Editing Stephen Jay Gould (section)

=== Opposition to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology ===
Gould also had a long-running public feud with [[E. O. Wilson]] and other evolutionary biologists concerning the disciplines of [[sociobiology|human sociobiology]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], both of which Gould and Lewontin opposed, but which [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]], and [[Steven Pinker]] advocated.<ref name=Gould1997>Gould, S. J. (1997). [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_pluralism.html "Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110121332/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_pluralism.html |date=November 10, 2016 }} ''The New York Review of Books'' 44 (June 26): 47–52.</ref> These debates reached their climax in the 1970s, and included strong opposition from groups such as the [[Sociobiology Study Group]] and [[Science for the People]].<ref>Wilson, E. O. (2006). ''Naturalist'' New York: Island Press, [https://books.google.com/books?id=TZH2nHEPSjYC&pg=PA337 p. 337] {{ISBN|1-59726-088-6}}.</ref> Pinker accuses Gould, Lewontin, and other opponents of evolutionary psychology of being "radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science.<ref>{{Citation |author=Pinker, Steven |title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature |publisher=Penguin Books |location=New York |year= 2002|isbn=978-0-14-200334-3 | author-link = Steven Pinker|title-link=The Blank Slate }}</ref> Gould stated that he made "no attribution of motive in Wilson's or anyone else's case" but cautioned that all human beings are influenced, especially unconsciously, by our personal expectations and biases. He wrote:

{{blockquote|I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for [[social justice]], and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. Scholars are often wary of citing such commitments. … [but] it is dangerous for a scholar even to imagine that he might attain complete neutrality, for then one stops being vigilant about personal preferences and their influences—and then one truly falls victim to the dictates of prejudice. [[Objectivity (science)|Objectivity]] must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference.<ref>Gould S. J. (1996). [http://selfdefinition.org/science/25-greatest-science-books-of-all-time/17.%20Stephen%20Jay%20Gould%20-%20The%20Mismeasure%20of%20Man%20(1981)%20-%20Revised%20edition%20-%20missing%20last%20page.pdf ''The Mismeasure of Man: Revised and Expanded Edition'']. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151129135810/http://selfdefinition.org/science/25-greatest-science-books-of-all-time/17.%20Stephen%20Jay%20Gould%20-%20The%20Mismeasure%20of%20Man%20(1981)%20-%20Revised%20edition%20-%20missing%20last%20page.pdf |date=November 29, 2015 }} New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 36. {{ISBN|0-14-025824-8}}</ref>}}

Gould's primary criticism held that human sociobiological explanations lacked evidential support, and argued that adaptive behaviors are frequently assumed to be genetic for no other reason than their supposed universality, or their adaptive nature. Gould emphasized that adaptive behaviors can be passed on through [[Sociocultural evolution|culture]] as well, and either hypothesis is equally plausible.<ref name="BioPotent">Gould, S. J. (1992). [https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/Gould%20Potentiality%20v%20Determinism.pdf "Biological potentiality vs. biological determinism".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211016033137/https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/Gould%20Potentiality%20v%20Determinism.pdf |date=October 16, 2021 }} In ''Ever Since Darwin''. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., pp. 251–259.</ref> Gould did not deny the relevance of biology to human nature, but reframed the debate as "biological potentiality vs. biological determinism". Gould stated that the [[human brain]] allows for a wide range of behaviors. Its flexibility "permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous… Violence, sexism, and general nastiness ''are'' biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviors. But peacefulness, equality, and kindness are just as biological—and we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish."<ref name="BioPotent"/>