The Language Proof
The Language Proof
A simple demonstration that complex behaviors are environmentally determined.
The Argument
Fact 1: Nobody is born speaking any language
No infant emerges speaking English, Mandarin, Arabic, or any other language. Language is not encoded in DNA.
Fact 2: Everyone learns the language of their environment
- A child born in Sydney speaks English
- A child born in Tokyo speaks Japanese
- A child born in São Paulo speaks Portuguese
- A child born in Cairo speaks Arabic
This is true regardless of the child's genetic ancestry.
Fact 3: Language is extraordinarily complex
Language involves:
- ~50,000+ words (productive vocabulary)
- Complex grammatical rules
- Phonological systems
- Pragmatic/social conventions
- Real-time processing at ~150 words/minute
It is among the most cognitively demanding behaviors humans perform.
Therefore
If the most complex cognitive behavior humans exhibit (language) is 100% environmentally determined, then:
- Complex behaviors can be entirely environmental
- The assumption that simpler behaviors are "genetic" requires justification
- The burden of proof lies with genetic determinism, not environmental determinism
The Data
From the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census:
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 25,422,788 |
| Born in Australia | 17,019,815 (66.9%) |
| Speak English only at home | 18,303,662 (72.0%) |
Australian-born people speak English. Not because of genetics. Because of environment.
Why This Matters
The double standard
| Domain | Common Assumption |
|---|---|
| Language | "Obviously environmental" |
| Behavior | "Probably genetic" |
Why the difference? If environment can produce language—extraordinarily complex—why assume it cannot produce behavioral patterns?
The Knowledge Distillation Parallel
In machine learning, "knowledge distillation" describes how a simpler model learns to approximate a complex one by observing outputs—without access to internal reasoning.
Children learn similarly:
- They observe caregivers' behavioral outputs
- They approximate those patterns
- They don't access caregivers' internal reasoning
- The learning is implicit, below conscious awareness
Applied to language
A child doesn't consciously analyze grammar rules. They absorb patterns from environmental exposure. By age 5, they speak fluently without explicit instruction.
Applied to behavior
A child doesn't consciously analyze emotional patterns. They absorb patterns from environmental exposure. By adulthood, they respond emotionally in learned ways—often without awareness that these patterns were learned.
What This Suggests
- Default assumption should be environmental: Until proven otherwise, assume complex patterns are learned
- Intervention should target environment: If patterns are learned, they can be re-learned
- Moral judgment may be misplaced: Blaming individuals for "choosing" learned patterns addresses the wrong level
- Prevention > punishment: Improving developmental environments is more effective than punishing outputs
The Point, Simply Stated
If you accept that children learn language from their environment—and this seems so obvious it barely warrants stating—then you should also accept that children learn behavioral patterns from their environment.
We don't punish people for speaking English instead of Japanese. Perhaps we shouldn't punish people for having learned one behavioral pattern instead of another.
See Also
References
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Census of Population and Housing. https://www.abs.gov.au/census