dNATE.com

What Should We Be Worried About? Genetic Inequality

Edge posted its annual question: What Should We Be Worried About?  They received 150 responses from intellectuals and meritocrats, who are obviously blind to the main worry we non-meritocrats have: Genetic inequality.

Certainly Douglas T. Kenrick, Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University, touches on this inequality when he writes:

Just as countries differ in their distribution of wealth, they also differ in their distribution of IQ. ... Having a high IQ intellectual class—lots of people with accomplishments in science, math, technology and engineering—translated directly into more wealth for a country. To put it into purely economic terms, an increase of 1 IQ point among average citizens increases a country's average GDP by $229, whereas an increase of 1 IQ point in the intellectual elite is worth $468.

And Geoffrey Miller, Evolutionary psychologist, NYU Stern Business School and University of New Mexico, touches on another piece of the puzzle:

[China] is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. ... These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually. ... Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. ... After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness.

Yet meritocrats won't state the obvious conclusion: Genetic inequality is what we should be worried about.

The Cone of My Incompetence

Here's an excerpt from my new book, The Cone of My Incompetence: How My Genes Keep Me Down:

From an early age, I realized I was different.

Some people have natural gifts like energy, drive, charisma, motivation, calm under pressure, willpower, self-discipline and resilience. They’re lucky to be born with such rare and highly valued traits.

But I’m not so lucky. I lack natural potential and talent. And no amount of practice can change that.

I call it The Cone of My Incompetence.

My Cone determines my needs, wants, interests, fears, obsessions and desires. It resides deep in my subconscious brain, constructed by my DNA.

My Cone keeps me down. Managing people just makes me nervous. Power hierarchies leave me cold. Unless rallied by a natural leader, I’m a lazy sloth. I’m a natural born follower. A promotion is not in my DNA.

Those born with natural gifts are rewarded with lavish salaries, bonuses, perks, and promotions. But I’m not.

I never chose this Cone. It’s not something I have. It’s who I am.

And it’s not fair.

Here's another description from Amazon.com:

Frustrated by his own lack of talent and natural gifts, the author questions whether elite meritocrats--corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, bankers--who are lucky to be born with rare character traits like self-confidence, energy, resilience, and drive, truly deserve their enormous pay packages, bonuses and perks

You can order it here.

A New Political Party

Karl Marx said that human nature is malleable, and can be changed by social & industrial relationships, i.e. the means of production. Using that philosophy, the Soviet Communists and Chinese Maoists collectivized farms in the mid-20th century, and millions died of starvation as a result. It turns out there is a human nature after all, and it's not as malleable as Marx thought.  A man works harder if he feels a sense of ownership in his property.  It's human nature.

On the other hand, the Nazis believed human nature is fixed, and look how that turned out - unspeakable crimes against humanity. So a pox on both their houses!

Modern political parties are much more tame.

Democrats (falsely) believe human nature is malleable, and so inequality must be due to discrimination (or cultural practices, or social relations), which should be rectified (usually by government programs or income redistribution). 

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that human nature is fixed and immutable, and use this fact to (falsely) justify social inequality (e.g. they argue that government programs that attempt to rectify inequality are largely ineffective and a waste of money).

I think they're both wrong. But there's a third way. I call it the Nature Party.

The Nature Party believes that human nature is indeed fixed and immutable, leading to social inequality. Yet the government should provide the funding and freedom to individuals to allow them to change their nature to fit the world (probably by genetic change), and bring about greater fairness in society.  And if they opt not to change their nature, they should continue to be cared for and supported by government programs and income redistribution.

I don't deserve this!

Your natural talents are not your own doing.  You're simply lucky to be born that way.  For example, Michael Jordan was born with talents and gifts.  (Of course, if you replace the politically correct term "natural gifts" with the identical term "genetic talents" many people get very agitated!)

Did he deserve all the money he made?  Certainly Michael Jordan practiced hard, but many other players practiced just as hard, and perhaps his willingness to practice hard was also an inborn trait.  Jordan was also lucky to be born in a time when we value basketball talent, and reward it with millions of dollars in compensation.  

The same can be said for Wall Street bankers.  They may be born with certain natural talents (analytical ability, mathematical ability, love of risk, etc.). If a hedge fund manager makes a smart bet, he can make a billion dollars overnight.  But it's a lucky bet.  How does it differ from someone who wins the lottery? Does he deserve the million dollar bonuses?  Or is he simply lucky to be born in an age that honors financial acumen (i.e. the genetic traits that lead to its development)?

Such inequality in innate traits is the rationale behind income redistribution.  The rich should pay more in taxes, as the genetically disadvantaged suffer from a lack of natural talent (intelligence, diligence, energy-level, etc.) and should be supported by social programs, essentially handouts from one genetic class to another.

Yet, in one way, Michael Jordan is responsible for his success, because talent is not something you have.  It's something you are.  It's part of your design, which comes from your genes via development.  Michael Jordan is functioning according to specs, according to his genetic design.

The same way that a serial killer is operating normally when he hunts down and kills someone.  It's the way his genes designed him.  He enjoys doing what he does.  He's operating according to his design specification.  He (the complete organism developed by his genetic blueprint) is responsible for his acts, and thus should be punished for his actions.  Because laws are simply rules imposed by one set of genetic beings over another.

If you're not happy about this, there's not much you can do.  Human development is mostly one-way.  The only way to change the outcome is at conception, although meritocrats are desperately fighting this option.

Why America's politics are so polarized

I'm reading Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart, in which he asserts that high-IQ individuals are increasingly segregating themselves from the rest of society. They meet at top universities, inter-marry, live in gated communities, get astronomically high-paying jobs in finance, business, law, etc... and rarely mingle with the common folk.

With the rise of highly-leveraged financial markets and hedge funds, control over billions of dollars in physical assets is consolidated by relatively few individuals. (Contrast that with a day laborer who controls only the fruits of his own labor.) It makes sense for corporations to seek out high-IQ talent and pay them millions, since an additional two or three IQ points may net an additional $100 million in profits on financial transactions.

It used to be that small towns across America had more high-IQ citizens scattered about to shape, nuance, inform, moderate, or otherwise influence local opinion, perhaps serving as mayor or town council members. In short, to act as community leaders, to inspire and motivate others. But now, high-IQ students are whisked away after high school graduation to attend an elite university like Harvard or Yale or Stanford, and they rarely return (nor do their children).

America's average towns are suffering a brain drain. Those left behind are more easily incited and influenced by simple-minded, all-or-nothing, charismatic zealots on television, like Rush Limbaugh. And since the high-IQ elites are overwhelming liberal, when they move away their hometowns become even more conservative on average.

