|
Freethought
Association of West Michigan
Meeting Minutes for September 24, 2003; #147
Topic:
Nature or Nurture; How do Genes, Environment and Free Will Affect
Human Behavior?
Mark your calendars for FAoWM member Jason Pittman’s Freethought
Movie Nights, starting at 7PM. It is a fun time for socializing
and viewing interesting films that Pittman shows at his home in
G.R. The following is the list of dates for the remainder of 2003:
September 28, October 12, October 26, November 16 and December
14. For more information contact Jason at 616-634-2471 or jpittman@backpacker.com
<mailto:jpittman@backpacker.com> .
A just- added meeting to our calendar on a different night from
the normal sequence (we meet every second and fourth Wednesday
of the month, and this falls on the 1st weekend), is one with
the title: “Omni-scientific Cosmology and Animal Rights
Activism” to be presented by Anthony Marr, animal rights
activist and author of Omni-science and Human Destiny. His website
is: www.omni-science.org/ <http://www.omni-science.org/>
It is scheduled for 7PM as usual and due to the number of people
who expressed interest in attending this meeting (by a show of
hands among attendees to this 9/24 meeting), it was agreed that
we would meet at the Yankee Clipper Library as we do on regular
meeting nights. This meeting is on OCTOBER 1st (Wednesday).
On October 8 we will have another Board Meeting to discuss more
issues related to long term planning. The meeting starts at 5:30PM
and is open to interested persons from our membership. This is
on a regular meeting day, with the general meeting beginning at
7PM.
The topic for that 10/8 regular meeting will be “The Latest
Woo Woo- What’s happening in the world of I’ll believe
anything.’” And will be presented by Dr. Paul Critelli
who is a FAoWM member, a magician specializing in close up magic
and skeptic, and debunker of claims of the paranormal in the vein
of James (“The Amazing”) Randi. His presentations
are not to be missed—very engaging, lively and entertaining
while imparting good information.
On October 22, David Fideler, PhD and author of Jesus Christ,
Sun of God—Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism,
and director of the Concord Grove Educational Center, will present
“Ancient Cosmology & Early Christian Symbolism.”
The Seavers are once again hosting the annual Hallowe’en
party at their Allendale home. There will be a bon fire, hay-
ride and good times. Costume optional. BYOB and food to share.
The party will be on November 1st, starting at 7PM. For more info
call 616-892-9300.
Remember that we are taking RSVPs for the Winter Solstice Party
that will be on December 10 starting at 6:30PM at the Siam Lady
in Jenison—on Baldwin Street. Mail your name, number attending,
contact information and check payable to the Freethought Association
for 20.00/person. This includes all food, beverage, tax and tip.
Mail to: PO Box 9873, Wyoming, MI 49509-0873.
Note that there is no meeting scheduled for December 24.
Our new year’s (’04) calendar of events is already
shaping up with Great Lakes Humanist Society member (vice- president),
Joel Welty starting it off on January 14 with his topic “A
Freethinking Humanist builds a house; Making my house ethical
is up to me.” Many from our group will recall Mr. Welty’s
well-received presentation to us where he transformed into humanistic
author Mark Twain, resurrected into our times.
On the 28th of January, Kathryn Lynnes, Democratic candidate for
the 3rd District U.S. House of Representatives seat in ’02
will speak to us on the topic: “What church do you belong
to?- An Atheist Runs for Office in Grand Rapids.”
We will have our first official Darwin’s Birthday Celebration
on our February 11 meeting.
Rounding out February, on the 25th, we will be treated to the
topic “The Myth of the Golden Mean” to be presented
by Shane Van Oosterhout and Bill Fischer.
For more information on any of the above listed events, or to
give suggestions, ask other questions, suggest a topic, request
a membership directory, etc. contact us at info@freethoughtassociation.org
<mailto:info@freethoughtassociation.org> or visit our website
at www.freethoughtassociation.org <http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/>
. As a reminder- our meetings are held at the Yankee Clipper Library,
2025 Leonard NE, G.R. and for those who wish to, we gather informally
after the meeting at Vitale’s Italian Restaurant, also on
Leonard at the corner of Leonard and Emerald. Finally: all donations
are tax deductible and are our only source of revenue (we remain
a non-prophet/profit organization).
Member, Dirk Nebbeling, called our attention to the Lifelong Learning
Center’s class offerings on a wide range of topics. Flyers
were available on the table for more information. Nebbeling is
conducting one of the classes on Ralph Waldo Emerson to be held
at Fountain Street Church. He led a course last year on Humanism.
