Innate Knowledge and Human Nature - By Mark Tannett

Innate Knowledge and Human Nature

In this article, I intend to argue the case for innate knowledge and the concept that there are certain traits which we are preconditioned to respond to.

  The first reason I have for thinking the way I do is that there are certain stimuli which we almost always react to in the same way. Primarily, if you see, think about or are with the object of your affections, your pupils will dilate so that more light can enter your eyes  and you can see them more clearly. This in itself is a fairly romantic notion,  which is an innate reaction in all of us. This reaction, however, can be mimicked. Specifically, the use of candles or dimmer switches can be used to create the same effect, regardless of whether the person is the object of your affection or not and so, not only the senses but feelings can be manipulated in this way. This is purely because of the innate reaction we have to the situation which can be replicated without the original intent to trigger such a response (in this case, romantic affection).

  It is not only stimulus to the eyes which is innate but to the ears as well. For instance, when babies cry, they always cry at an almost identical pitch which is pre-programmed to elicit a response from the mother. Also, when cats mew, they tune in to this exact frequency in order to get food through an empathetic response to this frequency. Lastly, the eyes of a child are more developed at birth than any other part of the body. This is because having bigger eyes is also something which we are innately pre-programmed to respond to with empathy.

The second reason I have for believing in innate knowledge comes through language. It is my belief that people’s use of body language is something which, in some cases, we have innate knowledge of how to react to. My main example of this is the ‘fight or flight’ reaction when we are threatened in some way. I will admit that this argument is somewhat based on a hierarchical society where males and females are always fighting for status and greater access to the gene pool but if we are willing to agree with that assertion then the natural progression  is to say that people will fight to increase their status or fly to maintain it if they feel they cannot increase it at that point. In the split second that we are threatened, our survival instinct kicks in. This is an innate reaction.

  Other examples include reflex actions which totally bypass the conscious part of our brain and in so doing, increase our chances of survival and passing out before being able to asphyxiate oneself. These are safety features inbuilt into our systems and these are innate so as to aid in our survival just like the previous examples in the first argument are innate so as to aid survival in our children and attraction to each other.

As for other interactions between others and oneself, I can’t say that I’m comfortable with the idea that human nature is preconditioned in other ways. I worry that if so much else is innate and preconditioned, it can absolve people of responsibility. The only things which I truly believe are innate are the ones which are inbuilt for survival, attaining higher status and the rearing of children so that evolution can carry on and the species improves as a result. Everything else is what we take from our upbringing and our surroundings. Nonetheless, I think it’s impossible to refuse these innate features of ourselves and it would be foolish to so.

As a musician, and having been around many creative people for a great deal of my life, I think the notion that we have genetic talents to be interesting. On a personal note, I would like to think that I was naturally gifted and talented at being a musician and that I had an innate gift which had been nurtured to fruition to the point I am at now. Thinking about this now, I think there is an innate talent (although innate talent on its own means nothing without hard work, application and a lot of nurturing!). There are many things which point toward there being a ‘natural’ element to talent. Indeed, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences would seem to suggest that we have different strengths and weaknesses although this is only for a specific point in time. Nonetheless, it does raise a far more fundamental question. Is our intelligence, our ability to be logical or creative, innate?

This is far more difficult to call. On the basis of my experiences, I am going to say yes, it is innate. My reasons for doing so are as follows:

  Firstly, having been educated in private school and having worked as a music teacher in grammar and state schools since, the people that I’ve worked with have some common features. First of all (and this should ruffle some feathers…), the link between one’s reading age and their ability to be creative and link ideas together is definitely a feature of my experience in schools. I find it difficult to resolve the idea that these children have been nurtured into not reading at all. In fact, I’m fully aware that many of them read a huge amount and yet, still haven’t progressed to a reading age that is indicative of the time they have spent reading. The only reason I can find for this is that there is an innate ability within them which prevents them from being able to progress as quickly as others around them (This is, of course, not taking into consideration specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia which is a separate issue entirely).

  Secondly, I have also worked in Early Years scenarios and the personality that children take on, even at the age of two, is striking. This has provoked me to think about whether certain social interactions between people is innate, particularly whether our tendencies to be extrovert or introvert. On this point, again, I think it is but because it comes down to our ‘fight or flight’ reaction. Extroverts have a tendency to talk over people, to be more emotionally hot headed, to be less willing to listen to ideas and stuck in their ways or they want change that it happens overnight. These are the fighters. Introverts are far more observant, quieter, open to change (as long as the process is well thought out). These are the fliers. I realise I am making massive sweeping generalisations here but I cannot help but think that these social tendencies are inbuilt on an innate level. The reason I have for thinking this is that the inner conflict which I think most people have when growing up, particularly introverts to be extroverts, makes me think that really, we are one type and one type only and this never changes throughout our life. If this is the case, it must be innate.

To tie in these final strands to what I said in the last paragraph of the first section of this essay, I still stand by the fact that all innate qualities are intrinsically inbuilt for survival, attaining higher status and the rearing of children. The notion of innate intelligence is, sadly but necessarily, based on higher status. We automatically as human beings and, more than that, animals, will defer to those we perceive as being higher status than us and with it, relinquish control of various elements of our lives. Intelligence is not the only means of attaining higher status and it would be extremely foolish to state that in any categorical sense. However, the reason that the world has not evolved into a meritocracy (among many other reasons) is because there are elements of innate skills and traits within us; Strength, intelligence, creativity being the main three, hence why sports, academia and the arts are most prized within the education system. While nurture can go a hugely long way to increasing and developing all of these things, there will always come a plateau over which people will not be able to ascend because of their innate ability. People subconsciously realise this and defer status.

