Here’s explanation of my pro-ultra-behaviorist position.
First, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence against ultra-behaviorism, but plenty against ultra-innatism. Look at Flynn effect for example. There’s absolutely no way a universe in which ultra-innatism is true is compatible with Flynn effect.
There has been so many drastic shifts in behavior without slightest shift in underlying genetic makeup of population—abandonment of violence, shift from large families and low offspring investment to small families and high offspring investment, shift from agricultural to urban lifestyle etc. - these are vastly greater than any of the proposed genetic variations.
And not a single kind of proposed genetically-based behavioral variation had a convincing genetic marker found for it (yes, there are heredity studies on twins etc. but I find they highly unconvincing).
So my estimate of the truth is far closer to ultra-behaviorist end than ultra-innatist end, so much closer than ultra-behaviorism might be a good “tl;dr” version, even if not 100% accurate.
And second, I find ultra-behaviorism instrumentally useful. Overestimating how much you can change your life leads to better outcomes than underestimating it and just giving up.
There’s absolutely no way a universe in which ultra-innatism is true is compatible with Flynn effect
Just to clarify, in arguing against ultra-behaviourism I am not touting the opposite stupidity of ultra-innatism instead. So yeah, I agree. The 40-0-60 heuristic is closer to my view (40% of variance due to genes, 0-10% upbringing, 60% other environmental).
There has been so many drastic shifts in behavior without slightest shift in underlying genetic makeup of population
Yup. Culture and language is an incredible thing. Still, many traits are partially heritable, some strongly so. I refer you to Bouchard’s meta-analysis. Why do you find twin/sibling/adopted sibling studies unconvincing?
ultra-behaviorism might be a good “tl;dr” version, even if not 100% accurate.
That is exactly where we stand now. The problem is, genetics is getting important in public policy. The tl;dr version needs to lose the tl;d if educated people are going to make policy decisions based on it (which they are).
And second, I find ultra-behaviorism instrumentally useful. Overestimating how much you can change your life leads to better outcomes than underestimating it and just giving up.
Mm… maybe. On the other hand knowing genes matter might prevent one taking needless risks. For example, my family is swarming with alcoholics going back 3 generations. Maybe if I wasn’t a teetotaler I’d be fine… on the other hand, there’s no good reason to fire a gun at your head even if you’re pretty sure it’s not loaded.
I’m very wary of this “instrumental usefulness” of beliefs though. It seems a slippery slope.
Arguing that the flynn effect shows that someone else should have a different opinion on the question of how much intelligence is heritable just shows misunderstanding of the meaning of the term of heritablity.
Otherwise it would be logical to say that all of intelligence is due to culture.
Why? Let’s say all individuals with IQ > 300 happen to be born past the singularity. Past singularity we have the technology to make people intelligent and therefore intelligence can’t be truly innate.
Therefore modern biology defines heritability as the variance of a trait within a given population that’s due to genetics.
In it’s essence the question of heritability doesn’t only depend on genes but it also depends on the environment.
There nothing wrong with saying that the heritability changes over time.
A society where every child can eat as much as it wants has probably a different heritability for IQ than a society where some children don’t have enough food and other children who have wealthy parents do have enough food.
Do you have the same opinion about gender-linked “genetically-based behavioral variation”?
Not to open a can of worms here, but the pickup-artist (PUA) community is all about how the innate behavior of (generally heterosexual) men and women differ, in dating scenarios. And, in particular, how those real behaviors differ from the behavior that is taught and reinforced by society and culture.
You can have an opinion that all behavior is changeable, and that it is shaped by society and culture. But that would lead you to one model of how men and women act during dating. (In particular, to a mostly gender-neutral model.) The PUA community has a different model of human dating behavior … and I would say that theirs is a good deal more accurate at predicting actual observed behavior in the field.
No worries, it’s a colloquialism that is probably limited to American youth culture. I mean she does basically the kinds of things the Pick-Up Artist community would recommend men do to date and sleep with women. The remarkable success consists of her sleeping with different women multiple times a week.
