David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (3):399-417 (2011)
S. Oyama’s prominent account of the Parity Thesis states that one cannot distinguish in a meaningful way between nature-based (i.e. gene-based) and nurture-based (i.e. environment-based) characteristics in development because the information necessary for the resulting characteristics is contained at both levels. Oyama as well as P. E. Griffiths and K. Stotz argue that the Parity Thesis has far-reaching implications for developmental psychology in that both nativist and interactionist developmental accounts of psychological capacities that presuppose a substantial nature/nurture dichotomy are inadequate. We argue that well-motivated abandoning of the nature/nurture dichotomy, as advocated in converging versions of the Parity Thesis in biology, does not necessarily entail abandoning the distinction between biologically given abilities necessary for the development of higher psychological capacities and the learning process they enable. Thus, contrary to the claims of the aforementioned authors, developmental psychologists need not discard a substantial distinction between innate (biologically given) characteristics and those acquired by learning, even if they accept the Parity Thesis. We suggest a two-stage account of development: the first stage is maturational and involves interaction of genetic, epigenetic and environmental causes, resulting in the endogenous biological ‘machinery’ (e.g. language acquisition device), responsible for learning in the subsequent stage of the developmental process by determining the organism’s responses to the environment. This account retains the crux of nativism (the endogenous biological structure determines the way the organism learns/responds to an environment) whilst adopting the developmentalist view of biology by characterizing environments as distinctly different in terms of structure and function in two developmental stages
|Keywords||Nature/nurture Cognitive development Nativism in psychology Genocentrism Gene Environment parity thesis|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Evan Thompson (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.
Steven Pinker (1995). The Language Instinct. Harper Perennial.
Simon Baron-Cohen (1995). Mindblindness an Essay on Autism and "Theory of Mind". Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
David Morris, E. Thelen & L. B. Smith (1997). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (2).
Citations of this work BETA
Jennifer Greenwood (2015). Is Mind Extended or Scaffolded? Ruminations on Sterelney’s Extended Stomach. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (3):629-650.
Similar books and articles
Slobodan Perovic & Ljiljana Radenovic, Is Nativism in Psychology Reconcilable with the Parity Thesis in Biology?
Karola Stotz (2008). The Ingredients for a Postgenomic Synthesis of Nature and Nurture. Philosophical Psychology 21 (3):359 – 381.
John M. Collins (2005). Nativism: In Defense of a Biological Understanding. Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):157-177.
Karola Stotz & Colin Allen (2012). From Cell-Surface Receptors to Higher Learning: A Whole World of Experience. In Philosophy of Behavioral Biology, eds, Katie Plaisance and Thomas Reydon. Boston: Springer. 85-123.
Maria Kronfeldner (2009). Genetic Determinism and the Innate-Acquired Distinction. Medicine Studies 1 (2):167-181.
John Sarnecki (2007). Developmental Objections to Evolutionary Modularity. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):529-546.
Paul Griffiths, The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Andre Ariew (1999). Innateness is Canalization: In Defense of a Developmental Account of Innateness. In Philosophy of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA S19-S27.
Paul E. Griffiths & Russell D. Gray (2005). Discussion: Three Ways to Misunderstand Developmental Systems Theory. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):417-425.
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2000). How the Mind Grows: A Developmental Perspective on the Biology of Cognition. Synthese 122 (1-2):29-51.
Shaun Nichols (2005). Innateness and Moral Psychology. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York 353--369.
Denise D. Cummins & Robert C. Cummins (1999). Biological Preparedness and Evolutionary Explanation. Cognition 73 (3):B37-B53.
Matteo Mameli & David Papineau (2006). The New Nativism: A Commentary on Gary Marcus's The Birth of the Mind. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (4):559-573.
Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.) (2005). The Innate Mind. Oxford University Press.
Paul E. Griffiths & Russell D. Gray (2004). The Developmental Systems Perspective: Organism-Environment Systems as Units of Development and Evolution. In Massimo Pigliucci & Katherine Preston (eds.), Phenotypic Integration: Studying the Ecology and Evolution of Complex Phenotypes. Oxford University Press 409--431.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads71 ( #63,285 of 1,934,580 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #76,845 of 1,934,580 )
How can I increase my downloads?