Talk:Standard social science model

POV

The article cannot hide it's negative bias towards those who criticize the SSSM. In essence, it argues that the SSSM is a straw man.

What?? The above two sentences contradict... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.125.244 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO The article cannot hide its bias AGAINST the SSSM. It presents the "facts" of SSSM in a condescending way, and the biggest part of the page is the criticism of the SSSM section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.248.46 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

SSSM is a strawman. Of course the article has to show that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

Most sentences make assertions that need to be backed up. I pointed out several with --citation needed--

Style

The article relies heavily on weasel words:

• "Thinkers in the EP tradition have argued…"
• "…it has been questioned…"
• "It has been argued…"

Map

A map is a drawing or chart that represents something.

Ex:

 Amusement park map      Museum map
 World map               Mall map
 School map              Route map
 Town map
 State map

Silly cites request

The first request for citation is in a sentence which is a cite to a book.

Is this reasonable? Keith Henson (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear what in the intro is a book citation. Either the citation is to be expressly highlighted as a citation, or if it is not literal, then a reference is needed. The article refers to a lot of books, but not by the usual reference system of wikipedia. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with SSSM

This quoted part should be deleted:

"Literature- literally translated, means "acquaintance with letters" and therefore the academic study of literature is known as Letters. In Western culture the most basic written literary types include fiction and nonfiction. Poetry - is a form of literary art in which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to, or in lieu of, its apparent meaning. Poetry may be written independently, as discrete poems, or may occur in conjunction with other arts, as in poetic drama, hymns, lyrics, or prose poetry. It is published in dedicated magazines individual collections and wider anthologies, although it is rare to see anything other than lyric poetry outside of collections.

Drama - though it has also come to refer to a specific genre of fiction involving a serious mood and conflict. The term comes from a Greek word meaning "action". The enactment of drama in theatre, performed by actors on a stage before an audience, presupposes collaborative modes of production and a collective form of reception. The structure of dramatic texts, unlike other forms of literature, is directly influenced by this collaborative production and collective reception. The early modern tragedy Hamlet (1601) by Shakespeare and the classical Athenian tragedy Oedipus the King (c. 429 BCE) by Sophocles are among the supreme masterpieces of the art of drama.

Short story- is a work of fiction that is usually written in prose, often in narrative format. This format tends to be more pointed than longer works of fiction, such as novellas and novels or books. Short story definitions based upon length differ somewhat even among professional writers, due somewhat in part to the fragmentation of the medium into genres. Since the short story format includes a wide range of genres and styles, the actual length is determined by the individual author's preference and the submission guidelines relevant to the story's actual market. Guidelines vary greatly among publishers. Novella - is a written, fictional, prose narrative longer than a novelette but shorter than a novel. The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America Nebula Awards for science fiction define the novella as having a word count between 17,500 and 40,000.Other definitions start as low as 10,000 words and run as high as 70,000 words. Novel - is a long narrative in literary prose. The genre has historical roots both in the fields of the medieval and early modern romance and in the tradition of the novella. The latter supplied the present generic term in the late 18th century." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joxa (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proponents or opponents?

I think there is a typo (or "thinko") in the first sentence here, which I quote here:

The term the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) was first introduced to a wide audience in the 1992 edited volume The Adapted Mind, and is commonly used by proponents of evolutionary psychology (EP)[citation needed] to describe a "blank slate"......(bold italiacs mine)

Shouldn't it be opponents of evolutionary psychology (EP), since it is the proponents of EP who want to get rid of the SSSM? 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

--NO because it was EPs that CREATED the term SSSM. EPs use the term to refer to what they are arguing against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.68.126 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A POV-pushing straw-man argument

This article is nothing more than a straw-man argument, and tells us nothing whatever about "the dominant theoretical paradigm in the social sciences". As such it is utterly unencyclopaedic, and has no place in Wikipedia. Unless someone can find evidence that proponents of this so-called 'model' actually represent anything the social sciences have taken as such (rather than a few cherry-picked examples, taken out of context) it needs to be deleted as the bit of vacuous fluff it is.

Oh, and since when has Steven Jay Gould been a social scientist? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the SSSM, so that seems pretty mainstream. Also, Gould was a social scientist starting in 1975 when he attacked sociobiology and proposed in its place the theory of "biological potentiality." He was wrong and misinformed as a social scientist, but he sure made himself out to be one. Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, as usual. If the SSSM was mainstream, rather than a figment of the pro-EPers' imaginations, it would be possible to find sources arguing in favour of it. Nobody ever has, because there aren't any.

And where has anyone described Gould as a social scientist? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't John Money argue in favor of the SSSM? I think he did. Do you think he didn't? When Emile Durkheim said that you can only explain social facts via other social facts, that's the SSSM. When Margaret Mead said that people across the globe don't share facial expressions for a handful of basic emotions, that's the SSSM. When Gould said that a normal variation among genes can't generate differences in the behavior of indviduals, that's the SSSM. Leadwind (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. What 'you think' is WP:OR. Either find sources that actually state that these individuals supported the so-called SSSM, or take your bogus 'model' elsewhere. It says a great deal about the validity of EP that its proponents have to resort to making up fictitious 'paradigms' to justify their position. Or do some of them actually think that science should be based on verifiable data? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, the only reason I made unreferenced changes, is because much of this page is itself unreferenced. I was trying to prove a point by getting someone's attention and by making the problems of this page a bit more obvious. Andy's changes are a welcome compromise. I have also included a couple of references for others claiming it to be a false dichotomy. I can provide more, but I doubt you'd want this ridiculous page turning into a pure criticism page. Logic prevails (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the current text is neutral. The SSSM idea is stated to be invented and used by Barkow et al. Which is true. The article also no longer says that evolutionary psychologists support the idea, because this is not true. Not all EP's support this view. Furthermore, there is a critique section (poorly written and sourced, but getting there). Is this not exactly what is to be expected of an encyclopedia?