You can have an opinion that all behavior is changeable, and that it is shaped by society and culture. But that would lead you to one model of how men and women act during dating. (In particular, to a mostly gender-neutral model.)
That only follows if the societal pressures on men and women are mostly gender-neutral. This does not appear to be the case.
It’s not true to say that those shifts took place without any “shift in underlying genetic makeup of population”—there has been significant human evolution over the last 6,000 years during the “shift from agricultural to urban lifestyle”.
Of course, this isn’t an argument for innatism, since evolution didn’t cause the changes in lifestyle, but the common meme that human population genetics are exactly the same today as they were on the savannah isn’t true.
Radical Behaviorism has been conclusively proven false. Read about the Garcia Effect, Harry Harlowe’s monkey experiments, etc. Garcia demonstrated that animals come “preprogrammed” with the ability to associate taste aversions with certain negative stimuli. This is old research, behaviorism is long dead.
Also, can you explain how you find twin studies “unconvincing”!?
And second, I find ultra-behaviorism instrumentally useful. Overestimating how much you can change your life leads to better outcomes than underestimating it and just giving up.
Similarly, religion is useful because it deludes people into believing they’ll be punished for all misbehavior.
You seem to be referring to entirely different thing also called “behaviorism”. One I talk about answers nature-vs-nurture by siding almost totally on the nurture side—it says virtually all variety of human behavior comes from different environments humans live in, not from them having different genes. The one you refer to is a particular theory of learning which is completely unrelated. It’s not the only case of unrelated things having the same name.
Also, can you explain how you find twin studies “unconvincing”!?
Culture acts on genetic cues in arbitrary way. Let’s say culture considers light skin higher status than dark skin. Then skin color genes will correlate ridiculously high with outcomes—and yet not a tiniest bit of this is genetic, it’s 100% cultural effect. I see no value of any kind in such studies.
Similarly, religion is useful because it deludes people into believing they’ll be punished for all misbehavior.
… and money is useful because it deludes people into believing they should work even though they could survive just fine with a lot less effort without working.
Our civilization is built upon such shared delusions.
There are single nucleotide polymorphisms which have a drastic impact on aggression in humans. For example one MAO-A gene type leads to hyper-aggressive behavior in humans and macaque monkeys. I doubt it is culture causing this behavior in monkeys and humans.
Here’s explanation of my pro-ultra-behaviorist position.
First, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence against ultra-behaviorism, but plenty against ultra-innatism. Look at Flynn effect for example. There’s absolutely no way a universe in which ultra-innatism is true is compatible with Flynn effect. There has been so many drastic shifts in behavior without slightest shift in underlying genetic makeup of population—abandonment of violence, shift from large families and low offspring investment to small families and high offspring investment, shift from agricultural to urban lifestyle etc. - these are vastly greater than any of the proposed genetic variations. And not a single kind of proposed genetically-based behavioral variation had a convincing genetic marker found for it (yes, there are heredity studies on twins etc. but I find they highly unconvincing). So my estimate of the truth is far closer to ultra-behaviorist end than ultra-innatist end, so much closer than ultra-behaviorism might be a good “tl;dr” version, even if not 100% accurate.
And second, I find ultra-behaviorism instrumentally useful. Overestimating how much you can change your life leads to better outcomes than underestimating it and just giving up.
Just to clarify, in arguing against ultra-behaviourism I am not touting the opposite stupidity of ultra-innatism instead. So yeah, I agree. The 40-0-60 heuristic is closer to my view (40% of variance due to genes, 0-10% upbringing, 60% other environmental).
Yup. Culture and language is an incredible thing. Still, many traits are partially heritable, some strongly so. I refer you to Bouchard’s meta-analysis. Why do you find twin/sibling/adopted sibling studies unconvincing?
That is exactly where we stand now. The problem is, genetics is getting important in public policy. The tl;dr version needs to lose the tl;d if educated people are going to make policy decisions based on it (which they are).
Mm… maybe. On the other hand knowing genes matter might prevent one taking needless risks. For example, my family is swarming with alcoholics going back 3 generations. Maybe if I wasn’t a teetotaler I’d be fine… on the other hand, there’s no good reason to fire a gun at your head even if you’re pretty sure it’s not loaded.
