{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020475926950747094, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.277777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Research Styles and the Reception of Sociobiology

Ever since its origin sociobiology has been controversial. Proponents have acclaimed it as more than a new theory, and have given sociobiology the status of a new discipline. In the eyes of opponents, on the other hand, sociobiology seems mere pseudo-science. Debates over sociobiology have been characterized by unusual fierceness and bitterness. One explanation for the controversial nature of sociobiology holds that the application of a biological theory to intrinsically culturally determined human behaviour is responsible. Such an explanation however suffers defects. Ethology is as much a biological discipline as sociobiology, but never met a comparable resistance. Of course this doesn’t mean that it didn’t encounter opposition, but the resistance against ethology was more modest, and far less politically and emotionally charged than has been the case with sociobiology. This is all the more remarkable as some (pop)-ethologists have underwritten suspect political ideas. Such political convictions have hardly been able to blemish the discipline itself. On the other hand, even liberal ideas, have never kept sociobiology and its practitioners free from accusations of conservatism or even fascism. Hence, even when, admittedly, we live in an age that is suspicious of the application of biology to man, this in itself does not explain the differerzfial reception of say ethology and sociobiology. That there is more to it is born out by the fact that not only ‘human’ sociobiology but also ‘animal’ sociobiology gave rise to controversies in the scientific collectives in which it was introduced. There now exists a vast literature that critically analyzes the exploits of sociobiologists.’ Those critical of sociobiology have generally used