Abbie Foust

Freshman Seminar

Acquisition of Human Knowledge

Sept. 17, 2002

Developing the Negative to its Full Potential

My parents are both in the “baby business.” My dad is an obstetrician and my mom a nurse midwife, so needless to say, I’ve seen my fair share of births. Each time I witness a baby being born, I experience the same sense of amazement, the same sense of wonder as with the birth before. The miracle of birth, as trite as this may sound, is truly awesome. Ever since I was a little girl, I’ve loved to look at all the new-born babies in the nursery and imagine what they will look like as grown ups. It’s actually fairly humorous. I mean, they’re naked, about the size of a small Thanksgiving turkey, and screaming like nothing I’ve ever heard, so it’s hard to picture these little things as maturing persons. There are usually three or four babies sleeping (or not sleeping) in a row of cribs, all with different little noses, some with tufts of hair peeping out of their baby hats, and others with their eyes open, examining the room. I’ve always accepted that these babies would grow up to be unique, distinctive individuals, each one different from the other. After all, each baby will be raised differently; they will all grow up in different environments, and experience things which, in the end, will determine who the person has become. This theory, the one I’ve grown up with, is known as the “tabula rasa” theory. Each baby is born a blank slate, a new start, a fresh beginning. As babies grow older, their experiences, and the knowledge they acquire will fill up the slate.

Recently, however, a new theory has been proposed that contradicts all I ever knew and believed. A man named Edward O. Wilson has claimed that humans are not shaped by their environment and experiences but by genetics. He says that the human brain acts as “an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid. You can develop the negative well or you can develop it poorly, but either way you are going to get precious little that is not already imprinted on the film.”¹ Wilson also claims that “genetics determine not only things such as temperament, role preferences, emotional responses, and levels of aggression, but also many of our most revered moral choices.” ² Basically, he’s saying the day we enter this world, we are naturally swayed to act, think, and communicate in a certain way.

The idea that we are all genetically pre-determined sounds extreme, but it’s an important point and may be more valid in this day and age than the “tabula rasa” theory. The “tabula rasa” theory ignores all natural and biological influences on a person. The Standard Social Science Model, the doctrine that underlies the blank- slate theory states, “Whereas animals are rigidly controlled by their biology, human behavior is determined by culture, an autonomous system of symbols and values.”³ If this is true, then what happened to a person’s heredity? Where’s the person underneath the culture? We now know that each baby is born with inherent psychological tendencies and genetics which will cause certain behavior, which simply makes the “tabula rasa” theory outdated. A building cannot be built without a solid foundation, much as a human cannot be created without a solid genetic base. As Steven Pinker explains in his book The Language Instinct, if we ignore the biology of a human, “the organism has vanished” and “there is an environment without someone to perceive it, behavior without a behaver, learning without a learner.”⁴ Pinker also claims that without the “innate psychological mechanisms, including learning mechanisms, environment would have nothing to provide input to, heredity nothing to build on, and skills, knowledge and values nothing to develop and access.”⁵ Essentially, because of our advances in science we have a better understanding of why people act, behave, and develop in certain ways. We cannot ignore the basic, genetic and hereditary tendencies of a person when considering why a person is who he is.

It’s mind boggling to think it’s possible for a little baby, a tiny package of potential, to come out of her mother as a “pre-programmed” human being; I’m still struggling with the fact that those things in the nursery involve much more than just little toes and little fingers. Each little baby has her own set of genetics that has played and will continue to play a huge role in the formation of a little girl. But she is not only a “pack of neurons.” She is a human and will be affected by other humans. We can’t ignore the importance of love, and nurturing in her life. Her genes, nevertheless, will help define who this girl becomes. Her nervous system, even right now, is constantly developing. Her physiological changes, including the capabilities of her brain and body, and her capacity for understanding the outside world will ultimately decide this little girl’s potential.

Wilson implies that each person has individual range as to what they can do. We are all born with certain limits, after all; we can’t be the best at everything. One person’s “excel” may be another person’s “mediocre.” We all have our own, individual abilities, and we all perform different tasks at different levels. Some humans are born with natural artistic talents, others are born athletes. As the popular song by Nikkia goes, “Everybody’s got their something.” Of course humans are capable of developing and perfecting their skills, but it will be easier for naturally artistic youngsters to draw pictures than those who are not.

At the same time, however, all children, whether or not they are born “talented”, need help and encouragement in developing their abilities. Even if a child is born with the potential to be the next Mozart, he still needs to be given a piano and taught how to play. So the bottom line is: people are born genetically predestined to excel in certain things, but unless the person’s environment is conducive to his or her talents, that person will not live up to his or her full potential.