The Brain on Trial - errata

It's good to see the legal community finally grappling with the implications of biology. David Eagleman writes in the Atlantic about criminal behavior and culpability, and concludes that

Whether in empathy, intelligence, impulse control, or aggression … People are not created equal … Not everyone is equally “free” to make socially appropriate choices … If free will does exist, it has little room in which to operate … [there is a] myth of human equality

Eagleman argues that “blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot”. Regarding the choices a criminal - or anyone else - makes:

it no longer makes sense to ask, ‘To what extent was it his biology, and to what extent was it him?’ because we now understand that there is no meaningful distinction between a person’s biology and his decision-making. They are inseparable.

Here's my issue. The desire to commit crimes (or lack of control) comes from my wants, impulses and interests, which come from my genes (i.e. genetically constructed regions of the brain). Yet I freely choose, based on who I am (what I innately want). In other words: "I am my genes". I commit crimes based on who I innately am. That's perfect free will - freedom to follow your innate programming. What you want and what you choose (and who you innately are) are all identical.

This implies that the legal system is simply a set of rules imposed by one set of genetic beings over another. This has its origins 15,000 years ago, when human civilization began its differentiation into specialized roles of leaders and followers, to allow society to grow and scale. (Perhaps ancient “hierarchy genes” stored in our junk DNA were brought back for this purpose to re-establish our specialized roles as worker bees, drones, and queens.)

By this account, there is no right and wrong in the law. There's no implied fairness for individuals. Laws are a control mechanism to allow society to function more smoothly, a cultural reflection of genetic specialization. If you have the “poor impulse control gene” then you're incarcerated. Like quantum physics, there is no separation of law-giver and law abider, just genetic beings interacting with other (specialized) genetic beings.

Sure, we can try “customized rehabilitation” of criminals and “tailor sentencing and rehabilitation for the individual” based on genetics (or brain hardwiring) as Eagleman suggests. We can try to encourage people to tune their frontal lobes to control impulses using biofeedback. But all this complexity will add confusion and reduce the law's clarity and impact.

Sooner or later, we will all ask the question: why accept this genetic hierarchy, when with a few genetic changes we can pluck out our innate “poor impulse control” and “aggression” and replace them with new genes for success (and no jail time)?

A critique of David Brooks' The Social Animal

I’m fascinated by David Brooks new book "The Social Animal", not because the ideas are originally his, but because Brooks synthesizes recent findings of researchers in many fields.

The message is an essentially negative and pessimistic one, especially if you believe in free will:

• "The unconscious parts of the mind are most of the mind – where most of the decisions and many of the most impressive acts of thinking take place"
• The unconscious realm includes "emotions, intuitions, biases, longings, genetic predispositions, [and] character traits"
• “The conscious mind merely confabulates stories that try to make sense of what the unconscious mind is doing of its own accord.”
• This “removes the conscious mind from its privileged place at the center of human behavior”

Yet Brooks tries to put a positive spin on it. “This is the happiest story you’ve ever read,” he writes. Brooks invents imaginary characters – Harold and Erica – with an admirable set of rare innate traits:

• “persistent after setbacks”
• “possessed enough confidence to take risks”
• could “control their worst impulses”
• could “read people”
• “you could put them in front of a crowd”

Sure, it’s a happy story if you’re born with the “predispositions” of the meritocratic elite. But how about the rest of us? “More than a quarter of high-school students drop out” and 70% of adults never graduate from college.

Today’s corporate CEOs struggle to find such talent who are comfortable in their own skin and can be “put in front of a crowd”. These are the “seedbeds of accomplishment”, according to Brooks. Yet most people simply want approval from their superiors. Most of us don’t want to stand out. And certainly, we get panic attacks when presenting in front of crowds.

Brooks tries to have it both ways. He writes that “the conscious mind can influence the unconscious” and the emotions can be “properly nurtured” and “educated” and “don’t control our lives”. Yet how can the conscious mind choose to go against the unconscious mind, if "what we want [and] how we perceive the world” are determined by the unconscious? The conscious mind doesn’t have preferences of its own. So how can it override the subconscious? Even Brooks admits that “mental processes ... inaccessible to consciousness organize our thinking, shape our judgments [and desires, and] form our characters”.

Brooks refers to an “outer mind [that] hungers for status, money, and applause, [while] the inner mind hungers for harmony and connection”. In reality, there is no inner/outer distinction. Need for status is unconscious. Power-hungry people are not conscious of why they feel that way. Traits are not something you have; they are who you are.

“Character is formed,” says Brooks, and this is certainly true. Nobody is born power-hungry. But how does it develop? Certainly the brain requires experience in order to wire itself. But it’s not just any experience; it’s expected experience. Any other experience is essentially ignored.

We evolved in a social context. Our genes expect other people to be around. Our genes hardwire us to suckle at our mother’s breast. Our genes hardwire us to turn our heads and look up, and remember what we see. Later, this imprinted memory of “mother” can be exploited by the genes for other purposes. For example, the genes can establish a hardwired reaction to our mother, once we learn to recognize who she is. So (expected) experience is required for proper hardwiring to occur.

The development of character proceeds in a similar way. Some people are excited by the presence of others, especially those who can help them socially or politically. The mental capacity to perceive the “right people” takes years to develop. But it all starts with interest. If you’re not interested in forming networks – if you’re a homebody or a shy loner – you won’t do it. If you can’t stand kissing up to power, you probably won’t get promoted.

The unconscious mind “coats things with emotional significance”. But no two people are alike in their interests, and thus their capabilities.

If you’re born with the (unconscious) traits to be a meritocrat (as Brooks is), it must be a happy life of easy connections, influence and easy money. Your wants, desires, and passions are highly rewarded by society. Yet the rest of us struggle with an unconscious that leads to introversion, insecurity and followership. We’re easily exploited by the Oprah-esque meritocrats who tell us we can change with conscious effort to be just like them ("just buy my book!"), and who possess the confidence to pat us on the back, without their own need for approbation.

The problem with David Brooks' "new humanism"

Political and social commentator David Brooks has written a new book called "The Social Animal" in which he tries to elevate the role of human emotion and the unconscious mind into the political debate. He appears to agree with Dennis Overbye who writes,

A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control. [Our] conscious brain [is] only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain [is] already doing.

Our preferences, says Brooks, have deep innate underpinnings, of which we are not consciously aware.  Most human decision-making emanates from the unconscious mind, where emotion provides a largely hidden ability to assign value to our decision-making options.  A man without emotion is not rational, but rather indecisive and lost. 

Brooks asserts, however, that you can learn strategies to control your impulses through repetition, and thus gain self-control. Brooks claims that "character" can be trained through rigorous "discipline" and 10,000 "small repetitions" to develop "habits and strategies" that can overcome your perceptions.  You can "learn to see" things differently through absorption of new "norms". 

