Talk:Nurture kinship

Lack of impartiality

This article all stands on an obviously false idea. It ignores the fact that most people, any of us, naturally, like any other living being, do care about their offspring and their own individual perpetuation, that they do not cooperate with each other against that purpose, and that only degenerate individuals, a minority, do not. Otherwise, without parents having children, there would be no one in the World. 85.244.2.139 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some wiki guidelines on use of Template:POV tags:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article calls cultural and symbolic to a natural inclination that every normal living being has and when someone tries to give some clarity to the data by reminding that in small tribes everyone is related and that the value of actual kinship is not put into challenge by the observation, you simply erase it, deny everything and stick to the lies. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, since I know I and everyone I know value actual kinship above anything else and you can't change that. 193.126.164.147 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added a dedicated section for alternative perspectives and critiques, and moved the critical comments into this section and tried to edit them into a convincing message. I hope this will satisfy any impression that the page does not present an NPOV. Please take a look and make some additions or recommendations.81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied to Group Selection page with minor editing:

Anthropologists have worked on an alternative explanation to kin selection from studies of human culture that involves nurture kinship. Holland's Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship discusses biological inclusive fitness theory. The expression of social traits in primates and humans doesn't necessarily depend on conditions of genetic relatedness. For the vast majority of social mammals—including primates and humans—the formation of social bonds (and the resulting social cooperation) are based on familiarity from an early developmental stage. Genetic relatedness is not necessary for the attachment bonds to develop, and it is the performance of nurture that underlies such bonds and the enduring social cooperation that typically accompanies them. The nurture kinship perspective leads to the synthesis of evolutionary biology, psychology, and socio-cultural anthropology on the topic of social bonding and cooperation, without reductionism or positing a deterministic role to genes or genetic relatedness in the mechanisms through which social behaviors are expressed.

The 'nurture kinship' perspective does not necessarily mean that human non-blood relationships such as the relationships based on nurturing are more important than the ones based on blood-kinship. Herbert Gintis, in his review of the book Sex at Dawn, critiques the idea that human males were unconcerned with parentage, "which would make us unlike any other species I can think of".

(end copy)Wcrea6 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

References