A rebuttal from Lloyd Duddridge to an article from Mark Tannett
The Myth of Psychological Creationism
Followers of Philosophy takeaway around the world, it has fallen to me to attempt to refute Mr Tannett’s contentions on human nature. So let’s begin, for a start for something to be considered innate and thus part of a ‘human nature’, it must meet two criteria. The first is this, that any behaviour or ability must have been with us from birth, that this ability is not reliant on exposure to culture or societal forces. In essence we are saying that which is natural requires no shaping from external forces. Basically the behaviour is in the ‘genes’. The second is this, for something to be considered innate in human nature, the behaviour or talent needs to be found universally. If behaviours are found only in certain cultures and environments and not in others, than it can be argued that this ability or behaviour is not an innate human ability but is the product of a specific environment. I will argue that all of Mr Tannett’s arguments fail to meet one of these criterion and often both.
Let’s look at the argument about responding to stimuli. The major word here is stimuli. A stimulus seems to suggest something outside of ourselves. This is exactly the point that we who doubt an in-built nature want to make. Everything requires a response to stimuli. Stimuli are a product of environment. Thus responding to stimuli is being shaped by your environment. Mr Tannett argues that we respond to these stimuli in such a seemingly conditioned way, that we must have been innately conditioned to respond in this way. However regularity is not enough to prove innateness. Let’s saying I am trying to get to my massage appointment in the morning, I am walking along the road to get a bus, I see the bus already pulling into the stop, and I know if I miss it, I will be late for that massage I desperately need. Now most people in this situation of missing the bus would feel either angry or frustrated. Do we then have to argue that the body is innately conditioned to be frustrated when missing buses? No we respond to these stimuli is certain ways, as a response to environmental and cultural pressures. After all it is unlikely that a three year old feels frustrated missing a bus in the same way, as a seventeen year old. This is because for one set, the three year old, the pressures are not the same as the seventeen year old.Mr Tannett argues that babies born with big eyes we innately respond to with empathy. This seemingly universal innate function has not stopped infant neglect. It would appear that a better technique is needed. Mr Tannett quotes babies crying in a pitch that gains a response from a mother. This is hardly surprising; any sane being will act in a way that elicits the response that they want. When a player shoots at goal,he shoots in a way that will elicit the response he desires, namely a goal. What we consider innate in the baby, we do not consider innate in the teenager shouting ‘mum, get the dinner on. ‘These are exactly the same actions. Plus if this supposed innate capacity was so useful in babies, why is it that parents can often not decipher what the baby wants when they are crying?
I think we have seen that Mr Tannetts’s first line of rationale fails. Responding to a stimulus is just that. Responding to an environment. Also the attributes of the body can be explained in a non-innate framework. Mr Tannett has provided us with physical regularities, but has not shown us how they must be innate.
Mr Tannett then mentions language but never really talks about it. This is a shame. However he does mention the seeming will for survival as innate. In addition to the obvious rejoinder that if this was the case, there would be no suicide or people marching into battle. There is no reason to think that the need in the majority for survival is innate. Again it is a choice made in light of the environment we find ourselves in. Thus in the main the obvious desire is to continue with life. However we only have to look back to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York to see how quickly this desire for survival at all costs can be lost. Met with a choice between a few hours of life or a less painful death, many chose the latter option. Now how under Mr Tannett’s innateness argument would this make any sense? Makes far more sense to think that in a positive environment that more people will want to continue with their life than end it. In a horribly negative environment the decision can often be reversed.
Then we are met with a genetic argument for talented people. Now if this was the case that creative talent is genetic, and that we accept that genes are passed on, then would it not make sense to see more and more familiar names crop up in say Nobel Prize winners, or World Cup winning footballers? Out of 555 Nobel Prizes awarded only 9 have been given to genetic members of the same family. The % is even smaller when we look at World Cup winners. At another point, Mr Tannett argues that innate talent is nothing on its own, that it requires nurture. Again evidence that innateness is a hindsight theory. That we see someone talented and then work backwards. Thus good genes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mr Tannett seems to be arguing that a piece of wool is innately conditioned to become a jumper. Or to use Voltaire’s famous example that the nose was innately designed to hold spectacles. Mr Tannett then launches into argument by anecdote. He selects an extremely small sample size on which to argue toward generalities. As far as I know Mr Tannett has only taught in this country as well, and thus his anecdotal evidence is wishy washy at best. It does not meet the criterion that innateness must be universal. Some anthropological examples would have been useful here. Mr Tannett then argues that personality is innate. Now this would seem to ignore the obvious fact that personalities seem to change over time and in differing environments. One does not behave in the same way in a football crowd as at a funeral. This is not an innate trait, but a response to cultural and societal pressure. After all no baby is innately aware how to behave at a funeral. They pick this up through tone or through their parents telling them how to behave. Thus personality is here brought about through nurture not nature.
