Exploring the folkbiological conception of human nature

Abstract

Integrating the study of human diversity into the human evolutionary sciences requires substantial revision of traditional conceptions of a shared human nature. This process may be made more difficult by entrenched, 'folkbiological' modes of thought. Earlier work by the authors suggests that biologically naive subjects hold an implicit theory according to which some traits are expressions of an animal's inner nature while others are imposed by its environment. In this paper, we report further studies that extend and refine our account of this aspect of folkbiology. We examine biologically naive subjects' judgments about whether traits of an animal are 'innate', 'in its DNA' or 'part of its nature'. Subjects do not understand these three descriptions to be equivalent. Both innate and in its DNA have the connotation that the trait is species-typical. This poses an obstacle to the assimilation of the biology of polymorphic and plastic traits by biologically naive audiences. Researchers themselves may not be immune to the continuing pull of folkbiological modes of thought.

Developmental Systems Theory

“…Once an outcome is seen as an expression of the genetic information that controls development, it acquires a special status. It represents what the organism is 'meant to be', and deviations from it are misrepresentations of the true nature of the organism (Linquist et al, 2011). From this perspective, the effect of context on development appears as interference with the basic pattern of biological causation.…”

Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity

“…Examining the concept of innateness in the light of what is known about the brain function and development will play an important part in this process [99,100]. That, however, would require evolutionary psychologists to expand their remit to investigate underlying brain processes.…”

Relativizing innateness: innateness as the insensitivity of the appearance of a trait with respect to specified environmental variation

“…Linquist et al (2011) argue that scientists using the concept of innateness will have a hard time using it to mean just one thing, such as fixedness or typicalityscientists will fall back into thinking other things follow from the trait's innateness. However, Knobe and Samuels (2013) have supplied evidence that both the folk and scientists can under some conditions overcome their folk concept of innateness and apply the concept in a more careful way.…”

“…A number of people have proposed analyses or explications of the concept in terms of biological ideas such as invariance, generative entrenchment, and canalization (e.g., Sober 1998; Mallon and Weinberg 2006;Wimsatt 1986Wimsatt , 1999Ariew 2007; see also Griffiths 2009 and references therein). Griffiths et al (2009) and Linquist et al (2011) have argued that the folk understanding of innateness at root involves three distinct and empirically dissociable properties-species-typicality, developmentally fixity, and goal-directedness-each of which increases the chances that the folk will judge a trait to be innate. Given the diversity of ideas associated with innateness and the continued confusion that use of the concept has produced, some have proposed that we just stop using the concept.…”