Another blow for the biological determinists
- This topic has 8 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
One feature of human biological nature is to be able to learn behaviour. In fact, most of our behaviour is learned rather than determined by our genes (what is determined by these is the capacity to learn behaviour, a fairly wide range in the case of humans).
Research has now established that some of the behaviour of even some insects is learned rather than determined by inherited “instinct”:
“It’s another level of empathy we see in these animals if they are capable of caring for another species,”
A female orca was seen apparently looking after a newborn long-finned pilot whale.
The Professor Andrew Whiten mentioned in that report (not one of the researchers) is recorded in our pamphlet Are We Prisoners of our Genes as pointing out:
“Humans are the most social species on Earth and our ancestors formed hunter-gatherer groups which pulled together to adapt to their new lifestyle. Unlike every other species, they had an egalitarian culture where everything was shared out equally: no other animal does that. There was also no hierarchy in the society or tribal chiefs, as anyone who tried to lead was pushed back down by the others. Everyone was considered to be equal and they lived in a culture of primitive communism. We might expect as the products of evolution our ancestors would be selfish, but it was their ability to work together and support each other which made them more successful than any other. This supportive culture allowed technology and skills to be passed down and improved with each generation. Although this egalitarian lifestyle is not present in most of the world today, it may be resting dormant within us waiting to be reawakened” (Paper delivered to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, see The Times, 19 August 2000).”
ALB – “what is determined by these (genes) is the capacity to learn behaviour, a fairly wide range in the case of humans”
Without being overly critical, I think it is too simplistic to state that our genes set us up as some kind of learning computer which then takes in information and then learns behaviour from the experiences it encounters.
Similarly those who criticise the classic Behaviourist Theories of people like Skinner, which state that behaviours are learned from the environment, that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behaviour, do not state that learning from the environment does not exist, but rather that behaviour, personality, etc are a more complex interplay of instinct, functionality and experience.
For example Alan has described the caring and empathetic behaviour of some animals with regards to the young of other species (this can also be observed with some animals caring for the young of its own species, even though they are not their own offspring).
What is important to note is that when we see this kind of nurturing and empathetic behaviour, it is behaviour which is seen by animals which are mammals (very occasionally it might be seen by birds, but this is on a much less develop way and is much, much less common).
This behaviour has not been learned through some form of operant conditioning, if that was the case what would be the “tangible reward” of giving up your “survival energy” in order to care for another creature which does not aid the survival of the nurturing animal or its offspring and nor does it reward it in any tangible way.
Nurture, cooperation, mutual aid is part of the evolutionary inheritance of all mammals. For animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, testudines, etc. the survival conundrum is solved by number. For example a frog produce thousands of tadpoles and only need two to survive to breeding in order to maintain the species. The adult frog provides no protection.
For Mammals the production of milk and the associated nurture of the vulnerable infant increases the survival chances. Through a process of natural selection, which began from the emergence of the first mammals, those mammal mothers who were instinctively most nurturing and supportive were more likely to survive, similarly those infants that sought out nurture were also more likely to survive.
More complex mammals have longer periods of infant vulnerability. This is because the brains of more complex animals are bigger and therefore need to be born earlier in development. If the brain develops too far before birth the birth canal is too small to cope with the large brain. These mammals also produce fewer numbers of offspring, therefore the survival of the individual infant is more important to the survival of the species.
Human babies are born at a very early stage of development; if you compare the skills and behaviour of a new born lamb and a new born human child you can see the difference in terms of development. A new born lamb can walk and suckle independently within the first day of life.
Because of this the impact of infant care giver attachment relationships are more complex in mammals who are born in earlier stages of development, because they experience a greater time period where they are dependent and vulnerable. The formative experience is based on their instinctive response to nurture and the instinctive nurturing of the mother animal.
The imporance of nurture as opposed to food, as a determinent of attachment was clearly demonstrated by the harrowing experiments of monkeys undertaken by Harlow and Harlow.
This is a mix of not just instinct and learned behaviour but we also need to take into account the level of brain development that takes place during those experiences. A new born human baby’s brain is not the same as a 2 year old baby’s brain. A simple example of this is the use of internal language. A new born baby has no external language, but it also does not have any internal language, the internal speech we have which is also known as the interpsychic conversation. As the baby has no speech, the way they process experience is different from the way that the verbal child or human processes experience.
Vulnerability and safety have a profound impact not just in terms of learning and understanding the world but also in terms of the developing brain. For example high levels of cortisol (which is produced when we experience anxiety) reduce brain growth in more logical areas of the brain which leads to an increase in neural connections in the reactive limbic system, this is seen most clearly in scans of the brains of infants who have experienced poor early years care or have experienced abuse and or neglect. The brains of these infants are differently shaped compared to those who have experienced good early years care.
