INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Steven Pinker: Human nature and the blank slate

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author

coffee
Posts: 1531
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: Steven Pinker: Human nature and the blank slate

#2 Post by coffee » November 25th, 2019, 12:09 am

Here is another one

===========================================================

Nature versus nurture: how modern science is rewriting it

November 21, 2019 2.50pm GMT
Authors
Kevin Mitchell
Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin

https://theconversation.com/nature-vers ... kAhzlDdpC4




The question of whether it is genes or environment that largely shapes human behaviour has been debated for centuries. During the second half of the 20th century, there were two camps of scientists – each believing that nature or nurture, respectively, was exclusively at play.

This view is becoming increasingly rare, as research is demonstrating that genes and environment are actually interconnected and can amplify one another. During an event at Berlin Science Week on November 7, organised by the Royal Society, we discussed how the debate is changing as a result of recent findings.

Take literacy. Making language visible is one of the most extraordinary achievements of human beings. Reading and writing is fundamental to our ability to thrive in the modern world, yet some individuals find it difficult to learn. This difficulty can arise for many reasons, including dyslexia, a neuro-developmental disorder. But it turns out neither genes nor environment are fully responsible for differences in reading ability.

Genetics and the neuroscience of reading
Reading is a cultural invention and not a skill or function that was ever subject to natural selection. Written alphabets originated around the Mediterranean about 3,000 years ago, but literacy only became widespread from the 20th century. Our use of the alphabet, however, is grounded in nature. Literacy hijacks evolved brain circuitry to link visible language to audible language – by letter-sound mapping.

Brain scans show that this “reading network” is apparent in pretty much the same place in the brain in everybody. It forms when we learn to read and strengthens connections between our brain’s language and speech regions, as well as a region that has become known as the “visual word form area”.


Reading literally changes the brain. MriMan
The design for building the underlying circuitry is somehow encoded in our genomes. That is, the human genome encodes a set of developmental rules that, when played out, will give rise to the network.

However, there is always variation in the genome and this leads to variation in the way these circuits develop and function. This means there are individual differences in ability. Indeed, variation in reading ability is substantially heritable across the general population, and developmental dyslexia is also largely genetic in origin.

This is not to say that there are “genes for reading”. Instead, there are genetic variations that affect how the brain develops in ways that influence how it functions. For unknown reasons, some such variants negatively affect the circuits required for speaking and reading.

Environment matters too
But genes are not the whole story. Let’s not forget that experience and active instruction are needed for the changes in brain connectivity that enable reading to occur in the first place – though we don’t yet know to what extent.

Research has shown that most often problems with literacy are likely underpinned by a difficulty in phonology – the ability to segment and manipulate the sounds of speech. It turns out that people with dyslexia also tend to struggle with learning how to speak when infants. Experiments have shown that they are slower than other people to name objects. This also applies to written symbols and relating them to speech sounds.

And here nurture comes in again. Difficulties in learning to read and write are particularly visible in languages with complex grammar and spelling rules, such as English. But they are far less obvious in languages with more straightforward spelling systems, such as Italian. Tests of phonology and object naming, however, can detect dyslexia in Italian speakers too.

So the difference that is found in dyslexic brains is likely the same everywhere, but will nevertheless play out very differently in different writing systems.

Amplification and cycles
Nature and nurture are traditionally set in opposition to each other. But in truth, the effects of environment and experience often tend to amplify our innate predispositions. The reason is that those innate predispositions affect how we subjectively experience and respond to various events, and also how we choose our experiences and environments. For example, if you are naturally good at something you are more likely to want to practice it.


Misleading. Stuart Miles


This dynamic is especially evident for reading. Children with greater reading ability are more likely to want to read. This will of course further increase their reading skills, making the experience more rewarding. For children with lower natural reading ability, the opposite tends to happen – they will choose to read less, and will fall farther behind their peers over time.

These cycles also offer a window of intervention. As we have seen in the case of Italian readers, nurture can mitigate the effects of an adverse genetic predisposition. Similarly, a good teacher who knows how to make practice rewarding can help poor readers by allowing short cuts and mnemonics for spelling. In this way, dyslexic readers can become good readers – and enjoy it. Reward and practice enhance each other, leading to more motivation and more practice in a positive feedback loop.

So instead of thinking of nature and nurture as adversaries in a zero sum game, we should think of them as feedback loops where a positive influence of one factor increases the positive influence of the other – producing not a sum but an enhancement. Of course, the same applies to negative feedback, and so we have both virtuous and vicious circles.

Because inheritance (genetic as well as cultural) matters, this effect is also visible on a larger scale spanning several generations. In the past, parents who sent their children to school created an advantageous environment for them and their grandchildren. But in turn, the parents benefited from the existence of a culture that invested in schools. Of course, such investments are not always spread evenly and may flow more towards those already in an advantageous position. Such a circle is sometimes referred to as the “Matthew effect” – good things come to those who already have them.

The interactive loops between nature and nurture extend beyond the lives of individuals, playing out across communities and over generations. Recognising these dynamics gives us some power to break these feedback loops, both in our own lives and more widely in society and culture.

Tweet Share Get newsletter
You might also like


===========================================================================================

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardc ... 887/innate

What makes you the way you are—and what makes each of us different from everyone else? In Innate, leading neuroscientist and popular science blogger Kevin Mitchell traces human diversity and individual differences to their deepest level: in the wiring of our brains. Deftly guiding us through important new research, including his own groundbreaking work, he explains how variations in the way our brains develop before birth strongly influence our psychology and behavior throughout our lives, shaping our personality, intelligence, sexuality, and even the way we perceive the world.

We all share a genetic program for making a human brain, and the program for making a brain like yours is specifically encoded in your DNA. But, as Mitchell explains, the way that program plays out is affected by random processes of development that manifest uniquely in each person, even identical twins. The key insight of Innate is that the combination of these developmental and genetic variations creates innate differences in how our brains are wired—differences that impact all aspects of our psychology—and this insight promises to transform the way we see the interplay of nature and nurture.

Innate also explores the genetic and neural underpinnings of disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, and epilepsy, and how our understanding of these conditions is being revolutionized. In addition, the book examines the social and ethical implications of these ideas and of new technologies that may soon offer the means to predict or manipulate human traits.

Compelling and original, Innate will change the way you think about why and how we are who we are.

Awards and Recognition
One of Publishers Weekly's Best Books of 2018
One of Forbes' Must-Read Brain Books of 2018


==================================================================================

Abstract


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 011.554699

The Matthew effect is often used as a metaphor to describe a widening gap between good and poor readers over time. In this study we examined the development of individual differences in reading and cognitive functioning in children with reading difficulties and normal readers from Grades 1 to 3. Matthew effects were observed for individual differences in reading comprehension and vocabulary, but not on tests measuring word decoding, word recognition, or spelling, nor on non‐verbal ability. However, these Matthew effects disappeared when controlling for home literacy activities and parent reading behavior, indicating that print exposure is one environmental condition involved in mediating Matthew effects. These findings are in line with the idea of the Matthew effect by Stanovich and the core assumption that reading comprehension is involved in a reciprocal relationship with vocabulary knowledge.

Keywords: literacy and cognitive development, Matthew effects, reading comprehension, vocabulary

Post Reply