The actual dispute about whether or not some examples count as SSSM is unnecessary, all we need to add is examples of things that are claimed to be examples of it in Adapted Mind. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Still POV?

I've come into this debate (above) and page rather late. I'm a little worried that this page focuses mainly on critiques of the SSSM argument, and not very much on either the initial argument or responses to those critiques. I'm tempted to put a POV tag on the page. Don't get me wrong, the critiques need to be there, but the page needs better balance still. StoneProphet11 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively instead of adding a POV tag you coud add the content you think is missing. If you are able to do that, that would be more useful to our readers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A fair enough point although...it would need a lot, I think, more than the effort of one person. It's also not my immediate area, so it would be good to draw in some specialists from ev psyche who are more knowledgeable than I. StoneProphet11 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. 'Specialists from ev psyche' aren't what is needed. This is a debate about social science - the appropriate specialists are social scientists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@StoneProphet11, Maunus, and AndyTheGrump: Back-and-forth dialogue between evolutionary psychologists and social scientists is discouraged per WP:NPOV. We describe what evolutionary psychologists regard as the SSSM, they get to make their argument, and then social scientists get to make their argument. If we add EP responses to social scientists' critiques, we would need to add social scientists' responses to EP responses to social scientists' critiques, and so on. It's best to have present both views without infinite back-an-forth responses and counter-responses. Yes, it would probably be best to expand Tooby and Cosmides' view, but I don't see a reason for the POV tag. --SonicY (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

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 Wikipedia 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) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Alleged Proponents section

In Pinker's book - The Blank Slate - he never claims that any one of the people given in this section support SSSM.

Pinker associates all the people mentioned in this section as supporters of some or all of the philosophies/theories related to the "blank slate", "relativist", "social constructionist" and "cultural determinist" that are referenced within SSSM.

It is misleading to assume Pinker believes these people support SSSM when in fact they may only support some portion of it or they may even outright dismiss it.

Perhaps there are better sources for names of people who directly support SSSM, but Pinker's book is not one of them. Please look for a better source.

I intend to delete this section based on the reference that was used (Pinker's book) because the book never states that these people support SSSM.

Please comment. PeterEdits (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the whole section. I think one has to distinguish between what Pinker or other EPs believe about people, and what the people say themselves. The SSM is controversial because it makes a disputed claim about what social scientists have actually thought. It's an accusation. Pinker's approach is to disregard denials if he doesn't believe them (To my mind Pinker is a rather binary writer when it comes to ideas that he doesn't like.)

• • Franz Boas - Pinker explicitly states that Boas didn't believe in the blank slate. Fair to delete his name.
  • Margaret Mead - I think it's absolutely clear that Pinker does see Mead as a Blank Slater academically, but also of having double standards because she made non-blank slate statements about herself (p. 422)
  • B. F. Skinner - It's really clear that Pinker consider him a blank slater (see p. 20). I don't see any other plausible reading.
  • Richard Lewontin - No question Pinker sees him as a blank slater. Pinker calls the title of one of his articles "defiantly blank slate". Pinker notes that Lewontin along with Gould denied they are blank slaters, but Pinker thinks their denials are feeble, and actually part of a "debating tactic" (p. 122)
  • John Money - It's ambiguous as far as I can see. Fair to delete.
  • Stephen Jay Gould - see Lewontin. Pinker describes Gould as less doctrinaire, but still fundamentally a blank slater.

Just to repeat the point, the issue to me is who is a blank slater in Pinker's view. OsFish (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

SSSM as an ideal type

SSSM was clearly overstated as a rigorous model of social science thought, but it makes considerable sense as an ideal or polar type. No one on either side of the edit wars seems to recognize that. I think there quite clearly was a sea change in predominant social science thought that led to a new appreciation for innateness. (I think the structuralists rather than the evolutionary psychologists were the earliest proponents.) SSSM can be seen as satire on those who deprecated innateness, but it is a satire that has real bite. This page reads like collection of folks fighting old wars. Evidently the SSSM critique hit home--but the SSSM defenders don't know how to defend it. Burressd (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Probably nobody identifies as an SSSM theorist. SSSM is used as a shorthand for a number of fashionable theories that are critized for ignoring contradicting evidence from the more biologically oriented sciences. 130.225.93.40 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. Tooby and Cosmides conflated and summarized trends in social-science thinking which (broadly) placed cultural factors over biological ones, and gave them a catchy label. The debate between nature and nurture will run and run, and it's not the job of any article to join in the fun. What are the facts? The theories conflated as SSSM exist and have been promulgated. That isn't the definition of a straw man (straw person, to be inclusive?) Some agree with the theories, some (specifically Evolutionary Psychologists) disagree. Neither changes the fact that the theories exist. My personal interest is in the forcible reassignment of intersex males as female, and the pitfalls that have been recognized, including by former proponents. But it's hard to believe than proponents of neonatal sex reassignment didn't have in mind some version of the theory we call SSSM Chrismorey (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)