What Brooks won't tell you

Is it true?  Can we "learn strategies to control impulses" through practice?  Certainly you can teach yourself anything if you're interested and motivated.  But if you're not interested, you'll stop practicing.

The philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, said that we can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will. In other words, you can't change your (innate) preferences (consider this case for example).  What people don't understand is, if you don't want to do something, it's the same as not being able to do it. Some people don't want to practice, because of who they genetically are.  Freedom to follow your innate preferences is not really "free will".

Genes place a leash on our capacities, because they determine what things interest us enough to practice them.  Practice leads to habit, and gradually to expertise.  Since we all differ genetically, we all have different interests, desires, cravings, and passions. Different interests lead to different practice regimens, which lead (deterministically) to inequality in talent.  Psychologist William James "believed in free will on 'ethical grounds,' [but] he did not believe that there was evidence for it on scientific grounds."

In Mischel's famous marshmallow test, for example, "the ability of 4-year-olds to postpone gratification by leaving a marshmallow uneaten for a time as a condition of receiving a second marshmallow was a very good predictor of success in life."  Brooks writes: "The kids who could wait a full 15 minutes had, 13 years later, SAT scores that were 210 points higher than the kids who could wait only 30 seconds”. He doesn't mention that differences among children in the ability to delay gratification are genetically linked.

The truly novel implication that Brooks doesn't fully explore is human diversity; that we're not all the same, genetically speaking. While Brooks hints at these issues (the "meritocratic class re-inforces itself through genes" and "kids are born with a certain temperament"), he describes the mind as an "emergent system," a product of murky nature/nurture "interactionism".

Brooks can't have it both ways.  He cites "parental sensitivity" as the "causal arrow" of a child's success (a little lie to boost book sales among the Oprah crowd), even as he admits that 30% of abused children turn out just fine, since they possess an innately resilient temperament.  In other words, genes trump environment, but only if you're a member of the genetic meritocracy, as Brooks is.  Born leaders have traits like high energy, passion, ability to motivate others, fascination with power hierarchies, and extreme self-confidence. These are rare traits, which is why leaders are so highly compensated for their rare gene variants.  In other words, they're paid just to be themselves, i.e. who they genetically are.

Obviously both political parties would shun Brooks if he followed this argument to its logical conclusion, which is why he cloaks his message in muddy sentiment. Yet even as Republicans promote individual responsibility, they secretly believe in a natural God-given hierarchy in society.  Democrats, on the other hand, endlessly exploit the human hardwired belief in "free will" (despite evidence to the contrary), and thus gain political power by cynically promising that anyone can do anything with the right government programs. 

Yet the Democratic myth remains, for now, the more politically compelling one, until such time we can rectify the unfairness of natural inequalities in society.

Race and drugs

The FDA recently approved a new drug for lupus, even as that drug (like all drugs) doesn't work for everyone:

African American patients ... did not appear to respond to treatment with Benlysta. ... To address this concern, the sponsor has agreed to conduct an additional study of people with those backgrounds.

The FDA has approved drugs for specific racial groups before. For example, "BiDil" was approved in 2005 for Blacks only, prompting critics to complain that,

by approving a drug for one group, the FDA was using race as a crude shortcut for genetic typing ... Endorsing a drug for one race gave official government imprimatur to the discredited notion of race as a biological category.

Are natural inequalities within the realm of justice?

Since the ancient philosophers, we've believed that innate differences in natural talent are not something that justice requires efforts to correct:

At least in the West, systematic thinking about justice begins with Plato's Republic. Plato assumed that there are significant natural inequalities – what we would call genetic differences – among human beings.  He also believed that differences in the capacity to develop higher forms of intelligence and to cultivate certain virtues are among those natural inequalities.  Furthermore, he assumed, without argument, that these natural inequalities (and perhaps all natural inequalities) are not themselves within the domain of justice.  For Plato, the (alleged) fact that some are born with a lesser capacity for developing intelligence, or wisdom, or courage, or temperance is not itself something that justice requires efforts to correct.  Those who happen to be born with lesser capabilities have no claim of justice.

Later theorists have tended to share this assumption about the boundaries of the domain of justice without questioning it – perhaps without even noticing it.

In his book A Theory of Justice, written in 1971, John Rawls suggested we accept differences in innate talents, and redistribute the consequences (i.e. tax the talented to support the untalented), but he hinted at a future when genetic enhancement was possible:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature ... [Yet] it is in the interest of each to have greater natural assets ... the parties want to insure for their descendants the best genetic endowment.

Today, with the latest advancements in genetics, redistribution of innate talent may finally become reality (see, for example, a recent article in Slate):

How big is the market for trait selection? In a New York University survey, 10 percent to 13 percent of patients seeking genetic counseling said they would screen embryos to select height, intelligence, or athletic ability.

Clearly, our technologies (and personal desires) have outpaced our philosophies.  If Plato knew it was possible to alter our natural inequalities, what would he say?  ("Rawls, give me re-write!")  Would justice require efforts to correct it?  Who would decide (governments or individuals) and who would pay?

Saletan's Race Debate

William Saletan in Slate has bravely grappled with the racial achievement gap.  Although everyone is morally equal despite their race, dramatic differences in NAEP test scores, SAT, GRE and other tests persist between the races.  According to Saletan:

Research is constantly finding new gene-trait correlations and group differences. If your faith in equality depends on an ethnically or racially even distribution of all ability-influencing genes, you're in trouble ... People of your race may be on average faster, smarter, or more volatile than people of my race.

If this is true, it will be hard to argue that differences in achievement outcomes between the races are due to discrimination, since they're actually caused by genetic group differences.

Yet race is a poor proxy for genetic differences.  It's too blunt an instrument. In the age of Obama, when a half-white man can proudly call himself black, Saletan asks whether race is still a meaningful concept:

Why categorize and measure students by race? Aren't there better ways to organize the data? … Does that category really help? And what message does it send to kids when headlines assert a persistent "racial gap"?

Then he answers his own question: “We're prone to tribalism”.  We like to think of ourselves as part of a group.  We identify with our race, because it's like our own extended family.

But self-identifying with race also has consequences.  It invites stereotypes.  According to Larry Elder,

[blacks are only 13 percent of the population, yet] account for 37.2 percent of all those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders

It's a short leap for someone reading that volatility may be genetic to erroneously conclude that all blacks are genetically more volatile, which accounts for their higher crime rate.  And that's a big problem.  Humans have an innate tendency toward prejudice.

So, like Saletan, I wish tests and surveys would stop tracking race.  I wish society would drop the whole idea of race. Being more “volatile” is not a defining black characteristic.  It’s probably caused by a set of genes that both blacks and whites share, perhaps in different frequencies on average.  We should understand volatility and intelligence in terms of underlying genes, not race.