Mr Tannett then suggests that sexuality is innate. Now Mr Tannett takes the safe option of simply comparing hetro/homo sexuality*. However this is a tiny example of the spectrum of sexualities. Are we then to say that a paedophile or a zoophile desires are also innate. If so the stigma we attach to paedophilia is unfair. We would have to say that paedophilia is as legitimate as hetro/homosexuality. This is seemingly not something that we do. Is this because we view sexuality as a choice in response to our environment? Mr Tannett’s claim that we need innateness for love is folly. His innateness is the love of the magic potion. The love without choice. His love is a love that a computer could feel.If anything it must make more sense, that love is a rejection of innateness, a rejection of the given. Love begins with the ability to choose your own path, your own partners.
I hope I have managed to convince you that Mr Tannett’s arguments fail upon inspection. That most of his arguments about innateness are responses to environment and culture. That just as culture changes so will the way we act. This is why we value education as we feel that talent and knowledge is not something given, but something gained. That the human story has been one of experiment and change. As Darwin shows it is not those that are the strongest or fittest or even most intelligent that survives, it is those most adaptable to change. Innateness is the opposite of change, it is solid and it is fixed. Thus not only is innateness unpalatable to us ethically, it is also anti evolutionary. Mr Tannett’s arguments failed to meet either of the criterion needed to classify something as innate. We now laugh and sneer at those that hold forth to physical creationism. I hope that one day we can say the same to those supporters of psychological creationism, those that seek to defend human nature, and those that defend innate abilities.
I think we have seen that Mr Tannetts’s first line of rationale fails. Responding to a stimulus is just that. Responding to an environment. Also the attributes of the body can be explained in a non-innate framework. Mr Tannett has provided us with physical regularities, but has not shown us how they must be innate.
Mr Tannett then mentions language but never really talks about it. This is a shame. However he does mention the seeming will for survival as innate. In addition to the obvious rejoinder that if this was the case, there would be no suicide or people marching into battle. There is no reason to think that the need in the majority for survival is innate. Again it is a choice made in light of the environment we find ourselves in. Thus in the main the obvious desire is to continue with life. However we only have to look back to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York to see how quickly this desire for survival at all costs can be lost. Met with a choice between a few hours of life or a less painful death, many chose the latter option. Now how under Mr Tannett’s innateness argument would this make any sense? Makes far more sense to think that in a positive environment that more people will want to continue with their life than end it. In a horribly negative environment the decision can often be reversed.
Then we are met with a genetic argument for talented people. Now if this was the case that creative talent is genetic, and that we accept that genes are passed on, then would it not make sense to see more and more familiar names crop up in say Nobel Prize winners, or World Cup winning footballers? Out of 555 Nobel Prizes awarded only 9 have been given to genetic members of the same family. The % is even smaller when we look at World Cup winners. At another point, Mr Tannett argues that innate talent is nothing on its own, that it requires nurture. Again evidence that innateness is a hindsight theory. That we see someone talented and then work backwards. Thus good genes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mr Tannett seems to be arguing that a piece of wool is innately conditioned to become a jumper. Or to use Voltaire’s famous example that the nose was innately designed to hold spectacles. Mr Tannett then launches into argument by anecdote. He selects an extremely small sample size on which to argue toward generalities. As far as I know Mr Tannett has only taught in this country as well, and thus his anecdotal evidence is wishy washy at best. It does not meet the criterion that innateness must be universal. Some anthropological examples would have been useful here. Mr Tannett then argues that personality is innate. Now this would seem to ignore the obvious fact that personalities seem to change over time and in differing environments. One does not behave in the same way in a football crowd as at a funeral. This is not an innate trait, but a response to cultural and societal pressure. After all no baby is innately aware how to behave at a funeral. They pick this up through tone or through their parents telling them how to behave. Thus personality is here brought about through nurture not nature.
Mr Tannett then suggests that sexuality is innate. Now Mr Tannett takes the safe option of simply comparing hetro/homo sexuality*. However this is a tiny example of the spectrum of sexualities. Are we then to say that a paedophile or a zoophile desires are also innate. If so the stigma we attach to paedophilia is unfair. We would have to say that paedophilia is as legitimate as hetro/homosexuality. This is seemingly not something that we do. Is this because we view sexuality as a choice in response to our environment? Mr Tannett’s claim that we need innateness for love is folly. His innateness is the love of the magic potion. The love without choice. His love is a love that a computer could feel.If anything it must make more sense, that love is a rejection of innateness, a rejection of the given. Love begins with the ability to choose your own path, your own partners.
I hope I have managed to convince you that Mr Tannett’s arguments fail upon inspection. That most of his arguments about innateness are responses to environment and culture. That just as culture changes so will the way we act. This is why we value education as we feel that talent and knowledge is not something given, but something gained. That the human story has been one of experiment and change. As Darwin shows it is not those that are the strongest or fittest or even most intelligent that survives, it is those most adaptable to change. Innateness is the opposite of change, it is solid and it is fixed. Thus not only is innateness unpalatable to us ethically, it is also anti evolutionary. Mr Tannett’s arguments failed to meet either of the criterion needed to classify something as innate. We now laugh and sneer at those that hold forth to physical creationism. I hope that one day we can say the same to those supporters of psychological creationism, those that seek to defend human nature, and those that defend innate abilities.
By Lloyd Duddridge
*Editors note: This point was actually removed from Mr.Tannett's point for space restrictions, but as it is an interesting point of debate it was left in Mr.Duddridge's reply.
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36
