Talk:Dual inheritance theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- It's inaccurate to say "researchers in both fields [meaning sociology and anthropology] often treat culture as a static superorganic entity that dictates human behavior". The only citation is Gintis, and the only reference I can find in his work is on page 2, asserting that both "treat culture in a static manner that belies its dynamic and evolutionary character", which is not the same thing. Additionally, Gintis does not back this assertion up with any evidence or citations. To conform to NPOV standards, I will change this to "evolutionary economist Herb Gintis has argued that..." --76.20.46.30 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would like note and thank Pete Richerson of UCDavis for his help in creating this article. EPM 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
With accordance to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I think this should be moved to dual inheritance theory. Are there any reasons why it should have a long and capitalized name? Also, this needs a lead section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Moving right now. Daniel Case 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I made the article, and I agree that this should be moved to dual inheritance theory. I just moved it!
- This is a very good start, extremely clear, and concise presentation of a complicated field. Covers all the critical points and organizes them in a logical manner -- this is extremely useful for introducing students to this field. Kimhill2 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)