But tribalism is also part of human nature.  Society will not easily forgo its racial distinctions.  Perhaps we’ve reached the limit of where our innate categories of understanding will bend to reason, until we alter our nature itself.  But genetic enhancement is still decades away.  So the immediate future will be about expediency – full of its distasteful Missouri Compromises – not moral truth.

Interestingly, Saletan reaches the same conclusion that I do:

the convergence of meritocracy with genetics is leading us inexorably toward eugenics.

I don't like the term eugenics, with its implication of government-sponsored tyranny.  But I do believe in personal reproductive choice, including genetic enhancement of one's children. This won't happen without a fight, however, as society's genetic elites (perhaps with good intentions) attempt to limit access to genetic testing, ban reproductive choice, and ultimately maintain their genetic advantage.  Fewer than 30% of adults has a college degree, because the genes for traits like persistence, tenacity, and ability to defer gratification are rare today.

Spreading the wealth around

It's human nature to believe you're responsible for your own success.  So successful people resist any sort of government action that appears to resemble "redistribution of wealth" in the form of imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and providing subsidies and social programs for the poor.

If it could be proved with certainty, however, that people with higher drive, energy, passion, charisma and intelligence are born that way, then most people would probably agree that government redistribution of wealth was fair.  Having these characteristics would often (although not always) lead to success, in the form of higher pay and social status.

Yet most people don't believe there are innate differences in talent.  For the most part, people think we're all responsible for our own success.  At most, some believe that government programs are still required to address inequities from past discrimination or cultural beliefs, but aside from these, they believe everyone is born with the same chance of success.

In reality, we're born with innate ways of understanding the world (our strong belief in "free will" is one of those), and moreover, we differ amongst ourselves. Take, for example, the "born leader". Napoleon was not born leading an army, but he was still a born leader, because he had the DNA to develop into a leader over time.  He was born with the DNA that configured his brain to be excited by leadership opportunities, not to be scared or intimidated by them (as most of us are).  His genes were very rare.

Humans evolved as specialists, with a distribution of labor built into our character traits.  Some of us are born brave and selfless, but also crave to be led.  Some are born with the genes for intelligence and drive, but without the need for approbation and approval, and so end up taking the CEO's corner office, and receive the lion's share of society's wealth.

Ironically, we humans may never understand ourselves, if our capacity for self-understanding is itself innate (and inaccurate).  Our common sense and intuition evolved not for truth and rational understanding, but for survival of the species.  That's why there's no moral outrage at the genetic inequity, because we're not designed to consider it.

Tackling racism

Many have been forced to grapple with the issue of race and genetics after James Watson – the co-discoverer of DNA's double helix – recently made some racist remarks.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

William Saletan (writing in Slate) is to be congratulated for tackling this issue head-on, bravely and correctly.  Most commentators (including the shameful New York Times) prefer to be inoffensive and politically correct, rather than accurate.

I would go further than Saletan, and argue that any racial classification is wrong.  Any demographic questionnaire asking whether you're White, Black or Hispanic should be outlawed.  By identifying yourself with a racial group, you're simply asking to be stereotyped.

According to Nature Genetics:

the use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease

Every racial group has a slightly different distribution of gene variants (i.e. genes for skin color, genes for intelligence, etc).  By saying "I am White" you're really saying "I'm assuming I have the gene variants that are most representative of my race".  You're setting yourself apart.  The problem is, you may or may not have those specific genes.

Everyone has the same rights, regardless of race.  Everyone is morally equal.  By identifying with a race – by discriminating based on "group genes" – we muddy and degrade our moral equality.

The Gay Gene

A recent article on the CNN website repeats the same old false dichotomy in the Nature vs. Nurture debate:

A growing number of psychologists and geneticists are working on the "nature versus nurture" question -- a question that's set off a highly charged political debate about whether people choose their sexuality, or whether gayness is determined by their DNA.

Why does it have to be either/or -- free choice or DNA?  When I choose something, my choice must come from somewhere, right?  It must come from my desires in certain situations.  Whether straight or gay, when we experience a situation (seeing a girl or guy) we react with an emotion or desire, which leads us to make a choice based on our desire.

So where do our desires come from?  They come from our brain.  When our brain develops, specialized brain modules are established to trigger our desires and feelings in certain situations.  So it follows that our choices are genetic, because our genes are the blueprints for brain development.  And since we all have slightly different genes, it also follows that we have different desires as well.

In the same article, Douglas Abbott, a professor of child and family studies at the University of Nebraska, states that "if homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms" then children of gay parents "would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction ... but they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

This is not necessarily true.  Genetic traits can sometimes skip several generations, so we may end up with traits from our ancestors, instead of our parents.

According to Abbott, "the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency".  And I agree, we are all free to choose what we want.  But if our wants come from our genes, we are not free in our wants themselves.

Google my genes

The wife of Google founder Sergey Brin recently founded a company called "23andMe" to help usher in the era of personalized medicine.  Someday, you'll be able to log into their website and compare your genome with other people's, and find drugs that work best for you, based on your genes.

It's an exciting development, and like all exciting developments it will lead off in many unexpected and messy directions.  But that's what it will take for society to finally end our denial, and grapple with the implications that not everyone is the same.  Some people have a higher likelihood of getting certain diseases.  Some have a brain that develops differently, making them smarter.  Some genes regulate our social behavior, making us followers instead of leaders.

The era of the Blank Slate, where everyone is considered equal in capacity, will soon be over.  Hopefully, we don't forget that everyone is still morally equal, regardless of the genes we possess.

GINA - Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

The House of Representatives recently passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and the bill is expected to pass the Senate and become law later in 2007, replacing a patchwork of state and federal regulations. [Update: President George W. Bush finally signed H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, on Wednesday, May 21, 2008]

According to the Genetics & Public Policy Center,

Ninety-two percent of Americans are concerned that results of a genetic test that tells a patient whether he or she is at increased risk for a disease like cancer could be used in ways that are harmful to the person, and most believe that employers and health insurers should not have access to this information.

The threat of genetic discrimination has hindered both genetic research and clinical practice. Linking gene variants to health outcomes often requires studies involving large numbers of people, but scientists report that many potential subjects are deterred by the fear that their information could be used against them by employers or insurers. Thus research is impeded that would help to bring about the much-heralded era of personalized medicine. Meanwhile, individual patients who could benefit from genetic testing have sometimes foregone it out of concern over possible repercussions. When people opt not to be tested, they lose the opportunity to seek monitoring and preventive care to avoid conditions for which they are at higher risk.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Free Will

For about 5 minutes, I was excited to see the new “Politically Incorrect Guide to…” series at my local bookstore.  Until, that is, I realized the series is little more than a right-wing political screed, attacking things like Darwinism, etc (although I must admit, I sometimes do that too!).

