Have you heard of Social Darwinism before? Its not a term I made up, and you&#x27;ve succinctly identified the exact reason it&#x27;s so questionable.<p>From Wikipedia:<p>Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, which claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.<p>You seem to be agreeing with me in pointing out the contradiction between some parts of the article and some of the sources the article used to back up its own claims. It was Aimee Groth that used inc.com to make her points, not me.<p>Aimee&#x27;s article is inferring biological mechanisms, both through her sources, and directly in the language:<p>“Genes probably matter, as in most things in life, but not much.”<p>&quot;..and found that environmental factors (not genetic) most influenced behavior...&quot;<p>Do you read purely social from those uses of the words &quot;genes&quot; and &quot;genetic&quot;? To me they reflect the biology meanings, or at the very, very least are intentionally conflationary.