Talk:Sociobiology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociobiology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Extreme POV in this article

This article is incredibly biased against Wilson, Dawkins, etc (all of which are well respoected in their fields). Someone should redo this article and balance out the criticisms of sociobiology with supporters of the idea. If you were to read this article, you'd think sociobiology was a Eugenics movement - and its not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.81.239 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. This reads like a paper on why sociobiology is bad. Someone with more of a knowledge on the subject than I should redo this page and make it less about criticism and more about description. --Anthropos65 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1

Removed link to Dawkin's article "Race and Creation" because this was to an incomplete copy posted to a racist bulletin board. The original article was published in Prospect magazine.

Hey, I changed the lead to what i feel is more straight forward -- with an emphaisis on the interdisciplinarynature and the applicability regarding all species. Hope y'all agree... -Jeffrey

I removed quite a lot of text concerned with how race might shape society. The removed text was not at all about measurements of social behavior, and correlating those with genetic traits. The theories didn't seem like main-stream theories proven with lots of facts, suitable for an encyclopedia, but more like social speculations or research topics. I also removed a lot of verbiage. If you want to restore the text, it's in the history. I suggest putting it a different article, something like "racial philosophy"

User:Ray Van De Walker

Can someone expand this statement. It looks a bit suspicious.

Sociobiology applies strict mathematical models to animal behavior. Therefore its results are recognized more widely than results of any of previous social or ethological theories.
I think what it's trying to say is that since it uses mathematical models it's taken more seriously by "hard" sciences than its predeccessors...
I agree. But it's still nonsense. That's just a claim put about by (some) sociobiologists to advance their cause. Psychlogists claim that they have the keys to human understanding. Economists know that those other disciplines are hocus-pocus, and only a proper understanding of economics can lead to truth. In reality, of course (as I and my colleagues know for a fact), only history can provide the answers. :) Tannin 11:50 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

If I may paraphrase the two sentences at the start of the third paragraph of the controversy section, it says: Wilson is not an authoritarian, he's an environmentalist!. Obviously many people will know what this means sociologically speaking, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. -- Alan Peakall 17:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We can work on the wording if you wish. The point is that he was criticized for promoting an authoritarian "right wing" agenda. Yet, he himself claims not to be an authoriatarian of any kind, and had no intention of promoting such an agenda. His most coherent political stance is pro-environmental.
Wilson and his admirers countered these criticisms by saying that Wilson had no political agenda, and if he had one it was certainly not authoritarian. (Wilson is an outspoken environmentalist.)
Is there a better way of phrasing that?

Peregrine981 23:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My point is that there is no logical connection being being authoritarian/anti-authoritarian and being environmentalist vs environmentally complacent; of course there is a sociological link. Among right wing sceptics of environmentalist concerns, many are libertarian (which is formally the antonym of authoritarian). Since, in your observation above you introduce the term "right wing" to contextualise the polarity, it would probably suffice to repeat it explicitly in this paragraph. If there is evidence of how people not involved in the controversy placed Wilson on the left/right political spectrum, that would be ideal. Certainly he is right wing in the sense of not being a marxist, but there is plenty of room for in the political spectrum for the non-marxist left.
Assuming that we agree on these points, then maybe something along these lines:
Wilson and his admirers countered these criticisms by denying that Wilson had a political agenda, still less a right wing one. They pointed out that Wilson had personally adopted a number of liberal political stances and had attracted progressive sympathy for his outspoken environmentalism.
-- Alan Peakall 09:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That seems like an excellent revision. I understand the need to clarify the authoritarian/environmentalist comparison. It is true that they are not necessarily opposed, although it seems to me that his opponents basically had a "good/bad" conception of the world in which environmentalists fell firmly into the good side. Thanks for the clarification, it is a much better text now.
--Peregrine981 16:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why group selection is espoused (hugh cringe)?

[edit] Clarify one sentence please

This sentence -

Intelligence is said by some to be about 80% genetic after one matures.

- is confusing. How is something genetic after one matures? Doesn't make sense to me. Can this be rephrased?

Thanks

PB

How about "At least one study has found that intelligence is 80% hereditary and 20% environmental." I am cautiaus to do this without having a reference to the exact study. Jruffatto 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a figure for adults (it's about 45% hereditary in children) in the prevailing conditions of the developed world. The sources can be read here: Intelligence_quotient#Genetics_vs_environment. I'll fix the reference in this article.----Nectar 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett

Should the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea be listed with Dawkins and Steven Pinker? Dennett does describe sociobiology in the book. —Vespristiano 06:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing paragraph

5th graph, under Sociobiological theory, reads:

"Anthropologist Colin Turnbull found another supporting example (described in The Mountain People, 1972) about an African tribe, the "Ik," which he said so lacked altruism that the society lost battles with neighboring tribes. His controversial conclusions raised responses among anthropologists and journalists."

This paragraph needs a lot of explanation. Colin Turnbull's findings were "another supporting example" of what, exactly? Also, what is the connection between altruism and losing battles? Why would a society lacking in altruism lose battles with neighbours? Also, what exactly were his controversial conclusions?

--User:Pariah 05:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memetics

I hope everyone is fine with my minor editing of the last paragraph contasting sociobiology and memetics. Aside from that, doesn't it seem a little odd finishing an article about one thing by denying its connection with another? It seems like memetics steals the scene a bit here, but I could be wrong.Maprovonsha172 29 June 2005 02:49 (UTC)

[edit] Branch of Social Evolutionism

I removed the following line (sic), because I believe it needs clarification.

It is one of the more modern branches of the Social evolutionism theory.

