Great essay. But doesn’t the distinction between actual cause and background condition just depend on our interests (our expectations, goals, contrasts, etc.)?
Why do you know the rules of pickleball (and I don’t)? Because someone told you the rules (and didn’t tell me).
Why do you know the rules of pickleball (and your dog doesn’t)? Because of your natural cognitive abilities (that she lacks, though they told her the rules too).
(Your example was of a seemingly learned trait. The developmental systems theorist says that putatively innate traits depend on the environment too, you would say as “background conditions.”)
This makes it seem like the answer to “Nature or environment?” isn’t objective, and therefore not a good scientific question.
I agree that the distinction only arises when you deal with high-level categories. If all you're interested in is the movement of elementary particles, maybe it all goes away. But it seems perfectly coherently at the higher level. I know the rules and you don't because I've had the experience that let me learn them; I know the rules and my dog doesn't because it wasn't born with the requisite learning mechanisms. This explanation seems true to me (and to you?) and assumes a distinction between learning and innate stuff.
To put it another way, you might be saying that the distinction between actual causes and background conditions is always dependent on our interests. If so, I'm tempted to agree but then your point also holds for other sciences--it was a meteor that killed the dinosaurs, not a zillion other factors; measles give you spots not a zillion other factors -- and since such claims are perfectly respectable, 'm not worried that your point applies to psychology as well.
But I might be totally missing your point; if so sorry, and please clarify if you have the time.
Thanks for the reply. Let me try to think about this more clearly.
I agree with you that there is an important distinction between traits that are and are not innate. I have appealed to this distinction in my own work. Where I disagree with you is that the right way to unpack this distinction is in terms of whether biological factors or the environment is "the cause" as opposed to the background condition, since that classification just hangs on our interests.
That was what my pair of examples was supposed to show. The effect is the same (you knowing the rules of pickleball) but *implicit* contrasts affect what we think of as "the cause." So, if innate means <caused by biology> then the category isn't objective; what's innate shifts with our interests.
A better way to unpack the distinction between innate and non-innate might be in terms of *what kinds of processes* are at play in generating a given trait. (Either way, biology and environment will be causes.)
First pass: innate traits are the result of "growth," non-innate traits the result of "learning" (as hinted when you discussed Chomsky). You have to conceive of "learning" in a very capacious way though, as something like *responding to information*, such that even some biological, non-mental processes count as learning.
Not read the paper you linked yet (yes I know I'm commenting prematurely but I have known to be highly heritable struggles with deferred gratification, combined with social/national history that nurtured in me a probably subconscious belief that it's way better to have a marshmallow equivalent now because by the time two might be due the whole setup could be changed by the Boss Lady, or she could be replaced by a different one who wasn't giving out any marshmallows, or a fire/airstrike alarm could sound)...
...but if the abstract reflects the contents and if it's credibly done, it'd offer a pretty impressive reconciliation of the endless discussions about heritability of certain (often politically / sociologically controversial traits), and common intuitions, by perhaps looking at the heritable part as a certain ceiling/potential, which WILL get realized once certain environmental conditions are met but often isn't in conditions that are seriously suboptimal.
Height works like that iirc, menarche age, and max life expectancy too: we're not necessarily genetically taller than people 100 years ago, but we are less hampered/stunted.
I've always felt that on the one hand, yes, intelligence OBVIOUSLY feels largely innate and this is confirmed by twin studies etc (tho Wechsler has big "crystalized" aspect too). But on the other hand it's also OBVIOUS that many people never get to "crystalize" their, let's call provisionally, actual/potential IQ, likely due to combination of physical and social environmental influences.
Similarly to the idea that "parental behaviours don't matter much" -- well, yes, they probably don't NORMALLY. But in some cases their influence can be so absolutely catastrophic that they surely do. So this whole relationship will be very nonlinear.
Critics of the nature/nurture distinction don't realize how generic their objections are -- that they apply to distinctions in general and not to any distinction in particular. No distinction holds up well under scrutiny. But science can't do without distinctions. And so the relevant question isn't whether a distinction is flawless but whether it's useful. And you make a compelling case that the nature/nurture distinction remains useful.
"Many behaviorists, some of whom are still around, argue that all that we start with is principles of learning. These principles are the same across species, so there is nothing in the mind of a human baby that you wouldn’t find in a rat or pigeon."
I think behaviorists often get a bad rep. For example, Skinner in his 1990 APA keynote address made an important point that there are three kinds of variation and selection:
1. Natural selection: it prepares a species only for the future that resembles the selecting past
2. Operant conditioning: environment of the individual selects behavior with contingencies that were not stable enough to work through natural selection
3. Culture: practices that are reinforced and contribute to the well-being or success of the group are more likely to be transmitted and maintained across generations.
