Talk:Hereditarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] middle position
A middle position argues that an organism inherits only alleles, and that the interaction of alleles with environment creates phenotypes.
This should not necessarily be called a middle position. See Nature versus nurture. There are instances where it is obviously wrong (Nature_vs_nurture#Uncomplicated_cases).
So, we should reword that. --Rikurzhen 20:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] scope
the scope of hereditarianism is broader than intelligence, and it could be called a side in the nature vs nurture debate. for example, personality is a stronger case for the hereditarian position than intelligence is. Also, people like Steven Pinker or Noam Chomsky could be classified as hereditarians. --Rikurzhen 21:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] conservative
According to analysis by Nicolas Pastore, hereditarians tend to be conservative. This section should be expanded considerably.
Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate devotes a chapter to this idea. Peter Singer wrote a book on the subject: Peter Singer, A Darwinian Left, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999. [ISBN 0300083238]. --Rikurzhen 21:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- You are more familiar with the texts than I. Feel free to add whatever you consider relevant. I'm merely trying to fill in a lot of gaps contributing to the POV issue so we can get back to race and intelligence at some point with some citations that will balance out the article. That means writing a bunch of biographies and improving the historical overview.
- Also took a crack at "middle position," but feel free to clarify that, too. Jokestress 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Cool... I'm just leaving notes because I'll forget otherwise. --Rikurzhen 21:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] neo-Darwinians
there's an obvious overlap between the neo-Darwinians and the hereditarians. someone has probably commented on this. --Rikurzhen 21:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] chomsky
whether chomsky would consider himself a hereditarian or not, this article does not tell us: [1]. chomsky is (in many cases rightly) pointing out misinterpretations or alternative interpretations of conclusions made by other hereditarians, but not in such as a way as he would agree with an anti-hereditarian.
chomsky defended sociobiology at a time when it was fashionable for all liberal thinking academics to disclaim it. that, and his theories on language, put him somewhere other than the behaviorist camp. if you consider hereditarianism to be "not behaviorism" then chomsky is in. if you have a definition of a "true" hereditarian, (or a "true" anything) then the very contarian Chomsky will probably not fit that defintion. --Rikurzhen 17:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two new additions to the "Contemporary hereditarianism" section
I just added human behavioral ecology and dual inheritance theory. Check them out and see what you think. EPM 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