This is part of the process of the brain adapting to the most successful way of surviving in what has become a dangerous and an often life threatening situation. A reactive response with high levels of monitoring, high levels of anxiety and low levels of relaxation are more successful in this situation, than having a more thoughtful reflective response, which might end up with you being killed or maimed. Statistically the most likely people to kill you in infancy are your family.
Therefore the computer based analogy of hardware (instinct and genes) software (learning and experience) interaction is not really correct. The interplay of experience actually alters the physical hardware, these physical changes are changes that have been determined by the experiences we face but the ways in which the changes take place are preset because of our physiology, which has developed as a part of our evolutionary and therefore genetic inheritance.
Actually, what you point out strengthens the argument that human behaviour is not determined by genes in the way biological determinists preach.
What genes determine is the physical anatomy and physiology of humans and other living things. That determines what they can and cannot do, the limits of how they can behave, if you like. The particular anatomy and physiology of humans means that they are capable of learning a great variety of behaviours. That the way an individual behaves shapes the physical brain, in the ways you point out, again shows that the genetic structure a human has at birth has even less influence on their behaviour.
More, recent stuff on this sort of thing here:
I think you have missed the point that I was trying to make.
The point is, is that the way that experience shapes/adapts our brain to survive in its environment is based on not only the experience itself but on the options for development set by the biology of the brain for it to develop in the first place.
You say “ That the way an individual behaves shapes the physical brain, in the ways you point out, again shows that the genetic structure a human has at birth has even less influence on their behaviour”.
I didnt say that the “way the individual BEHAVES” I said it is the biologically evolved ways the organism responds to the experiences the organism encounters, that influences the ways in which the brain develops.
So in the example I have of the higher levels of cortisol that are produced in regularly anxiety provoking experiences, (especially in infants and young children) the cortisol inhibits growth in areas such as long term memory, strategic planning and relaxation. It also increases the level of arousal, vigilance and short term reactivity. These responses are not conscious but occur as part of a “pre programmed” useful survival response and changes occur because of our evolutionary inheritance.
The process is far more complex than a simple learned behaviour.
This is why personality typology is linked to experiences, psychopaths personalities for example are not generally born but are generally results of many factors, including their early experiences.
If in the example given, the process of being psychopathic was a simple learned behaviour based on what the “genetic structure a human had at birth” it would be a simple process to support the individual to unlearn their behaviour, unfortunately that is not the way it works out in practice.
I don’t know why we are arguing. I don’t disagree with what you say. Maybe it’s because I’m talking about the capabilities of the species while you are talking about that of individual members of the species.
As you say, what an individual experiences in the first years of their life, when their brain is still developing, is crucial for the formation of their personality which will shape how they are going to behave in response to later experiences.
I think this applies to the individual members of other species as well.
You write:
“This is why personality typology is linked to experiences, psychopaths personalities for example are not generally born but are generally results of many factors, including their early experiences.“
This it is an argument against those biological determinists who argue that some humans are born “psychopaths” (or homosexual or whatever).
I’ll go along with “linked to experiences” rather than “learned”. I wasn’t using it in the literal sense anyway but more in the sense of “not innate”.
But, then, as I said, I was talking more about the features of the species. Humans have a brain that enables them to engage in a wide variety of behaviours and to pass on a learned “culture” from generation to generation. It’s “human nature” to be able to adopt or adapt to, and so engage in, a wide range of behaviours. Hence the distinction we have always insisted on between “human nature” and “human behaviour”.
The point I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly, is that “human nature” in the form of instinctual behaviours and brain stucture are a sizeable componant of our repertiore of behaviours.
They form the bedrock of our ongoing development and learning, and how we learn and what we learnt is varied but is biologically dependent.
However these instincts and brain structure of humans (and to all mammals to a larger or lesser extent) are strongly linked (through evolution) to cooperation, mutual aid, nurture and care for other members of our species and to care for other species (that’s why we have pets and why most of these pets are mammals, you don’t get much affectional back from a tarantula)
Yes, everything we do is “biologically dependent”. Human behaviour is dependent on human nature. I don’t think we can say, though, that “instinctual behaviour” in humans forms a “sizeable” part of “our repertoire of behaviours”. “Non-negligible” might be a better term. The great bulk of how we behave is not “instinctual”. It depends on the society in which we were brought up in and live.
All animals can only do what their biology allows but, in the case of humans, this allows a wide degree of latitude that distinguishes us from all other animals, meaning that a much smaller proportion of our behaviour is “instinctual” compared with theirs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.