Talk:Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

Comments

• Personally I think the "contents" section would flow smoother as "The section argues" or such rather than "Wilson argues"

Done.

• I think the Magpie image would be clearer at the normal 220px width, since it's the behavior we're interested in

Done.

• The last sentence of "contents" is rather odd handing all by itself: I think it would be clearer in the intro to that level 4 sub-section, with perhaps a "in the last chapter" to clarify its position.

Done.

• Do we need both bullets and numbers?

Reformatted.

Apologies for the delay: I've been away. I'll try to get it done soon.

• "attracted a large number of reviews" might not "commentary" or "critical attention" be more precise here than "reviews"?

Less, I think - the reviews are at least countable. I've said "critical reviews".

• "The paper described the effect as "a period of ferment", naming the "monumental" book as the "yeast"." This is a tad confusing to the (many) folks unaware of the role of yeast in fermentation...though I don't know if there's a good way around that.

I've wikilinked and glossed the quotation.

• The first part of the contemporary reception section mentions the response to the suggestion that human behavior is genetically determined, but the nature of any such claim in the book is not made explicit: I'd suggest adding a sentence along the lines of "reviewers alleged that Wilson was arguing..." or something.

Done.

• Can we find links for the disciplines mentioned in Eberhard's review?

Done.

• "She objected strongly to what she considered "confused and misleading" discussion of altruism and group selection" I think it would help to know precisely what Wilson's argument in this case was.

Glossed.

• "reviewed it for BioScience." perhaps "reviewed the book" or "reviewed Sociobiology would be better.

Done.

• There's some tense variation in discussing the reviews.

Fixed, I believe.

• "for its coverage including man" This is a tad confusing

Fixed.

• We've four consecutive paragraphs beginning with a profession; can you switch it up?

Tweaked.

• Sentence beginning "However, she objected to the claim " is very long

Split.

• I think some of the sentences in Lenski's paragraph could have clearer in-text attribution; along the line of "He argued..." especially for the "book raised uncomfortable issues" etc

Attributed a bit more.

• "Lenski however took Wilson more openly than that, noting Wilson's precursors, Julian Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Dobzhansky and others of the modern synthesis. They tried repeatedly to talk to sociologists, and in Lenski's view that was again necessary. Further, the nature-nurture dichotomy was evidently false, and continued rejection of biology only invited "a reductionist response on the part of biologists." " I'm a bit confused by this entire section, to be honest. If I'm reading it correct Lenski is agreeing with Wilson is saying that a nature-nurture dichotomy is incorrect, and pointing out that his predecessors had already said this; am I right?

Glossed. He's saying that there's no reason for Wilson and sociology to fight, as the supposed dichotomy doesn't exist.

• Some more tense mismatches with Kleiman..

Fixed.

• "Among his biases, insects and genetics were overrepresented" This makes it sound like insects and genetics are biases, which is cool colloquially but sounds a bit odd here, right? Perhaps "Examples of his biases included the over-representation of ..."

Done.

• More tenses in the Wagner paragraph

Fixed.

• However, he thought [...], and it failed to cover..." I find something odd about this structure. Should it be "as it failed"?

Done.

• Another present tense with Geller

Done.

• "many of the ethnocentric assumptions of early sociobiology" I'm sure these were present, but I wonder if we could have an example?

We did - male domination, ignoring the female gatherers for the male hunters, for instance.

• "Many of the sloppier early conclusions" Likewise

Resulting from the same assumptions.

• I think the one-sentence paragraph would fit better with the retrospective

Moved.

• Couple more tense mismatches in the first paragraph of the last section, which could also afford being split.

Done.

• Tense also in the last paragraph.

Done.

• I think the "reception" paragraph of the lead could use some expansion; particularly, I think the detail about what parts were well received and what were not would be helpful.

Done.

• I wonder if a brief "background" would help, before the contents of the book? As in, the academic context that Wilson was writing in?

Added.