You write that "modern-day nativists think of this as the product of our evolutionary history, encoded in our genes". So given Skinner's first point, why shouldn't we consider him a nativist?
My impression is that the generation of students that replaced their behaviorist teachers often mischaracterize their elders. Another case that comes to mind is Chomsky's debate with Quine. Quine, who is considered a behaviorist (more in the analytical sense), complained that Chomsky was misrepresenting his views on the nature of meaning & language-learning without him (Quine) seeing any tensions between (his brand of) behaviorism and nativist theory of language such as Chomsky's. Quine wrote in the 1970's sentences like the following ones (in response to Chomsky):
"Innate biases and dispositions are cornerstone of behaviorism."
"Unquestionably much additional innate structure is needed to account for language-learning."
"It may well turn out that processes are involved that are very unlike the classical process of reinforcement & extinction of responses. This would be no refutation of behaviorism."
So why shouldn't we consider Quine a nativist rather than lump him among behaviorists?
It seems to me that scientific revolutions (real or alleged) are often preceded by misrepresentation of the work of predecessors. Misinterpreting predecessors creates a background against which new academic theories gain the appearance of originality and novelty, sometimes undeservingly so.
Perhaps I will elaborate on these points in a separate on my substack.
I like to think sometimes in terms of nature, nurture, and name. I'm a strong believer that a person's name can (doesn't always, but can) have profound impact on the trajectory of their life.
For instance if you named your son Brick, he would probably grow up getting picked first in gym class, feeling masculine, and having athletic tendencies. Because he sounds like a person who can handle a ball. And people will treat him as such.
Or if you name your daughter Chastity, she has a very high likelihood of becoming a stripper and a vanishingly low chance of becoming a CEO. Because, as judgmental as it sounds, nobody will take her seriously with a name like Chastity. As a parent, you have doomed her to a life of judgment and mediocrity.
This is why I think it's absolutely essential that parents give their children good names. Not all names have such implications, nor in all situations. But some surely do.
* *You Were Never "You"—How Society Built Your Fake Identity*
---
### You Are Not You: How Nurture Built the Illusion of Self
From the moment you were born, you were nothing—a lump of flesh with no name, no beliefs, no personality. Then, layer by layer, society plastered over that emptiness. Your parents gave you a name. Your culture handed you traditions. Your school drilled obedience into you. Your friends shaped your likes and dislikes. Every thought you have, every "original" idea, is just a remix of what has been poured into you.
You call it identity. I call it conditioning.
#### The Grand Illusion of "Self"
You believe you have free will. That you make choices. That you are something unique. But if you were born in another country, to different parents, with a different language, you'd be a completely different person. The "you" that you swear is real is nothing but an accident of circumstances.
Think about it—what do you *actually* control? Your tastes? Your fears? Your desires? Every single one of them has been injected into you by the world around you. The books you read, the media you consume, the punishments and rewards you received—they've all shaped the contours of what you call "me." Strip all that away, and what’s left? Nothing.
#### Nature? Just the Raw Material
Some people argue for genetics, that nature determines personality. Sure, biology sets the stage, but nurture writes the script. A genetically inclined artist born into a rigid military family is more likely to suppress creativity than flourish. A potential leader raised in an environment of fear and submission learns to shrink rather than command. Your genes may load the gun, but society pulls the trigger.
#### Why This Realization Terrifies You
If you accept that your identity is entirely shaped by nurture, what happens to all your cherished beliefs about yourself? Your dreams, your passions, your sense of purpose? All of them—illusions. You were shaped like clay, molded by forces outside your control. You are not an individual; you are a byproduct.
* *You Were Never "You"—How Society Built Your Fake Identity*
### You Are Not You: How Nurture Built the Illusion of Self
From the moment you were born, you were nothing—a lump of flesh with no name, no beliefs, no personality. Then, layer by layer, society plastered over that emptiness. Your parents gave you a name. Your culture handed you traditions. Your school drilled obedience into you. Your friends shaped your likes and dislikes. Every thought you have, every "original" idea, is just a remix of what has been poured into you.
You call it identity. I call it conditioning.
#### The Grand Illusion of "Self"
You believe you have free will. That you make choices. That you are something unique. But if you were born in another country, to different parents, with a different language, you'd be a completely different person. The "you" that you swear is real is nothing but an accident of circumstances.