I’m very wary of this “instrumental usefulness” of beliefs though. It seems a slippery slope.
Arguing that the flynn effect shows that someone else should have a different opinion on the question of how much intelligence is heritable just shows misunderstanding of the meaning of the term of heritablity.
Otherwise it would be logical to say that all of intelligence is due to culture. Why? Let’s say all individuals with IQ > 300 happen to be born past the singularity. Past singularity we have the technology to make people intelligent and therefore intelligence can’t be truly innate.
Therefore modern biology defines heritability as the variance of a trait within a given population that’s due to genetics. In it’s essence the question of heritability doesn’t only depend on genes but it also depends on the environment.
There nothing wrong with saying that the heritability changes over time. A society where every child can eat as much as it wants has probably a different heritability for IQ than a society where some children don’t have enough food and other children who have wealthy parents do have enough food.
And it would be correct.
which is a completely meaningless concept and cannot be measured.
Is hair color innate?
Twin studies etc?
Do you have the same opinion about gender-linked “genetically-based behavioral variation”?
Not to open a can of worms here, but the pickup-artist (PUA) community is all about how the innate behavior of (generally heterosexual) men and women differ, in dating scenarios. And, in particular, how those real behaviors differ from the behavior that is taught and reinforced by society and culture.
You can have an opinion that all behavior is changeable, and that it is shaped by society and culture. But that would lead you to one model of how men and women act during dating. (In particular, to a mostly gender-neutral model.) The PUA community has a different model of human dating behavior … and I would say that theirs is a good deal more accurate at predicting actual observed behavior in the field.
True story: My lesbian roommate runs mad game with remarkable success.
I may be setting myself up for ridicule, but: mad game?
Do you mean she gets a lot of dates?
No worries, it’s a colloquialism that is probably limited to American youth culture. I mean she does basically the kinds of things the Pick-Up Artist community would recommend men do to date and sleep with women. The remarkable success consists of her sleeping with different women multiple times a week.
Is she a natural or a self-taught unnatural (or something else)?
That only follows if the societal pressures on men and women are mostly gender-neutral. This does not appear to be the case.
That’s completely true, but you gotta wonder where the asymmetry comes from in the first place.
It’s not true to say that those shifts took place without any “shift in underlying genetic makeup of population”—there has been significant human evolution over the last 6,000 years during the “shift from agricultural to urban lifestyle”.
Of course, this isn’t an argument for innatism, since evolution didn’t cause the changes in lifestyle, but the common meme that human population genetics are exactly the same today as they were on the savannah isn’t true.
Radical Behaviorism has been conclusively proven false. Read about the Garcia Effect, Harry Harlowe’s monkey experiments, etc. Garcia demonstrated that animals come “preprogrammed” with the ability to associate taste aversions with certain negative stimuli. This is old research, behaviorism is long dead.
Also, can you explain how you find twin studies “unconvincing”!?
Similarly, religion is useful because it deludes people into believing they’ll be punished for all misbehavior.
You seem to be referring to entirely different thing also called “behaviorism”. One I talk about answers nature-vs-nurture by siding almost totally on the nurture side—it says virtually all variety of human behavior comes from different environments humans live in, not from them having different genes. The one you refer to is a particular theory of learning which is completely unrelated. It’s not the only case of unrelated things having the same name.
Culture acts on genetic cues in arbitrary way. Let’s say culture considers light skin higher status than dark skin. Then skin color genes will correlate ridiculously high with outcomes—and yet not a tiniest bit of this is genetic, it’s 100% cultural effect. I see no value of any kind in such studies.
… and money is useful because it deludes people into believing they should work even though they could survive just fine with a lot less effort without working.
Our civilization is built upon such shared delusions.
There are single nucleotide polymorphisms which have a drastic impact on aggression in humans. For example one MAO-A gene type leads to hyper-aggressive behavior in humans and macaque monkeys. I doubt it is culture causing this behavior in monkeys and humans.