Edmund O. Wilson and the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

American Thinker ^ | 8 Jan, 2022 | Michael Curtis

[MtnClimber]

Are humans born good or evil? Is Caliban in The Tempest a “born devil” because he is the misshapen son of a sorceress, and so brutal that education has no effect on him, or is he bad because of cruel circumstance?

Throughout history one of the oldest philosophical discussions has concerned the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors, nature vs. nurture, to human development. Opinions vary widely from the supposition that the mind is a blank slate, tabula rasa, that humans are born without any innate mental content, to the belief that certain things are inborn, or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

In theory, the difference is stark. Nature focuses on biology, --genes, and hereditary factors: eye color, skin color, the basis of appearance and personality. Nurture, based on empiricism and behaviorism, includes multiple factors, such as the influence of childhood upbringing, parenting style, nature and extent of education, social class, group affiliation, national and social culture. Yet, even though the debate has long been discussed it is arguable whether any strict dichotomy of the two views, genetics or environment, is of more than limited value.

Even if the war is not over, a useful compromise is that both factors play a crucial role in explaining behavior, in topics such as such as differences in height, life expectancy, educational ability, temperament, or the causes of crime and aggression. Moreover, admitting that our genes guide our individual and social behavior, it is still true that the influence of genes changes throughout life. The DNA may remain the same, but the impact of genes alters with age and different circumstances.

The controversy over the nature or nurture debate was reopened in the 20th century by the work of Edmund O. Wilson, mainly the concept of sociobiology.

[MtnClimber]

I agree that it is probably some of both. When nature and nurture align in a good direction it really benefits society. When they align in negative directions then it often causes great harm. There seemd to be no effort to direct certain groups in a positive direction. It seems to be the opposite.

[Gay State Conservative]

There's a guy who is,I believe,a professor at Stanford who's posted a couple of dozen videos on youtube on neurobiology and genetics. They're each between 60 and 90 minutes long and I find them to be absolutely fascinating...despite only understanding about 5% of what he's saying.

His name is Robert Sopolsky. Anyone with some free time should check him out.

[Gay State Conservative]

Dr Robert Sopolsky's First Lecture

[Adder]

Nature just provides the “plan”, nurture makes the man.

What would happen to persons raised without any interaction with people: what would they become with no nurture?

Not sure they would be “human”.

And no, I do not advocate trying any such thing just to see...

[caseinpoint]

I believe something very close to your theory happened in the Soviet Union or some other dystopian society where many infant orphans were subjected to almost no human nurturing. A large number of the wasted away and died.

[SharpRightTurn]

“The concept of sociobiology was strongly criticized, partly for political reasons, as being linked to real or imagined political and ideological consequences. Those who were critical of the concept and of “biological determinism,” included Marxist writers who saw the concept as injurious to the progress of human beings. They argue, for example, that traits such as aggressiveness, can be explained more by social environment than by biology. Critics accused Wilson of racism and sexism. The most vocal critics, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, argue that human traits can be explained more by social environment than by biology. They were critical of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, and argued that many physical and psychological traits are evolved adaptions, not the result of some innate characteristic. Critics argued thar sociobiology was a new version of biological determinism and of eugenic policies. Wilson dismissed the criticism and the physical attacks, including one in which Gould threw ice water over him, as self-righteous vigilantism.”

I never knew much about Wilson, but if he was opposed by Gould and his ilk, then Wilson may really have been on to something.

[MtnClimber]

If you do a search for (Average IQ by country) anyone can clearly see that there are large differences. Many Middle East and African countries have very low average IQs. Of course there are bright people on the upper end of the curve, but the averages show that the majority of the people will never advance beyond menial skill labor occupations. It should also be noted that low IQ is not the same thing as evil conduct which may have a much qreater impact by nurture.

[super7man]

At birth, infants are already very smart but are also universally selfish because all they know is “self”. This is nature and it is about survival. It is not good or evil. They have a basic instinct to cry when they are in discomfort. God and nature has provided them with a cry that goes right to the spine of their parents and elicits an immediate response to meet the infant’s need. If a low level cry of discomfort does not do the trick; they learn that raising the bar, WILL do the trick. This is nurture.

As the child becomes more aware of the world around them, he quickly learns that the same behavior that gives him comfort can also now be used to fulfill their worldly desires and whims, and to control the behavior of others, siblings and parents. Unchecked, this is now a problem in self-will running amuck. This is a child not an infant. How far a child will push this is a combination of nature and nurture.

To live in the exciting broader and more complex world, it is necessary that a child be taught that their existence is no longer, “just about them”. There are other people and things in the world that require their attention and respect. They must also learn that there will always be some authority over them. It may be a parent, a peer, a teacher, a boss - OR - the police, a judge and a jailer (or even a hot potbelly stove). But ultimately a child’s best opportunity is to recognize that there is a loving God, to whom he is willing to give authority, over him.

Kids are pretty tough both physically and emotionally and the key is to bend (nurture) that young branch of the family tree (nature) without breaking it.

[Karoo]

I heard just a month ago that Appalachia did not have access to iodine and that influenced IQ

[Dave Wright]

The evolutionary psychology field that E.O. Wilson got started was really a response to the “Selfish Gene” book by Richard Dawkins. There were several theories of human evolution that were based on game theory principles and refered to as kin selection. The notion was that our group behaviors were based on the closeness of our genetic ties and that altruism and xenophobia were biologically driven.

Wilson and his followers rejected this gene determinism and instead proposed that our evolution was driven by the survival advantages of “eusocial” or true social behavior. We evolved the use of language to leverage the experience of prior generations and accelerate cultural evolution beyond what biological evolution could achieve as rapidly.

This produced a feedback influence on biology where language-driven cultural changes lead to biological selection pressures through marriage and reproduction patterns over time. This helps explain why 24% of the world’s Nobel prizes have been awarded to Ashkenazi Jews who are only 0.2% of the population. Jewish culture selected for literacy and numeracy which became more highly valued as the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions placed a greater value on these skills over traditional agricultural skills.

Nature and nurture both interact over time but nuture (eusocial) evolution is far faster and more influential for modern human evolution.