Talk:Dual inheritance theory

• The pdf linked here has good review of many of the criticisms and critics of DIT - many of which are now in the new "criticisms" section. The "criticisms" section would likely benefit from a distinction between the semantic arguments against DIT (that certain words should or should not be used to explain processes in DIT) and substantive arguments (whether actual processes do or do not occur). http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/HenrichBoydRichersonHumNat08.pdf 67.166.158.234 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I could not find a copy of the Kaufman article online. Though its short abstract seems to be a review of another article cited. 67.166.158.234 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• This theory is highly controversial among social scientists, historians, etc. A "criticsm" section would be very helpful. Unfortunately, while many of the component concepts of dual inheritance theory have been refuted by sociologists and anthropologists, I don't know anyone who's actually written a rebuttal of the theory as a whole. Combining separate, otherwise unrelated critiques in a wikipedia article could constitute original research, so we'd have to find an article specifically adressing it. If anyone knows of somebody who's written on this it would be nice to plug in a section covering the other viewpoints. 85.154.169.140 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• (to above coment) This is also a vast oversimplification of both disciplines. The theories that are currently becoming dominant in anthropology are in direct contradiction to this statement. (See Structure and agency for information on the current debate.) The statement identifying culture as a "superorganic" entity appears to be a direct reference to Alfred Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, which hasn't been the dominant theory in anthropology for over 50 years. It seems to me that "Gentis" or whoever originally wrote this criticism of anthropology and sociology doesn't actually have a background in the disciplines and is arguing primarily from a stereotypical understanding of the fields. I'd go as far as to argue that the presence of these critiques in the article without a proper rebuttal constitutes a bias. 85.154.169.140 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2011 (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)