Does Anyone *Actually* Believe in the Blank Slate?

[Trausti]

The implications of evolution and natural selection are that heredity matters an awful lot in determining traits of offspring. Any child shares nearly half her DNA with her mother and nearly the other half with her father. Yet some social science and political ideologies make environment the predominate explanation; certainly a lot of leftist viewpoints eschew genetics as their perceived authority rests on the belief that all that is necessary for revolutionary change is to change the environment.

Link

So do people actually believe in the Blank Slate? Or is it simply given lip service until abandoned when things actually matter?

 

[LordKiran]

I don't think the blank slate was meant to apply to biological instinct but rather purely learned traits and behaviors. You know, that children do not start out bigoted towards others.

 

[DBT]

We are born with a set of traits and abilities, but know nothing about the world or society in which we are born. That part is the blank slate, language has to be acquired, social practices, family, education, developing an understanding of our environment, etc.

Quote;
Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting family, community, social class, language, religion and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example. This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable. There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply embedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them. ''



''Data received from the external world is absolutely essential for brain development. And that any form of sensory deprevation has very serious consequences for the normal development of the brain.

''Babies' brains grow and develop as they interact with their environment and learn how to function within that environment. When babies' cries bring food or comfort, they are strengthening the neuronal pathways that help them learn how to get their needs met, both physically and emotionally. But babies who do not get responses to their cries, and babies whose cries are met with abuse, learn different lessons.''

''These capacities may not fully develop because the required neuronal pathways were not activated enough to form the "memories" needed for future learning (Greenough, Black & Wallace, 1987).''

 

[Speakpigeon]

The implications of evolution and natural selection are that heredity matters an awful lot in determining traits of offspring. Any child shares nearly half her DNA with her mother and nearly the other half with her father. Yet some social science and political ideologies make environment the predominate explanation; certainly a lot of leftist viewpoints eschew genetics as their perceived authority rests on the belief that all that is necessary for revolutionary change is to change the environment.

Parents raising their children is an environmental factor so your Warsaw example doesn't properly discriminate between genetic factors and environmental factors. There's still ample room for the main factor being the education and standard of living provided by parents rather than the genes they passed on to their kids.
And I think I remember that this is confirmed by studies of twins separated and brought up by different surrogate families.
And that's definitely what I would expect even though the genetic makeup can only be of paramount importance.
EB

 

[thebeave]

I don't think the blank slate was meant to apply to biological instinct but rather purely learned traits and behaviors. You know, that children do not start out bigoted towards others.

Well, not exactly:

http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

You always suspected babies were no good, didn’t you? They’re loud, narcissistic, spoiled, volatile and not exactly possessed of good table manners. Now it turns out that they’re racists too.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Steven Pinker wrote an entire book about the Blank Slate, if you weren't aware. He did a rather thorough job dismantling it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate[/YOUTUBE]

 

[LordKiran]

Well, not exactly:

http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

You always suspected babies were no good, didn’t you? They’re loud, narcissistic, spoiled, volatile and not exactly possessed of good table manners. Now it turns out that they’re racists too.

Any chance you can link me directly to the study? Time didn't feel this was necessary for some reason.

 

[fromderinside]

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker PDF download: https://www.daftarche.com/attachmen...k-slate-modern-denial-human-nature-[2002].pdf

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with the study of humans is it is nearly impossible to establish a valid control group. Studies such as the one in the OP always produce mountains of data to illustrate differences and similarities between groups, but it's never really possible to establish a cause for either.

 

[LordKiran]

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker PDF download: https://www.daftarche.com/attachmen...k-slate-modern-denial-human-nature-[2002].pdf

Oh man I am way too stoned to read a book right now. Give me like two weeks.

 

[Underseer]

The implications of evolution and natural selection are that heredity matters an awful lot in determining traits of offspring. Any child shares nearly half her DNA with her mother and nearly the other half with her father. Yet some social science and political ideologies make environment the predominate explanation; certainly a lot of leftist viewpoints eschew genetics as their perceived authority rests on the belief that all that is necessary for revolutionary change is to change the environment.

Link

So do people actually believe in the Blank Slate? Or is it simply given lip service until abandoned when things actually matter?

That sounds an awful lot like you're fishing around for some sort of scientific justification for racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Scientific racism is pseudoscience. Your white genes don't actually make you superior.

 

[Trausti]

The implications of evolution and natural selection are that heredity matters an awful lot in determining traits of offspring. Any child shares nearly half her DNA with her mother and nearly the other half with her father. Yet some social science and political ideologies make environment the predominate explanation; certainly a lot of leftist viewpoints eschew genetics as their perceived authority rests on the belief that all that is necessary for revolutionary change is to change the environment.

Link

So do people actually believe in the Blank Slate? Or is it simply given lip service until abandoned when things actually matter?

That sounds an awful lot like you're fishing around for some sort of scientific justification for racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Scientific racism is pseudoscience. Your white genes don't actually make you superior.

I thought the ad was funny. And I am against pseudoscience; which is why I am against those who promote the blank slate. It's not about "white" genes. It's about your parents' genes. Didn't think that was too hard to understand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That sounds an awful lot like you're fishing around for some sort of scientific justification for racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Scientific racism is pseudoscience. Your white genes don't actually make you superior.

