The Tabla Rasa is a behaviorist theory which was one of the first, it has also been introduced into the developmental side of psychology. According to Locke (cited from Developmental psychology) the Tabla Rasa is the ‘blank slate’ that children are born with. He suggested that children have no inborn tendencies so, in other words they are not born inherently good or bad. How a person turns out along with their; abilities, knowledge, behaviours and motives are acquired through experiences. Freud also believed that the experiences we have during our childhood affects us deeply in our adulthood, this can support the theory of the Tabla Rasa. A clear strength of this theory is that it has high face validity which means that it makes logical sense, that we learn from our experience’s in life.
Psychological theories work by using falsifiability to disprove a theory or an approach which Pooper (1963) believed. From this the researcher will try to prove the null hypothesis, if this is done then the theory is considered incorrect and is then changed or disregarded. If a theory is not falsified then it continues with the goal of providing supporting evidence. The Tabla Rasa theory cannot be falsified as it cannot be tested. This leaves the big question is this a scientific theory? If it is not a scientific theory should it still have a place within psychology? There is a fine line as to whether people few psychology as a science or a pseudoscience.
Referring back to my title there are many different studies and approaches which support the theory of the Tabla Rasa however, the theory itself lacks any evidence and cannot be tested. It is also very reductionist as it fails to take into account any other factors such as genetics which may contribute to how a person turns out. As you can see there are some easy to spot limitations.
To some up there is supporting evidence of this theory but whether or not the theory itself actually a science is another thing.
References;
Popper, K., (1934). Logic of scientific discovery, UK: Routledge.
Shaffer, D. R & Kipp, K., ( 2007). Developmental psychology. USA: Knight.
codysview 
Considering the Tabula Rasa theory was developed by psychologists within the behaviourist approach, one which rejected the psychodynamic approach for being too subjective and lacking empirical studies, one might consider the tabula rasa theory to have some empirical evidence and be objective. J. Watson believed strongly in the idea that we are all born with a clean slate, suggesting that he could take any infant and make them into any selected specialist. Watsons ‘Little Albert’ experiment saw him condition a little boy to be afraid of a white rat (and alternatively many things white, such as; a rabbit and men in white coats (e.g, doctors)). Watson taught ‘little Albert’ to be afraid of a white rat by presenting him with loud noises every time he saw the rat (Gleitman, Gross, Reisberg, 2010). His experiment presents evidence which supports the tabula rasa theory that we are born with clean slates and we do learn from our environment. However, like you mentioned there is no evidence to suggest the tabula rasa theory truly exists. There are many contradicting theories within the various 6 perspective in the field of psychology. The tabula rasa theory is one which is not falsifiable but has been disputed by psychologists for years. We as psychologists should understand that we must evaluate any given information before drawing conclusions, hence we should evaluate research to determine, for us, whether we are born with clean slates.
I think that the studies you included are very good but it is difficult to see the point you are putting across. Another limitation that you may add is that this theory is reductionist as it fails to take other factor such as genetics into account. It is also a very simplistic theory because we are not as basic, as a blank slate, instead we develop our own personalities. If this theory was correct then children who have the same experiences would turn out the same in their adulthood. We know by looking at both MZ and DZ twin studies that this does not happen, each twin will have slight differences.
There is a lot of evidence to support the Tabula Rasa theory because even when you look at case studies like Genie who without being socialised and taught how to develop never learnt how to be human because she was isolated which supports the idea of being a blank slate because if we were not Genie would have been able to develop by herself. However because this is a case study you could argue you don’t know cause and effect because Genie could have suffered from mental problems which could affect how she learnt. However there are other studies such as “Little Albert” who was conditioned to fear and Pavlov dogs who were conditioned to realise when a bell was rung they associated it with food
by linking the studies of conditioning into your comment I think that you have made a very strong argument. There is one thing I must disagree with and that is using Genie as supporting evidence. She was abused by her parents as well as neglected which could have a huge impact on why she failed to develop certain skills. Genie may not have developed as a normal child however she did understand the basic requirements needed for survival. Therefore this case has many factors that should be considered.