Our topic for this meeting was “Nature or Nurture; How Do
Genes, Environment and Free Will Affect Human Behavior?”
This was presented by Gregory Forbes, PhD, FAoWM Board member
as well as being on the Board of Skeptic Magazine. Dr. Forbes,
the Education Director for the Evolution Education Initiative,
is a professor of biological, anatomical and zoological sciences
at Grand Rapids Community College. He conducts workshops and conferences
on topics regarding evolutionary biology and heads natural history
expeditions to various places in the world.
Dr. Forbes began by saying that the topic for this night was one
much beloved by defense attorneys, since they can claim that their
clients have “bad genes” if using the naturist approach,
or that they are products of a “bad environment” if
going down the nurturist route. Therefore, the client is not guilty
or directly responsible for his/her actions. The debate that had
arisen since well before the phrase was actually coined is usually
framed “nature versus nurture” and those in the dichotomous
camps try to place as much of a given organism’s behavior
into their favored basket. Some historical figures weighing in
on the issue, as we would see, were staunchly in one sole mindset
or the other on this issue. Dr. Forbes said that a whole new crop
of books and professional papers have recently been written on
this topic, due to the new information generated by the results
yielded so far from the Human Genome Project. This new spate of
musings on an age old conflict Professor Forbes termed, in a Yogi
Berra-esque fashion “Déjà vu all over again.”
Much of the inspiration for his talk was derived from a recently-
published book by Matt Ridley, who wrote such other mentally-
stimulating books as Genome and The Red Queen. The book highlighted
for this discussion by Ridley was Nature via Nurture. The ideas
expressed in the book and Dr. Forbes’ presentation were
ones that were thought provoking and could cause one to reassess
one’s own placement of the different levels of contribution
to one’s personhood that nature, nurture and free will provide.
He defined “nature” succinctly as that which is regarded
as instinctive, genetic, programmed and biologically determined,
or “hard wired” as it is often termed. The behavior,
if it is in this category, must be seen uniformly across the species.
“Nurture” was defined even more briefly as behavior
that is influenced by the environment and/or learning. Examples
include family, church, neighborhood interactions, etc. “Free
will” has to do with self- determination, self- control
and cognitive independence.
After laying out these working definitions, Professor Forbes displayed
a chart showing nurture on an upright line and nature on the horizontal
part of the axis. The 100% nurture was placed at the top of the
vertical line, designated as “1”, then with descending
clockwise numbers, we saw #2, followed by three at the midpoint
down, number 4 next and 5 signifying 100% nature. The question
posed was “what is the basis of behavior?” and we
were asked to mentally plot where we believe the makeup of a human
being would show up on this axis diagram. The next diagram was
represented as a triangle with “nature”, “nurture”
and the addition of “free will” at the corners (1,
2, and 3) and with a #4 situated in the middle. Again we were
to think about where in the nexus we would find behavior—how
much influence would we give to each designation and how much
overlap should there be.
We then proceeded to the big names in this debate. In the nature
camp we started with Francis Galton (relative of Charles Darwin)
who posited that an individual’s destiny is inherited, talent
runs in families, distinguished men have distinguished relatives
and that geniuses are born, not made. He is the person who coined
“nature vs. nurture” and began the debate in intellectual
circles with this framework to attach one’s convictions
to. Next we looked at Konrad Lorenz, famous for his observations
and experiments with goslings dealing with “imprinting”
where, for instance, the hatchling regards the first object in
its awareness as its “mother” to follow, even if the
object bears no resemblance to it—such as a tractor, etc.
This imprinting must occur within the critical window of opportunity
for it to b established but once set it is immutable. Noam Chompsky
also holds to the naturist evaluation for behavior, with his belief
in innate competencies. He was very influential to Stephen Pinker
who wrote The Language Instinct about inborn linguistic aptitudes
for humans. Kant was presented in this round-up of naturists for
his writings on morality being part and parcel of the human package
and other ideas along these lines.
On the flip side of the coin, we have Ivan Pavlov who demonstrated
by his famous experiments that the mind can be conditioned by
the experiment. Another nurturist was Sigmund Freud who saw behavior
strongly influenced by parents, sex, etc. Franz Boas saw environment,
history and chance as being key influences upon cultural variation.
And finally, the philosophers Locke, Hume and Mill on the nurture
side regarded the mind as a “blank slate.” This is
the title, by the way, of a book by Stephen Pinker who treats
the debate from the naturist approach. The subtitle of it is “The
Modern Denial of Human Nature.”