  With regards to sexuality, I can only put it down to survival. I think the phrase ‘No man is an island’ is more apt here than anywhere else. We, as human beings, are built to love. It is part of our human nature and without it; we die, both emotionally and physically. When one’s capacity and ability to love the person they have fallen in love with is taken away from them, it feels very much like dying as anyone who has gone through a particularly hard breakup can attest to, I would hope. Possibly a bit overly melodramatic but I hope you, as readers, will forgive me. Love and life are one and the same thing. They are dependent on each other and cannot exist without each other. To deny one’s human nature, to deny their ability to love whoever it may be is cruel, unfair and a violation of who they are a person.

I leave you with this thought:

Human Nature: If we accepted all that we are, think what we could be.

By Mark Tannett

*To see the rebuttal to this agument please see article published on 24/01/12 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

The Nature of Reality

There is a world outside us. Hard to believe I know, but it’s true. We spend so much of our time looking at the outside world; watching the news, sitting in coffee shops people watching, staring out of the window wondering what might have been. How many of us live in the ‘real’ world? What is ‘real’? Is it what we can see, taste and touch? Or is it something more than that? Is it a combination of emotions, interactions and reactions?

One can argue, of course, that we are what we are. Humans made the same. Granted, there are disparities between us, those with higher or lower intelligence perhaps, those on higher or lower incomes, those with higher or lower physical abilities. We are, however, in essence all human. We all have senses (and far more than those five that are espoused to exist. Senses of balance and direction being other examples) and we use them to heighten our reality and our connection to the ‘real’ world.

It could also be argued, of course, that it is through our interactions with people that we come to live in the ‘real’ world. After all, it was John Donne that said ‘No man is an island’. Is it perhaps the case that we come to the ‘real’ world through other people? That on our own, our lives mean nothing?

It’s tough to imagine a world with only one person in it. What would you do? Would you go crazy? Would it be possible to be crazy if there’s no one to tell you are? After all, our concepts of sanity or insanity are relative concepts, as are many of the labels we attach to people. Is the ‘real’ world then a battle for superiority to be ‘better’ than the others who you live with? Certainly, a subversion of a Darwinian methodology would seem to point to this as would a vast majority of much political philosophy, not to mention some psychological schools of thought. 

People make people real. Also swan chariots!

One is said to be most alive when they are closest to death or right on the edge, embroiled in a struggle with their fellow man. Men are also seen to be at their most ‘macho’ when they are fighting with another. Boxing, wrestling, most sports and anyone in the armed forces, not to mention regular gym goers could all be pointed out as the most ‘masculine’ within our society. Are they then the most ‘real’ people in our society or the ones who get closest to what ‘real’ is?

By contrast, women are said to be closest to what ‘real’ is after the birth of a child. The release of oxytocin floods their system and the bonding between mother and child takes place. Is this then the most ‘real’ experience we can know? Is it right that there should be a distinction between males and females in this respect?

It seems foolish to continue to try and define what ‘real’ is. There are many possible definitions and for one person to try and make sense is demeaning to everyone else. What I will say however, is that for me, reality is definitely best found through other people. Sadly, reality isn’t as wonderful as others would have us believe and burying one’s head in the sand frequently seems like the best option. Others will chastise and berate one for doing this. They will say ‘He’s out of touch’, ‘He’s taken a walk off the planet’ and ‘He’s not present, he’s not engaging with the world’. To them, I say: The world hurts. More than we can possibly come to terms with. Those small victories like gaining and maintaining superiority over one’s fellow man or having a child are the things that keep us going. We need people and none of us should be ashamed of that. We all want to be loved, we want to be admired and cared about and anyone who tries to take that away from us will have ‘reality’ brought to their doorstep. Between a man's testosterone and a women’s oxytocin, nothing gets in the way.

Reality, for me, is a combination of desire and fear. Desire to be loved, wanted and needed and fear of losing it, once one has it. That’s what those people in the coffee shops are looking for, I think. You can’t ‘sense’ reality either. All those interactions with everyone you meet are what make up reality. One could say nature is part of reality but I don’t think it is. Reality is shared experiences. That’s what it means to be human; to share experiences. We can choose to disconnect by being on our phones, on the internet, on Facebook and that’s all well and good but we need shared experiences to bring us closer to each other and give us ‘real’ experiences. If nature is shared, it is real.

I know this brings problems as well, because those things that are absolutely individual to us, such as sleep, couldn’t be real in this case. However, the other side of the argument is that the things that are most real are the things we share most; art, drama, music, books, film, and so on. Perhaps then, the most individual things to us such as fighting (not necessarily on a physical level but on any competitive level) or having a child are the things most ‘real’ for an individual. Yet on a community level, the things we share most, such as our creativity, are the things that are most ‘real’. Maybe it’s a combination of the two that enables us to grasp our surroundings and prioritise as to what’s most important. Maybe it’s necessary for people to have both sides of the coin and be able to do both as well as the other.

One thing is sure though: The latter one buries their head in the sand; they’ve lost touch with both themselves and their community.

The world hurts. Engage or create. Either one will do.

Mark Tannett