Think about it—what do you *actually* control? Your tastes? Your fears? Your desires? Every single one of them has been injected into you by the world around you. The books you read, the media you consume, the punishments and rewards you received—they've all shaped the contours of what you call "me." Strip all that away, and what’s left? Nothing.
#### Nature? Just the Raw Material
Some people argue for genetics, that nature determines personality. Sure, biology sets the stage, but nurture writes the script. A genetically inclined artist born into a rigid military family is more likely to suppress creativity than flourish. A potential leader raised in an environment of fear and submission learns to shrink rather than command. Your genes may load the gun, but society pulls the trigger.
#### Why This Realization Terrifies You
If you accept that your identity is entirely shaped by nurture, what happens to all your cherished beliefs about yourself? Your dreams, your passions, your sense of purpose? All of them—illusions. You were shaped like clay, molded by forces outside your control. You are not an individual; you are a byproduct.
I feel like a lot of what's happening here is that the typical examples we ask the Nature vs Nurture questions to might not truly exist. Is there a platonic ideal of intelligence? Of determination? Of kindness? You can ask two different people about what they think those things are and you'll come out with three answers.
And so you ask the nature vs nurture question and all you're seeing is how much genetics might influence your likelihood of reaching a outcome. The IQ test may not fully represent intelligence, but how confident are we that there is even something there to even make tests for? Maybe we can't make the perfect test because there is nothing there to actually make tests for. Meanwhile, you ask the nature vs nurture question towards object permanence, and that is an ability that very clearly exists - and those correspond pretty well to nature, or nurture.
If you assume that, by definition, the width is the shorter of the two sides, then adding an increment to the width will increase the area of the rectangle by more than adding an increment to the length. Therefore, the width is clearly more important. And don’t even try to say that they are equally important because of multiplication, or because I already admitted that L>W….
It seems to me that there is too much unexplained and inexplicable in a child's development. I have been constantly amazed by just how much babies and children seem to know innately.
Great essay. But doesn’t the distinction between actual cause and background condition just depend on our interests (our expectations, goals, contrasts, etc.)?
Why do you know the rules of pickleball (and I don’t)? Because someone told you the rules (and didn’t tell me).
Why do you know the rules of pickleball (and your dog doesn’t)? Because of your natural cognitive abilities (that she lacks, though they told her the rules too).
(Your example was of a seemingly learned trait. The developmental systems theorist says that putatively innate traits depend on the environment too, you would say as “background conditions.”)
This makes it seem like the answer to “Nature or environment?” isn’t objective, and therefore not a good scientific question.
Sorry, Victor, but I'm not sure I follow.
I agree that the distinction only arises when you deal with high-level categories. If all you're interested in is the movement of elementary particles, maybe it all goes away. But it seems perfectly coherently at the higher level. I know the rules and you don't because I've had the experience that let me learn them; I know the rules and my dog doesn't because it wasn't born with the requisite learning mechanisms. This explanation seems true to me (and to you?) and assumes a distinction between learning and innate stuff.
To put it another way, you might be saying that the distinction between actual causes and background conditions is always dependent on our interests. If so, I'm tempted to agree but then your point also holds for other sciences--it was a meteor that killed the dinosaurs, not a zillion other factors; measles give you spots not a zillion other factors -- and since such claims are perfectly respectable, 'm not worried that your point applies to psychology as well.
But I might be totally missing your point; if so sorry, and please clarify if you have the time.
Thanks for the reply. Let me try to think about this more clearly.
I agree with you that there is an important distinction between traits that are and are not innate. I have appealed to this distinction in my own work. Where I disagree with you is that the right way to unpack this distinction is in terms of whether biological factors or the environment is "the cause" as opposed to the background condition, since that classification just hangs on our interests.
That was what my pair of examples was supposed to show. The effect is the same (you knowing the rules of pickleball) but *implicit* contrasts affect what we think of as "the cause." So, if innate means <caused by biology> then the category isn't objective; what's innate shifts with our interests.
A better way to unpack the distinction between innate and non-innate might be in terms of *what kinds of processes* are at play in generating a given trait. (Either way, biology and environment will be causes.)
First pass: innate traits are the result of "growth," non-innate traits the result of "learning" (as hinted when you discussed Chomsky). You have to conceive of "learning" in a very capacious way though, as something like *responding to information*, such that even some biological, non-mental processes count as learning.
Nature is the stock, nurture is the flow. Today’s nurture is tomorrow’s nature.
Shout out for Ned Block's explainer on heritability, genetic "causation", norms of reaction etc
https://www.nedblock.us/papers/heritability.pdf
A technical Jensenist vs Lewontinist debate seems ongoing
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heritability/
https://www.jamestabery.com/beyond-versus
What about epigenetics? The nurture turned nature of previous generations?
is it just me or does Joe henrich sound completely unhinged in his twitter thread? they really got to him
Really neat.
