Rating: 4/5, good
I picked this book up thinking it would be about the science of genes, behavior, and personality, but it’s really more about the history and politics of the field called behavioral genetics. It doesn’t answer the question, “How much are we controlled by genes, how much by environment, and how much by will?” but I don’t know if anyone can yet. This book was written in 1998, so its science may be a little outdated. William Wright has a fun, snappy writing style that is easy to read once he gets the ball rolling. There were some parts that were a little repetitive, but overall I thought it was fascinating.
The basic premise of the book is that behavioral genetics research could have a lot to teach us, but it’s been held back by left-leaning “environmentalists” (here meaning those who think environment has more effect on behavior than genetics) who treat acknowledgement of any genetic influence on human behavior as taboo. Wright describes the struggle between hereditarian vs environmentalist theories of human behavior, from Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics and the behavioral genetics field, and Franz Boas, the German-Jewish American leader of the opposition to eugenics, to modern-day scientists and public intellectuals like Charles Murray and Stephen Jay Gould. Wright presents behavioral genetics as almost an “oppressed” science, and it can get a little ranty and one-sided, so I think it’s probably good to take this book with a grain of salt.
Born That Way starts with six chapters on the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS), in which Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. studied pairs of raised-apart twins and found that they had about the same incidence of similar traits as twins raised together. This showed that genetics had a significant impact on behavioral traits like timidity, impulsivity, nervous habits, IQ, divorce, and substance abuse. “While the degree of heritability varied widely—from the low thirties to the high seventies—every trait they measured showed at least some degree of genetic influence.” The first year, the Minnesota study tested twelve pairs in its first year, then twenty-one in 1980, thirty-nine in 1981, and on until now with over 8,000 twin pairs tested. Opponents tend to focus on the strange coincidences, like the two women who showed up wearing 7 rings, or the men who called their dogs the same name, but the actual data is vast and meticulous.
There are two chapters dealing with other behavioral genetics studies, highlighting the work of Jerome Kagan, who studied inhibition in white and Chinese preschool children and found that the Chinese children were more timid and had more less variable heart rates (faster paced). I guess that could be related to culture, as maybe the scientists were biased in their observations or the Chinese children were more afraid of someone of a different race checking their heart rates. However, Kagan himself is a liberal and an outspoken critic of Arthur Jensen’s, and in his interview with Wright, Kagan describes how his data changed his mind about genetics and psychology:
“I was the classic politically liberal environmentalist who believed that genes had minimal effect on behavior. Now, I am quite a different person. My data has pushed me toward granting much more power to genetic mechanisms than I would have believed twenty years ago. I arrived here honestly, without prejudice, which is a good way.”
Wright also talks about Sandra Scarr and her idea that in a “normal range” of environment, with “good enough” parents, genetic differences will have more influence than environmental stimulus. This is a good thing, because it means talented people can achieve their potential even in adverse conditions, and parents shouldn’t be too worried about being perfect as the rearing environment doesn’t have as much effect on success as previously thought. Regarding social justice, Scarr said, “It is the suffering that should be addressed, not the genetic differences denied.”
The rest of Born That Way goes on in much the same theme: keep your politics out of my science. Ok, got it. I don’t really have much of an opinion on this because I’m not a scientist, but I’m sympathetic to William Wright’s position because I have trichotillomania, which is a hair-pulling disorder. I’ve been to therapists before for that and they usually tell me that my hair-pulling must be stress-related or caused by some traumatic event. I haven’t been able to remember any traumatic event and sometimes my pulling seems stress-related, but most of the time it seems so random that I think it must be some physical thing going on with my skin or the result of some brain chemical or hormone reaction.
The turn toward the physical and neurochemical in psychology has been making me think more seriously about taking medication for depression and anxiety, but the idea of messing with brain chemistry scares me. Trichsters know better than anyone that trying to pluck both eyebrows exactly the same usually results in pulling out all your eyebrows. I wonder if adding more chemicals to the mix could cause an imbalance somewhere else…? It seems suspicious to me as well that pills designed to treat depression list suicide as a side effect (but this is mostly for children and teens).
(Note: I have found that methyl-b12, regular exercise, and talking back to or shutting down negative thoughts, and taking moods less seriously/assuming they’re just an effect of brain chemistry or hormones has helped me a lot with depression… now I just need to find something for anxiety 🙂 )
Another reason I was interested in this book is because when I was a freshman in high school I was 50/50 science and English, and I ended up choosing English. There were a number of reasons for this: 1. English always came easily to me, math and science did not 2. English is more entertaining 3. I wanted a career I wouldn’t have to give up if I had children 4. I didn’t want to have to be one of those people who complains to the teacher every time they don’t get 100% 5. I have a lot of internalized misogyny and every time I failed at math or science, I would stress out and think I’m failing because I’m a girl and girls are stupid and therefore I’m never going to get it and I’m just wasting my time.
Perversely, this causes me to look for things that confirm my bias and help me feel better about failing at STEM. But more consciously I know that there being women in STEM at all disproves the theory that women can’t succeed in STEM. When people talk about women not succeeding in STEM, I think to some degree that’s just goalpost-moving. It used to be assumed that no woman could be a scientist, but the existence of women scientists proved that wrong. Now women earn 50% of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees and constitute 29% of the science and engineering workforce. I think the 50% of STEM bachelor’s degrees proves that women are capable of doing the work, but their success after graduation is hampered by other factors like employer prejudice and possibly different life choices.
One book that could help a young girl who is studying math and science and may be doubting herself is The Trouble with Women by Jacky Fleming:
The Trouble with Women is so funny and sarcastic, it’ll make you forget all about your tiny head, lack of genius hair, and inability to hold a paintbrush. It’s a picture book, so it’s the perfect thing to keep close to your desk and pick up when you’re feeling discouraged.
Another one is She’s Such a Geek! Women write about science, technology, and other nerdy stuff which has been on my shelf for a while but I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet… it looks fun, though!
(note: to Wright’s credit, he doesn’t mention anything about gender + IQ differences and he says that race + IQ difference shouldn’t be studied because it’s too inflammatory and ends up hurting the reputation of the field)
If I learned anything from reading Born That Way it’s that who we are and what we do is influenced by genes, environment, and probably free will. The first two are hard to measure and the last is impossible to measure, which could be taken to mean that it’s immeasurably powerful.
Stay skeptical, my friends.
Post a Comment