In the Pinker reading, one sentence in particular resonated with my opinions: “children are shaped not by their parents, but in part...by their genes; in part by their culture...; and in large part by sheer chance—chance events in the development of the brain in utero, such as whether some neurons zigged or zagged at a particular day in brain development, and perhaps chance events in life, such as whether at some point you were chased by a dog, or inhaled a virus, or were dropped on your head, or got the top bunk bed as opposed to the bottom bunk bed” (pg. 7).
As a student of the genetic and developmental sciences, I have learned that much thought goes into determining different genetic and environmental factors that shape an organism’s physiology. I believe that it is this physiology that affects who and what we are as individuals. The way our brain is hardwired (so developed with the blueprint of genetics and the circumstances in which it developed) is the basis for how we react to our environments and the societies in which we live. What I find particularly interesting in Pinker’s statement is his inclusion of chance in a child’s development. I think that this is an important clarification: we are not just our genetics. While genetics forms an outline, there are many other environmental and epigenetic factors. As plastic as our brains are, the chance occurrence of being chased by a dog can shape our neurons, and therefore ourselves, as we develop into adults. It is this circle that I find so fascinating: the genetic influence on development, the physiology affecting our reactions to the environment, and ultimately - to close the circle - the environment affecting the physiology of an individual.
This circle of environment and biology impacting each other is an idea that I would like to connect to the ‘science wars.’ It is evident that each, biology and society, ultimately interconnect to form the personality of the individual. Each area on its own can answer some of our specific questions; however, a full picture will consider both. Biologists that study the biological basis of the human personality will be able to uncover the physiological mechanisms, and others will study how the environment affects its development. By bringing them together, we can ultimately find a more cohesive and comprehensive answer to how the human’s ‘blank slate’ is filled.
I completely agree with what you posted in the last paragraph about how by bringing both the biological basis of human personality and how the environment affects its development, a more extensive understanding of how the human "blank slate" is filled will be achieved. It goes back to the old nature versus nurture debate and I think that the ultimate answer cannot be determined by looking at one venue alone. The brain is a magnificent mystery and without a rounded perspective to look at it with, nothing will be made clear.
ReplyDeleteHe's more gentle here about other (than genetic) structurations. BUT--big 'but'--he still sees us as largely determined and lacking agency.
ReplyDelete