
Making the Mind: Why we've misunderstood the nature-nurture debate (2003) - huihuiilly
https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/gary-marcus-making-mind
======
lacker
_According to the gene shortage argument, genes can’t be very important to the
birth of the mind because the genome contains only about 30,000 genes, simply
too few to account even for the brain’s complexity—with its billions of cells
and tens of billions of connections between neurons—much less the mind’s.
“Given that ratio,” Ehrlich suggested, “it would be quite a trick for genes
typically to control more than the most general aspects of human behavior.”_

To me, the clearest argument against this position is that horses can walk
within a couple hours after being born. That doesn't seem like anywhere near
enough trials to learn how to walk from first principles. The method to walk
must be encoded in the horse's DNA.

Humans can't walk at birth, obviously. But Occam's Razor suggests that if the
ability to walk can be encoded within a horse's DNA, it can also be encoded
within a human's DNA.

Anecdotally, when I watch a baby learn to walk, it doesn't really seem like
they are trying a zillion things and picking the one that works. It seems much
more like their instincts are telling them to move a certain way, and once
they grow strong enough, it succeeds and they are walking.

~~~
HorizonXP
I'm going to provide some anecdata. As a new father, you get to talking with a
number of new parents too, with kids that are similar in age to your own. One
of the potential downsides to this is that when you talk about your kids, you
start to compare them to each other and create a competition where none should
exist. It's hard, but as a new parent, you should really try to avoid this and
instead focus on nurturing your child to be the best he/she can be.

(Aside: what's the currently accepted pronoun there? I was always taught
"they" is incorrect grammar, but without devolving this discussion, that seems
to be accepted now?)

My son is 13 months old now, and crawls like a maniac, ever since he was
roughly 5 months old. Very social, talkative, active, all those good things.
Pulls up and stands all the time, can climb in and out of toy vehicles, climbs
stairs, all of that. When I hold him while he stands, he is barely putting any
weight on me. Even if he's not walking, he should be able to stand on his own.
But he doesn't, and he absolutely refuses to do so. He sees cousins and other
big kids walking, and isn't afraid to crawl to them and play, but it doesn't
inspire him to walk.

We know a lot of other kids that are younger than him, his age, or a few
months older, and they are walking. He's stronger and more capable than them,
but they're walking and he isn't.

My wife and I comment on this fact all the time, about how it seems that
walking has nothing to do with strength, and it's more about readiness. I
doubt that my son isn't walking because he's not strong enough, nor is it
because he doesn't have a good environment, save for the fact that I'm not
pushing him to walk (i.e. I'm enjoying the calm before the storm.)

Readiness for walking is definitely dependent on a number of factors, but I'm
willing to bet that genetics is a big part of it too. Apparently I didn't
really walk until I was 2 years old.

Babies and walking is a very interesting phenomenon that really lets you see
into the working of genetics and environment.

~~~
automatoney
Quick reply to your aside: singular they is very grammatical and has been in
use for centuries.

From Merriam-Webster: "they has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun
since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the
development of the singular you from the plural you... and that regardless of
what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual
conversation and often in formal writing."[1]

[1] [https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-
nonbi...](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-
they)

~~~
grahamburger
All politics and grammar rules aside, I personally find 'they' to be really
confusing when referring to a specific person.

IE: "is Pat coming to lunch with us?"

"Yes, they're coming in a moment."

Leaves me wondering if 'they' is perhaps referring to some implied group of
which Pat is a part, like a SO or team at work (meaning we might need to take
two vehicles and get another table at the restaurant) or just Pat.

I wish there was an acceptable non-gendered singular pronoun we could all
agree on.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
That's confusing because "are" ("they're" is a contraction of "they are") is
used for the plural. "They is" would be singular, just like "he is" or "she
is". It would be ungrammatical for plural "they", but AFIACT is correct for
singular "they".

So the unambiguous (but weird sounding to those unused to it) version:

"Is Pat coming to lunch with us?"

"Yes, they is coming in a moment."

~~~
lozf
> "Yes, they is coming in a moment."

Perhaps one of:

"Yes, they will be here soon / joining us shortly / along later."

would be better.

~~~
grahamburger
> "Yes, they will be here soon / joining us shortly / along later."

None of these clarify singular vs plural of 'they.' All of them work whether
'they' refers to one person or multiple.

~~~
lozf
Good point.

