Gelman+(WK4)

=Essentialist Reasoning about the Biological World=

by: Susan A. Gelman
__**A Definition of Abstract Essentialism:**__ "...the idea that certain categories, such as "dog", "man", or "gold", have an underlying reality or true nature that gives objects their identity (p.7)."

I) "Psychological Essentialism" or "Essentialist Bias" is belief in //Immutability, Innateness,// and //Underlying Reality//. II) According to tests and studies, children demonstrate "Psychological Essentialism" or "Essentialist Bias" before they have access to specialized scientific knowledge, deep philosophical training, or knowledge of historical contexts. III) **Therefore** (//__First Conclusion!__//), "Psychological Essentialism" or "Essentialist Bias" //is not// the product of sociological/political/historical conditions. IV) **Therefore** (//__Second Conclusion!__//), "Psychological Essentialism" or "Essentialist Bias" //is probably// a //__**fundamental human bias!!!!!**__//
 * __If Gelman's Argument were Boiled Down to the Basics:__**

"Essentialist Bias" is a developmental mile-stone - it is a fundamental human bias.
 * __Here is the Point/Main Idea:__**

__**Basic Outline/Explication:**__

//1.// Provides an efficient system for storing experience. //2.// Provides structure for new inferences and predictions. //1.// (//__Important Point!__//) See **Fig. 1** on page 8, "sample partial folk taxonomy". On the same page, Gelman notes, "...one of the most notable aspects of these 'folk taxonomies' is that, universally, the middle level (typically the generic, though sometimes specific; e.g., dog, sheep, lion) seems to be privileged. This level is most typically named with a single word, it is the earliest acquired in childhood, and it is most often used as the basis for making inferences about novel properties." //1.// Gelman offers an example: "Over one-third of heart transplant recipients believe that they take on characteristics of the donor, in some cases reporting...that a male heart transplanted into a woman's body will cause the woman to behave more like a man (p.9)." //__1.a.__// (//__Important Point!__//)  The belief expressed here is an example of "//__Psychological Essentialism__//" in that it assigns an essential, underlying nature to the category of "male", //and// this essentialist reasoning is allowed by a lack of specificity in the "folk taxonomy" (see **Fig. 1** on page 8, "sample partial folk taxonomy"). In other words, one can only believe "...that a male heart transplanted into a woman's body will cause the woman to behave more like a man..." if one (a) does not distinguish between sex and gender, //and// (b), a consequence of (a), assumes the existence of a persistent "masculine" essence. //1.// (//__Additional Discussion Topic__//) I have three questions: (1) Where and how does one draw the line between the "social" and the "biological"? (2) What is at stake in this "Either/Or" formation of the question? (3) What is at stake in the position that "Essentialist Bias" is a fundamental human bias, and //not// the product of a particular sociological/political/historical conditions? In other words, what effect does this position have on our understanding of development and our category of "child" and/or "person"? //1.// Gelman cites studies to show that the three major essentialist biases (//"Immutability", "Innateness",// and //"Underlying Reality"//) develop in children before they have access to "...specialized scientific knowledge, deep philosophical training, or knowledge of historical contexts..." (pp. 10-12). //2.// Thus, on page 12, Gelman concludes: (1) "...that children are 'essentialists'. They believe that certain categories are immutable, allow novel predictions, have innate properties, and have an underlying reality." (2) "...that essentialism is a basic human bias." //1.// "All languages have two expressive devices that may be important mechanisms for transmitting essentialism: 1) common noun labels (e.g., 'this is a bird') express membership in a kind, allowing children to overcome misleading perceptual features and to distinguish between what something is and what something is like; and 2) generic noun phrases (e.g., 'Bats live in caves') refer to kinds directly (as extending beyond individual instances) and imply that a feature is relatively enduring and central. Both labeling and generics are ubiquitous in child-directed speech and are acquired early by children. These linguistic devices are insufficient by themselves to transmit essentialism to children. However, they could be important clues that encourage and emphasize an essentialist perspective about particular categories to children who are already capable of reasoning in this way."
 * I. Introduction** (pp. 7-12)
 * A.** As humans experience the biological world, they organize it into categories.
 * B.** The process of categorization serves two functions:
 * C.** (__//Important Point!//__) All animals categorize in order to recognize/distinguish predators, prey, etc... **However, only humans further organize categories into taxonomic systems!!!!**
 * D.** "__//Psychological Essentialism//__" (//__Key Term!__//) becomes problematic in biology when we treat natural categories (e.g. females) as real and unchanging, and further believe that there is some unobservable underlying quality that all members of a category share. (page 9)
 * E.** (//__Big Question!__//) Is "//__Psychological Essentialism__//" or, as Gelman puts in her phrasing of the question, "//__Essentialist Bias__//" (I think these terms are interchangeable) the product of particular sociological/political/historical conditions, __or__ is it a fundamental human bias, an //"a priori"// cognitive structure ?
 * F.** Gelman writes: "Essentialist beliefs in children...support the notion that essentialism is a basic, spontaneous human bias..." because children have not been trained in the scientific, critical thinking necessary to overcome it (pp. 9-10).
 * G.** Also on page 12, Gelman elaborates: "...language may (implicitly) encourage an essentialist stance."
 * II. Conclusions** (pp. 13-14)
 * A.** "The research on childhood essentialism suggests that children are not concrete thinkers, focused only on outward appearances. On the positive side, they expect the natural world to have a deeper, hidden reality, which may pave the way for appreciating (and engaging in) science. On the negative side, this characteristic may pave the way for stereotyping social categories and biological misconceptions, as noted earlier (p.13)."
 * B.** "Childhood essentialism poses a challenge to the competing (and enduringly popular) view of children as perceptually bound, concrete, and focused on obvious features of their environment (p.13)."
 * C.** "Even for adults, essentialist tendencies may persist. Consider once again people's misconceptions about evolution. There are at least four ways that essentialism may pose obstacles to understanding Darwin's ideas. First, the assumption that categories are stable and unable to change is in conflict with the basic principle that species evolve over time. Second, the tendency to intensify category boundaries makes it difficult to grasp that two different species may have a common ancestor. This tendency is particularly a difficulty for reasoning about human evolution, as people resist the notion that humans are simply one animal among many. Third, essentialism may encourage people to underestimate variation within a category, thereby leading to difficulty with the principle of natural selection (which is deeply rooted in the notion of within-category variation). Fourth, essentialism assumes that causes are inherent in individual organisms (e.g., the essence within each animal), rather than populations. This tendency to focus on inherent properties within an individual rather than characteristics of a population leads to misconstruals of evolution (pp.13-14)."

1) Some concrete examples of "Essentialist Bias". our tendencies toward not understanding evolution reference pg 10 Keils study (raccoon/ skunk) our misunderstanding that people of the same race are more related then 2 people of different races. children see the insides of items as having causal force.
 * __Some Things we Might Need When Explaining the Article to Other Groups:__**

1) A clear definition/understanding/explanation of precisely how "immutability", "innateness", and "underlying reality" contribute to "Essentialist Bias".
 * __Some Questions/Comments/Objections/Confusions we can Anticipate from Other Groups as we Explain (i.e. What is Potentially Left Unclear in our Explanation????):__**

Connections From Gelman to Descartes Baby 1) The connection between children throughout Descartes Baby and Gelman's article. Gelman's article while children are not critical thinkers they do have the ability to see deeper meanings into the world around them a type of magical thinking. (p 13) Descartes Baby never specifically mentions magical thinking but it does however become as a companion to the book.