But I do think that this ‘perspective’ (rather than theory, let’s say) is not always the starting point of a lot of other theorizing grounded, or allegedly grounded, in neurological evidence. That is, I think that a lot of neural-based theorizing takes a static brain or a ‘finished’ brain as a starting point, rather than really integrating the constructivist dimensions, the emergent nature of neural structures, into the heart and soul of the theorizing. For example, I think a lot of modularity thinking is incompatible with a basic recognition of the issues that neuroconstructivists are pointing out. Likewise, some approaches to evolutionary psychology are also harder to defend if emergence in brain structure is taken seriously. It’s not just ‘environment affects child’ but the many levels on which these structures are emerging — intercellular relations, modularization (specialization of tissue over time), necessity of sensory input for neural development, as well as the more traditional ‘environmental’ concerns such as parent-child relations, interpersonal environment, language socialization and the like.

That is, I think neuroconstructivism points to a ‘environment-all-the-way-down’ set of concerns, treating ‘environment’ on a spectrum of scales, that forces a consideration of developmental processes. I also think that the Westermann et al. article is probably not as interesting as the books (which I have ordered for our library) because at the general level they’re writing, these points seem very abstract, much like West-Eberhardt’s book on developmental plasticity is especially formidable because of the staggering variety and depth of the examples, rather than the complexity of the central argument.