This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joe Roe(talk | contribs) at 10:09, 15 April 2016(tagged and assessed for WPCE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 10:09, 15 April 2016 by Joe Roe(talk | contribs)(tagged and assessed for WPCE)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cultural Evolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cultural EvolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionTemplate:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionCultural Evolution
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science
Criticism
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.pdf67.166.158.234 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
The following sentence appears in that part of the Criticism section which relates to the need for DIT to show that cultural inheritance is "sequestered" by the biotic genome:
"Why this is a demand of critics, however, can be considered unclear as it refutes none of the central claims laid down by proponents of DIT."
The statement appears illogical. I cannot see that critics are in any way obliged to refute chosen predicates or claims in order for their criticism to be valid. Valid criticism can relate to inferred or subordinate predicates/theories/constructs etc. or to the constructs of the predicates or claims themselves. Surely whether DIT proponents consider this sequestering relevant to the theory or not, determines neither whether others see it in the same way nor the validity of that dissenting opinion. I would like to simply delete the sentence or else would appreciate someone demonstrating the logical fallacy here. LookingGlass (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the article, and I agree that this should be moved to dual inheritance theory. I just moved it!
a very good start
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)[reply]
The cultural evolution part of this should be split off into its own article, and the DIT article should discuss only those processes and findings related to the interaction between biological and cultural evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.137.201 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Biocultural evolution" seems to simply be a synonym for gene-culture coevolution/dual inheritance theory. I suggest we merge that article into this. joe•roet•c19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG?lang=en){kind=small}