To further illustrate this point, let’s take a look at the fascinating subject of language. All humans have the instinct to communicate verbally with other humans. “Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently.”⁶ New born babies communicate verbally by crying and cooing, otherwise known as baby talk. Even deaf children, who have no concept of verbal communication because they cannot hear themselves or others, scream when they hurt, and laugh when they’re happy. They communicate verbally because that’s what they’re programmed to do. Toddlers and young children pick up languages so quickly, so unconsciously, that language can only be described as instinctive.

The miracle of language, in itself, is fascinating. It’s nothing but amazing that in two to three years, the thanksgiving turkeys lined up in the nursery will have a large grasp on language and the manipulation of words. Their gradual acquisition of language will help them build relationships with others, and will be a vehicle for discovering the strange world around them. Language will allow these babies to learn about themselves, think about their futures, and understand their pasts. Words will shape their fears and ambitions and will help transform them from naked, helpless creatures into persons with enormous possibilities.

So if all healthy babies are born with equal abilities to communicate, why do some people end up better speakers than others? Why are some children just so darn chatty? The development of a child’s ability to speak depends on two main factors; the environment that the child was raised in, and the child’s genetic make-up. . . both of which contribute equally to the whole person.

The upbringing of a child plays a huge role in the quality of a child’s speech. According to research published in 1999 by Todd Risley and Betty Hart at the University of Alaska and the University of Kansas, interactive talk is incredibly powerful in enhancing babies’ brain development. Apparently, “children of welfare families heard an average 600 words an hour, while white-collar workers’ children heard 1,200 words, and college graduates’ children, 2,100 words. Kids of parents who weren’t as talkative were massively behind at age three and four.” ⁷ So children who grow up in language-rich environments are going to be ahead developmentally of those who don’t.

It’s also true that language is developed over the years and that a more educated person is going to be a better speaker, grammatically, than a non-educated person. Therefore, just because a child has an extensive vocabulary and is well developed mentally, he or she will not automatically be a talkative person. There are many people who grew up in “language-rich” environments who, by nature, are reserved and introverted. Take for example, my dad. He grew up in an upper class neighborhood in Denver, attended the best schools, was encouraged to be social and grew up to be an esteemed doctor. He is an excellent father, has strong relationships with friends and family, and is well respected in the medical field but he is, by nature, a quiet man who likes to keep to himself. When I asked him if he would consider himself a shy person and why, he claimed that, “ I wouldn’t call myself socially outgoing, let’s put it that way. I enjoy interacting with others but I find that I have to force myself to speak with people whom I don’t know very well. You ask why, and the only answer I can give is that’s just how I’ve always been.” My grandma used to tell me that as a baby, my dad was the quietest of her three children. He is the “middle child,” and his siblings are both within 3 years of him. When all three kids were put together to play, my dad would usually take his toys into another room to be alone. He’s always been like that; he’s an introverted person who enjoys his alone time. So despite his excellent upbringing and education, he is simply a naturally reserved person.

To sum it up, people have an inherent nature, stemming from their genetics, which will not be completely changed by environment. We are all born with an innate personality, one that may mature and evolve through the years, but which will never completely leave us. For example, children who are intrinsically shy will be less talkative than others no matter how their parents raise them.

This idea is not meant to doom the human race into complacency. People should not feel as if they are destined to fail in activities in which they are not “naturals.” If anything, we should be floored by the proposal that everyone has a forte. Inspiration should come from the idea that any given activity may be our future passion. We should try new things and experience all that’s possible in life, so we can find what we’re good at and what we love. As Samuel Beckett’s old saying goes, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” ⁸

Say Wilson’s theory is true. We’re all born with genes that greatly influence our attitudes, our inherent nature, our temperament, and our passions. We know what we’re good at, and we know what we’re not good at. We have been raised by our parents, and our experiences have helped mold our personalities. We are a combination of science and humanity, hard work and natural ability, nurture and nature. No one thing defines an entire person; no gene can create all that embodies an individual. In the end, humans develop from a series of events called life.

Let’s go back to the four babies in the nursery. Assuming they are all pre-programmed to have a certain personality, and that they are all naturals at one thing, the best strategy in raising the babies is to introduce them to as many different things as possible. They’re all negatives, waiting to be dipped into the developer fluid. The ultimate goal is to develop the negative to its fullest potential, so the final picture will be the best it can be.

^{1, 2} Wolfe, Tom. 1996. Sorry But Your Soul Just Died, pg. 2.

^{3, 4, 5, 6} Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: William and Morrow Company, pgs. 18, 406, 407, 408.

⁷ From Carol Kreck’s article, “For Babies, Talk is Good and Cheap”. It was in the Monday, September 16, 2002 article of the Denver Post Newspaper.

⁸ Quote by Samuel Beckett from the quote book by Getty, Hulton. 2000. Go For It. New York: Morrow Publications, pg. 14.