Assertion journal- Rene Descartes vs. John Locke with regards to the influence of experience and biology on psychological development.
In psychology, I learned about the nature vs. nurture debate. It is an ongoing debate that basically culminates in a simple argument. Some thinkers believe that we are born with minds as clean slates. Others believe that we are born with all of our knowledge. Locke took sides with the nurture supporters, while Descartes thought that our knowledge can be attributed to nature. I think it is obvious that is somewhere in between, but it is probably a little slanted.
John Locke was probably more accurate in his choice of sides. Examples like children living in isolation show that language development relies on interaction with other. When they are discovered, they have no ability to communicate. The emotions they can express are usually learned through experience.
Descartes argued that nature has a bigger influence mainly based on our bodies. Our decisions, reactions, etc. are all biological processes. He thought that while specific information must be learned, activities like sex already exist in our minds. I think to an extent both are right. Obviously some functions are natural. As newborns we can grasp, reach for food, etc. Abilities like speech have to be learned, though. Babies are shown to have a huge amount of neural growth just after birth. I think that this supports Locke over Descartes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A: Thank you Robert, I am greatly honored by your post. I also can see your reasoning for your decison on the nature vs. nurture debate. This debate is a very challenging one which can go either way with all of the different evidence supporting each side. For example I qualify your thesis on the matter. You are right in the fact that yes nurture does play an important role in determing different aspects of learning in life; but also nature plays an essential role. For example, Thomas Bouchard conducted a famous experiment in which identical twins were seperated at birth to different environments. After many years when they were grown up he put different pairs of identical twins through tests. The twins personalities and behaviours were all the same, even though they lived in totally different environments. This Shows the importance of the nature aspect of the great debate. I believe heritady and environment play important roles in an individuals life.
ReplyDeleteAssertion, In Response to Mr. Casias.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the Bouchard experiment is interesting, but more importantly, dead on. i read that in that experiment, the twins also chose similar majors in college and careers afterwards. i find that fascniating. i also have researched another twin experiment conducted by James Flynn. after years of seperation, a pair of identical twins scored almost exactly the same score on an IQ test. a remarkable experiment as it is, i think that it could have been plerformed more accurately. the twins were raised in similar, nurturing environments. i think that if the experiment were altered, and one twin was given a significantly smaller amount of neural "nourishment", the experiment could have been much different. this would be difficult to perform, though, because it could potentially harm or benefit one of these twins less in the real world (outside of the experiment). although i was intrigued by the experiments, i have to say that my previous argument in favor of Locke and the nurture side of the debate still stands due to factors like the optimization period in newborns.
Assertion to Mr. Resch.
ReplyDeleteI find that very interesting as well. I actually researched the topic of IQ scores in identical twins recently. The research shows that when a pair of identical twins live and share the same environment their scores have a correalation of .9 percent. For those of you who dont understand correlation percents, this is a very close correlation. On the other hand they did a study on the correlation of IQ scores between separated identical twins, they found the correlation was .7 percent. This is an astounding find it supports the fact that although the twins were seperated (totally different environments), their IQs were still almost identical.
For Background information: The reason why Robert and I have been using the Indentical Twins studies is because this is the closest form of controlled experimenting for this topic. You cannont just make people that have the same genetices; however, Identical Twins are exactlly the same genetically; therefore perfect for studies such as these.
Another ASSERTION;
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that we both are currently enrolled in Psychology, Michael. This has proven to be an interesting collection of data!
The correlation between seperated and un-seperated twin IQ's, although pretty cool, doesn't suprise me very much. Most IQ studies show that an IQ is directly related to a person's biological make-up. That is why children and adults score comparably on the test. This is one of the factors that I admit is influenced by the nature side of the debate. I wonder, though, that if some kind or trivial or factual test had been given to these twins what the results might be. Perhaps one of the twins would be better able to retain this kind of information.