Enrique Figueroa E. efiguero at CAPOMO.USON.MX
Fri Apr 25 01:05:43 UTC 1997

I hope everyone will take appropriate notice of this important
distinction. I would consider necessary, however, to subdivide Innate 2
(or, else, to explicitly discriminate its nuances): not everything
"innate 2" is related to the *mind*. This might seem trivial, but I
reckon it isn't...

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Bill Turkel wrote:

> 'Innate' 1: Given the distribution of an attribute in an adult population,
>         and knowledge of who mates with whom, we can predict the distribution
>         of the attribute in the offspring population.  Crucially, no mention
>         of the role of experience or other environmental factors.
> 'Innate' 2: The essential nature of something; derived from the mind rather
>         than experience, etc.
> Given the potential for confusion between the two meanings, it is probably
> best not to use the word if it can be avoided.
> In addition to MacWhinney's list of references, see also papers by
> Vargha-Khadem and colleagues (e.g., Proceedings of the National Academy
> of Sciences USA (1995) 92(3):930-933), Sokal and colleagues (American
> Naturalist (1990) 135(2):157-175, and Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues.
> Bill Turkel

More information about the Funknet mailing list