Talk:Racial memory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Similar concepts
Racial memory, genetic memory, collective unconscious, and morphic resonance are similar (but not necessarily the same) concepts). This article is in need of some referent or source citations, as noted therein.
Some scientific research in the field has yielded evidence re: genetic memory. I will supply some examples when I can get to it. --Blainster 21:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- It would probably be best to leave out reference to James V. McConnell's work on planarians (flatworms), since his results were not perfectly reproducible. RJCraig 05:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV and weaselspeak
I am adding an NPOV tag to this article because I'm not seeing much scientific skepticism. So far, there are a lot of weasel terms like "it has been hypothesized" and not a lot of actual, reliable references as far as the pro-racial-memory arguments go. The POV that racial memory may be pseudoscientific is given only a cursory "this hasn't been scientifically proven" for representation. We should look for some articles that attempt to debunk racial memory and add that POV with references because, as it is, the article does not adequately convey that the theory of genetic or racial memory is controversial. --InformationalAnarchist 7 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
- yeah its a big problem. I've tried some editing on it, but i can't alter the supposed 'biological proofs'section as its not my field, and i don't know the survey used. Perhaps the theory of how the brain is 'wired'could be enhanced? Pydos 15:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) signing off.
[edit] Scientology
Inspired by the discussion on 'weaselspeak' I added 'scientology'...the ultimate in tenuous logic (yes i know its a religion...and non have proof. I'm not being POV here) Pydos 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Race Memory
I think we should add Race Memory to 'racial Memory' assuming we can make this NPOV. Informationalanarchist has a point here about how it how it fails to show just how controversial the theory is - perhaps after the merge that could be resolved. Pydos 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- The merge does mention that that genetic memory has "no scientific evidence" to support it, which is good, but the result of the merge is an apparent dichotomy between racial and generic memory, and there's a lot of repetition now. This needs to be cleaned up before we can clarify the discussion, and we need to be clear on whether the more usual term for the concept is "racial memory" or "genetic memory." This means that we need to discuss some changes here and figure out re-directs and re-writes to make the merge smooth. I'm going to throw a cleanup tag on the article for that purpose. --InformationalAnarchist 03:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jungian example in Racial Memory section
Consider, Jungians argue, an individual with a fear of heights. Racial memory would suggest that perhaps this individual's genetic ancestors met a dastardly fate due to a fall; ergo, this "racial memory" of the danger of heights causes the individual to fear them.
Um...unless I'm missing something, how would an individual who met a "dastardly fate" (ignoring the question of how falling to one's death is treacherous or cowardly) manage to have any descendants? Isn't there a better example than this? RJCraig 07:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
So, does anyone which of Jung's work discusses racial memory. I'd like to give it a read. This article explains the idea using a Darwinian evolutionary model, which I don't think is correct. (That is to say that my understanding is that Racial Memory is non-Darwinian by nature, not that I think that Darwinian evolution is an incorrect concept.) --Dwcsite 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious?
- In order for racial/genetic memory to be amenable to scientific study, it must be assumed to involve a physical representation or process. Transmission of this information from one generation to the next brings the topic within the province of genetics. The only way Darwinian evolution can be irrelevant is if it can be shown that the information is passed on in "junk DNA" and that this DNA is not subject to normal selectional constraints. RJCraig 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Having read Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, I think this article is unfair in it's representation. Jung merely makes a case that some psychological aspects are univerally held and, being common to modern man, have some basis in being inherited. He most certainly does not make suppositions about what this mechanism is. How can one debunk a mechanism that is undeclared? There is no citation on the Jungian section, and I will hopefully find some time to put together a more conclusive and cited piece of the article. Athemeus 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite suggestions
Wouldn't the "Hypothetical biological explanations" section be better placed under "Genetic Memory"? How about adding a section entitled "(Purported) Examples" to collect/list the phenomena which are cited in support of the idea? (Or would the use of "purported" be POV?) The more I read this, the worse it seems; is a total rewrite out of the question? (Unfortunately, I am neither a genetic biologist or psychologist.) RJCraig 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
~ Maybe "Hypothetical causal mechanisms" since there is no scientifically validated mechanism that would explain the causation required by this, or any other lamarkian evolutionary process. --Dwcsite 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source?
"others have claimed to have observed the action of genetic memory in the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos who have demonstrated the abilities of their ancestors (such as using a rock to open nuts) even when isolated from them without the opportunity for direct learning."
This seems to similar to to this hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey
[edit] Lamarckism and Possible Merge
Added a more skeptical tone to this article by putting in the appropriate references to Lamarckism. I've added the "merge with Lamarckism" tag at the top of the page because I think it's important to note that this is merely a new age pseudoscience rebranding of something that's already been largely (though not fully) discredited in science.
Coricus 10:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Paragraph
Just thought I'd drop a note to say that I removed the word "discredited" from the first paragraph because it seems largely redundant (given that the following paragraphs describe how it is discredited) and slightly POV (the emphasis that it gives is very perjorative). Good luck with the rest of the article. --84.64.93.157 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use of The Term 'Race'
This itself is controversial. One can argue that Michael Lewontin has proven that there is no such thing as 'race' or biological sub-species in modern living humans. There is not enough genetic variation to speak of subspecies.
If they are 'ancestral memories', why call them 'race memories'? That seems very archaic.
