criticized Pinker's description of behaviorism and interpretations of behaviorist research. Philosopher John Dupré argued that the book overstated the case for biological explanations and argued for a balanced approach. Biologist H. Allen Orr argued that Pinker's work often lacks scientific rigor, and suggests that it is "soft science". Anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen argued that most of Pinker's arguments were flawed since they employed a strawman fallacy argumentation style, and selectively picked supporting evidence as well as foils. He wrote: "perhaps the most damaging weakness in books of the generic Blank Slate kind is their intellectual dishonesty (evident in the misrepresentation of the views of others), combined with a faith in simple solutions to complex problems. The paucity of nuance in the book is astonishing." Similarly, biologist Patrick Bateson criticized Pinker for focusing on refuting the belief that all human characteristics are determined by a person's environment. He argued that