Not read the paper you linked yet (yes I know I'm commenting prematurely but I have known to be highly heritable struggles with deferred gratification, combined with social/national history that nurtured in me a probably subconscious belief that it's way better to have a marshmallow equivalent now because by the time two might be due the whole setup could be changed by the Boss Lady, or she could be replaced by a different one who wasn't giving out any marshmallows, or a fire/airstrike alarm could sound)...
...but if the abstract reflects the contents and if it's credibly done, it'd offer a pretty impressive reconciliation of the endless discussions about heritability of certain (often politically / sociologically controversial traits), and common intuitions, by perhaps looking at the heritable part as a certain ceiling/potential, which WILL get realized once certain environmental conditions are met but often isn't in conditions that are seriously suboptimal.
Height works like that iirc, menarche age, and max life expectancy too: we're not necessarily genetically taller than people 100 years ago, but we are less hampered/stunted.
I've always felt that on the one hand, yes, intelligence OBVIOUSLY feels largely innate and this is confirmed by twin studies etc (tho Wechsler has big "crystalized" aspect too). But on the other hand it's also OBVIOUS that many people never get to "crystalize" their, let's call provisionally, actual/potential IQ, likely due to combination of physical and social environmental influences.
Similarly to the idea that "parental behaviours don't matter much" -- well, yes, they probably don't NORMALLY. But in some cases their influence can be so absolutely catastrophic that they surely do. So this whole relationship will be very nonlinear.
Critics of the nature/nurture distinction don't realize how generic their objections are -- that they apply to distinctions in general and not to any distinction in particular. No distinction holds up well under scrutiny. But science can't do without distinctions. And so the relevant question isn't whether a distinction is flawless but whether it's useful. And you make a compelling case that the nature/nurture distinction remains useful.
Nice post!
Perhaps a minor quibble:
"Many behaviorists, some of whom are still around, argue that all that we start with is principles of learning. These principles are the same across species, so there is nothing in the mind of a human baby that you wouldn’t find in a rat or pigeon."
I think behaviorists often get a bad rep. For example, Skinner in his 1990 APA keynote address made an important point that there are three kinds of variation and selection:
1. Natural selection: it prepares a species only for the future that resembles the selecting past
2. Operant conditioning: environment of the individual selects behavior with contingencies that were not stable enough to work through natural selection
3. Culture: practices that are reinforced and contribute to the well-being or success of the group are more likely to be transmitted and maintained across generations.
You write that "modern-day nativists think of this as the product of our evolutionary history, encoded in our genes". So given Skinner's first point, why shouldn't we consider him a nativist?
My impression is that the generation of students that replaced their behaviorist teachers often mischaracterize their elders. Another case that comes to mind is Chomsky's debate with Quine. Quine, who is considered a behaviorist (more in the analytical sense), complained that Chomsky was misrepresenting his views on the nature of meaning & language-learning without him (Quine) seeing any tensions between (his brand of) behaviorism and nativist theory of language such as Chomsky's. Quine wrote in the 1970's sentences like the following ones (in response to Chomsky):
"Innate biases and dispositions are cornerstone of behaviorism."
"Unquestionably much additional innate structure is needed to account for language-learning."
"It may well turn out that processes are involved that are very unlike the classical process of reinforcement & extinction of responses. This would be no refutation of behaviorism."
So why shouldn't we consider Quine a nativist rather than lump him among behaviorists?
It seems to me that scientific revolutions (real or alleged) are often preceded by misrepresentation of the work of predecessors. Misinterpreting predecessors creates a background against which new academic theories gain the appearance of originality and novelty, sometimes undeservingly so.
Perhaps I will elaborate on these points in a separate on my substack.
I like to think sometimes in terms of nature, nurture, and name. I'm a strong believer that a person's name can (doesn't always, but can) have profound impact on the trajectory of their life.
For instance if you named your son Brick, he would probably grow up getting picked first in gym class, feeling masculine, and having athletic tendencies. Because he sounds like a person who can handle a ball. And people will treat him as such.
Or if you name your daughter Chastity, she has a very high likelihood of becoming a stripper and a vanishingly low chance of becoming a CEO. Because, as judgmental as it sounds, nobody will take her seriously with a name like Chastity. As a parent, you have doomed her to a life of judgment and mediocrity.
This is why I think it's absolutely essential that parents give their children good names. Not all names have such implications, nor in all situations. But some surely do.
