Neuroconstructivism: How Genes, the Brain, and Culture Shape Human Development

Introduction: Constructivism, Life, and Cognition

Researchers agree that human evolution has been shaped by the interaction of genes, the brain, and culture. Biologists use genetic models to show that cultural processes can profoundly influence human evolution, while anthropologists study cultural practices that alter natural selection. The concept of neuroconstructivism clarifies how genes, neurons, and the environment are interconnected, how they influence cognitive development, and why some disorders can be seen not only as the result of pathological processes but also as normal adaptations to atypical constraints.

It is well established in science that human nature is influenced by a combination of neurobiological and sociocultural factors. This is supported by recent analyses of human genetic variability, which show that hundreds of genes have undergone positive selection, often in response to human activity. This interaction is evident not only in human evolution (phylogeny) but also in the development of each individual (ontogeny).

What processes—from conception to adulthood—allow a single cell to become a thinking adult? Any attempt to answer this question requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining data from cognitive research, neurobiology, genomics, and neuroimaging. This approach is called neuroconstructivism, which presents a holistic view of human cognitive development as a living system, from genes to culture. Neuroconstructivism explores the multi-level process of transforming genetic traits and neural features of the brain into social forms of behavior. The theoretical foundation of this approach is constructivism—one of the most influential research paradigms in modern science, represented by figures such as P. Watzlawick, H. von Foerster, E. von Glasersfeld, G. Rott, and Z. Schmidt.

The main tenets of constructivism are:

• Knowledge does not reflect the external world “as it is.” Human cognition deals not with objective reality, but with models of reality. Constructivists challenge the possibility of achieving objective knowledge. What matters is our experience of interacting with the world, not “objective” knowledge expressed in verbal representations.
• Knowledge is inseparable from the subject of cognition. Cognition is the construction of reality, created by people. Thus, knowledge is embedded in our structure of experience, shaped by cognitive schemas of perception and action.
• Knowledge is defined not by the truth of our representations, but by their viability. The result of cognition is not objectivity, but adaptation to the environment. Adaptive cognitive schemas enable an organism to adjust to its world and make survival possible.
• A living being is an organizationally closed but informationally open system, capable of self-organization and self-regulation. The viability of an organism depends on its ability to maintain its own balance in response to environmental changes. The human brain, in particular, is an autonomous cognitive system determined only by its internal states.

Constructivism asserts that cognition is the ability to adapt to environmental conditions. Cognition adapts experience so that it matches the organism’s abilities. For example, a gorilla seeing its reflection in a mirror for the first time appears puzzled and interested, but after getting used to it, ignores it, no longer perceiving it as a rival.

For humans, the process of self-regulation is aimed at constructing a coherent and consistent system of concepts (cognitively) and at survival (biologically). Cognitive ability is seen as adaptation to the perceived world, and its realization as constructing survival-appropriate patterns of thought and action. To know is to be able to act effectively to maintain one’s existence in the environment. Therefore, the criterion of truth is successful action.

A living system develops within its own cognitive domain (niche), where it interacts with the world. Based on previous experience, it can predict possible interactions with the environment and adjust its behavior accordingly. The cognitive domain includes interaction with both internal states and the external environment. Thus, living systems are cognitive systems, and life is cognition in the broad sense. In this sense, we cannot claim to know anything independently of our experience interacting with the environment.

Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela developed the concept of autopoiesis—a process of self-regulation in which an organism’s activity changes depending on its interaction with the environment and, in turn, affects the environment. This explains why we can recover from severe stress, focus on specific things without being distracted by everything, learn new things, and change our preferences. In other words, we can both maintain the constancy of our internal states (homeostasis) and move along chosen developmental trajectories in response to environmental conditions.

The Concept of Neuroconstructivism and Human Cognitive Development

The connection between life and cognition in humans can be described as a multi-level, self-adjusting system that includes the brain, genes, learning, and social behavioral experience. For many years, cognitive science was dominated by the idea that the human cognitive system is like a toolbox with specific functional modules that can be activated or damaged independently of other innate modules. The neuroconstructivist approach states that genes, the brain, behavior, and the environment interact in multiple directions throughout the lifespan. The interaction of genes and the environment, and especially ontogeny, play a vital role in how the brain gradually shapes and specializes itself over time.

