Talk:Self-domestication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2020 and 1 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psbheb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Your reference cites wikipedia. . . you might as well just reference this page. Mk421 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Human self-domestication
The section on self-domestication in humans is quite opaque.


 * "Self-domestication describes theories of how humans developed and evolved. The idea of self-domestication ... developed from the idea that humans could perfect themselves biologically..."

This does not give any indication of what self-domestication among human beings actually is. The reference to "the 19th century intellectual fad of Eugenics and the events surrounding 20th century Nazism" makes the whole paragraph even more bewildering.

Could someone rewrite this paragraph and incorporate some kind of definition so that we know what we are talking about.

222.129.31.219 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section, none of the references were to any respectable evolutionary biologist and the reference to Nazism is simply apocraphyl.

80.176.169.235 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It should only be deleted if there are valid reasons that it cannot be cleaned up. The Gregory Stock article at least appears to show he is notable.  "respectable" is a matter of opinion.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I second (third?) that this section is still incomplete and potentially off the mark, given how the term "self-domestication" is used in the article on human evolution. In this context, self-domestication seems to refer to a process by which less aggressive and more cooperative individuals are positively selected, either naturally, sexually, or even explicitly, e.g. by communities exiling or killing members that act counter to the interest of the community. In this light, self-domestication could be said to be carried out by nearly all modern societies in the forms of imprisonment and, in the extreme, execution; there's no need for a society to formally adhere to the ideologies of eugenics or Social Darwinism to engage in self-domestication. Rriegs (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed two sentences towards the end of this; they were uncited, and asserted that this theory disproved the theory of human african origins in favor of multiregional evolution, which is at best inaccurate and at worst intentionally misleading. Also, they did not improve the article therefore I've removed them.

If anyone should wish to re-add the information, I would strongly urge them to find a credible (also dating after the end of Nazi Germany) source, and make it clear that this is not the broadly-accepted consensus but rather a theory held by a very small minority of people studying this. Ironlion45 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not allowed to cite my own work, but from Edward O. Price (2002) “Animal domestication and behavior” : CABI Publishing, CAB International: it reads that self domestication is essentially what domesticated animals do to their peers. What you essentially get in humans is what happened to the house of Habsburg.

Contrary to what this article states domesticated animals and people become highly aggressive when you don’t fall in line: they don’t have an integral view of reality and everything needs to be simple and the same, so it remains within the scope of what they expect. They don’t like any complexity, a unity of opposites: everything has to be polarized. The Mafia for a large part also consists of domesticated humans.

A lot of people in the past have pointed this out or witnessed the results. One notoriously known work would be that of Lombroso, “Criminal Man,” but the problem with Lombroso’s work is that it takes about 40% good science and adds 60% racist and other horse shit to it, for instance labeling the deformation of the jaw as the Habsburg family had it also as something that all Africans have which is patently untrue: Africans are beautiful people also.

Domestication and self-domestication are what underlie all problems we have in society. Officially this is huge, but people always distort the science to get science and society to turn on itself. Even today there are massive attacks on the educational system and the article as it is now is no different. Emilehobo (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed content, citation needed
I have removed the phrase ", more&lt;!--should this be 'less'?--> sexual" from the list of characteristics, since it certainly incorrect as it stands and the fact that we have to neuter dogs and cats argues against their being significantly less sexual than their wild counterparts. Also, there is no source for that whole sentence. A reference to changed sexuality can be restored with a reliable reference. --Mirokado (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxes
It remains unclear as to why foxes that had been successfully bred by humans for tameness are regarded as "self-domesticated" in this article because they also exhibited some phenotypic changes. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @William, you stated in an edit summary that domestication is only a theory. Could you expand on this a little, please. DrChrissy (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-domestication of wolves among monkeys?
I'll just leave this article here that I found quite interesting. Would it make sense to mention something like this? I'm not sure. I guess it's probably too speculative so far. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27675-monkeys-cosy-alliance-with-wolves-looks-like-domestication/ — Chrisahn (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)