March 22, 2019

Nature vs. Nurture in the 20th Century



I watched this documentary and found it informative about the early 20th Century history of the idea of human genetic determinism.

Although the film is fairly objective in its approach and what it presents, it regrettably tells only part of the 20th Century nature vs. nurture story. The film is missing the subsequent responses to these early theories of human genetic determinism, including those of supporters and more importantly those of their detractors.

To its credit the film does contain some accurate though horrific truths about 20th Century European and American political and scientific intrusion in Africa. For its educational value alone the documentary is worth watching.

In terms of the early 20th Century thinkers who promoted the notion of human genetic determinism the film focuses mostly on William Hamilton, George Price, and later thinkers such as Richard Dawkins who were influenced by them.

It gives no mention of scientists and authors such as Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner, Nikolass Tinbergen, Konrad Lorenz, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Desmond Morris, Robert Ardrey, E. O. Wilson, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, James Watson, Jonathan Haidt, and others, particularly many science writers and neuroscientists during the 1990s. The foregoing have, to greater and lesser degrees, also contributed to the biologizing of human behavior. They have done so by insisting that genetics and neurophysiology are more powerful than, in fact override, culture and learning in determining what humans think and do.

Here are other related topics:


If you are like many in the U.S., you are not sure if nature trumps nurture in determining human behavior, or vice versa. Or, you think there is probably a balance between the influences of genetics and learning.


The idea of human genetic determinism has had a strong and lasting influence on the Western public despite its harmfulness to individual wellbeing and human relations. If you want to fully understand where the idea of human genetic determinism came from, go to the links of the above named persons. While there, give attention to the criticisms of their research and findings.

You can also read on. First, biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has this to say:

“[W]hile there are fixed elements to our being, we are not fixed beings, since we are (or ought to be) free to choose our projects. Neither biology nor natural obstacles limit our futures to a great extent, and how we live out our human nature will vary because we give different meanings to our facticities. An authentic life is about acknowledging these differences, and stretching ourselves into an open future. It does not follow that this openness is unlimited or unconstrained. We are limited, but mostly by our own imagination.”

For more but not a full course on the nature-nurture debate try the following, my two takes on these ill-founded, unsupported and harmful notions of human neuro-genetic determinism:


and


Archive for "Being Human"