| Revision as of 09:57, 25 April 2015 editRandykitty (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators122,749 edits →Use of "The phrase" at the beginning of the lead: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:44, 9 May 2015 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Use of "The phrase" at the beginning of the lead: Signed for WeijiBaikeBianji.Next edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| Huh? This article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture." Like the WP:Refers essay states of a different article, it "is not about the words; it is about the theory." Similarly, the Nature versus nurture article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture"; it is about the concept. And that is exactly why the WP:Refers essay applies in this case. Furthermore, this is an academic concept. I'm not interested in heavily disputing this, but having the lead of this article begin with "The phrase," as if this is an article about a phrase, is poor wording. The same goes for the "" wording that was in the article before WeijiBaikeBianji changed it to "The phrase." I'm likely to alert editors at ] to this matter, so that they might weigh in on it. ] (]) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) | Huh? This article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture." Like the WP:Refers essay states of a different article, it "is not about the words; it is about the theory." Similarly, the Nature versus nurture article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture"; it is about the concept. And that is exactly why the WP:Refers essay applies in this case. Furthermore, this is an academic concept. I'm not interested in heavily disputing this, but having the lead of this article begin with "The phrase," as if this is an article about a phrase, is poor wording. The same goes for the "" wording that was in the article before WeijiBaikeBianji changed it to "The phrase." I'm likely to alert editors at ] to this matter, so that they might weigh in on it. ] (]) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| : It might be helpful to define what the field of inquiry is that this article is about. Then it should be easy to fix the lede. I'll look forward to hearing what the active editors who have checked the article sources have to say about that, and I thank Flyer22 for suggesting that we resolve this amicably per Misplaced Pages policy. In the edit that launched this question, I was fixing a problem with yet earlier phrasing, as Flyer22 has kindly noted to establish context. I'm not sure if the editor who put that earlier wording into article text would like to join the discussion, but I would be happy to hear that editor and other involved editors speak up about what to do here. | : It might be helpful to define what the field of inquiry is that this article is about. Then it should be easy to fix the lede. I'll look forward to hearing what the active editors who have checked the article sources have to say about that, and I thank Flyer22 for suggesting that we resolve this amicably per Misplaced Pages policy. In the edit that launched this question, I was fixing a problem with yet earlier phrasing, as Flyer22 has kindly noted to establish context. I'm not sure if the editor who put that earlier wording into article text would like to join the discussion, but I would be happy to hear that editor and other involved editors speak up about what to do here. -- ] (], ]) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::] makes a lot of sense, and I am in agreement. If the article were about the history of the phrase, and the body of the article dealt with subjects such as Shakespeare's The Tempest and rather than heritability and allelic association studies, then "The phrase" would be appropriate. Since the article is about what the phrase refers to, and not the phrase itself, then I think Flyer22 and WP:Refers are correct. Not that I think this is the biggest problem with this article. ] (]) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ::] makes a lot of sense, and I am in agreement. If the article were about the history of the phrase, and the body of the article dealt with subjects such as Shakespeare's The Tempest and rather than heritability and allelic association studies, then "The phrase" would be appropriate. Since the article is about what the phrase refers to, and not the phrase itself, then I think Flyer22 and WP:Refers are correct. Not that I think this is the biggest problem with this article. ] (]) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::I couldn't agree more with Pete, this is trivial stuff compared to the other problems of the article, which contains lots of stuff that doesn't really belong here (like a section on the heritability of IQ as but one example). --] (]) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | :::I couldn't agree more with Pete, this is trivial stuff compared to the other problems of the article, which contains lots of stuff that doesn't really belong here (like a section on the heritability of IQ as but one example). --] (]) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:44, 9 May 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nature versus nurture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Another article for external links section
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/random_noise_in_biology_why_genetically_identical_twins_aren_t_identical.html 74.14.75.158 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Epigenetics
I propose the addition of a section concerning Epigenetics. I have no advanced knowledge of the subject so somebody who has such knowledge should take care of it. --Tco03displays (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
outlived its usefulness
I imposed some tightening on the lead section, which seemed to have accreted some redundancy, especially concerning the concerned "outdatedness" of the "distinction".
In fact, the phrasing I found was
- "the familiar distinction between nature and nurture has outlived its usefulness, and should be retired."
What this means, I assume, is that the purist view of "pure nativism" vs. "pure blank-slatism" is outdated, and not "the familiar distinction".
Interestingly, the expression "nature and nurture" arises not as two opposing concepts, early use almost always concerns "nature and nurture", not "nature vs. nurture", i.e. the recognition of two aspects that conspire to produce the observed result. It is the dichotomy that is outdated, not the "familiar distinction".
This is a roundabout way of admitting that for some decades, there was an almost comically exaggerated "blank-slatist" view widespread in academia, irresponsibly denying the interplay of the two factors which were the very thing intended by the phrase as originally coined. It seems that this ideologised view of the question was prevalent during the 1960s to 1980s; he tipping point probably came in the 1990s, but due to ideological entrenchment it took another decade or so for the reality to sink in. Now, realizing that the establishment had been caught in ideological blank-slatism for 30 years or more there is of course a danger of over-compensating. Indeed it would be a mistake to assume the answer to pure blank-slatism is pure nativism, but I do not think anyone holds such a view, it is important to distinguish positions that are actually held from strawmen views attributed uncharitably. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Back in the mid-70s, my supervisor, with some scorn, told me that the whole nature versus nurture debate was a strawman debate and that the question had been answered long ago. No nature without nurture and the other way around. There's an interesting recent book by Aaron Panovsky (or Panofski, not sure) called Misbehaving Science that at length discusses why human behavior genetics got stuck (and to a large extent still is) in the nature or nurture mindset. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
article scope
I spent some time with the article and noticed the bad shape it is in. Apparently people came here to discuss at lengths topics like Gene–environment interaction, Heritability or Heritability of IQ. These are of course pertinent topics, but they have their own page for a reason. This page is clearly for the discussion of the "nature vs. nurture" debate proper. By this I mean it should not pile up information on pertinent research in the hope the reader will somehow decide how to "answer" this, it should trace the history of notable opinions on the question.