Matt Ridley, in Nature via Nurture posits that genes are not the
puppet masters that control nature but rather he sees nurture
as providing triggers for genetic tendencies to be expressed.
As previously noted, he authored a book called Genome. The genome
is essentially the genetic composition of an organism. We discussed
the basics of genetic structure, including the chromosome as the
structure in the cell nucleus that carries the genes, consisting
of a long strand of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which, in chemically
coded form, has the information needed for a cell to make proteins
and is seen in the familiar double helix. The locus of the chromosome
is where a particular gene occurs. Every characteristic of every
organism is made up by the nitrogen bases rendered by the letters
G,A,T,C and it is the sequence of these bases that determine the
characteristics expressed. We have now arrived at a point where
it can no longer be thought sensible to speak of “a gene
for” something in some simple 1-1 relationship. They have
multiple functions. The mapping of the human genome was a stupendous
accomplishment but it is at present more a guide to the contents
rather than a specific recipe for the manufacture of the human.
Much has to be learned, but at least we now have the “books”
and have read some of the “chapters” in the collection.
There was some controversy regarding the release of information
regarding the Human Genome Project. Craig Venter of the Institute
for Genetic Research broke ranks by publishing before the agreed
upon date by all parties concerned. This created what was termed
“Venter’s Folly” for in so publishing ahead
of the consensus-formed date he noted that instead of the 100,000
genes that were expected to be found, only a “mere”
30,00 were actually revealed. This caused him to make the claim
that there simply were not enough genes to account for a biologically
determined view to be correct. The wonderful diversity seen could
not, in his view, be hard wired; therefore the environment is
critical. Freed of the biological constraints upon behavior, free
will could resurface to a central position. But is this idea of
equating fewer genes with a more significant role for the environment
and more individual autonomy—free will—a sensible
one? Dr. Forbes noted that by this standard, bacteria, amoeba
and sponges are among the most free will imbued beings on the
planet!
Professor Forbes had us explore whether 33,000 genes was indeed
insufficient to account for our human diversity by looking at
it mathematically. It turns out that not 33,000 but only thirty-three
(period) genes in two varieties (the switching of “on”
or “off” for protein sequencing and production) is
enough to make every human being in the world genetically unique!
So imagine, he urged, if we bring this number up to one thousand
times that number: 33,000.
We had some laughs over false connections made by confusing causation
with correlation, with the latter having to do with an apparent
relationship between variables and the former regarding an established
causal relationship. When evaluated incorrectly, data can seem
to imply all manner of unfounded things. Dr. Forbes showed us
examples of such using bread consumption as a “gateway drug”
(leads to ingestion of fatty peanut butter, butter, etc.) and
how it “links up” to felonies: the high number of
felons who eat bread, the prison system’s high population
of bread consumers and so on. There was a chart he mentioned that
showed an almost perfect parallel between VCR use increases and
the number of felonious crimes committed in that year. These and
other humorous examples of improper connections he gave us were
to show that looking at another explanation might be appropriate
in making some determinations based on actual generated data.
Other examples involved merely switching a seen pattern around
and rephrasing it accordingly. Such as: Do happy homes produce
happy children, or is it happy children who make for happy homes?
Is it that beaten children are more hostile or are hostile children
more likely to be beaten?
As he has in other presentations, Dr. Forbes made a distinction
between “proximate” and “ultimate” causation
with the former looking at the immediate cause of a given behavior
while the latter regards how the behavior fits in with evolutionary
fitness for the organism. The ultimate causation asks more “why?”
questions and digresses back further, beyond the initial explanation.
We next turned to Harlow’s monkeys. Harlow (born “Israel”
changed his surname sensibly, since he was becoming known in the
1930’s as the Nazi party was coming into being) did experiments
to determine what role tactile enjoyment plays as opposed to sustenance—in
this case, milk, for young monkeys. The classic experiment had
some monkeys paired with “wire moms” and milk dispensers
and others with cloth mothers and no milk. The monkeys, counter
to expectations, clung to the cloth “mothers” tenaciously
even though getting no nourishment. If the two types of surrogate
mothers were close enough, the infant monkeys would hold onto
the cloth “mom” while reaching and stretching as far
as they could to try to acquire the milk from the wire one, but
never drinking from that one itself. The comfort derived as infants
from the tactile sensations were more significant in resulting
in well-rounded adults later. Other variations on the experiment
to reveal preferences, tested for rocking versus stationary pseudo-mothers
(rocking ones were preferred), warm versus chilled ones—the
warm was the preferred “mom” and so on. Harlow authored
a book called The Nature of Love with the idea that “man
cannot live by milk alone”- if he hopes to express normal
behavior in adulthood.