They asked for a Harvard degree.

It's about genetics. They want an egg from a smart woman.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps we could rename this 'The false dichotomy thread'.

Anyone who argues that genetics don't matter is just as poorly informed as anyone who argues that environment doesn't matter.

To get a degree from Harvard obviously requires contributions from both genetics and environment; and due to the recombination that occurs during meiosis, there is no particular reason to expect that a person whose ovum came from a Harvard graduate will be born with a degree of intelligence that would allow them to do the same, even given an ideal environment in which to develop.

Genetics ain't nothing; nor are they everything.

 

[Trausti]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Humans are very different on the outside. Why would anyone posit that despite those outward differences we are all nevertheless an identical blank slate on the inside?

So no, I don't think anyone of intellect subscribes to blank slate belief.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yet some social science and political ideologies make environment the predominate explanation; certainly a lot of leftist viewpoints eschew genetics as their perceived authority rests on the belief that all that is necessary for revolutionary change is to change the environment.

Politically left viewpoints emphasize environment, because unequal environments is something society can and should do something about. Rightists emphasize genetics because rightists desire inequality and authoritarianism (a form of inequality) and thus want to preserve and enhance rather than correct inequalities. Conservatives also desire the kind of moral and structural simplicity that comes with assuming that the current inequalities are the way that God or nature intended.

As to the question in the thread title, the OP is confusing two different issues. Environmental source of variations between people does not presume that many aspect of human cognition are not hard-wired. For example, the human brain could be (and is) hard wired to formulate linguistic syntax, such that language is not actually learned from scratch. Yet variations between people in what languages they learn and the extent of their vocabulary are obviously environmentally dependent. Likewise, humans may be disposed to a categorical and schema based way of thinking that makes us innately prone to racist ideas, yet variation in the degree to which a person put in the mental effort to either resist or enhance such a tendency is heavily dependent on environmental experiences.

Ideologues on the right overstate biological determinism in order to justify current inequalities. While there are also ideologues on the left who deny the scientific reality that biology and genes do account for sizable portions of variance in most aspects of human psychology from aggressive behavior to mental abilities, skills, and thus educational success.

OTOH, none of the evidence for biological influences on these things is evidence that group level (such as between races or genders) are biologically based. Virtually all the evidence is at the level of variance between individuals within such groups, and it is logically fallacious to infer that it equally applies at aggregate group levels. Suppose that running speed variation was 50% genetic. And suppose that war veterans average a run speed that is 20% slower than the general population. It is fallacious to infer that 50% of that speed differential for vets is due to vets being genetically prone to slowness. 100% of that speed difference could be environmental, such as because vets have experiences that blow off their legs or wound them permanently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Politically left viewpoints emphasize environment, because unequal environments is something society can and should do something about. Rightists emphasize genetics because rightists desire inequality and authoritarianism (a form of inequality) and thus want to preserve and enhance rather than correct inequalities. Conservatives also desire the kind of moral and structural simplicity that comes with assuming that the current inequalities are the way that God or nature intended.

Unequal environments are to a large degree parenting--not something that society can do a lot about without being way too intrusive. Furthermore, the leftist position leads to rampant discrimination and reduces the value of personal effort and rewards sloth--exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

I don't desire inequality but I recognize that without inequality there is no reward for effort--society can't exist without it. I do not believe there are any groups that are inherently inferior except in some minor aspects (for example, I get the strong impression that those of New World genetic heritage are more prone to alcohol problems--not surprising as the Old World population has had a steady supply of alcohol for a lot longer and thus more time for it to weed the susceptible genes out.)

Ideologues on the right overstate biological determinism in order to justify current inequalities. While there are also ideologues on the left who deny the scientific reality that biology and genes do account for sizable portions of variance in most aspects of human psychology from aggressive behavior to mental abilities, skills, and thus educational success.

I think the left is more prone to going too far than the right, but both sides have a problem.

OTOH, none of the evidence for biological influences on these things is evidence that group level (such as between races or genders) are biologically based. Virtually all the evidence is at the level of variance between individuals within such groups, and it is logically fallacious to infer that it equally applies at aggregate group levels. Suppose that running speed variation was 50% genetic. And suppose that war veterans average a run speed that is 20% slower than the general population. It is fallacious to infer that 50% of that speed differential for vets is due to vets being genetically prone to slowness. 100% of that speed difference could be environmental, such as because vets have experiences that blow off their legs or wound them permanently.

I won't go quite this far--there are genetic differences. They're minor, though. (There's little doubt that genetics plays a big role in the blackness of the NBA. On average blacks are slightly taller than whites--completely irrelevant at the center of the curve but when you look at the very tail of the curve it matters. The very tallest people are very disproportionately black and height is a big deal in basketball.)

 

[PyramidHead]

Nevermind

 

[Elixir]

Nevermind

Wrong question. Should be:
"What's the bigger problem, people on the left selling uranium to the Russian and babies out of pizza shops, or people on the right standing up for The National Anthem?"
Huh?