Reply To: Another blow for the biological determinists
I don’t know why we are arguing. I don’t disagree with what you say. Maybe it’s because I’m talking about the capabilities of the species while you are talking about that of individual members of the species.
As you say, what an individual experiences in the first years of their life, when their brain is still developing, is crucial for the formation of their personality which will shape how they are going to behave in response to later experiences.
I think this applies to the individual members of other species as well.
You write:
“This is why personality typology is linked to experiences, psychopaths personalities for example are not generally born but are generally results of many factors, including their early experiences.“
This it is an argument against those biological determinists who argue that some humans are born “psychopaths” (or homosexual or whatever).
I’ll go along with “linked to experiences” rather than “learned”. I wasn’t using it in the literal sense anyway but more in the sense of “not innate”.
But, then, as I said, I was talking more about the features of the species. Humans have a brain that enables them to engage in a wide variety of behaviours and to pass on a learned “culture” from generation to generation. It’s “human nature” to be able to adopt or adapt to, and so engage in, a wide range of behaviours. Hence the distinction we have always insisted on between “human nature” and “human behaviour”.