There is evidence though from the biological side that we are born with are tendencies for behaviour. It shows how characteristics can be passed on through genes to generations. Lorenz ‘when individuals of the same species all exhibit the same behaviour that behaviour must be largely inherited’. This however can also be argued that we were not born with the genes to develop that potential behaviour but learnt it through are environment by watching role models and imitating them as Bandura stated. There is evidence though in twins studies that have been reared apart that they display similar behaviours which does not support the tabula rasa theory and suggests we are not born as a blank slate.
Throughout the second half of the 20th century the prevailing thought was that humans were born with a blank state of personality. Recently the scientific reasoning has swung to a middle ground (in terms of nature vs nurture). Studies involving both identical and non identical twins have highlighted that many aspects of behaviour are highly inheritable and examination of DNA has uncovered some of the genes responsible. Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness, for example, is highly heritable.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200905/is-happiness-heritable-and-if-so-heritable-whom
A lot of evidence to support the Tabla Rasa theory can be found in animal research, as ethical boundaries are less restricting. I will focus on animal studies relating to formation of sight. Riesen (1950) found that chimps raised it complete darkness could see size shapes and colours but they were unable to differentiate between patterns and had no perception of depth. This suggests that more intricate forms of sight are learned not inherited. Blakemoor and Cooper (1970) reared kittens in environments made up of lines of one orientation (either horizontal or vertical lines). Resulting from this the kittens appeared to be unable to see lines orientated oppositely to the stripes in their previous environments. For example a kitten raised in horizontal lines would often walk into table legs, despite being able to see stairs.
These both support the theory of Tabla rasa as they demonstrate how important early like experiences are on aspects of life often taken for granted like sight (obviousily exluding medical reasons). However as you’ve said it is not simply enough to have evidence, a theory must be falsifiable.
Sorry *early life experiences, and *excluding medical reasons
The studies you have provided in your comment provides supporting evidence for the theory of the Tabla Rasa. However, I would like to point out that the use of animals in research experiments is highly unethical as animal subjects do not have the right to withdraw and cannot give consent. You referred to Cooper (1970) study on kittens which has many limitations as the use of animals cannot be applied to the general population as they are structured differently than humans, so can not be compared.
The concept of the Tabula Rasa is a very strong concept within philosophy, certainly within the concept of the soul and of personhood, presuming that when we are born we necessarily know nothing about anything is logically more than acceptable, we can’t expect that which has no experiences or knowledge to have any current preferences as it has nothing to prefer. Therefore you can see that the concept of the tabula rasa is a decent one, and many (including myself) accept that this is most likely the way things are. However you could also go on to say that from the moment of birth the baby will instantly start experiencing and therefore creating some form of preference; if only for the time being. Thereon we can say that the concept of tabula rasa is a metaphorical theme which runs through with the idea of birth, but following this point the tabula rasa is instantly wrote upon.
I agree with some of the points that you have made. The theory of the Tabla Rasa does have high face validity which means that it makes sense that we learn from our experiences and form in adulthood based on our childhood experiences. Freud held strong beliefs that who we are in adulthood is a result of our childhood, this can be used as supporting evidence for the Tabla Rasa theory. One major area that you have failed to mention in your comment is any criticisms or limitations. For example this theory is reductionist and fails to take biological factors into consideration. The theory is also too simplistic as many people will have the same life experiences but will form different personalities during adulthood, this can be seen by looking at family history studies, adoption studies and twin studies.
I agree with the tabula rasa theory. You gain experience as you develop by observing certain characteristics. I don’t however believe that this is what entirely shapes your personality. There are Biological factors that must not be ignored, for example whether you have an excess amount of dopamine which may have an impact on your mental state or whether you posess the serotonin chemical which impacts your eating habits.