Talk:E. O. Wilson

	This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

DONE!

For now...Pinkerite (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Whoohoo Bronze!Pinkerite (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

SILVER! Shiny! Pinkerite (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Time for mainspace?

This is already one of the largest articles on RW by character count. Perhaps it's time to move it to mainspace? Bongolian (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm coming into the home stretch - I still have to complete the criticisms of Sociobiology etc. Although perhaps that should be a separate article. In which case I'm done except for cleanup and tying up some loose ends.Pinkerite (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

OK I decided to leave that section, but not expand on it as I had planned. Although I will eventually add a section on Behavioral Genetics. Currently RatWiki has pretty good to excellent articles related to the subject and it might be best to provide references to them. Now it's time to review and clean up what I have - I let a lot of proper formatting issues fall by the wayside in the rush to get all the content up.Pinkerite (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguably the forerunner of evolutionary psychology?

The consensus, which includes Wilson, appears to be that sociobiology is the forerunner to evolutionary psychology. Anybody have an issue if I change that "arguably"? Pinkerite (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If there's a citation that supports that claim, then fine. The Wikipedia page does not seem so conclusive though it does cite Sociobiology as a key part in its development. Bongolian (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

" Sociobiology preceded and developed into evolutionary psychology" - Encyclopedia.com Pinkerite (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

" it brings together writers from the natural and social sciences who take aim at the claims of evolutionary psychology (as sociobiology has become) " Pinkerite (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You can go ahead and change it. I simply phrased it a bit guardedly because I hadn't read enough to feel sure. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinkerite (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There may be a modern consensus about sociobiology as establishing the elements of evolutionary psychology. That may be legitimate when viewed as a movement. Chapter 7 of On the Origin of Species (1859), was devoted to “Instinct.” In several later books, e.g., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) and The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), Darwin extended his discussion of the evolution of behavior which maps directly onto some modern concepts of psychology. So, one can anchor EP directly to the work of Darwin. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not whether sociobiology is an antecedent of evolutionary psychology, which it is, but whether it is the only immediate antecedent, which I'm not convinced is the case. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to link Wilson's "sociobiology" with Tooby/Cosmides "evolutionary psychology." And I think Myers is right that basically the Tooby/Cosmides branded evolutionary psychology ignores most of evolutionary theory to focus on adaptation to its great detriment. Pinkerite (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Formatting questions

How do I get those info tags to pop up when you hover over links and references? I tried copying formatting from other articles that have that capability but that doesn't seem to do it - is there a trick to that?Pinkerite (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's because it's a draft and not a mainspace article yet. I compared my article (Jack Idema) which does have pop-up infoboxes with a draft, (Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential nomination), and that doesn't have pop-ups showing up either. Carthage (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, very good - thanks. Pinkerite (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Anybody know what the deal is with the references formatting? The columns are out of order, and sometimes the text slides under the header or footer - at first I thought it was just me but I see it happens in other entries. Pinkerite (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

OK I fixed the column order issue by making it two columns instead of four. But there's still sliding under the header/footer. Has this never come up before? Pinkerite (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The sliding thing appears to be a browser issue - it does slide with Safari, but not Chrome.Pinkerite (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Southern Gentleman

Dear Sir or Madam: Kindly refrain from sea lioning further.

When I google the "southern gentleman" phrase, typically I get things like "Simply put, a southern gentleman is someone who puts the interests of others first, especially women. Whether they are his mother, sister, wife, fiancé, girlfriend, friend or even a stranger, a southern gentleman should always show the utmost respect and generosity towards women." No racism involved. So I ask the question, is the article supposed to be taken seriously, or is it meant more as a goof? It starts off like a goof. I will admit not knowing much about the man, biology, or racism. The section strikes me as not serious.Zatoichi (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

When I Google "Southern Gentleman" the first item is The Southern Gentleman Whisky Bar. The second item is the TV Tropes item I referenced. TV Tropes is as serious as Rational Wiki is. Pinkerite (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The section is "not serious" in that it reflects how ridiculously often Wilson was referred to as a "southern gentleman" which does bring with it, in the United States, the memory of the antebellum South - and I think that Wilson was indeed influenced by his Southern upbringing during the age of Jim Crow. And the TV Tropes definition I provided does allow for a non-racist option: ".depending on time period, he usually either owns slaves or is nostalgic for the era of slavery (even if he doesn't harbor any actual racist views, the romanticism of the south's "golden age" is what matters" Pinkerite (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Many people only think what is on TV or movies. They make new reality for themselves. OK, thank you. So, then Rational Wiki article is not meant to be serious in academic sense. TV Tropes is not an academically rated type of information source. Fine. I will look for jokes to add to article.Zatoichi (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

