Talk:Ascribed characteristics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ina.sit. Peer reviewers: Ilanitsimonov, Mekaric.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

 * "Many heated arguments stem from disagreements over whether or not a given trait is "really" an ascribed characteristic. For example, there seems to be a significant correlation between believing that homosexuality is largely genetically determined and believing that homosexuality is acceptable. And few, it seems, would be willing to condemn homosexuality if it could be proven that it were entirely determined from birth."

This phrasing bothers me somewhat. I do admit to not knowing other cultures like I should, but does this apply to most other cultures or just a culture dominated by a monotheistic religion? What for instance do asian cultures feel about homosexuality? I don't even really like the last sentence as even though I think there's a genetic basis for feeling one way or another, I also thing that experiences can also affect an orientation, so it seems a loaded statement to me. Simply put, it doesn't feel NPOV to me, and may not even be correct. Opinions? - Rgamble

I wrote the above, and I think your questions are all interesting ones. Unfortunately, I'm short on answers. A couple of comments:


 * 1) This is probably not the place for a serious discussion of homosexuality. I hope other articles cover the topic better.
 * 2) It may be useful to separate worries about whether it is remotely plausible that "it could be proven that [homosexuality] were entirely determined from birth" from claims about what would follow from such proof in the context of various belief systems and from claims about what would follow from such proof in some kind of absolutist moral framework.
 * 3) I'm newly suspicious of my claim that "there seems to be a significant correlation between believing that homosexuality is largely genetically determined and believing that homosexuality is acceptable." I have no hard data on this whatsoever, so, if it's to be included, it should probably have even more disclaimers. I bet there is hard data that shows this in the United States, but I don't know where I would find it.

--Ryguasu

Could we perhaps remove the claim then and perhaps substitute another historically valid one? The claim as it stands feels somewhat non-NPOV in style given that it seems to be based on some potentially shaky ground. As you say, the topic of homosexuality has been covered elsewhere in wikipedia, and it just doesn't feel right in this article, at least to me. Point two is interesting, but again, I think it might make the subject of whether homosexuality is solely an ascribed characteristic, dominate the article.

Other comments welcomed.

--Rgamble

This may be a reasonable course of action. I have no alternative suggestions, however. In any case, there should probably be at least a link to stuff about homosexuality. --Ryguasu

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clvntrn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) === Edits under consideration, up for I will try to make the phrasing more politically correct and neutral. If I can find scholarly sources for both sides of the sexuality argument, I could perhaps put it into an example of its use in common arguments? I think the "Common Arguments" section should be broken up to have a successes and criticism sections, each with multiple sources. I believe that there should also be a history on its rise to use, first reference, when it came more common... I have a found a couple modern sources, but it will take some digging to find these older ones. I will also hope to bring a more formal tone to the article, focusing on the "Common argument" section.. After sources have been collected, other section headings may present themselves. I also Will add how it contrasts to similar ideas such as Achieved Status.

List of Relevant Sources: Pretty Good Quality

Personal networks in Saudi Arabia: The role of ascribed and achieved characteristics

Science Direct, Utrecht University, Department of Sociology. It says achieved attributes are more important than Ascribed ones W.R.T personal Networks...

"Achieved status is more important than ascribed characteristics." --- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO OWNER, FOR REFERENCE ONLY DIRECTLY FROM SCIENCE DIRECT SUMMARY

https://www-sciencedirect-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0378873315000854

Ok quality / length:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/297243566/ascribed-characteristics-and-achievement

-Florida Gulf Coast university, written by professors of Psychology

Ina.sit (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Ina.sit (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If I make further edits, I will make an education in the USA section Ina.sit (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)