Talk:Niche picking

Question about a sentence
There is a complex sentence that I found confusing in the "Scarr and McCarthy's model" section. It is the third sentence in this section and begins with "The professors argue". I did not completely understand what this sentence meant. I wanted to edit it into a simpler format but I didn't want to risk changing the content. If someone could look at this sentence and try to explain it here, or change the format of the sentence to make it less complex, that would be nice. Kaity22 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this sentence: "Scarr and McCartney’s model provides a framework for examining the role children’s genotypes might play in determining later environmental interactions"? Genotype refers to the genetic makeup of an organism. It contrasts with Phenotype which are visible features or behaviors for that organism. So for example, the genotype of someone with red hair means they have the allele for red at the gene that defines hair color for humans. The fact that they have red hair is the phenotype, the genetic description is the genotype. So this sentence IMO says that the model from Scarr and McCarney provides a way to understand how a child's genes determine how they will react to their environment in the future, e.g., if presented with a frustrating experience are they likely to get angry or have some other reaction. I thought that sentence was pretty clear myself. I have serious doubts about this whole theory and whether its even notable enough to deserve an article though but that's a different question. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Heritability of Political Beliefs
The comma separated list in the first sentence of this section becomes muddled with the commas in the clauses, this sentence should be reworded(I tried a semi-colon but it still looks funny).JacobiJonesJr (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can Someone explain what this sentence means?
From the section: Heritability of Political Beliefs: "The researchers concluded that an individual’s genes and environment, interacting both actively and passively, as well as positively and negatively, indicate their specific niches and the types of beliefs they hold because of them." So I interpret this sentence to essentially say "The researchers concluded that an individual’s genes and environment determine what beliefs they will hold" Is that what it means or does it mean something else? Because if that's what it means it's a pointless statement. No sane modern scientist psychologist, biologist, etc. would possibly contradict it because it's totally vapid. Whether you are a behaviorist like Skinner, a Cognitive Psych person like Dennett or Pinker or a physicalist connectionist like Patricia Churchland they ALL think that "genes and environment" determine human behavior. The hard and interesting question that delineates the different approaches to understanding human behavior scientifically is HOW MUCH AND IN WHAT MANNER environment and heredity play a role in behaviors and beliefs. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to blank this section. I looked at the reference used: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27821953?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104838773621 and IMO it has little relation to what the text here says. What that reference does is provide evidence that genes play a role in political choice which is not what I understand the section as written to say. The section as written makes no sense to me. It essentially says genes and environment contribute to political beliefs. As I said above in the context of psychology that is essentially a meaningless statement. Of course heredity and environment play a role the question is what contributes to what.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixing Errors
Hi! I am going to try fixing errors in this article! Thanks, Acj1 |Sign?| ''Say Hi To Me!  21:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)