Few questions in science are as controversial as human nature. At stake is whether our basic concepts and emotions are all learned from experience, or whether some are innate. Here, I demonstrate that reasoning about innateness is biased by the basic workings of the human mind.

Psychological science suggests that newborns possess core concepts of “object” and “number”. Laypeople, however, believe that newborns are devoid of such notions, but that they can innately recognize emotions. Moreover, people presume that concepts are learned, whereas emotions (along with sensations and actions) are innate.

I trace these beliefs to two tacit psychological principles: intuitive Dualism and Essentialism. Essentialism guides tacit reasoning about biological inheritance and suggests that innate traits reside in the body; per intuitive Dualism, however, the mind seems ethereal, distinct from the body. It thus follows that, in our intuitive psychology, concepts (which people falsely consider as disembodied) must be learned, whereas emotions, sensations and emotions (which are considered embodied) are likely innate; these predictions are in line with the experimental results.

In this talk, I demonstrate how these intuitive biases taint our understanding of human nature, derail science, and quite possibly, give rise to the “hard problem” of consciousness.