TV Tropes is a curated look at cultural artifacts and not a joke. And E. O. Wilson spent most of his adult life in the northern United States. It is significant that media people so often referred to him as a "Southern Gentleman." Pinkerite (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And I chose the Leonardo DiCaprio image because his character "studies the racist pseudoscience of phrenology as a hobby." I think the evidence shows that Wilson was operating with the same assumptions as the phrenologists. Pinkerite (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Huxley had something to say about people being silly when discussing science. Do you think the average reader knows any of that? Popular tropes are found on web pages but are not really well known to most people. They are an interesting hobby for enthusiasts. The wierd picture of movie actor in section is obvious joke. Nothing wrong with jokes. But maybe later in article? Silly Joke has inhibited my interest in reading article. I promise to try harder.Zatoichi (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The "average reader" can take two minutes to read the section and if they need more information, they can follow the links. I wrote: Southern Gentleman is an American archetype that is often associated with racism - and I provided evidence to support that, as well as indicating it was an American archetype - so someone from outside the US can understand why maybe they've never heard of that archetype. But if someone refuses to make an effort, there's not much I can do about that. Pinkerite (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word archetype is metaphorical. Very literary. Like funny stories. I like funny stories myself. This scientific article though, supposed to be. Good for a laugh I guess.Zatoichi (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So then, I guess you're not a big fan of Richard Feynman. ^{— Unsigned, by: Pinkerite / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is not a comment on the page itself, as I've barely started reading it, rather a comment on this discussion. The RW consensus from a while back was that humor is fine in an article, it can be used to show a point after all, but that if it's a choice between science/facts and humor, it should be the science/facts that take precedence. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I don't think the section in question is humorous so much as wry commentary on the established fact that the media was always calling Wilson a Southern Gentleman, which has a variety of connotations. Maybe it's just me but I think the humor in the article is fairly sparse - like the AI generated ape-man and Karl Marx is kind of humorous - and "The water incident" - the way commentators tell that story in different ways and how much Wilson loved to tell that story, that's rather amusing - but I guess opinions vary. Pinkerite (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I love Feynman. Was a big physicist. No connection to biology, I think. But is disingenuous to suggest that the media meant your interpretation, which is, of course, silly, and will be taken as silly by average reader. No one wants to regarded in this way. Not really funny, kind of a funny fail though. Zatoichi (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to remove the term from its historical context. But apparently in reactionary land the sky is green and the ground is blue. Carthage (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Very conservative view. Words suggest what might have been connoted in any time in history. Clearly semantics not a strong talent for some here.Zatoichi (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's no indication that "southern gentleman" is distinguished in anyway from the historical context here. Wilson by his own standards probably would've considered himself to be a "southern gentleman." You're still being disingenuous. Carthage (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You are confused sir, as mentioned already SG : Common meaning: someone who puts the interests of others first, especially women..." This is meaning media has implied. You have proof otherwise? Because you watch terrible movie about slavery, this is what it means to you. But it never was actually taken to mean that in living language, except possibly in stochastic incidence, like this article.Zatoichi (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"Because you watch terrible movie about slavery..." This is fallacious. I nowhere mentioned "movies," I mentioned historical context. You're still being disingenuous. Carthage (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The "southern gentleman" is a myth or archetype that was largely created in antebellum Southern literature. As a myth/archetype, it can often conflict with reality. Thomas Jefferson was regarded as the personification of the southern gentleman (Encyclopedia of Southern culture, pages 692-693). Yet, Jefferson raped his slave Sally Hemmings, and he freed very few of his slaves, even upon his death. Two of the pillars of the southern gentleman concept, solving problems with violence, and chivalry or defending a woman's honor (Encyclopedia of Southern culture, pages 1508), lie behind most all lynchings in the US. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This fellow is very self referential. The movie part is in the article, and is a case of presentism, I think, as the phrase never meant anything about slaves in general. This is a factitious literary article. Not everyone referred to as a SG owned slaves. And no one owned slaves past 1865. @Bongolian. Yes you are right, but this is a weak, very modern association, affording no historical relevance. A bad joke, as I have said. You may as well say that "southerner" connotates a racist attitude. I don't mind if you do. I am just practicing the art of discussion. Zatoichi (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ever hear of convict leasing? A somebody. (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"You may as well say that "southerner" connotates a racist attitude." - yes - as someone from the northern United States, I can testify to you that very often southerner does connate a racist attitude. And you don't even have to be from the United States. Canadian Neil Young wrote "Southern Man (song)." in 1970. I find it odd that you think you can tell North Americans what our cultural tropes actually mean. Pinkerite (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"I am just practicing the art of discussion." Sealion alert. Carthage (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not presentism because the criticism is against someone in the present based on present-day values, not someone in the past based on present-day values. Bongolian (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)