epigenetic predisposition
is it just me or is anyone else confused about "epigenetic predisposition?"
i've read the blank slate, but i couldn't find any word that says epigenetic predisposition. so it's either i was blind and completely missed it, or something we'd have to look up ourselves. i couldn't find it in the index either. but i took the initiative to look it up at dictionary.com and here's what it says about "epigenetic"
"The theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity."
correct me if i'm wrong, but here's what i'm able to conclude: in a way, epigenetic predisposition is basically a concept like the blank slate itself? that every organism starts out as being empty, and then as it grows, it is shaped by its environment, but it has no innate talent whatsoever? if this is correct, then the blank slate theory is a "nurture" theory.
then, after talking in length about blank slate, its implications and whatnot, in the last chapter, he finally made his argument. basically he said the blank slate theory sucks. this implies that he's a "nature" theory guy, for he said himself that blank slate theory posits a vaccum in human nature (pinker 421), and then continues on to say that it is ok to acknowledge human nature (422).
but here's what i don't get: pinker claims that "the vacuum that [blank slate] posited in human nature... did nothing to prevent their genocides," (421) and then talks about how it "perverts education, childrearing, and the arts into forms of social engineering." so basically, from what i get, he is against blank slate and its consquences. now, in chapter 8 "the fear of inequality" pinker also talks about what happens if the slate "is not blank." (141) he said that there will be "three evils" that could ensue from it: prejudice, social darwinism, and eugenics. so, speaking frankly, for a "nurture" person, the slate is blank, and for a "nature" person, the slate is not. since pinker is a "nature" person, does that mean he OKs the three evils? because if he claims that the slate isnt blank, then the implications are the three evils, and thus he must be ok with it, right?
honestly, i've never liked biology since i was exposed to it in elementary school, which is why i'm a physics major, so i would really appreciate it if any of you guys who actually understands this whole biology stuff pinker uses in his arguments could make things clear for me.
thanks ~_~
i've read the blank slate, but i couldn't find any word that says epigenetic predisposition. so it's either i was blind and completely missed it, or something we'd have to look up ourselves. i couldn't find it in the index either. but i took the initiative to look it up at dictionary.com and here's what it says about "epigenetic"
"The theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity."
correct me if i'm wrong, but here's what i'm able to conclude: in a way, epigenetic predisposition is basically a concept like the blank slate itself? that every organism starts out as being empty, and then as it grows, it is shaped by its environment, but it has no innate talent whatsoever? if this is correct, then the blank slate theory is a "nurture" theory.
then, after talking in length about blank slate, its implications and whatnot, in the last chapter, he finally made his argument. basically he said the blank slate theory sucks. this implies that he's a "nature" theory guy, for he said himself that blank slate theory posits a vaccum in human nature (pinker 421), and then continues on to say that it is ok to acknowledge human nature (422).
but here's what i don't get: pinker claims that "the vacuum that [blank slate] posited in human nature... did nothing to prevent their genocides," (421) and then talks about how it "perverts education, childrearing, and the arts into forms of social engineering." so basically, from what i get, he is against blank slate and its consquences. now, in chapter 8 "the fear of inequality" pinker also talks about what happens if the slate "is not blank." (141) he said that there will be "three evils" that could ensue from it: prejudice, social darwinism, and eugenics. so, speaking frankly, for a "nurture" person, the slate is blank, and for a "nature" person, the slate is not. since pinker is a "nature" person, does that mean he OKs the three evils? because if he claims that the slate isnt blank, then the implications are the three evils, and thus he must be ok with it, right?
honestly, i've never liked biology since i was exposed to it in elementary school, which is why i'm a physics major, so i would really appreciate it if any of you guys who actually understands this whole biology stuff pinker uses in his arguments could make things clear for me.
thanks ~_~
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home