Cognitive psychologists Denis Mareschal, Gert Westermann, and others describe the mechanism of specialized brain development in terms of constraints. The formation of mental representations (i.e., thinking) is sequentially determined by context at five interconnected levels (genetic, cellular, brain, bodily, and social), each of which imposes limiting influences on individual development. Above all, the development of cognitive abilities is influenced by the interaction of genes and the organism’s behavior in the external environment.

Genes and Epigenesis

The traditional view of gene function holds that there is a one-way flow of causality from genes (DNA) to inherited behavioral traits. From this perspective, development is the gradual unfolding of information programmed in the genome. However, new research shows that genes can be activated by both the environment and behavioral factors. Moreover, these changes in genes can then affect the environment, creating a causal loop in which genes influencing the environment are themselves influenced by external factors.

Scientists describe a bidirectional interaction from genes to organism development and further to behavioral experience in the socio-natural environment, and back. Our genetics are regulated by signals from both the external and internal environment. This process is called probabilistic epigenesis, meaning that human development depends on environmental conditions and personal experience, not just genetic programming. Patterns of our behavior are caused not by biology or environment alone, but by the relationship between them. Epigenetic factors such as diet, obesity, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, environmental pollutants, psychological stress, or night shift work shape our lifestyle, which is recorded in our genes. Thus, epigenetic effects participate in the evolution of the organism alongside genetic factors.

One of the most well-known examples of an epigenetic effect is lactose tolerance influenced by a cultural factor (dairy farming). Most people lose the ability to digest lactose in childhood, but in some populations, lactase activity (the enzyme that helps digest milk) persists into adulthood. The frequency of the lactase gene (LCT) depends on cultural practices. Lactose tolerance is common among Northern Europeans and cattle herders in Africa and the Middle East, but almost absent elsewhere. The link between dairy farming and lactose tolerance is a proven example of the co-evolution of genes and culture.

Another well-known example is the FOXP2 gene, mutations in which cause language impairments. Only four FOXP2 mutations are found in the evolutionary tree of mice, macaques, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, two of which occur in the evolutionary line leading to humans, suggesting positive selection. One interpretation is that this selection led to changes in FOXP2, which in turn was a necessary step in the development of speech. However, the gene may also have been favored for other reasons, such as song learning or lung development. In light of new scientific data, natural selection is complemented by cultural selection: genetic changes can be subject to cultural selection.

Cellular Context (“Encellment”)

At the level of cellular interactions, the neural system is key. Mental representations are formed by the mutual adaptation of neural activity (experience) and the underlying structure of neural connections (constraints). This structure influences neural activity, which, in turn, modifies the organization of neural networks. For example, if a part of the brain is damaged (such as from a stroke or traumatic brain injury), signal activity is redistributed among other groups of neurons, allowing not only the preservation of conscious experience but also its modification through changes in neural network morphology.

The neural system’s ability to self-repair is called neuroplasticity, which describes the brain’s adaptability under the influence of experience. The brain is constantly changing in response to the environment, weakening and strengthening neural connections. This process occurs throughout life, although there are periods of heightened sensitivity to change (such as during maturation, when neural networks are most adaptable to new experiences). However, plasticity decreases with age, making learning more difficult as we get older.

Brain Context (“Embrainment”)

At the level of neural interactions, intracerebral processes are involved. The brain consists of functional areas that mutually influence each other’s development. The properties of these functional areas are highly context-dependent and are limited by interactions with other brain regions through feedback processes. Some regions can take over the functions of others if neural pathways are damaged. For example, brain areas that usually process visual information in sighted people can assume different functions in the absence of visual input. In people blind from an early age, the area of the cortex activated by reading Braille corresponds to the primary visual cortex in sighted individuals. In other words, the blind “see” through touch. Thus, the development of functional brain areas occurs through their interactive specialization in response to experiential stimulation.

Bodily Context (“Embodiment”)

At the level of cognitive development, anatomy and physiology of the body are involved. The mind exists within the body, which itself is embedded in the physical and social environment. The body acts as a filter for information from the environment, so the senses strongly limit the construction of mental representations. For example, limited visual acuity and motor control reduce an infant’s sensory experience. As physical constraints lessen, the perceived complexity of the environment increases, leading to more complex representations.

