Pinker's, "Blank State" is inviting and rejecting as the same time. It is easy as a scientific thinker to be lured in by the biological genetics explanations he offers, but he goes too far when he rejects every other cultural theory. He basically rules out anything that has to do with identity, race, or religion; everything that will happen can be derived from one's genes. Neuroscience has all of the answers.
I agree that traits, actions, and attitudes have genetics components. The human genotype influences almost all of our characteristics. Behavior exists because of genes, but these genes cannot be expressed without environmental factors. The social status of a group says a lot about how people will grow, prosper, reproduce, or not. Someone could be born with 'smart genes' giving them a very notable IQ for example, but if they are born into a poverty stricken area where every person is vulnerable to disease, these genes will most likely never be expressed.
Before more research was done, alcoholism was considered morally wrong and showed weakness. Non addicts couldn't understand why the addicts couldn't just simply quit. After doing extensive studies, it has been found that inherited biochemistry makes these people more vulnerable to these addictions. The genes can cause the urge to be very over-powering or very weak. As these genes may be active, the environment of the person plays a huge role in whether they will be expressed. Living in a college frat will inevitably have different outcomes on a person than someone who for instance lives in a dry town. A person may inherit an alcoholism gene, but there is a slim chance it would ever be expressed if they lived in an environment where alcohol is unavailable.
The way I see it is that nature AND nurture plays a very important role in every person's life. One does not exist without the other. Some may see this as ludicrous-- that you must take one side or the other. I see it as ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am so happy with this blog, because this is exactly the way i feel. Not being a scientist i think that indeed nature and nurture plays an important role in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI like your examples, like a smart person's gene will never be expressed if he is born someplace where he is most likely to have a disease. This is an excellent example, because it shows that just because the person is smart which is probably do to his genes, it doesn't mean that he will necessarly become a successful person. Where he is born and the doors that will be open to him will definitely play a role in his success.
Your example nicely shows that even if our genes determine our aspects and who we are we can't possibly turn our eyes away from the environment in which we are born.
I AGREE COMPLETELY finally fellow social scientists who are not lured into the magical and all encompassing biology-solves-it-all philosophy. I find it immensely frustrating to the point of nauseating that Pinker has the audacity to completely eliminate environment... How is that even feasible? Of course a "smart gene" will never be expressed if the environment does not promote it, it is proven that in part we are able to shape our own neuropathways, thus the environment we are a part of shapes our values, personality traits, etc and also literally our brain.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to reduce every aspect of the human person to being either caused by nature or product of nurture, when the two have such a symbiotic relationship. Attempting to separate, classify and divide exclusively is only being pig-headed.