dan michaels wrote:
[...]
> This N.v.N thing is obviously a spectrum, with a lot of animals down
> on the nature/instinct end, and a general trend towards greater
> importance of nurture on the other end. If you look at it this way, it
> seems a waste of time to argue absolutes of "nature vs nurture",
> rather it seems more fruitful to figure out about where on the
> spectrum various animals would lie. In addition, you probably need
> several such spectrums, or scales, in order to cover different
> attributes ... motor, perceptual, etc ... as there is no doubt some
> differential placement regards each.
>[...]
"Spectrum" assumes that nature vs nurture makes sense, nevertheless, and
to that extent it's a misleading metaphor. It assume sthat for any given
trait "nature" or "nurture" must be the prime cause. A moment's thought
should make it clear that the real question is not whether nature or
nurture "produced" (another question-begging word) a given trait, but
just how nature and nurture _interacted_ in this case.
Etc.
