One of the most divisive, perplexing and polarizing concepts in the history of man has been the debate over the presence or the absence of a distinct, individual "human nature". While the debate has raged among the sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology), in the realm of government ideologies, atrocities have rained down on racial, intellectual and economic groups in the name of one side of the argument or the other. For instance, Hitler believed in the concept of human nature and that it had unique and detrimental qualities in certain races. With this as policy of the National Socialist Party, he killed 3 million Jews because of what he believed was a flawed or "non-Aryan" human nature. Conversely, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot did not believe there was any such entity as "human nature" and that all men were born with the exact same set of tools - a "blank slate" - to make their way in the world. To accept that as truth, it logically followed (in their minds, at least) that those who succeeded - those who excelled and functioned in society as intellectuals, professors, doctors or had acquired wealth - were evil, nefarious and self-centered to the detriment of the state. With this heinous logic to guide them, millions and millions were purged in Russian, China and Cambodia. Even in a relatively-stable democracy such as ours, the question of whether human nature exists as a measurable, reproducible entity has caused (and continues to cause) perhaps the most divisive political arguments of our Republic. I propose, here, to present my take on the subject and attempt, in my simplistic way, to show why such arguments, in truth, has absolutely no meaning to a rational, fair, nurturing society. In brief, the emperor has no clothes.

Up front, allow me to state my position. To hold that each child born in this nation is born with the same exact capacities for achievement, educational advancement, creativity, athletic or musical excellence (or anything else you wish to name) - the so-called "blank slate" theory - is, absolutely and patently ridiculous. Think about it in the simplest, most trivial terms: To believe this theory, you have to believe that taking baby X and raising him exactly as Michael Jordan was raised, would mean he would be equal in talent and basketball skill as Michael Jordan. Taking another infant, raising him exactly the same as Pavarotti or Lance Armstrong would produce, respectively, a world-class operatic tenor or the best cyclist in the world. Before you burst out laughing, this is precisely the theory put forth by the father of behavioral psychology, John B. Watson when he wrote:

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I will guarantee to take any one of them at random and train him to become any type specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." ⁽¹⁾

Not surprisingly, this was the prevailing and almost universally-accepted dogma of the first 75 years of the 20th Century. And, not surprisingly, it was given political legs with its adoption by the groups most in search of the Holy Grail of "equality" - liberals, intellectuals and Ivory-Tower elitists throughout the land. If this was science, proclaimed the liberals, let it be so! And for most of the century, planted by Woodrow Wilson, cultivated by Franklin Roosevelt, and reaching full bloom with the Kennedy/Johnson administrations, grand political programs were instituted to take the little Blank Slates of America - black or white, rich or poor, rural or urban - and to simply add water (in the form of massive government spending on ill-conceived pseudoscience experiments) and grow geniuses. Federally-mandated standardized school programs were implemented to make sure all the Blank Slates were taught the same propaganda. Head Start Programs were implemented to bring even the 3,4 and 5 year old Blank Slates up to speed as early as possible. Free breakfast and lunch programs were put in place to make sure the Blank Slates had equal nourishment. And America held its breath in anticipation of a new boom in national geniuses.

It wasn't too long before reality - like a cold New England cod - slapped the goofy pseudoscience of Watson and his Washington, D.C. disciples across their flushed cheeks. There was a fly in the ointment of the Blank Slate Theory of behaviorism. And that fly was none other than that dear, sweet Grand Dame, Mother Nature. She would, as she had all along, derail the Blank Slate express with science of her own. To wit, every individual on this planet is unique, one of a kind and arrives, fresh from the mother’s womb, with their own equipment. That equipment included a relatively fixed I.Q., brain size (including overall size, amount of gray matter in the frontal lobes, speed of neural conduction and metabolism of cerebral glucose - the energy source of the brain) and these innate capacities predict a great deal of the variations in life outcomes such as income and social status. ^(2,3,4)