Pavlov, mentioned earlier, used his well-known dogs as subjects
to demonstrate how they could be conditioned to respond to something
removed from the target. The dogs would, in some experiments,
have a bell sound paired with food being introduced until the
dog was conditioned to equate the bell with food. That this pairing
was effective was manifested by salivation when the bell would
sound.
Fruit flies—the much beloved subjects of geneticists all
over—can actually be taught in this manner as well. An odor
was paired with a shock in experiments and a conditioned response
arose as seen in avoidance of the shock-inducing surface whenever
they sensed the triggering odor. They would anticipate the coming
shock when they detected the smell. Dr. Forbes used this example
as one lead in to showcase nature via nurture. The environment,
in the case of these drosophilia melanogasters, shaped the response
but, in looking deeper, we see that the CREB genes (which can
be thought of in a short hand sort of way as “learning genes”)
have to be found in the organism and further, that all seventeen
of them have to be normally functioning…if all 17 are not
there and working properly, then no matter how much conditioning
takes place, there is no learning that results. These CREB genes
are present in all animals. So this seems to throw it back to
genetics again. However, CREB genes, Professor Forbes explained,
switch on during the learning experience to establish new connections
between neurons that actually change the brain anatomy! So without
the learning behavior---the environmental/nurture—factors,
these genes will not switch on to establish those neural connections
to begin with. So it is nature under the influence of nurture
(nature via nurture).
With Lorenz’s goslings and other similar experiments, we
see that a critical window of opportunity for imprinting has to
be seized for this mechanism to be established. For them it is
between 15 hours and 3 days of age. This critical timeframe’s
significance is also the case for birds acquiring their species’
songs and human’s acquiring language. Individuals born deaf
but who are able to access the world of hearing later through
modern technology, never learn to speak as hearing people do (if
that window of opportunity is passed) no matter how intensive
the therapy. Returning to imprinting, what we find is that the
imprinting period is genetically determined but that the imprinting
would not take place without the environmental influences triggering
those genes.
In another fascinating example, our zoologist presenter told of
how monkeys raised in the wild had an “instinctive”
aversion to snakes. However, ones reared in laboratory settings
showed none of this fear. Amusingly, some would even pick one
up to place it elsewhere if it had been occluding their food dishes.
The monkeys learned their fear of snakes vicariously, by watching
others’ reactions. If a wild-raised mother was introduced
into the lab environment and saw a snake—she would react
violently. The monkeys observing this would accordingly become
fearful of snakes then also and react the same way. This behavior
was learned immediately. No conditioning. No repetition. What
was next tried was to use film tricks to seemingly present monkeys
reacting violently to other non-snake items. These other props
failed, however, to elicit the wild reactions in the viewers,
even though they were seeing (or thought they were seeing) the
same reaction from an older monkey to the test item. With the
images of the mother inducing the snake fear response, the viewers
thereafter only needed to see things that vaguely resembled snakes
to have the same violent reaction. This, then, is another case
of a genetic bias inherent in the monkey for snake avoidance.
But it, too, requires the environmental trigger to start it up—i.e.
seeing the mother react to a snake in a violent manner. Without
that nurture cue, the expression of that part of the monkey’s
nature lies dormant. Ease and swiftness of learning is dependant
upon the genetic makeup of the individual organism relative to
the stimulus. There was no such dormant avoidance nature for the
other tested props in the experiment so there was no triggering
even with the same vicarious stimulus.
It was amusing for us to see a listing of typical human phobias,
including snakes, thunder, spiders, deep water, heights, small
spaces, etc. It was noted that driving automobiles and many sporting
activities and other routine activities that actually do result
in injury and death with significant frequency, fail to elicit
a phobic response in most people whereas those from the list that
are less rationally linked to injury and death in modern times
do cause such responses in many people. The explanation lies in
our evolutionary history. Those who avoided snakes in our past,
as one example, did not get bitten, and lived on to propagate
those genes. Our cave dwelling ancestors did not pass on genes
for worries over internal combustion engine vehicles… Those
ancestors who failed to avoid things that were more potentially
hazardous to them in their time, would be more likely to expire,
leaving a genetic dead end for that behavior.
Professor Forbes contrasted the learning seen in imprinting (irreversible,
automatic and general) with its antithesis—prepared learning,
which has opposite qualities.
