Pinker’s argument on page 7 that “children are shaped not by their parents, but in part—but only in part—by their genes; in part by their culture” contradicts my belief that parents play a crucial role in the development of their children.
The reason I come from the camp that stresses the importance of parenting in child development is that parents are responsible for creating a certain culture in the home. It then logically follows that the culture in the home is instrumental in shaping children. I can see numerous ways in which the choices my parents made during my childhood have influenced my present self, the most prominent being religion. Although my parents were both raised as Christians, I was not raised particularly religious--I never went to a church and although I did celebrate Christmas and Easter, it was all about the presents and the hidden candy. Now that I’ve been living away from my family for a number of years, I could have explored religion on my own. However, I haven’t had an inkling to do so as a result of my parents’ decision to raise me in the absence of religion.
In addition to my (non)religious background, my parents also shaped the interests that ultimately transformed into my career goals. My parents both loved classical music and frequently played music by Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms in the house and took me to Powell Hall to hear the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. It seems fitting that I ended up entering college as a clarinet performance major, determined to play in a symphony. In what seems like a 180° turn, I am now ready to graduate with a degree in chemistry. However, I should mention that my Christmas and birthday gifts frequently came from Edmund Scientific and American Science & Surplus.
For a different type of example, my family started eating salads with every meal when my stepmom moved in with my dad. I suffered through each bite of the green, leafy nastiness. However, now I love salads and vegetables--there was even a point freshman year when I considered becoming a vegetarian.
All my anecdotal experiences seem to directly oppose Pinker’s argument, which is based on the results of the scientific studies between twins and adoptees. All of his logic is clear-cut, but I still just can’t believe that parents don’t have an influence on shaping their children. It was my belief that parents could route children into specific schools of thought through constant ritual (e.g., going or not going to Church). I was also under the impression that children had impulses and that parents were the ones who could foster these impulses into lifelong interests (e.g., through classical music and science toys) or squash them out completely (e.g., through forcing kids to eat their salads). Maybe I was just a really malleable child, but I think a lot of other people share my experiences.
Reading Pinker’s essay was really tough for me because until now, my beliefs were always in line with science. I am a very logical person and science by definition follows a very logical path. However, now I’m experiencing the other side of the “science wars” and seeing how and why people sometimes distrust science. And I’m not liking it since this side is logical too.
Pinker is excited about work that shows peers--not parents--are the primary formative influence. OK, fine. But it doesn't follow that GENES are the primary formative influence. He's a sneaky (if smart) writer.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, if you spend your childhood in Powell Hall, you probably can't drop a rap. And vice versa.