A partir de una presentación general del concepto de especie aplicado a los humanos, este texto expone dos nociones generales sobre la naturaleza humana: la tipológica y la filogenética. Una vez expuestos los fundamentos de cada noción, se defiende una distinción entre naturaleza humana e identidad humana como dos aspectos que se han confundido respecto a este problema, pero que cumplen distintos roles en las explicaciones, por lo que se proponen como dos nociones complementarias. Así, la naturaleza humana estaría definida (...) en términos metafísicos y daría cuenta de la realidad biológica de los humanos desde un punto de vista filogenético, mientras que la identidad humana estaría definida en términos epistemológicos y daría cuenta de los conocimientos que tienen los humanos sobre ellos mismos, aludiendo a aspectos contingentes. (shrink)

The term ‘human nature’ can refer to different things in the world and fulfil different epistemic roles. Human nature can refer to a classificatory nature (classificatory criteria that determine the boundaries of, and membership in, a biological or social group called ‘human’), a descriptive nature (a bundle of properties describing the respective group’s life form), or an explanatory nature (a set of factors explaining that life form). This chapter will first introduce these three kinds of ‘human nature’, together with seven (...) reasons why we disagree about human nature. In the main, this chapter focuses on the explanatory concept of human nature, which is related to one of the seven reasons for disagreement, namely, the scientific authority inherent in the term ‘nature’. I will examine why, in a number of historical contexts, it was attractive to refer to ‘nature’ as an explanatory category, and why this usage has led to the continual contestation of the term within the sciences. The claim is that even if the contents of talk about ‘nature’ varied historically, the term’s pragmatic function of demarcation stayed the same. The term ‘nature’ conveys scientific authority over a territory; ‘human nature’ is a concept used to divide causes, as well as experts, and thereby conquer others who threaten to invade one’s epistemic territory. Analysing this demarcation, which has social as well as epistemic aspects, will help us to understand why the explanatory role has been important and why it is unlikely that people will ever agree on either the meaning or the importance of ‘human nature’ as an explanatory category. (shrink)

Conceptions of human nature fall under two broad categories, trait bin accounts and trait cluster accounts. Trait bin accounts take there to be a special bin of traits, one composed of all and only those traits constituting our nature. For those arguing for a trait bin account of human nature, the challenge is to articulate what it is that marks a trait as being in or outside of the bin. For some, the bin is filled by the traits essential to (...) being human. Others, such as Machery in his contribution to this volume, offer a non-essentialist trait bin conception of human nature. In this chapter, I argue that trait bin approaches to human nature are misguided, that there is no good way of dividing human traits into those that are a part of our nature and those that are not. Instead, I argue for a trait cluster account, which sees human nature not as a special bin of traits, but as the relationship among traits. Under this account, human nature lies in the patterns of trait expression within and across human life histories. This account does a superior job characterizing what humans are like and aligning human nature with the human sciences. (shrink)

Appeals to human nature are ubiquitous, yet historically many have proven ill-founded. Why? How might frequent errors be remedied towards building a more robust and reliable scientific study of human nature? Our aim is neither to advance specific scientific or philosophical claims about human nature, nor to proscribe or eliminate such claims. Rather, we articulate through examples the types of errors that frequently arise in this field, towards improving the rigor of the scientific and social studies. We seek to analyze (...) such claims rhetorically, cognitively, and epistemically. Namely, how do we think about human nature? Claims about human nature, we show, are susceptible to widely exhibited deficits in cognitive tendencies such as framing, confirmation bias, satisficing, and teleological perspectives, as well as motivated reasoning. Such missteps foster methodological, empirical, and psychological mistakes and biases. Specifically, they promote the naturalizing error, whereby cultural ideology and values are projected onto an apparently objective description of nature. Concrete remedies are offered to aid scientists in conducting and reporting their research goals and findings more responsibly and effectively (relevant also to educators and other communicators who convey these findings publicly). Recommendations include acknowledging that human nature claims are often context-dependent, seeking multiple critical perspectives, and explicitly labeling uncertainties. (shrink)

