Is Empiricism Innate? Summary Notes

Topic: Do people think knowledge is born or learned? Mostly, they think it's learned, even basic skills.
Main Idea: People (adults, kids, scientists, different cultures) guess that core abilities show up later in life than science proves. They credit learning more than innate traits.
Meaning: We all seem to have an "intuitive empiricism" – a gut feeling that everything is learned – from a young age, and it sticks around.

Core knowledge: Basic, unlearned mental tools (like knowing objects exist, counting).
Innate: Born with it (due to genes).
Maturation: Develops with age (not learned).
Learning (no instruction): Learn by watching/doing, on your own.
Learning (with instruction): Taught directly (school, parents).
Intuitive empiricism: Common belief that skills come from experience/learning.
Timeline task: Research method to ask participants when an ability first appears.

Question: Do people think it's nature OR nurture, or a mix? Do they lean towards nurture for basic skills?
Baseline: They compared people's beliefs to actual scientific findings on when abilities develop.
Method: Many experiments with different groups (adults, kids, scientists), using similar tasks to see if results were consistent.
Coding Explanations: Sorted reasons into:
- Innate (genes, born with)
- Maturation (grows with age)
- Learning (self-taught)
- Explicit Teaching (taught by others)
Excluded Data: About 15% of unclear answers were left out.

Participants: $N = 101$ US adults online.
Task: Read about "Alex" getting abilities (born with, matures, learns alone, taught). Rated 7 core abilities (like color vision, object permanence).
Timeline: Marked when abilities appeared on a timeline. y = 0.13 e^{0.78 x}, R^2 > 0.99
Results:
- Onset Age: They guessed core abilities appeared between $0.94$ and $2.88$ years (95% CI: $[0.66, 1.22]$ lower; $[2.60, 3.15]$ upper) — much later than science shows.
- Explanations: $77\%$ (95% CI $[73\%, 81\%]$ ) of explanations were learning-based (t(99) = 11.81, p < 0.001).
- Exceptions: Seeing/hearing were correctly thought to be early (around $0.32$ years) and innate ( $M = 3\%$ learning). Reading was correctly thought to be learned (around $4.56$ years) and taught ( $100\%$ learning).
Replications: Results were consistent in follow-up tests.

Participants: $N = 99$ Hindu adults in India.
Results: Similar to US adults. Core abilities estimated later (between $2.25$ and $5.11$ years, 95% CI $[1.98, 2.53]$ and $[4.84, 5.38]$ ), and $80\%$ (95% CI $[74\%, 86\%]$ ) of explanations were learning-based.
Religiosity: Didn't affect beliefs.

Participants: $N = 201$ US adults.
Task: Compared core abilities in humans (e.g., face recognition) vs. animals (e.g., chicks' face recognition).
Results:
- Born with: Humans: $37\%$ (95% CI $[32\%, 43\%]$ ); Animals: $67\%$ (95% CI $[63\%, 71\%]$ ).
- Learning-based: Humans: $62\%$ (95% CI $[56\%, 68\%]$ ); Animals: $31\%$ (95% CI $[26\%, 36\%]$ ). Significant difference for most items (\chi^2 > 4.76, ps < .029).
Conclusion: People think human abilities are more learned, while animal abilities are more innate.

Participants: $N = 85$ children (average age $6.68$ years).
Results:
- Onset Age: Guessed core abilities appeared between $1.27$ and $2.01$ years (95% CI $[0.99, 1.55]$ lower; $[1.74, 2.29]$ upper) — 8x later than actual onset.
- Learning-based: $92\%$ (95% CI $[89\%, 95\%]$ ) of explanations were learning-based (t(84) = 25.52, p < .001) — even stronger than adults.
- Sensory abilities (seeing) were exceptions ( $M = 24\%$ learning).

Participants: $N = 400$ from universities (natural scientists, humanities, mind scientists; 36% PhD).
Results:
- Onset Age: Guessed between $0.48$ and $1.63$ years (95% CI $[0.21, 0.74]$ lower; $[1.37, 1.89]$ upper) — still later than actual, but earlier than lay adults.
- Learning-based: $M = 64\%$ (95% CI $[62\%, 67\%]$ ). Mind scientists gave fewer learning explanations than others (t(399) = 4.32, p < .001).
Conclusion: Expertise reduces the bias a bit, but even scientists show this "empiricist" bias.

People always guess core abilities start later than they actually do.
Learning is the top explanation for core abilities across all groups (US, India, kids, scientists).
People see human abilities as learned, animal abilities as innate.
"Reading" is known as learned; basic senses (seeing/hearing) as innate.
Religiosity didn't matter.
Scientific training helps a little but doesn't remove the bias.

Intuitive Empiricism: It's a strong, widespread cognitive bias, maybe because pedagogy (teaching) is so important in human culture.
Re-examine Science: Scientists should be aware of this bias when interpreting research on innate structures.
Possible Roots of Bias:
- Evolved for Teaching: Maybe we're wired to promote social learning.
- Visible Teaching: We see teaching constantly, shaping our views.
- Optimism: Believing things are learned can be positive (anyone can learn anything).

Education: Helps educators understand what students expect about learning.
Science Communication: Guides how scientists explain developmental findings to the public.
Global: Since it's cross-cultural, it affects how science education happens worldwide.

People think core human abilities appear later and are learned, not innate.
This "empiricist bias" is strong across cultures and different groups, even if it doesn't match scientific consensus.
We need to understand why this bias persists and how it affects scientific learning.