Too bad.  For those few moments, I imagined myself as the author of the next title in the series – “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Free Will”.  But if that series is edited by conservatives, I don’t think they would appreciate my perspective.

Actually, I’m fairly disappointed with both Conservatives and Liberals these days, in their approach to free will.

Conservatives will cynically tell folks that everyone is born a "blank slate" (the John Locke perspective), implying that any success in life is due to hard work.  But Conservatives secretly believe there’s a natural hierarchy in society.  Talent should be allowed to rise, they say, and mediocrity should be told to accept their lot in life.

Liberals, on the other hand, are less cynical (but equally wrong) in their perspective that “everyone can do anything” and any exception should be rectified by the government (since the inequity probably involves some invidious discrimination on someone’s part).

I say Conservatives are cynical because they secretly use the words of their Republican party founder, Abraham Lincoln, to undermine Liberalism.  Lincoln wrote that "I think the authors of [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men [as equal under the law], but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity". 

So conservatives have tried to show how innate differences among people (specifically intelligence) imply that Liberal government programs like Head Start don’t have any lasting effect after they end (and I agree, so why should they end?).  Conservatives want the government to stay out, so the natural leaders can rule and reap the benefits of lucrative business contracts.

Ah, what a mess!  The moral principle of “equal rights under the law” is valid, of course, whether or not people are different in their innate capabilities.  It’s an abstract right.  The main problem is that most people are not innately motivated to start a business, run for office, or publish their own newspaper.  Social resources are thus allocated on the basis of genetic variation among people. 

We all have the rights to life, liberty and property, but some people desire more property and have the superior means to acquire it (due to their greater innate motivation, leadership skills and charisma).  Society is thus divided into innate leaders and followers, which is anathema to what America should be all about.

What we need is a political party that can lay out its principles based on facts (as we currently know them).  Humans have genetic diversity.  Some genes will give you greater motivation, property and influence.  Thus, the government should provide free genetic tests to everyone who requests them, redistribute wealth to genetic have-nots, and provide free (government-subsidized) genetic choice for parents and their children.  After that, the government should stay out of it.

Your genes are not always your friends

According to a recent publication in the journal Cell, researchers have identified a gene that increases levels of a natural memory-blocking protein.  What? A natural memory-blocking protein!!  It turns out that:

When one protein in our brain (eIF2a) is chemically modified by a memory-blocking protein called Gcn2p, it halts production of genes required for the long-term storage of memories.

By modifying mice to carry instead a version of the eIF2a protein that can't be chemically modified, scientists created supersmart mice that could learn how to navigate mazes twice as fast as other mice!

A natural memory-blocking protein!!??  What's it doing inside my head?  Why would evolution give some people this variant of the gene, and not other people?  Why would scientists have to genetically modify mice to render them (what I would call) normal?

Because not all creatures are the same, even within the same species.  We humans evolved a distribution of traits (or specialization) across individuals.  Not everyone can be smart, because our genes actively prevent some of us from becoming smart!

Democracy and genetics

America was founded by a group of highly-motivated religious non-conformists.  These were Protestants, who believed that all people should have a personal and direct relationship with God, not through the intervening hierarchy and ritual of the Catholic Church in Europe.  And Protestants were willing to die for their beliefs.

Why did some people become Protestants, when others around them did not?  They could have safely avoided the European religious wars, by remaining neutral or unaffiliated.  What was it about Protestantism that motivated them to join, at great risk to their own lives?

I believe it was their innate temperament.  For some people, the Protestant ideas resonate and motivate, and for other people they don’t.  As Protestants fled religious persecution in Europe, they often settled in America.  This self-selected group of temperamentally similar people migrated from one place (Europe, where they were relatively rare) to become highly concentrated in another place, the shores of America.

If you could characterize the personality of America’s founders (especially the Protestants), it would be:

• Individualistic, belief in hard work
• Suspicious of authority and of other groups
• True believers
• Rigid in principles, rule-based, absolutist
• Abstract thinkers

Naturally, people with these character traits adopted a philosophy of rugged individualism, suspicion of authority, and moralistic rule of law.  Thus America acquired a national character (the right genetic mix) to become the “great experiment” in democracy, which had failed 2000 years earlier in ancient Greece.  Democracy and respect for individuals became the American religion, our core beliefs, our DNA.

Even with an influx of immigrants from all over the world, including Catholics (from Ireland and Italy and Spain and the Philippines) whom the Protestant founders had despised, America continues to thrive.  Jews and Muslims and Asians also joined the great American "melting pot", and Jews are now the great practitioners of democracy.  Once the seed was planted, the tree has proven resilient.

However, I wonder about other places on Earth, where the genetic seed does not seem to exist.  The collective disposition of many Asians, for example, is to accept what they are told by authority figures in the government, not to question authority.  And I don’t think it’s cultural.  Whereas there seems to be a practical desire to further one’s own happiness and wealth, there’s also a passive acquiescence toward authority.  The Chinese are transforming from collectivist communism to materialist capitalism, without stopping to identify their core beliefs and values as a society.  The collective (genetic) instinct of the people is to bend and flow around obstacles, not confront them directly, as the Protestants did.  There’s a lack of (innate) collective will, a lack of stubbornness to die for an abstract belief.  Will democracy take hold there?  Perhaps it will, if like-minded people are allowed to come together to form the seed.

In other parts of the world, the "special moment" that existed at the founding of American democracy has also not repeated itself.  The impulse of many Muslims seems to be continuing blood feuds and seeking raw power (instead of practicing forgiveness).  In Africa, as well, democracy has rarely taken hold.  In India, democracy merely hobbles along.

You can’t teach the ability to feel suspicion toward authority.  It has to come from within (i.e. part of your personality).  You can’t teach a love of abstract principles.  These things have to be in your blood.  There must be a "critical mass" of like-minded people around you -- for whom these ideas also innately resonate -- for democracy to take hold.

Success of Asian students: culture or genes?

Some commentators bemoan the fact that 46 percent of students at the University of California, Berkeley, are now Asian. But it certainly proves that Americans are so certain in our principles that we allow meritocracy to flourish, whatever the outcome. If Asians have the highest test scores, of course they should be the ones who are accepted. If this leads to racial imbalances at the university level, so be it.

But concerns linger.  Asians often seek a western PhD for its status value and for technical skills training, not because they are intellectually curious or desire to discover new science.  This misses the point of the Western educational system, which encourages you to challenge and ask “why” questions. The Asian style is often one of rote memorization, accepting what you are told (whether it makes sense or not), and thinking about it later.

