Talk:Cultural universal

message: One would think in an article about universals, there would be atleast one universal?
I can not see a single thing listed that is indeed universal, Or even close to it.
210.185.16.176 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the universals 

message: These Universals cast a shadow over questions such a s wars, racism and fascism. The fact that the "others" (identified by skin color, language, beliefs and even clothing style )are accepted with suspicion or outright hostility may imply these traits may be the drive behind their modern counterparts.
However, there is quite a distance between the tribal level (as proved in the Universals) and the modern phenomena. The fact humans did manage to form societies three magnitudes larger than tribes implies that many adaptations occurred, and it's possible this Universals are not the cause, and the cause should be sought elsewhere.
Problem is, this phrase may fall under "original research". אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Implications

message: I think we need to discuss the inclusion of the sentence tacked on to the end of this piece which refers to "empty universals".  The latter is a philosophical concept which, IMHO, does not apply here.  Who in social science refers to cultural universals as "empty"?  To say that a structure or trait or institution or theme is found in all cultures is not to point to a vacuous factor by any means.  And by definition a cultural universal does not imply anything unique about a single culture.  I am suggesting here that the sentence be removed because, unless the sentence's author can document the use of "empty" universal in the social science literature, it is inapplicable to the topic.  Charles D. Laughlin 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notion of "empty universal" 

message: I have been fixing the disamb for Shelter and the biggest problem is that there is no page for the actual word "shelter".--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelter 

message: This appears to have been a theory vaguely cobbled together by sociologists which may be pseudoscience.  It is not wikpedia's job to establish if it is pseudoscience, but there is quite a bit here and very little to verify it, and does not contain a section on discussions of the veracity of such claims(criticism).96.55.138.35 (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Expert attention is always welcome but regarding "vaguely cobbled together by sociologists": the concept is most associated with Donald Brown, an anthropologist, who wrote a whole book about it. – Joe (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert needed Anthropology

message: Does this section make sense? The first sentence of the second para, in particular, seems unclear, and makes a rather strong claim, as in: " ... and anthropological research ethics slows the studies down so that other groups unbound by such ethics, often at least locally represented by people of the same skin color as the supposedly isolated tribe ... reach the tribe before the anthropologists do, no truly uncontacted culture has ever been scientifically studied."  There are quite a few assertions nested into these lines! The reference given does not, on my reading, support what this main sentence asserts. For all I know, it may be true, but I think it at least needs a better source. Since its addition in 2015, it remains unchanged and unchallenged, so that gives me pause, as maybe I just don't understand the topic well enough?  Could someone more knowledgeable about the topic please look at this? 49.177.64.138 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the sentence; for another reason, that journal does not appear to be in a relevant academic field. Incorrect material lingering for years is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 04:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Crossroads for your response and making that change (and for your welcome to me). I thought it was a very strange type of journal to rely upon for an anthropological point, but glad to have someone more experienced confirm. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-nativist explanation 

message: The title "Cultural Universals" is misleading. If it's cultural it's learned (from other people), but many of the traits listed are good candidates for evolved adaptations, as the article notes. "Human Universals" would be much better.Paulhummerman (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title