Apart from s/more/most, is Sociobiology really a branch of Social evolutionism? The article on Social Evolutionism doesnt seems to make it clear. And more so, what does it means to be one of the most moderns branches of something? --Abu Badali 13:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Boas

Sociobiology as such has existed since the 1970s. How can Franz Boas have criticized it? It is most certainly not to be identified with Social Darwinism or the racial theories that Boas is well known for debunking. Marshall D. Sahlins wrote a frequently cited, albeit rather flawed, critique of sociobiology; why isn't he mentioned here?

--NakedCelt

Come to think of it, where are Robert Trivers, Frans de Waal, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy? Apart from in the edit I've done? Where's Mary Jane West-Eberhard? All these people are leading sociobiologists. This article seems to confuse sociobiology with genetic determinism, which most sociobiologists today, and West-Eberhard in particular, are strongly set against.

[edit] Philosophy of Natural Science

The article claims the Popper's falsifiablilty criterion is the clear standard by which science is demarcated from pseudoscience. This is not the case: Quine, Putnam, Lakatos and many contemporary philosophers of natural science disagree. The falsifiability criterion must be explained to present the common criticism of sociobiology, but it should not be stated as a hard fact. This from 138.28.21.142 (talk · contribs)

well, of course it's not a "hard fact", it's a method. when i was in school they called it the "scientific method", the testable hypothesis. disciplines lacking this, i was given to understand, are not science, they are something else. the same problem applies to sociology etc., of course, but sociobiology maketh claims to "hardness" of science which seem to my poor eyes to be merely assertions forcefully made, but not falsifiable or provable as these terms are traditionally understood, however many natural philosophers balancing on the head of a pin may say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.40.237 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky quote

I removed the Chomsky quote: "The only interesting question about the fascination with these topics is what function it serves, a question that is -- again -- not too hard to answer."[1] It's not clear to me from reading the article that the quote applies specifically to sociobiology. It seems more likely that he's talking only about correlations between IQ tests and race, since earlier he quotes T.H. Huxley as saying that Kropotkin's equally tenuous sociobiological theories are "important and interesting" or something like that. Then again, I can see both interpretations, so please discuss. If it's clear to everyone else that Chomsky's quote applies to sociobiology, then it's certainly worthy of inclusion. --12.208.117.177 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Anne Campbell link links to a politician's page.

To my reading at least, the Chomsky link is almost entirely irrelevant. Chomsky's mentioned evolutionary psychology elsewhere according to popular rumor, and if anyone wants to dig up where he actually addresses it that would be worthwhile, but the linked article is about (what sounds like) a highly politicized conservative review of sociobiology books and their agenda. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Chomsky disagrees strongly with them and the entire Bell Curve-like quality of the thing. It is, however, also not really relevant to sociobiology itself, at the very least not in the way it's currently mentioned.

If anyone actually wants to include Chomsky, though, my memories of Chomsky mentioning sociobiology and evolutionary psychology amount to the following: Dan Dennet mentioned Chomsky's dismissive opposition during an essay about the sociobiology controversy but said he never went indepth (towards the end here http://bostonreview.net/BR21.5/dennett.html - though, notably, Dennet could be incorrect) and secondly I half-remember Chomsky making a disparaging remark about selfish gene evolution in an interview. No doubt there are others more familiar with Chomsky's writings than I am, and they may be able to find something better. I'm almost tempted to email Chomsky, but I suspect emailing him for clarification on a wikipedia page is both a waste of his time and potentially unlikely to be answered.

If nobody is able to track down something more substantial and my reading of the current reference is correct, however, I really think the Chomsky reference ought to be removed completely.


This is the same person as the edit above- try this reference if anyone wants to quote Chomsky more comprehensively on this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1643

Chomsky seems to take a fair degree of adaptation as basically beneath discussion, which isn't really a surprise. The specifics are probably discernible to those more familiar with his writings, specifically the recent ones. Being not among those, I'm using only net citations. Still, the currently used reference for Chomsky only (to my reading) directly attacks hyper-conservative interpretations of those writings, specifically about sociobiology's direct application to modern social phenomenon and the states of people. I imagine Chomsky- just from what I HAVE read- would want to cut back some of the more ridiculous excesses of sociobiology itself in trying to directly explain things, but I haven't seen that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.37.227 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits / additions by "Dissembly" appear to be negatively biased

There are many errors in this article about what adaptationists do and/or believe. No mention is made of evolutionary exaptations, byproducts, etc. I wish I had the time to correct these errors. Perhaps someone can review Alcock's book "The Triumph of Sociobiology" and include Alock's rebuttals to these criticisms, misunderstandings, and caricatures.

[edit] Origin of the word 'sociobiology'

The claim that the word 'sociobiology' was coined by Wilson is incorrect. The word was coined by John Paul Scott in 1949, during annual paper sessions titled "Animal Behavior and Sociobiology". There was also a Section on Animal Behavior and Sociobiology of the Ecological Society of America started in 1956.

http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABS/Stars/Founders/aboutfounders.html

As a new user I don't want to edit the original page myself, but I think this fact should be mentioned in the article. --Silver Pyrogenesis (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well found! I knew John Paul Scott and he was a very original mind. He should have his own article, at this point the article about John Paul Scott concerns the only prisoner ever to escape from Alcatraz.... Anyway, Silver Pyrogenesis, go ahead and make the change. Make sure to include the reference your provide above. I'll have a look later to see if all went well. Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was in 1946, at a conference on genetics and social behaviour: the reference is given in the OED Online. Ming the Merciless (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of duplicate material from EP

I've redirected the controversy section to Evolutionary psychology controversy since it was essantially a duplicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.132.253 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)