La versión estadística del concepto de naturaleza humana sigue siendo un concepto central en muchas ramas de las ciencias humanas. La clave del concepto es que existe un núcleo de fenotipos específicos que caracteriza a las especies biológicas, incluyendo la nuestra. Llamo a esta perspectiva esencialismo estadístico. Voy a sugerir que la tipicidad y la uniformidad fenotípica se consideran supuestos legítimos en muchas ciencias humanas, ya que el desarrollo biológico se interpreta como un proceso inherentemente conservador que utiliza sólo recursos (...) endógenos, mientras que la evolución se interpreta como un proceso de normalización que destruye la variación fenotípica. Llamo a esta visión perspectiva homeostática. Voy a criticar la perspectiva homeostática presentando argumentos apoyados en consideraciones teóricas y empíricas. En particular, voy a destacar dos prejuicios anacrónicos que se encuentran en el corazón de la perspectiva homeostática: en primer lugar, su visión monomórfica de las especies, así como su visión monoorganísmica y monogenómica del organismo; en segundo lugar, su compromiso con una visión causal endógena del desarrollo. Finalmente voy a argumentar que el esencialismo estadístico es problemático porque respalda los mismos prejuicios monistas y endógenos que caracterizan la perspectiva homeostática. Parafraseando a Margulis y Sagan, los científicos pueden engañarse fácilmente al descuidar la investigación sobre la diversidad humana y la plasticidad del desarrollo. A statistical version of the concept of human nature remains a major foundational concept in many branches of the human sciences. The kernel of the concept is that there exists a core of species-specific phenotypes that characterises biological species, including ours. I call this view statistical essentialism. I will suggest that phenotypic typicality and uniformity are considered legitimate assumptions in many human sciences because biological development is interpreted as an inherently conservative process utilising only endogenous developmental resources, while evolution is interpreted as a normalizing process destroying phenotypic variation. I call this view homeostatic perspective. I will criticise the homeostatic perspective by presenting arguments supported by both theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In particular, I will emphasise two anachronistic biases at the heart of the homeostatic perspective: first, its mono-morphic view of species as well as mono-organismic and mono-genomic view of the organism; secondly, its commitment to an endogenous view of developmental causation. I will finally argue that statistical essentialism is problematic because it endorses the same monistic and endogenous prejudices characterising the homeostatic perspective. Paraphrasing Margulis and Sagan, human scientists can easily fool themselves by neglecting research on human diversity and developmental plasticity. (shrink)

There is a growing consensus that the traditional notion of human nature has failed and that human nature needs to be reconceptualized in light of our current scientific knowledge, including the knowledge gained in genetics and evolutionary biology. In “A Plea for Human Nature,” I highlighted this need, and I engaged in this reconceptualization effort, proposing a new notion of human nature, “the nomological notion of human nature” [Machery (Philosophical Psychology 21:321–330, 2008)]; for some more recent work, see Griffiths (Arts: (...) The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 31:30–57, 2009), (2011); Stotz (Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9:483–501, 2010); Samuels (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 70:1–28, 2012). In “Human Nature: The Very Idea,” Tim Lewens discusses the nomological notion of human nature critically. I am grateful for Lewens’s insightful article, and I examine Lewens’s criticisms in this brief response. (shrink)

Recent philosophical work on the concept of human nature disagrees on how to respond to the Darwinian challenge, according to which biological species do not have traditional essences. Three broad kinds of reactions can be distinguished: conservative intrinsic essentialism, which defends essences in the traditional sense, eliminativism, which suggests dropping the concept of human nature altogether, and constructive approaches, which argue that revisions can generate sensible concepts of human nature beyond traditional essences. The different constructive approaches pick out one or (...) two of the three epistemic roles that are fused in traditional essentialist conceptions of human nature: descriptive, explanatory, definitional, or explanatory and definitional. These turns towards diverging epistemic roles are best interpreted pluralistically: there is a plurality of concepts of human nature that have to be clearly distinguished, each with a legitimate role in respective scientific contexts. (shrink)

I pose problems for the views that human nature should be the object of study in the social and behavioral sciences and that a concept of human nature is needed to guide research in these sciences. I proceed by outlining three research programs in the social sciences, each of which confronts aspects of human variation. Next, I present Elizabeth Cashdan and Grant Ramsey’s related characterizations of human nature. I go on to argue that the research methodologies they each draw on (...) are more productive resources for social scientists than their competing characterizations of human nature. (shrink)