What makes reductionist (and “human nature”) theories/explanations so hard to resist? 

 a) How would you explain to someone else, another college student say, what reductionism means? b) What makes some forms of reductionist explanation moreextreme (more heavily reductionistic) than others? c) Looking at the two-sided, one page handout by Neville, “Neuroscience exposes..” and “Race Gap..”, how would you argue that “genes are not destiny.”  Why aren’t they?  e) What accounts for gaps in test scores between blacks and whites?  What would have to happen in order to erase (or reverse) these gaps?

10. a) What makes reductionist (and “human nature”) theories/explanations so hard to resist?  How does our cultural/historical emphasis on machines play into this fatal attraction? b) What does this essay suggest is wrong with (or suspect about) “expertise,” and with reliance on our beloved technical (or technological) solutions to current pressing human problems?

11. a) How might the recent dramatic rise in the incidence of ADHD, as well as other childhood personality or developmental disorders be explained?  (Remember, slow to change factors like DNA or psychological properties can’t explain more rapid changes in behavior or diagnoses.)  Would your explanation be in some degree holistic?  How so?  What contexts, or social units would you include to explain the rise?

12. In the Neville “Neuroscience exposes..” article, it is theorized that poverty affects things like memory, language skills, and I.Q. scores.  a) By what processes do you think this might happen?  Be specific.  b) Can cognitive (or brain) function be improved after birth, and after environmental damage has been done?  How?