We looked at stereotypical male behavior in the light of evolutionary
history and saw a sex that was aggressive, polygamous, risk taking,
more involved in suicides and homicides and more subject to heart
disease. This poor creature was formed by the SRY gene on the
Y chromosome, that masculinized the embryo and directed the formation
of testosterone and the male reproductive tract. At puberty the
male is subjected to further doses of testosterone, pushing the
formation of male secondary sexual characteristics.
The behavior that is typical of males is seen across cultures
and other boundaries. In the male’s evolutionary past, the
victor in displays of aggression, or who vanquished a foe in combat
was the sexier one. Killing others was a driving force beyond
the effectiveness of eliminating potential competitors for access
to females. Forbes had the women in the audience imagine two men
who were otherwise about the same—build, age, degree of
handsomeness, etc…but one drives a Ferrari and the other
an ’82 Geo…which one will she select to accompany?
The men in the past who displayed behavior that signified being
potentially good providers for offspring—and the offspring
themselves would be more likely to be good competitors—were
more desirable and selected for by females. One can think of sexual
selection in the extreme in the famous peacock example—the
tail is so long and heavy that it becomes a detriment to the male,
but the longer tailed peacocks demonstrated physical prowess by
avoiding predation while so encumbered, so the longer tailed males,
being more desirable, mated more and passed on more genes for
extended luxurious tail plumage.
Next we examined conditions arising from mutations in the genetic
make up of humans, including sickle cell anemia and PKU. This
latter condition results in retardation due to phenylalanine in
the individual’s diet not being broken down. This has a
genetic cause…a mutation. But if the individual with this
mutation has a diet without phenylalanine, he or she will grow
up perfectly healthy! So again we witness an environmental trigger
being required for the expression of a genetic reality.
Another example provided by Dr. Forbes was that of the Fox P2
gene on chromosome number 7. It must be present for grammar and
speech recognition in the human—it is found in all animals
but is of a unique nature in humans. Without it, no amount of
environmental nurturing can overwhelm the deficit. However, unless
language is acquired within the already mentioned critical window
of opportunity—once that time frame has elapsed, the presence
of the FoxP2 will do the person no good at all in counteracting
speech/language deficits.
One study Dr. Forbes presented that drew a good deal of commentary
during the discussion period regarded research done based on the
observation that boys from abusive homes tend to grow up, themselves,
to be abusive. The nature aspect to the finding looked at the
activity of MAOA in the individual. Higher levels of activity
of this enzyme- producing agent resulted in individuals who were
not as likely to be aggressive even when subjected to high levels
of abuse. Those with low MAOA activity were found to have four
times the chance of being antisocial. But as the theme of this
presentation indicates many times, the genetic component (low
MAOA) has to be triggered by the abusive environment for expression.
Gregory Forbes gave us the chilling thought of being a boy rescued
from an abusive home and discovering that you have low MAOA activity.
Even though rescued, the genetics have been triggered and you
are certain to be four times more likely to engage in antisocial
acts.
In this vein we were asked what the ramifications are of knowing
a person’s genetic predisposition to certain behavior. And
we discussed where and to what degree free will enters into this.
Other thoughts on free will were quoted. William James had pondered
whether a genetic basis for behavior destroys the concept of free
will. Spinoza opined that the only difference between a stone
rolling down a hill and a human doing the same is that the human
thinks he is in charge. Another person said that if it is all
random events one cannot do anything about it (one’s situation)
and if it is determined then, likewise, one can do nothing about
one’s destiny.
Genes are conditional and good at “if/then” scenarios,
Dr. Forbes said. If girls are raised in fatherless homes then
they will menstruate sooner. If UV light is introduced, then melanin
will be produced.
We were asked to consider whether free will is simply nature/nurture
directed behavior masquerading as totally self-directed, autonomous
action.
The discussion turned to gene therapy. Dr. Forbes said that we
can create gene sequences that are favorable but the trick is
getting them spliced in the proper places and to all cells needing
to be affected. The work is on such a small scale that humans
are still not particularly good at manipulating the minutia efficaciously.
Viruses have been utilized with greater effectiveness. Their pathogenic
aspects have been switched off and they spread the constructed
sequences through splicings that they are well suited for.
The take home lesson seemed to be summed up in the thought expressed
that genes require the environment, so even if you carry the genes
for certain behavior, this does not make its expression inevitable—but
it does increase the likelihood.
Secretary: Charles LaRue
|
