{"id":4284,"date":"2015-02-28T09:52:09","date_gmt":"2015-02-28T14:52:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/?p=4284"},"modified":"2015-02-28T09:57:44","modified_gmt":"2015-02-28T14:57:44","slug":"the-resurrection-and-transfiguration-of-the-blank-slate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/2015\/02\/28\/human-nature\/the-resurrection-and-transfiguration-of-the-blank-slate\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Resurrection and Transfiguration of the Blank Slate"},"content":{"rendered":"

All appearances to the contrary in the popular media, the Blank Slate<\/a> lives on.\u00a0 Of course, its heyday is long gone, but it slumbers on in the more obscure niches of academia.\u00a0 One of its more recent manifestations just turned up at Scientia Salon<\/em> <\/a>in the form of a paper by one Mark Fedyk, an assistant professor of philosophy at Mount Allison University in Sackville, Canada.\u00a0 Entitled, \u201cHow (not) to Bring Psychology and Biology Together<\/a>,\u201d it provides the interested reader with a glimpse at several of the more typical features of the genre as it exists today.<\/p>\n

Fedyk doesn\u2019t leave us in doubt about where he\u2019s coming from.\u00a0 Indeed, he lays his cards on the table in plain sight in the abstract, where he writes that, \u201cpsychologists should have a preference for explanations of adaptive behavior in humans that refer to learning and other similarly malleable psychological mechanisms \u2013 and not modules or instincts or any other kind of relatively innate and relatively non-malleable psychological mechanisms.\u201d\u00a0 Reading on into the body of the paper a bit, we quickly find another trademark trait of both the ancient and modern Blank Slaters; their tendency to invent strawman arguments, attribute them to their opponents, and then blithely ignore those opponents when they point out that the strawmen bear no resemblance to anything they actually believe.<\/p>\n

In Fedyk’s case, many of the strawmen are incorporated in his idiosyncratic definition of the term “modules.”\u00a0 Among other things, these “modules” are “strongly nativist,” they don’t allow for “developmental plasticity,” they imply a strong, either-or version of the ancient nature vs. nurture dichotomy, and they are “relatively innate and relatively non-malleable.”\u00a0 In Fedyk’s paper, the latter phrase serves\u00a0the same purpose\u00a0as the ancient “genetic determinism” strawman did in the heyday of the Blank Slate.\u00a0 Apparently that’s now become too obvious, and the new jargon is introduced by way of keeping up appearances.\u00a0 In any case, we gather from the paper that all evolutionary psychologists are supposed to believe in these “modules.”\u00a0 It matters not a bit to\u00a0Fedyk that his “modules” have been blown out of the water literally hundreds of times in the EP literature stretching back over a period of two decades and more.\u00a0 A good example that patiently dissects each of his strawmen one by one is “Modularity in Cognition:\u00a0 Framing the Debate<\/a>,” published by Barrett and Kurzban back in 2006.\u00a0 It’s available free online, and I invite my readers to have a look at it.\u00a0 It can be Googled up by anyone in a few seconds, but apparently Fedyk has somehow failed to discover it.<\/p>\n

Once he has assured us that all EPers have an unshakable belief in his “modules,” Fedyk proceeds to concoct an amusing fairy tale based on that assumption.\u00a0 In the process, he presents his brilliant and original theory of “anticipated consilience.”\u00a0 According to this theory, researchers in new fields, such as EP, should rely on the findings of more mature “auxiliary disciplines,” particularly those which have been “extremely successful” in the past, to inform their own research.\u00a0 In the case of evolutionary psychology, the “auxiliary discipline” turns out to be evolutionary biology.\u00a0 As Fedyk puts it,<\/p>\n

One of the more specific ways of doing this is to rely upon what can be called the principle of anticipated consilience, which says that it is rational to have a prima facie preference for those novel theories commended by previous scientific research which are most likely to be subsequently integrated in explanatorily- or inductively-fruitful ways with the relevant discipline as it expands.\u00a0 The principle will be reliable simply because the novel theories which are most likely to be subsequently integrated into the mature scientific discipline as it expands are\u00a0just those novel theories which are most likely to be true.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He then proceeds to incorporate his strawmen into an illustration of how this “anticipated consilience” would work in practice:<\/p>\n

To see how this would work, consider, for example, two fairly general categories of proximate explanations for adaptive behaviors in humans, nativist (i.e., bad, ed.) psychological hypotheses which posit some kind of module (namely the imaginary kind invented by Fedyk, ed.) and non-nativist (i.e., good, ed.) psychological hypotheses, which posit some kind of learning routine (i.e., the Blank Slate, ed.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As the tale continues, we learn that,<\/p>\n

