> the sources the article used to back up its own claims
You've got it all backwards: The article is ARGUING AGAINST the inc.com thesis of an "entrepreneurship gene", calling it a myth:
> New research out this week [...] found that environmental factors (not genetic) most influenced behavior, pointing to the fact that risk tolerance is conditioned over time (dispelling the myth of an elusive “entrepreneurship gene“).
Disagreeing with inc.com assumes that inc.com's Social Darwinism argument has merit in the first place. You are agreeing with me and making the same point I am.
You've got it all backwards: The article is ARGUING AGAINST the inc.com thesis of an "entrepreneurship gene", calling it a myth:
> New research out this week [...] found that environmental factors (not genetic) most influenced behavior, pointing to the fact that risk tolerance is conditioned over time (dispelling the myth of an elusive “entrepreneurship gene“).