This is basically the history of sociology in the 20th century. In retrospect, it is clear that things went very wrong at some point, at least during the 1920s to 1960s. This can now be presented as a historical topic.
There were endless rambling passages on how "the question is now widely considered obsolete", but this is misleading, because it implies that there were two radical camps and we later-borns have the wisdom to see it was all a false dichotomy. The reality is closer to the situation of one purist camp, forming the majority, and moderate minority camp that held the position that is now mainstream all along. A pure "nativist" position was not to my knowledge held at any point. It is simply too obvious that "nurture" has an influence (but then you would also assume it is also too obvious that "nature" is important but the "there are no instincts" mainstream developed regardless). It was during the hot phase of the dispute that the "moderate" camp was denounced as holding purist nativist views, but as far as I can see this was just straw-manning.
I think I detect some effort by the formerly "blank-slatist" camp to save face by saying "we were both wrong, let's agree the question was badly put and move on". This is when you hear that the very concept of "nature" vs. "nurture" is "meaningless" or "irrelevant. The concepts are not, of course, "meaningless", they are just difficult to unravel, so it took us a century to get there. And lo and behold, both components exist (plus, as with any categories, a fuzzy boundary between them), and they can be quantified, just as the "there is also heritability" camp had always maintained.
In this sense, the "purist blank-slate" position is not now held and thus obsolete. The "purist nativist" position would also be obsolete (but I see no evidence that it was ever held by anyone). The "nature" and "nurture" components are far from obsolete, and it is perfectly usual, these days, to decompose observed variability of some trait in some population into a heritable and a non-heritable component (e.g. as cited in biology and sexual orientation, it is perfectly straightforward, good science to give estimates of correlations such as "genetic effects explain 34%–39% of the variance in sexual orientation, the environment 61%–66%" -- this is open to criticism and haggling over the precise range of figures, but the basic concept, and the general observation that heritable contributions strongly tend to be in the two-figure percentage, or somewhat below half, are perfectly undisputed now -- while in the 1960s or 1970s, a scientist publishing such estimates would have been sacked as a quack or worse).
The discussion of this paradigm change, or series of paradigm changes over the course of the 20th century, is well worth a standalone page, so that actual up-to-date discussions on the specific findings on "heritability of IQ" and "gene–environment interaction" should really go to their dedicated pages.
I realize "gene–environment interaction" is here as an argument to support that the "distinction is meaningless", but if such a position is held explicitly by someone notable, just quote whoever it is without giving a full introductory course on the topic. In fact, "interaction" between two entities does not at all mean that the two entities do not exist or that their separation should be abandoned (very much to the contrary, in fact), so the suggestion that such interaction somehow suggests the question is "obsolete" is misleading to say the least. --dab (𒁳) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Use of "The phrase" at the beginning of the lead
With this edit, I removed "The phrase" from the lead per the WP:Refers essay. Yes, I know that it is a Misplaced Pages:Essay and not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline (that's why I cited it as an essay when making the edit), but it makes sense and a good number of our editors follow it. With this edit, WeijiBaikeBianji returned "The phrase" wording, stating, "I read the essay (which of course is not official Misplaced Pages policy), and the examples there don't fit this case. This article is not about a field of academic study as such."
Huh? This article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture." Like the WP:Refers essay states of a different article, it "is not about the words; it is about the theory." Similarly, the Nature versus nurture article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture"; it is about the concept. And that is exactly why the WP:Refers essay applies in this case. Furthermore, this is an academic concept. I'm not interested in heavily disputing this, but having the lead of this article begin with "The phrase," as if this is an article about a phrase, is poor wording. The same goes for the "contrasting terms" wording that was in the article before WeijiBaikeBianji changed it to "The phrase." I'm likely to alert editors at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style to this matter, so that they might weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to define what the field of inquiry is that this article is about. Then it should be easy to fix the lede. I'll look forward to hearing what the active editors who have checked the article sources have to say about that, and I thank Flyer22 for suggesting that we resolve this amicably per Misplaced Pages policy. In the edit that launched this question, I was fixing a problem with yet earlier phrasing, as Flyer22 has kindly noted to establish context. I'm not sure if the editor who put that earlier wording into article text would like to join the discussion, but I would be happy to hear that editor and other involved editors speak up about what to do here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Refers makes a lot of sense, and I am in agreement. If the article were about the history of the phrase, and the body of the article dealt with subjects such as Shakespeare's The Tempest and rather than heritability and allelic association studies, then "The phrase" would be appropriate. Since the article is about what the phrase refers to, and not the phrase itself, then I think Flyer22 and WP:Refers are correct. Not that I think this is the biggest problem with this article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with Pete, this is trivial stuff compared to the other problems of the article, which contains lots of stuff that doesn't really belong here (like a section on the heritability of IQ as but one example). --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Refers makes a lot of sense, and I am in agreement. If the article were about the history of the phrase, and the body of the article dealt with subjects such as Shakespeare's The Tempest and rather than heritability and allelic association studies, then "The phrase" would be appropriate. Since the article is about what the phrase refers to, and not the phrase itself, then I think Flyer22 and WP:Refers are correct. Not that I think this is the biggest problem with this article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- High-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- High-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles