Talk:Biological determinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


this page should probably be in some way merged with genetic determinism, no ? Or at least, their relationship should be made clearer ... Flammifer 03:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Although it is not entirely th same, the relationship should probably be clarified. Karol 07:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The brain picture[edit]

Shouldn't it be noted that those brains were photo-manipulated? They look like it- when you think about it, it's rediculous how such abnormal and bizzare brain structures could cause relatively minor criminal tendencies such as vagrancy and alcoholism. The 1920's were an integral part of the American eugenics movement and it wasn't that hard to photo-manipulate things like that. Even only several years later, people were able to pull of very advanced photo-manipulation techniques, most notable being that one photo of the man standing next to Stalin. To do it to brains wouldn't be much of a challenge.

Do you have actual evidence to support these assertions? Or does it just seem likely to you? There could trivially be other explanations (like the researchers decided to only study the brains of criminals who had a history of traumatic brain injury). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Biological determinism is the opposite of social determinism?[edit]

The article saids that biological determinism is the opposite of social determinism. I don't think that it is correct since there are other reductionist theories (like Technological determinism, Economic determinism, etc), so you could say that each one of these is the opposite of all others. AKoan (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Biological determinism is, perhaps, the complement of social determinism?[edit]

"Opposite" can't be the right word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Biologism IS NOT Biological Determinism[edit]

I strongly recommend to write an article on biologism, and therefore NOT TO REDIRECT (as it has been done) that entry here (to BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM), and even less, NOT TO DELETE (as it has been proposed) that entry. The fact is, "biologism" is redirected to "biological determinism", which is a conceptual error highly biased by ideological issues. In no way the two terms are to be identified. Changes, then, should be made in both articles. I have written something on biologism for a conference; I'd be delighted to share it with you, but the fact is that it's in Spanish. Does anyone want to translate it or to use it for an English article?

"Biological determinism" might be merged with "Genetical determinsm", OK, but only with the proviso that they are not the same, but rather the latter is a certain type of the former. Anyhow, these two topics are not scientific theories or programs but ideologies. By contrast, biologism is a very respectable research program: it is the use of biological explanations in the social sciences and psychology, an important issue which should be defended and discussed. And certainly IT IS NOT biological determinism, AND THEREFORE "BIOLOGISM" SHOULD NOT BE REDIRECTED HERE. GoodBiologism (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)GoodBiologism

On Lewontin and "biologism"[edit]

I can read in this article:

"[...] the uncritical use of biological determinism or biology as ideology (something that has been termed "biologism"). The most famous book on the subject is Richard Lewontin's "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA" [...]"

That's untrue. The "has been termed" with no subject is tricky: WHO has termed that thing in that way? Biologism IS NOT THAT. Rather, let me cite, for instance, the Merriam-Webster definition of "biologism":

biologism. Function: noun. Date: 1920 the use of biological explanations in the analysis of social situations

Certainly, in Lewontin's Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA, the word "biologism" does not occur even a single time. Not at all. Maybe Lewontin used it elsewhere, for instance in his fallacious Not in our genes, where he adulterated citations and also quoted words of respectable people out of context to make they say what they don't say. But there, he just uses it as a synonym of "biological determinism", which, as I have previously stated, is a strong mistake.

(OFF TOPIC: May I recall that book's titles are to be written in italics?)

GoodBiologism (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)GoodBiologism

Sub-categories of determinism[edit]

I would like to see something on the notion of hormonal determinism, given that a significant part of biological determinism consists in explaining the importance of hormones in the structure of the human body. Other types of determinism might include sexual determinism, neurological determinism, educational determinism, racial determinism, etc. ADM (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is in terrible shape[edit]

This article is in terrible shape. It reads like a poor high-school essay, there are no references, and the initial definition is rubbish. I haven't got time to do much on it now, but it needs big clean-up. NBeale (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could it be merged into genetic determinism? Or perhaps vice versa? Both are fairly lame, but I guess that's inevitable when a subject either has no living adherents (who can be helpfully relied upon to provide primary sources), or which may be a straw man. Anyway, I'd favour merging GD into BD since the latter is broader than the former (which it incorporates). --PLUMBAGO 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with both of the comments above. Ironically, everyone today is a nature-nurture interactionist, yet there is no such page. There should be. Memills (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sociobiology section[edit]

I agree that the article needs a lot of work. I stumbled into and over the Sociobiology section whose author explains how it came about as part of class work (User:Cuevas Y/sandbox). I have started the work but don't enough of have a handle on the subject to integrate the content (if possible) with other viewpoints.--DadaNeem (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


". For the person with the racist ideals, it often plants the idea into their head that their own race is inarguably superior in every aspect and for the race being targeted, it puts into their mind the idea that they are somehow inferior, weaker, or stupider. This categorization “becomes determinative of personality and individual experience, and is itself a destination.[10]"

Thats a ridiculous statement. So are we to believe that if we replace the USA with Bushmen it will be exactly the same country since there will be no racism?

I find it hardly to believe. This should be removed. (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Racism and Sexism?[edit]

I'm thinking of deleting these two sections. The racism section says that race is a social construct yet continues as if beliefs on race have anything to do with biological determinism. If race is a social construct then the category is no longer under biological determinism.

Also, the first paragraph of the "sexism" section has nothing to do with sexism. Scientific observations are not sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. "In a time where the women's rights movement was viewed as a legitimate hazard, anthropologists of the Anthropological Society set out to undermine gender equality in the educational and scientific realm" This is also unsourced. The only source given in the paragraph doesn't cover this. If nobody has any objections then I'll go ahead and delete them. I'd rather avoid a edit war if I do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Social construction[edit]

Well, I'd agree with many of the comments above. Further, the Social construction section takes the point-of-view of the book that it cites, rather than describing what that book's thesis is, and balancing it against that of other authors: the topic was intensely controversial, so it is unacceptable for the article to seem to take one side. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've boldly split out the gender material as a new article and linked and summarized it here. That leaves this article largely empty, as others have noted above. I've created an (empty) History section - we need to cover Victorian views (criminality, etc) and lead through the 20th century (eugenics, etc) to the sociobiology debate, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)