| cheapbag214s |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2013 |
| Posts: 20570 |
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
|
| Location: England |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| claim we're hard-wired for things, but when you peel through the layers of the experiments, the details matter and suddenly the evidence doesn't seem so compelling...When people say there's an innate constraint,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], they're making suppositions about what came before the behavior in question. Instead of acknowledging that at 12 months a lot of development has already happened and we don't exactly know what came before this particular behavior, researchers take the easy way out and conclude that there must be inborn constraints. That's the predicament scientists have gotten themselves into.Imprinting is one of many examples reviewed by the Iowa researchers. In 1935, Viennese zoologist Konrad Lorenz famously discovered that newborn chicks whose eggs were incubated in isolation will still correctly pick the call of their mother over another animal. It seemed the perfect little proof of innate ability. But in 1997,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Gilbert Gottlieb discovered the flaw in that assumption. It turned out that when fetal chicks were deprived |
|