Chinese students I’ve spoken with say that back home they were told what classes to take and what to study, so they didn't need to worry or question anything. They just studied what was put in front of them. It gave them a very comforting feeling.

To apply to western universities, you need a good score on the SAT and GRE tests.  A test prep industry in China, including companies like New Oriental, teach students how to do well on tests:

Jia Wen, a 25-year-old graduate student in finance at Boston College, recounted some odd New Oriental gimmicks she learned for the TOEFL's listening section. Her teacher told her to remember that if the answer choices involve food, for instance, hamburgers always taste better than pizza. And that girls in the passages are always more intelligent and harder-working than boys. "You don't need to understand," says Wen, who scored 110. "After many practices, you can recognize the correct answer just by looking at the choices."

Personally, I wouldn't benefit from such a class, because I don't have such raw mental powers of memorization and subtle pattern recognition. But this approach certainly doesn't encourage students to debate, exchange ideas, or think independently. Getting into - and surviving - a top school, for these students, is more about social status than intellectual contribution.

Asians don’t have a tradition of debate, asking questions, and doing critical analysis. Whereas there seems to be a practical desire to further one’s own happiness and wealth in Asia, there’s also a passive acquiescence toward authority. Questioning the teacher is considered impolite, and debate destroys group harmony.

According to Stanford professor Hazel R. Markus (in a recent NYT article):

[S]tudies have found that Asian students do approach academics differently. Whether educated in the United States or abroad, she says, they see professors as authority figures to be listened to, not challenged in the back-and-forth Socratic tradition. “You hear some teachers say that the Asian kids get great grades but just sit there and don’t participate,” she says. “Talking and thinking are not the same thing. Being a student to some Asians means that it’s not your place to question, and that flapping your gums [debating] all day is not the best thing.”

One study ... looked at Asian-American students in lab courses, and found they did better solving problems alone and without conversations with other students. “This can make for some big problems,” [says Markus], like misunderstandings between classmates. “But people are afraid to talk about these differences."

Curiosity and originality and invention are not prized in Asian culture, because innovation often involves conflict.  Americans often complain that Chinese simply copy or steal Western ideas and products instead of inventing their own.  

The Chinese are transforming from collectivist communism to materialist capitalism, without stopping to identify their core beliefs and values as a society. The collective instinct of the people is to bend and flow around obstacles, not confront them directly. There’s a lack of will—a lack of stubbornness to die for an abstract belief or idea. Yet Asians have a strong sense of dignity, and I hope they can transform that fiercely held subjective trait into a love of abstract principles.

Is it culture or genes that make Asians smart (or at least able to do well on tests)? A recent scientific publication reports that 25 percent of genes studied differ in their level of activity between Europeans and Asians. Does that prove a role for genetics? I’m not so sure.  Steven Chu, raised in America, is a Nobel Prize winner. So who knows? Asians may have some innate group differences in temperament (on average) from other groups in America. And that’s fine. As long as Asian immigrants assimilate and respect American values—and more importantly, that those values truly resonate with their character—our nation will survive and thrive.

Is national character genetic?

Ever so meekly and tentatively, scientists are now exploring genetic differences between world cultures.  Nicholas Wade speculates in the New York Times that "the concept of national character could turn out to be not entirely baseless" due to differences in genetic evolution.  And according to recent article in Science "cultures differ somewhat in aggregate personality levels" due to different distributions of genetic variants across society.

So what could this mean?  Will scientists really be allowed to investigate the answers, or will their research be prematurely shut down due to political concerns?  One can see flashbacks to the time of Galileo and Copernicus, who were threatened with excommunication when they observed the Earth revolves around the Sun.  Sometimes, what you can plainly see will get you into trouble by people who refuse to consider your evidence.

Unfortunately (and this is why scientists are being so timid), humans are hardwired toward prejudice and discrimination, so what people hear and what they believe are two different things.  If scientists can prove that group X is more violent than group Y (on aggregate), many people will naturally jump to the conclusion that all X's are violent.  But the truth is that there's an uneven distribution of (genetic) violent tendencies across group X, with 20% of its members responsible for 80% of the violence.  (A violent tendency is the same thing as having a lowered threshold to respond violently when provoked.) 

Societies and cultures are often (rightly) defined by 20% of their members who are most outspoken. But if one society has 20% of its members with an innately low threshold for violence, and another society has only 10% of its members so pre-disposed, it's easy to see that the former society will be more violent (on average) than the latter.

Since humans are unreliable in explaining why they believe what they do, it's hard to investigate the true causes of national character.  Someone may say "my brother was killed by group X, and therefore it is my duty to avenge him".  But someone else in a similar situation in a more placid culture (think Canada) might say something like "my brother was killed by group X, and therefore we need increased spending on social welfare programs for group X".  Can we really trust the explanation people give, or would it be more accurate to attribute their opinion to their gene variants?

National conversations tend to reach a consensus, of sorts, which define their culture.  If most people in a society tend to have a high threshold before reacting violently, then their opinion will tend to overshadow a small minority of people who promote violence.  On the other hand, in societies where everyone believes they are (or ought to be) the leader, there is a constant blood struggle for supremacy, and their culture also tends to be more violent on aggregate.

Finding religion in genetics

By some strange miracle (or by accident), I ran into two of the human genome pioneers in the past two months – Francis Collins and Craig Venter.  On September 15, while attending a modern dance show at Duke University (Liz Lerman’s “Ferocious Beauty: Genome”), a kindly older couple standing in the aisle asked if we had taken their seats by mistake.  I looked up, and there was Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  We said “no”, and they quickly found another seat.

The dance performance was extremely well-done.  It’s hard to make a dry topic like genetics come alive, but they managed with some success.  The dancers were an exceedingly politically-correct combination of White, Black, old, young, Jewish, Christian, and even a dancer in a wheelchair.  The obvious lesson was that every person is morally important, and genetics is not to be feared, and people like Collins are not trying to create a "master race" through genetic enhancement.

It turned out that Collins was a guest of honor – part of a panel discussion after the dance, to explain and debunk genetics for the general public.  Collins is an evangelical Christian (not a godless scientist!) and his recent book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” should win kudos within the Bush Administration, and extend Collins’ contract for at least a couple more years, even though organized religion is being attacked these days by everyone from Richard Dawkins (famous proponent of Darwinism) to Elton John, who recently said "I would ban religion completely".  Is Collins' religious posturing genuine, or a smokescreen to hide the political implications of genetic diversity?

A month later, I literally ran into Craig Venter by the swimming pool at the Hilton Head Marriot hotel, where he was sponsoring a conference on genetics.  Venter has been sailing the world for the last few years, collecting samples of new ocean species, to analyze their DNA the same way he (allegedly) analyzed his own DNA as part of the Human Genome Project (which is probably why we falsely believe that everyone has the same leadership genes that Craig Venter does).