* *You Were Never "You"—How Society Built Your Fake Identity*
---
### You Are Not You: How Nurture Built the Illusion of Self
From the moment you were born, you were nothing—a lump of flesh with no name, no beliefs, no personality. Then, layer by layer, society plastered over that emptiness. Your parents gave you a name. Your culture handed you traditions. Your school drilled obedience into you. Your friends shaped your likes and dislikes. Every thought you have, every "original" idea, is just a remix of what has been poured into you.
You call it identity. I call it conditioning.
#### The Grand Illusion of "Self"
You believe you have free will. That you make choices. That you are something unique. But if you were born in another country, to different parents, with a different language, you'd be a completely different person. The "you" that you swear is real is nothing but an accident of circumstances.
Think about it—what do you *actually* control? Your tastes? Your fears? Your desires? Every single one of them has been injected into you by the world around you. The books you read, the media you consume, the punishments and rewards you received—they've all shaped the contours of what you call "me." Strip all that away, and what’s left? Nothing.
#### Nature? Just the Raw Material
Some people argue for genetics, that nature determines personality. Sure, biology sets the stage, but nurture writes the script. A genetically inclined artist born into a rigid military family is more likely to suppress creativity than flourish. A potential leader raised in an environment of fear and submission learns to shrink rather than command. Your genes may load the gun, but society pulls the trigger.
#### Why This Realization Terrifies You
If you accept that your identity is entirely shaped by nurture, what happens to all your cherished beliefs about yourself? Your dreams, your passions, your sense of purpose? All of them—illusions. You were shaped like clay, molded by forces outside your control. You are not an individual; you are a byproduct.
* *You Were Never "You"—How Society Built Your Fake Identity*
### You Are Not You: How Nurture Built the Illusion of Self
From the moment you were born, you were nothing—a lump of flesh with no name, no beliefs, no personality. Then, layer by layer, society plastered over that emptiness. Your parents gave you a name. Your culture handed you traditions. Your school drilled obedience into you. Your friends shaped your likes and dislikes. Every thought you have, every "original" idea, is just a remix of what has been poured into you.
You call it identity. I call it conditioning.
#### The Grand Illusion of "Self"
You believe you have free will. That you make choices. That you are something unique. But if you were born in another country, to different parents, with a different language, you'd be a completely different person. The "you" that you swear is real is nothing but an accident of circumstances.
Think about it—what do you *actually* control? Your tastes? Your fears? Your desires? Every single one of them has been injected into you by the world around you. The books you read, the media you consume, the punishments and rewards you received—they've all shaped the contours of what you call "me." Strip all that away, and what’s left? Nothing.
#### Nature? Just the Raw Material
Some people argue for genetics, that nature determines personality. Sure, biology sets the stage, but nurture writes the script. A genetically inclined artist born into a rigid military family is more likely to suppress creativity than flourish. A potential leader raised in an environment of fear and submission learns to shrink rather than command. Your genes may load the gun, but society pulls the trigger.
#### Why This Realization Terrifies You
If you accept that your identity is entirely shaped by nurture, what happens to all your cherished beliefs about yourself? Your dreams, your passions, your sense of purpose? All of them—illusions. You were shaped like clay, molded by forces outside your control. You are not an individual; you are a byproduct.
I am proposing to the Wikipedia talk page to include Noam Chomsky in the list, do you have the citation for the quote above?
you can google it and the citation will pop up, but it's unnecessary -- everyone knows Chomsky is a nativist.
I feel like a lot of what's happening here is that the typical examples we ask the Nature vs Nurture questions to might not truly exist. Is there a platonic ideal of intelligence? Of determination? Of kindness? You can ask two different people about what they think those things are and you'll come out with three answers.
And so you ask the nature vs nurture question and all you're seeing is how much genetics might influence your likelihood of reaching a outcome. The IQ test may not fully represent intelligence, but how confident are we that there is even something there to even make tests for? Maybe we can't make the perfect test because there is nothing there to actually make tests for. Meanwhile, you ask the nature vs nurture question towards object permanence, and that is an ability that very clearly exists - and those correspond pretty well to nature, or nurture.
If you assume that, by definition, the width is the shorter of the two sides, then adding an increment to the width will increase the area of the rectangle by more than adding an increment to the length. Therefore, the width is clearly more important. And don’t even try to say that they are equally important because of multiplication, or because I already admitted that L>W….
It seems to me that there is too much unexplained and inexplicable in a child's development. I have been constantly amazed by just how much babies and children seem to know innately.
Thank you - this was an excellent read. Very well written