No.

This notion or belief, and THAT is all it is, no matter what BIG impacts on thinking it has, and no matter what big effects such beliefs have in creating firm limitations on thinking (not even allowing people to think of certain phenomenon). [ In effect such false closures and thinking (and they are there) is a clear sign that something is wrong. ] This all-innate-at-birth-or-in-infancy notion of THE innate factors -- resulting in no real innate guidance thought to come up later in childhood -- and related beliefs (used as "assumptions") is from philosophy and not from ANY good observation and not related good understanding. 'Learning' explanations are given which have NO clearly related direct evidence at all, yet researchers and theorists are satisfied with what they basically just make up (and then attribute to such "self"-functioning of the organism), e.g. the fictions of 'executive' functions and all the "meta's" (a "man" within "the man") OR wild (unsupported and unsupportable) ideas about 'social learning' AND/OR the fictions of literal-supposed "EMBODIMENT" of 'action' giving us our thought -- such pure garbage being a big part of 'explanations'). [

[ Apparently, for higher learning, logic can just pop-up and pop-out when the time/circumstances are right (when earlier learnings have been well-processed); this is apparently where developmental maturation factors ORIGINATE INTERNALLY (!!???), no matter how not-environmentally based the POP-UP logic seems to be in its origin, i.e. NON-EMBEDDED. It is basically hocus-pocus. ]

Old-time philosophers can't "cut it" nowadays.

Because of these 'garbage' beliefs, we cannot differentiate different [levels of] learning -- this resulting in not defining or understanding learning well at all.

So many things work better and are seen in more understandable ways IFF one can see fundamental qualitative shifts in behavioral [response] patterns occurring (even if the beginnings of such behavior pattern changes are kind of simple and caused by seemingly simple CHANGES in VERY basic behavior patterns -- that works!). I am at the point where I basically do not need to listen much to people that think learnings are all basically the same and completely ubiquitous, operating in an "uninterrupted" way. (And, don't talk to me about "social" and "cultural" factors BECAUSE the individual organism clearly remains the "unit of analysis" and center of ALL true understanding -- if there is no account with the individual, there is NO accounting at all.)

Hey, graduate students: if you buy all the "crap", you are "tools".

[ P.S. Note how "innate action patterns" (or anything meaning that) are not even topics here on researchgate. Come on, people ]