However, the body is not just a filter for external information but also a means of acting on the environment, thereby creating new sensations (activating not only sensory but also motor responses). For example, even newborns intentionally move their hand into a beam of light, resulting in a glowing spot on the limb, which is not visible until the hand is moved into the right position. The joy the infant feels upon seeing the light spot closes the feedback loop between the infant and the environment (perceiving light – moving the hand – reinforcing the experience with joy). As children grow, they use increased mobility and sensorimotor coordination to explore and manipulate their environment, generating more sensory experiences, which in turn leads to the construction of more complex representations. Thus, proactivity in exploring the environment is the foundation of cognitive development: a child does not passively absorb information but chooses the experiences from which they learn.

Social Context (“Ensocialment”)

The external environment (both physical and social) strongly constrains the emergence of neural representations in a child by offering specific ways of perceiving. This is especially true for social aspects of development. It has long been established that the relationship between mother and child greatly influences the development of attachment, emotional expression, and social and cognitive development. Another example: six-month-old infants can distinguish about 800 vowel and consonant sounds. By one year, this range narrows to 40, and these are only the sounds of their native language. Apparently, “canalization” (restriction) of perceptual potential occurs under the influence of the sociocultural environment.

Thus, these constraints shape the neural structures that support the foundation of constructed experience. We see a cyclical interaction: gene activity – neural structures – cognitive functions – behavioral experience. “The activity and composition of genes depend on the nature of the environment (including culture), and the environment gradually changes as a result of the activities of an increasing number of carriers of these gene activities.”

The determination of neural structures in the brain, and thus mental representations, comes from both inside (genes) and outside (environment). Therefore, this determination is both neurobiological and sociocultural.

In Summary: Neuroconstructivism

The main principle of this approach is the context-dependence of cognitive experience. The formation of neural structures that generate mental representations is highly dependent on the context in which these structures develop. Development is constructed by contexts at each of the five levels of constraints discussed above.

The essence of development is the progressive increase in complexity and specialization of cognitive activity. With each choice within the context of constraints, further developmental potential is limited, forming an individual history of acquired experience. The result of a child’s development is proactivity (independence in exploring the environment) and increasing specialization of representations (canalization of experience).

This is clearly demonstrated by atypical developmental constraints, which distort the normal trajectory of cognitive development. Atypical development is the result of adaptation to distorted constraints (for example, an aggressive social environment). Such “incorrect” adaptation leads to various disorders and developmental features (autism, dyslexia, etc.).

Thus, the concept of neuroconstructivism shows that developmental disorders arise not from damage to normal cognitive systems, but from developmental processes adapting to atypical constraints. From this perspective, both pathological and normal development can be characterized as adaptation to a set of interacting constraints, with the only difference being that the constraints are different. These atypical constraints then lead to different outcomes through the same processes of experience formation.

References

1. Bazhanov V.A. Brain – Culture – Society: The Kantian Program in Cognitive Research. Moscow: Kanon+, 2019. 288 p.
2. Knyazeva E.N. Enactivism: A New Form of Constructivism in Epistemology. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives: University Book, 2014. 352 p.
3. Maryutina T.M. Neuroconstructivism – A New Paradigm in Developmental Psychophysiology? // Modern Foreign Psychology. 2014. Vol. 3, No. 4. pp. 132-143.
4. Maturana H., Varela F. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2001. 223 p.
5. Alegría-Torres J.A., Baccarelli A., Bollati V. Epigenetics and lifestyle // Epigenomics. 2011. Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 267-277.
6. Dekker T.M., Karmiloff-Smith A. The dynamics of ontogeny: a neuroconstructivist perspective on genes, brains, cognition and behavior. In: Progress in Brain Research, Ed. by O. Braddick, J. Atkinson, G.M. Innocenti. Vol. 189, 2011, pp. 23-33.
7. Forest D. (2014) Neuroconstructivism: A Developmental Turn in Cognitive Neuroscience? In: Wolfe C.T. (eds) Brain Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
8. Friston, K.J., & Price, C.J. Dynamic representations and generative models of brain function // Brain Research Bulletin, 2001. 54 (3), 275-285.
9. Holden, C. & Mace, R. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults // Human Biology. 1997. 69(5). pp. 605-628.
10. Neuroconstructivism. Volumes I & II / D. Mareschal, M.H. Johnson, S. Sirois, M. Spratling, S.C. Thomas, G. Westermann. 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 576 p.
11. Staes, N., Sherwood, C.C., Wright, K. et al. FOXP2 variation in great ape populations offers insight into the evolution of communication skills // Scientific Reports. 2017. 7, 16866. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16844-x
12. Laland Kevin N., Odling-Smee John and Myles Sean. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together // Nature Reviews Genetics. 2010. vol. 11, pp. 137-148