NATURE = f(NURTURE): A REVIEW OF OYAMA'S THE ONTOGENY OF INFORMATION: DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS AND EVOLUTION1

Abstract

chologists (e.g., Plomin, 1990), and sociologists (e.g., Homans, 1979) since Francis Galton (1874) first formalized the distinction-and even before (see Medawar & Medawar, 1983, pp.194-196).In some cases, the nature-nur- ture dichotomy asks only that we distinguish between nature (i.e., genes) and nurture (e.g., environments) as sources of biological, behav- ioral, and social-cultural characteristics or ac- tivities.In other cases, the dichotomy asks that we make a choice between nature and nurture as a primary or sole cause.The seemingly more moderate position with respect to the latter is that nature and nurture interact.This, how- ever, carries with it the implication that nature and nurture are causal entities-entities that are, at least in principle, independent.Although the nature-nurture dichotomy has been a preoccupation within the life sciences in general, it has been of special and more focal concern in developmental psychology.In- deed, one way in which developmental theories often are classified is with respect to their place along a nature-nurture continuum, with the extremes represented by nativism and envi- ronmentalism (Horowitz, 1987).Some devel- opmental theories, however, resist any such

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.