| Revision as of 05:31, 10 August 2014 editWeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,316 edits realigned heading of old comment to avoid formatting error (no change in text)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:36, 11 August 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,170 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:Hereditarianism/Archive 1) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| there's an obvious overlap between the ]s and the hereditarians. someone has probably commented on this. --] 21:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | there's an obvious overlap between the ]s and the hereditarians. someone has probably commented on this. --] 21:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == chomsky == | |||
| whether chomsky would consider himself a hereditarian or not, this article does not tell us: . 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. --] 17:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Two new additions to the "Contemporary hereditarianism" section== | |||
| I just added ] and ]. Check them out and see what you think. ] 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Quote farm == | |||
| too many quotes and not much explanation. Some of the quotes are taken out of context. Unfortunately not much information here. Might even be a good idea to merge into ]. ] (]) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing == | |||
| This article needs more sources. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of ], posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. I'll be adding new sources about genetics (besides the ones already listed) to the page soon. -- ] (]) 14:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pioneer Fund== | ==Pioneer Fund== | ||
| Line 71: | Line 52: | ||
| I think controversial should go back in, the reason doesn't make it any less controversial ] (]) 23:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | I think controversial should go back in, the reason doesn't make it any less controversial ] (]) 23:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Noam Chomsky == | |||
| The article says that Chomsky defends the legitimacy of the Race and Intelligence question, but a paper he wrote makes it seem like he believes quite the opposite: | |||
| :''It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. Likewise, inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ can be justified on any scientific grounds.'' | |||
| http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1978----.htm | |||
| ] (]) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Removed content == | == Removed content == | ||
Revision as of 00:36, 11 August 2014
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)
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)
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. . --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)
Yeah the conservative thing is a lot more complicated than this section makes it out to be, like -Rikurzhen said Chomsky, a social anarchist, could be described as a kind of herditarian because of his universal grammar hypothesis Ultan42 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Pioneer Fund
I changed it from "The controversial Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 is now a leading source of funding for scientists wishing to investigate hereditarian hypotheses." to "The Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 is now a leading source of funding for scientists wishing to investigate hereditarian hypotheses."
The only reason it is controversial is *because* it funds hereditarian research. Readers can always follow the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagliost (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think controversial should go back in, the reason doesn't make it any less controversial Ultan42 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed content
I recently removed the following content:
Hereditarianism is almost universally supported when used to explain physical differences such as skin color, and psychometric differences such as individual differences in IQ.
None of the sources provided are indicative of "almost universal" acceptance of a hereditarianism explanation. The restoring comment suggests that these are reliable sources. However, reliable sources cannot be used to support content which is not in the sources. aprock (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for noting your reasoning for removing this. I think this may be a case which demonstrates the need to provide specific, accurate explanations when removing content. When you deleted this, your explanation was simply, "remove incorrect statement not based on reliable sourcing". Upon seeing that these are, in fact, reliable sources, I restored the content. A specific rationale, as you've now stated ("None of the sources provided are indicative of "almost universal" acceptance of a hereditarianism explanation."), is much more constructive.
- I agree that the phrase "almost universal" is not quite supported by the articles. One states, "This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence. ... The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence." Another makes similar claims. I plan to include these sentiments in the article. — Fishicus (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles Suggestion
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced claims about living persons.
A recent edit listed some living persons (including persons with whom I correspond about research) as "hereditarians," in the sense of this article, without citing any source. That is a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons, so I followed the policy, which says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." An editor has attempted to reinsert that material into the article, still without any source whatever, and I have accordingly deleted all material from that section that refers to living persons. (Some of the persons named in that section of the article are dead.) Misplaced Pages core policy on verifiability asks us to come forward with sources to support our edits, especially edits that make statements about living persons, anywhere in the encyclopedia, so please provide sources for all biographical statements in this article. Meanwhile, I will add some source citations to the article for readers who desire to improve the article or to learn more about the article topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Plomin, R.; Pedersen, N. L.; Lichtenstein, P.; McClearn, G. E. (1994). "Variability and stability in cognitive abilities are largely genetic later in life". Behavior Genetics. 24 (3): 207–15. doi:10.1007/BF01067188. PMID 7945151.
- Bouchard, T.; Lykken, D.; McGue, M; Segal, N.; Tellegen, A (1990). "Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart". Science. 250 (4978): 223–8. Bibcode:1990Sci...250..223B. doi:10.1126/science.2218526. PMID 2218526.
- Gottfredson, Linda S (1997). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence (editorial)" (PDF). Intelligence. 24: 13–23. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)