Short Arms and Talking Eggs: Why We Should No Longer Abide the Nativist–Empiricist Debate

John P. Spencer, Mark S. Blumberg, Bob McMurray, Scott R. Robinson, Larissa K. Samuelson, J. Bruce Tomblin

Child Development Perspectives · 2009 · 211 citations · 98 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The nativist–empiricist debate distracts from the developmental systems view, which sees development as epigenetic cascades of gene–environment interactions and a broader, nonobvious interpretation of experience. The authors argue that developmental scientists should abandon the debate and instead ground research in contemporary developmental theory and process. By examining imprinting, spatial cognition, and language development, the study shows that the debate is inadequate and highlights the true, complex nature of development.

Abstract

Abstract— The nativist–empiricist debate and the nativist commitment to the idea of core knowledge and endowments that exist without relevant postnatal experience continue to distract attention from the reality of developmental systems. The developmental systems approach embraces the concept of epigenesis, that is, the view that development emerges via cascades of interactions across multiple levels of causation, from genes to environments. This view is rooted in a broader interpretation of experience and an appreciation for the nonobvious nature of development. This systems approach is illustrated here with examples from studies of imprinting, spatial cognition, and language development, revealing the inadequacies of the nativist–empiricist debate and the inconvenient truths of development. Developmental scientists should no longer abide the nativist–empiricist debate and nativists’ ungrounded focus on origins. Rather, the future lies in grounding science in contemporary theory and developmental process.

References

98