------
dekhn
"""Their position rests on two arguments, what Stanford anthropologist Paul
Ehrlich dubbed a “gene shortage” and widespread, well-documented findings of
“brain plasticity.” According to the gene shortage argument, genes can’t be
very important to the birth of the mind because the genome contains only about
30,000 genes, simply too few to account even for the brain’s complexity—with
its billions of cells and tens of billions of connections between neurons—much
less the mind’s"""

I'm sorry but if that's the best argument you can come up with if you're a
Stanford Prof, you owe it to yourself to refresh yourself on the literature of
how genes work and how they lead to phenotypes. It looks like he ascribes to
the "exact blueprint" mental model of phenotypes, rather than the
competitive/generative model that is more consistent with modern science.

~~~
woodandsteel
The article is a presentation of what the researchers in genetics and
development have learned. Perhaps it would be good if you responded to that.

~~~
dekhn
The rest of the article is mostly fine (if very limited).

------
chrisweekly
Mods: maybe edit title to reflect date (2003)?

------
seph-reed
In the past, it would seem people had a lesser nurture:nature ratio. In the
future it seems we will have greater.

I think the greatest ratio would be an AI that can fully program itself
(including its emotions).

Point being, I suspect we're a lot less nurture than we'd like to think.

------
chr1
It's very unfortunate that we still do not have any cloned people. Cloning,
especially cloning famous scientists, would greatly help in understanding what
part of their success is due to genes, and what is nurture/luck.

~~~
dsr_
We have identical twins.

~~~
Jagat
Most identical twins have very similar upbringings and share a lot of genetic
code.

~~~
dsr_
By definition, identical twins share all of their genetic code.

~~~
akincisor
Not necessarily true:

[https://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-
identi...](https://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-
identical.html)

paper (PDF) :
[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constantin_Polychronako...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constantin_Polychronakos/publication/257756275_Somatic_point_mutations_occurring_early_in_development_A_monozygotic_twin_study/links/56cef7d708ae85c823430b5d.pdf)

------
woodandsteel
I found this article quite fascinating. I had no idea how much the researchers
have learned about genetics and development, and the general picture that has
developed.

------
zarro
If we could make bets according to the markets perception of the Nature-
Nurture debate, my feeling is that natures role is undervalued.

------
mellosouls
2003\. Gary Marcus again.

~~~
qnsi
Is there anything wrong with Marcus?

~~~
mellosouls
No, I agree with some of what he says, but he seems to get an article flagged
on here every 5 minutes.

Also I'm not sure how representative of the field he is, and (speaking as
somebody who shares some of his scepticism) you would think the consensus
would be the prevailing tone.

------
codingslave
The key to thinking about nature versus nurture that I never see mentioned:

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe in the genetic determinism of
genes.

Sure, there is leeway for nurture, but a lot of people are holding
contradicting opinions (they believe in evolution but not as much in "nature")
because we as a society are hiding the truth of human determinism.

~~~
lacker
If you read a decent amount of genetics research, you usually end up
discovering some conclusions that are politically unacceptable. Even a comment
as bland as yours, you can see some people consider it Hitlerian. But at the
same time plenty of people do read genetics research and perform cutting edge
experiments that advance the state of the art. It is acceptable to do these
things, as long as you use enough academic jargon that laymen and politicians
can't understand what you're saying.

~~~
HorizonXP
I'm not exactly sure why this is controversial at all. And I think most of us
know and believe this to be fact.

I am 5'10" tall, born and raised in Western society. I am taller than my most
of my ancestors, but only marginally taller than my father. He grew up in
India, but his family was non-vegetarian in a village of pure vegetarians.

We might have been able to be a little taller if we understood nutrition a bit
better, but it's probably within an inch or so. Our height is limited by
genetics, not by environment.

It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to
genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. Now, comparing
brains to height is very reductive, since the brain is infinitely more
complex. But there's a probably a pretty good reason why my father and I have
very good memories, and are fairly intelligent people. But we're also not
superstar athletes, or great artists. Genetics and environment have optimized
our brains in a certain way. And I'm already seeing the same traits in my 1
year old son.

But isn't that the beauty of genetic determinism? Isn't that the beauty of all
of us having vastly different life experiences? I don't lament the fact that I
don't have the genetics of Usain Bolt, but I can admire and appreciate his
prowess. Similarly, I don't lament the fact that I'm not a great creative like
Picasso or Mozart. Something about their genetics and environment allowed them
to achieve greatness in areas I am not capable of. And that's fantastic,
because our society is enriched because of this diversity.

I think a society that celebrates the individual, gives them the resources and
environment to achieve whatever they're capable of, and thus, reach the limits
of their own genetics is one I'd like to live in. Realistically, most of us
are not even close to be limited by our genetics, but man, how awesome would
it be if we were?

~~~
seppel
> It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to
> genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too.

And if you don't believe in creationism and also don't believe that
intelligence is subject to evolution, then you need some very good explanation
where intelligence comes from in the first place.