Despite the wealth of data now available that disproves, hopefully, once and for all, the silly notion that everyone comes into this world with the same basic capacities and gifts, those who still lean to the political left have ignored and, at times, viciously attacked, the truth of science. When Herrnstein and Murray wrote "The Bell Curve" in 1994 ⁽⁵⁾, the frank hatred with which they were pilloried was proof enough that the taboo of suggesting that people were born with different genetic endowments was still passionately (if irrationally) held. The authors were accused of "scientific racism", labeled "Nazis" (after all, they argued, didn’t Hitler used just such science to murder the Jews of Europe?) and were physically attacked when attempting to present their findings in conference settings. In actuality, these unfounded accusations only showed the close-mindedness of the disciples of the Blank Slate - in brief, the liberal left. Simply put, just because Hitler used science to horrific ends does not disprove the science. Over time, the book’s findings have yet to be adequately refuted and it stands today as a shining example of scientific courage against the censorship powers of liberal academia.

If we accept that there are innate, invariable differences between individuals, what are the implications? The contentiousness of the issue suggests that there must be but what, exactly, are they? The root basis of this "hot button" issue falls on the continued misunderstanding of the concept of "equality". More specifically, it refers to the perpetual confusion of what Jefferson’s soaring rhetoric "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal..." actually, practically and philosophically meant.

There are those, such as I, who believe the words are to be read and understood in a literal sense. To wit, we are all born with the same basic, inviolable rights and privileges that the government into which we are born grant to all citizens. These, as enumerated by the Founding Fathers were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We have the right to life which cannot be taken away from us by any other citizen under any circumstances or the government, itself, without due process of law. Similarly, we have the right to liberty which encompasses all the basic freedoms (as outlined by the Bill of Rights). These liberties and freedoms cannot be limited by government without due process of law.

Finally, and the source of most of the division in political thought, we have the right to pursue the goal of mankind since the dawn of civilization: namely, happiness. We do not, if interpreted literally, have the right to happiness. Happiness (whatever that may mean to any individual) is not granted, like citizenship, by government at birth. There is not a line at the Courthouse in which we stand after applying for a driver’s license where we sign a document specifying what we wish to have the government provide for us in order for us to attain "happiness". We have, instead, the right to pursue the goal, unencumbered by government. How enthusiastically we decide to go after it, what we plan to sacrifice in order to obtain it and the discipline we are willing to put forth to reach it are, entirely, a matter of personal choice.

The debate, as silly and circular as it has become, centers on what responsibilities, if any, government has in facilitating our pursuit of happiness. There are those on the liberal left who believe that it is the responsibility of government to provide free universal education (and support while pursuing it), 100% employment, an imposed minimum wage that entitles everyone to earn $10-15/hour (the so-called "living wage"), free childcare, free housing and the like. To pay for these "rights", this faction would have the government impose higher taxes on those who, through their own diligence, discipline and effort, have attained a position where they are compensated to some level above a "living wage".

In counterpoint, there are those who would posit that once a "level playing field" has been established - through appropriate, measured and well-conceived judicial mandates prohibiting the arbitrary denial of opportunities to any segment of the society - government’s obligation has been fulfilled. This school of thought, once rightly labeled "conservatives", buttresses their ideology on the inescapable fact that governmental power and influence is an absolute evil. If we allow government to exceed its basic mandate to assure its citizenry of the basic "inalienable rights", we all, eventually, suffer.

Now, have we reached a completely level playing field? Most certainly, we have not. Should we, while endeavoring mightily to reach this Elysium, allow our elected officials to grant targeted (and usually ineffective) subsidies to ease a minority’s struggle to "pursue happiness?" I am convinced we should not. To do so would impose unjust and undeserved burdens on a separate segment of that same society which has, whether through genetic endowment, hard work, personal sacrifice or simply blind luck - has reached their endowed right to happiness.

There is nothing a bureaucracy can conceive that will, in any meaningful way, defeat Mother Nature and the realities of human civilization since time immemorial. Nor should it try.

________________________________

1. Watson, J.B. 1924/1998, Behaviorism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction
2. Neisser, U., et al. 1996. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51:77-101.
3. Deary, J.J. 2000. Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to the brain. New York: Oxford University Press
4. Thompson, P.M., et al. 2001. Genetic Influences on Brain Structure. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 1-6.
5. Herrnstein, R.J. & Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.