…it is plausible that, for approximately the first decade of research in evolutionary psychology following its emergence out of sociobiology in the 1980s, considerations of anticipated consilience would have likely rationalized a preference for proximate explanations which refer to modules and similar types of proximate mechanisms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The reason for this given by Fedyk turns out to be the biggest thigh-slapper in this whole, implausible yarn,<\/p>\n

So by the time evolutionary psychology emerged in reaction to human sociobiology in the 1980s, (Konrad) Lorenz’s old hydraulic model of instincts really was the last positive model in biology of the proximate causes of adaptive behavior.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Whimsical?\u00a0 Yes, but stunning is probably a better adjective.\u00a0 If we are to believe Fedyk, we are forced to conclude that he never even heard of the Blank Slate!\u00a0 After all, some of that orthodoxy’s very arch-priests, such as Richard Lewontin<\/a> and Stephen Jay Gould<\/a> are\/were evolutionary biologists.\u00a0 They, too, had a “positive model in biology of the proximate causes of adaptive behavior,” in the form of the Blank Slate.\u00a0 Fedyk is speaking of a time in which the Blank Slate dogmas were virtually unchallenged in the behavioral sciences, and anyone who got out of line was shouted down as a fascist, or worse.\u00a0 And yet we are supposed to swallow the ludicrous imposture that Lorenz’ hydraulic theory not only overshadowed the Blank Slate dogmas, but was the only game in town!\u00a0 But let’s not question the plot.\u00a0 Continuing on with Fedyk’s adjusted version of history, we discover that (voila!) the evolutionary biologists suddenly recovered from their infatuation with hydraulic theory, and got their minds right:<\/p>\n

…what I want to argue is that, in the last decade or so, a new understanding of the biological importance of developmental plasticity<\/em> has implications for evolutionary psychology. Whereas previously considerations of anticipated consilience with evolutionary biology and cognitive science may have provided support for those proximate hypotheses which posited modules, I argue in this section that these very same considerations now support significantly non-nativist proximate hypotheses. The argument, put simply, is that traits which have high degrees of plasticity will be more evolutionarily robust than highly canalized innately specified non-malleable traits like mental modules. The upshot is that a mind comprised mostly of modules is not plastic in this specific sense, and is therefore ultimately unlikely to be favoured by natural selection. But a mind equipped with powerful, domain general learning routines does have the relevant plasticity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I leave it as an exercise for the student to pick out all the innumerable strawmen in this parable of the “great change of heart” in evolutionary biology.\u00a0 Suffice it to say that, as a result of this new-found “plasticity,” anticipated consilience now requires evolutionary psychologists to reject their silly notions about human nature in favor of a return to the sheltering haven of the Blank Slate.\u00a0 Fedyk helpfully spells it out for us:<\/p>\n

This means that, given a choice between proximate explanations which reflect a commitment to the massive modularity hypothesis and proximate explanations which, instead, reflect an approach to the mind which privileges learning…, the latter is most plausible in light of evolutionary biology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The kicker here is that if anyone even mildly suggests any connection between this latter day manifestation of cultural determinism and the dogmas of the Blank Slate, the Fedyks of the world scream foul.\u00a0 Apparently we are to believe that the “proximate explanations” of\u00a0evolutionary psychology aren’t\u00a0completely excluded as long as one can manage a double back flip over the rather substantial barrier of “anticipated consilience” that blocks the way.\u00a0 How that might actually turn out to be possible is never explained.\u00a0 In spite of these scowling denials, I personally will continue to prefer the na\u00efve assumption that, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flaps its wings like a duck, then it actually is a duck, or Blank Slater, as the case may be.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

All appearances to the contrary in the popular media, the Blank Slate lives on.\u00a0 Of course, its heyday is long gone, but it slumbers on in the more obscure niches of academia.\u00a0 One of its more recent manifestations just turned up at Scientia Salon in the form of a paper by one Mark Fedyk, an … Continue reading “On the Resurrection and Transfiguration of the Blank Slate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[181,48,105,247,297,166,28,29],"tags":[193,99],"class_list":["post-4284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blank-slate","category-evolution","category-evolutionary-psychology-2","category-genetic-determinism-2","category-historical-revisionism","category-human-evolution","category-human-nature","category-philosophy","tag-blank-slate-2","tag-evolutionary-psychology"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pwEq0-176","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4284"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4284\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4290,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4284\/revisions\/4290"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}