Post

I’m making a bit of a joke, but it’s worth discussing some broader issues, here. The first is that “we” in this sense, points to an ideology. I’ve taken a lot of ridicule from what would be considered leaders in the fields of behavioral genetics and my own field of psychiatry for questioning…. 1/

… the premise that behavioral traits are driven largely by genetics. The reason I questioned it initially was not what some might consider scientific, in the sense that it was based heavily on my intuition and life experience related to the human condition. Perhaps I’ll discuss some of this, but… 2/

… this creates a science that is transparently biased toward a forgone conclusion. This has always been quite easy to see, when you go through the old candidate gene studies up to the present studies, if you actually take time to read them with a critical eye. Unfortunately, that is seldom done … /4

… with the possible exception of more controversial traits like IQ. Thus, it always appears that there is a growing body of scientific evidence, when in fact there is a long string of failures to confirm the genetic assumption, with endless machinations to explain the failure away… 5/

Unless you are in the field, with some statistical expertise, it becomes impossible to engage in the debate, since you can always be one-upped with pedantic statistical arguments. While I have tried to point out some of the ways in which these studies are prone to bias, they are like the heads … 6/