The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture in Science and Inquiry

Dec 24, 2020 Tomislav rated it liked it

Shelves: science, psychology

Nature vs. Nurture is a false dichotomy. Any modern understanding of biology, psychology, or anthropology recognizes the interplay of genetics with culture, that results in human behavior. On the one hand, genes convey inheritance of physiological or psychological capabilities that may be realized to various extent during growth and development. And in the other direction, individual and social behaviors can change which genes are promoted evolutionarily in the population. And yet, unstated simp Nature vs. Nurture is a false dichotomy. Any modern understanding of biology, psychology, or anthropology recognizes the interplay of genetics with culture, that results in human behavior. On the one hand, genes convey inheritance of physiological or psychological capabilities that may be realized to various extent during growth and development. And in the other direction, individual and social behaviors can change which genes are promoted evolutionarily in the population. And yet, unstated simplistic assumptions of one extreme or the other are commonplace. Genetics has even been weaponized politically - especially regarding issues of race, gender roles, sexual preference, and gender identity.

Apparently, there are a large number of books out there to explain genetics to the layman, and many of them slant towards a particular perspective. Ridley’s perspective is a somewhat moderate one, distancing himself from both pure nurture and pure nature. Yet he is especially caustic towards the blank slate argument that dominated liberal thinking during the middle of the twentieth century, while merely fine-tuning the genetic nature arguments. His main point is that genes are at the root of both nurture and nature, but not deterministically so. I think he makes a good point in that regard, but that his inclination on social issue examples tends towards politically conservative views.

His writing style is sensationalistic, making broad comparisons to what “science” might expect, when he is really contrasting with a popular distillation of science. To support his points, beyond a broad overview of scientific research studies, Ridley calls on the themes of literary works and philosophical movements. There are quite a few more of those non-scientific views, as Ridley moves back and forth through the various paradigms in the history of the topic, than I was looking for. I am interested mostly in learning in how things do work, to the best of current knowledge, and less in mistaken directions taken in the past. His argumentation is kept mostly at the level of psychology and anthropology. I don’t doubt that he does understand the molecular biology underlying some of the work, but by choosing to pass above that, he ends up using metaphors of language that are less helpful. I was reminded how psychology is not a hard science, with persuasive reasoning sometimes replacing knowledge of physical mechanism.

I don’t read enough of this subgenre of popular genetics, to be able to compare or contrast the various perspectives, so will have to settle for extracting the material here that seems factual, and suspending judgement on that which seems opinionated. In the last chapter (10 “A Budget of Paradoxical Morals”), he gives seven take-aways, some of which are actually newly introduced topics. In his own words:

Moral 1: Genes are Enablers – Don’t be frightened of genes. They are not gods; they are cogs.
Moral 2: Parents – Being a good parent still matters.
Moral 3: Peers – Individuality is a product of aptitude reinforced by appetite.
Moral 4: Meritocracy – Egalitarians should emphasize nature; snobs should emphasize nurture.
Moral 5: Race - The more we understand both our genes and our instincts, the less inevitable they seem.
Moral 6: Individuality – Social policy must adapt to a world in which everybody is different.
Moral 7: Free Will - is entirely compatible with a brain exquisitely prespecified by, and run by, genes. ...more

5 likes · Like · see review