Outside the hotel was parked Venter’s DISCOVER GENOMICS! bus, a “mobile laboratory program developed to work with local teachers and school administrators in the Washington, DC metro area to enhance science literacy and generate enthusiasm and awareness of genomics in underrepresented minority groups.”

Since the job of sequencing the human genome in all its variation is quite expensive, the government and privately funded programs require ongoing public support and outreach.  So it appears that both Venter and Collins are trying to appeal to the "hearts and minds" of America, or at least trying to defuse genetics as a possible political issue, especially with minorities and the disabled who have been suspicious that genetic tests could be used by neo-Nazis to weed society of “undesirables” (those with disabilities, violent temperaments or low IQ).

I think it's all a laudable goal.  Clearly everyone currently living should treated as morally equal.  Scientific knowledge about genetic variation should be used to cure human diseases.  But all the while, the same research dollars (public and private) are being used to enhance our knowledge of human genetic differences in things like motivation, leadership ability, intelligence, and temperament.  Once this knowledge becomes public and our cherished notions about "all men are created equal" are brought into question, there will be a political firestorm that no religious tonic can quench.

A Theory of Genetic Justice

John Rawls' famous Theory of Justice proposes that the rules of society be designed with a "veil of ignorance" over what our future position in that society may be.  In other words, if we don't know ahead of time our class, intelligence, social status, or "distribution of natural assets and abilities", how would we design our government and society, to give us the best life under every possible scenario under which we could be born; rich or poor, smart or dumb, high or low?

Rawls says that we'd probably design a society in which:

1. Everyone can enjoy basic liberties, and
2. Any inequality of distribution of resources would benefit everyone; opportunities are open to all people with merit, and everyone has a fair chance to develop the skills that would allow them attain merit

So let's consider the genetic perspective, for a moment:

• No two humans have exactly the same gene variants
• Variations in human motivation and talent are largely explained by genetic differences
• We don't have genes; we are our genes

So is Rawls' theory of justice compatible with genetics?  Certainly basic liberties (freedom of speech, ability to run for political office) are nothing without the desire for them. Yet desire and motivation are themselves innate!  Ambition is innate.  Leadership skills and charisma are innate. Not everyone has the fair chance to develop merit, because not everyone is self-motivated.  Some people want to be followers.  Some people are easily derailed by poor impulse control. 

So not everyone "wants" to exercise their basic liberties, because of who they (genetically) are. Yet it's still unfair that some people can afford more free speech than others (because they can buy time on television to promote their favorite cause).

I believe "genetic justice" would require:

• Free (government subsidized) ability to replace your genes with the gene variants that make you motivated to desire basic liberties (if you don't have those variants already)
• Free access to the gene variants that give you the motivation to develop basic skills (merit), since "time on task" leads to skills, but requires motivation to spend the time

Not everyone is innately motivated (without genetic alterations to their nature) to study or improve themselves.  It's just not "who they currently are".  Yet without merit, they will be poor, and will have little access to promote their ideas to a broad audience (free speech).  Of course, no one should be forced to self-alienate themselves by altering their genes (because it does end up changing your nature).

Simply stated, if one does choose to alter his genes, society should pay for it.  And if he refuses, society should support him in the form of monthly Welfare checks, long-term Head Start programs, etc.

UK BioBank project to collect DNA samples from 500,000 people

According to the BBC News, the new UK BioBank project plans "to obtain DNA samples from up to 500,000 people aged 40-69 and track their health ... The aim is to give accredited researchers a rich resource which they can use to examine how the complex interplay of genes, lifestyle and environment affects our risk of disease."

Of course, accredited researchers are also free to cross-reference the genetic differences between people against their behavioral differences, and see which genes lead to which personality traits (including leadership skills, charisma, intelligence, and other characteristics for which corporations are willing to pay generously).

Unfortunately, this type of research is too politically incorrect to conduct in the U.S.  So we'll have to stand by to wait for the results from the UK and Singapore (where a lot of stem cell research is going on, also taboo in the U.S.).

Factions and moral equality

George Washington, the first American president, warned against the dangers of creating factions, or political parties.  As soon as Washington died, however, the political parties quickly formed.  People love to associate with a group of like-minded fellows.

People organize themselves into factions for political gain.  Republicans or Democrats, or Blacks or Women.  All these fiefdoms compete against each other for social resources, by lobbying the government on behalf of their members. And that's where the problem begins...

America was founded on the principle that all people are born morally equal.  Every individual should be treated as an individual, without bias, prejudice, or regard to group identity. 

Once people insist on advertising their differences (through membership in a political group), the principle of moral equality breaks down, and group differences may appear.  We can't have it both ways. The more we learn about genetics, the more dangerous it will be to talk about group membership, since groups may be innately unequal. But Washington didn't have much luck in preventing factions from forming, which is a fight against human nature.  We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Follow your bliss, etc, etc

When trying to decide on a career path or a "calling" for our lives, the advice we're often given is:

• Follow your bliss
• Do what gives you energy
• Do something you feel passionate about
• Do what resonates with your deepest desires

The advice-giver is usually energetic and sincere, and probably lucky that their passion is socially respected.  Other people, with less socially accepted passions (like Jeffrey Dahmer, who loved to kill people and drink their blood), would probably not give the same advice (were he still alive).  Dahmer suffered from low self-esteem, because his passions were in conflict with his desire to be socially accepted.

This is an extreme example, of course, but it illustrates the problem.

The problem with "following your passions" is that our passions themselves are innate.  Many tests exist to prove this.  For example, the Myers-Briggs test can determine whether you are energized by people (extroverted) or by your internal thoughts and ideas (introverted).  These dimensions don’t change much with age, and they can't be taught.

Some passions allow you to attain a high-paying job, with social perks.  Other passions land you in jail.  "Follow your passions" means following your genetic proclivities, but you don’t have much choice over those.

Reading ability found to be genetic

According to a recent study published in the Journal of Research in Reading, "genetic variability accounted for most of the differences in skills that predicted later reading ability. These skills included understanding the sounds in words, familiarity with letters and verbal fluency." [The quotes here are taken from a review in ABC Science Online.]

"The study of pre-school age twins from Australia, the US, Norway and Sweden followed into their early school years, found genetic variability accounted for most of the differences in skills that predicted later reading ability."

According to Australian researcher Brian Byrne, professor of psychology from the University of New England in Armidale, "we don't know which genes are involved but some of the genes in question affect brain development, maybe even embryonically ... My guess is that in about five years, we will have identified a suite of actual genes that are driving this."

No Gene Left Behind

In America, the conservative Republicans believe there's a natural hierarchy in society.  Some people are born leaders (or born geniuses) and they should be allowed to rise up the social ladder without discrimination, even if they come from a humble background.

Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, believe that anyone and everyone has the innate capacity to become anyone they please, given the right training and opportunity.  They don't believe that some people are "born that way".

Back in 1994, the conservatives Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" in a politically incorrect attempt to advance the conservative viewpoint, which generated mainly outrage, but changed few minds.

So, when he became president in 2001, conservative George Bush decided on a different tactic, to force uniform educational standards and testing, to see whether Herrnstein and Murray were right after all, and whether he could teach the liberals a lesson in the process -- that some people are naturally more motivated to learn (and capable) than others, and that no amount of training can change that.

According to a recent story on NPR, Bush promoted a new "No Child Left Behind" law, which now nears its sixth year of implementation.  Each year, the law "spells out progressively stronger interventions" that schools must undertake, if their standardized test scores fall below a certain threshold.  There is even a loophole in the law that allows for the exclusion of 1 out of every 14 children's test scores -- "Minorities are seven times as likely to have their scores excluded as whites, the analysis showed."

The NPR story details the lack of progress at Levi Barber Middle School, in Detroit, which "has been on Michigan's list of failing schools for six years in a row."  40% of students there fail to meet the minimum standard test scores for reading and math, and 20% of students are enrolled in special education programs (as compared with, say, 14% in Vermont).

The school has "done just about everything that struggling schools are required to do under No Child Left Behind. Barber has revamped its curriculum, provided a lot more one-on-one tutoring, brought in special advisors and even overhauled the way the school is managed, just like the law requires."

In other words, the schools are perfectly fine, it's the students who don't want to learn.

So does George Bush now have the data he needs to prove Herrnstein and Murray's thesis correct, that some people are born more motivated to learn reading and math than others?  What could liberals do to disprove the theory?  Some commentators blame it on laziness (implying that students could make a different choice, of their own free will).  But as we have seen many times, motivation itself is innate.

Kant and Locke

Over 200 years ago, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy with his thesis that:

1) The possibility of human knowledge presupposes the active participation of the human mind, and

2) The mind determines the conditions of its own experience

Clearly Kant was right, that our mind is active, not passively waiting for experience.  The mind was built to understand our environment.  It actively categorizes our experience, and determines how we will react.  We now know these "categories of understanding" evolved over millions of years, and are transmitted from one generation to the next through our genes, in the form of our brains.  Furthermore, we also know that mental capabilities vary across the population, due to genetic variation.

Too bad Kant wrote too late for America's founding fathers, who believed instead the anti-innatist philosophy of John Locke that:

1) All human thought originates in the simple ideas of sensation and reflection, and

2) The pursuit of happiness—the genuine business of human life—demands only that religion, morality, and science be established to a degree that permits practical progress.

What does it mean that our thought arises from "sensation" (or senses)?  According to John Locke, for example, children learn the concept of “dog” when their mother points to a physical dog and says “that’s a dog”.  The sensation (seeing a dog) is directly stored in the brain as the "dog concept".

Of course, through many decades of experimental evidence, we now know this is completely wrong.  Kant was right, that we must possess innate, built-in “categories of understanding” called “modules”.  Otherwise, why would we focus our attention on the dog that our mother was pointing to, instead of the tip of her finger?

We humans have hundreds of brain modules – specialized information processors (regions in our brain) that allow us to learn certain specialized concepts.  For example, we have a “face recognition” module (without which we can’t recognize faces), and a human interaction module (which autistic children lack, leading them to regard other people simply as “objects”).  We have a language acquisition and speech module, which, if damaged, leaves us without words.

However, America was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, not Immanuel Kant.  What John Locke provided, in other words, was a practical philosophy for capitalism and democratic government.  People have the right to "life, liberty and property", and generally to conduct their business without government interference.  So if someone rises to the top and makes more money, this is fair, Locke would say, because we are all born as "blank slates" on a level playing field.  Their success must be due to hard work.

Of course, we now know that Locke was wrong about this, too.  Some people are born leaders, and are thus "entitled" (by their gene variants) to a disproportionate slice of society's resources (through their paychecks, influence, stock options, etc).  Some people are naturally more motivated than others. 

So if free will is a false assumption, leading to an unfair distribution of wealth, we need to rethink our form of government.  Generally, I still like the current system of meritocratic capitalism, although it's based on a false premise.  (Socialism and communism, on the other hand, were big disasters, since they were completely naive about human nature as it really is).  Yet, we need to level the playing field in a different way, by allowing for individual choice over genetic selection (anyone should be allowed to select "leadership genes" for their children, for example, once those gene variants are identified).  The difference is, the government should ensure that everyone has equal access to these choices.

Bill Bennett's Eugenics

Bill Bennett, a former U.S. Education Secretary, recently said: "It's true that if you want to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and the crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but the crime rate would go down."

Bennett has been harshly criticized for his remarks. When he says "you could abort every black baby", who is he referring to?  The government?  Government involvement would be eugenics, which is evil.

In any case, you can read my response here.

Genetics and Free Speech

We have seen that certain personality traits are influenced by our genes.  And it's common sense that you'll have a good chance of success in the world if you are innately creative, curious, reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful, sociable, friendly, fun-loving, talkative, good-natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous, calm, relaxed, secure, and hardy.

Being successful means having the ability to earn substantial amounts of money, or at least being able to influence how resources are spent.  With the traits just described, you have a much better chance of rising up to be the CEO of a company, or an influential writer, or a doctor or lawyer.

So there is a direct correlation between the gene variants you possess, and how much influence you have over social resources.  For example, if you are a millionaire (or a respected writer), you can place a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, or an Op Ed piece in the New York Times, promoting your favorite cause.

Free speech - or the ability to have your opinion heard and heeded - is thus related to the gene variants you receive from your parents.  How fair is that?

Kant: We only sense things for which we were built

As Kant wrote, we only sense things for which we were built.  In other words, for something in the environment to affect us, our brain must be constructed (by our genes) to be affected by that stimulation.

Like my story of the elevator - which is built to be affected by pressing its buttons, but not by loud noises - humans have a series of instincts, reactions, behaviors, motivations, emotions, fears and drives, which are triggered by environmental situations for which they were built to be triggered.

Thomas Hobbes wrote that talents are equally distributed.  But many recent studies have shown that we have a great deal of genetic diversity.  We are innately affected by many aspects of the environment. Having more instincts gives us less free will, not more, since there more things in the environment to distract us.

What is Truth? or, are Lawyers the ideal life form?

Truth emerges between motivated antagonists, like lawyers in a courtroom who passionately put forward the most favorable arguments and facts for their side of a case.  Any one person is always biased and partisan, never objective.

So it follows that two lawyers (in opposition) can expose the truth behind an issue, as long as they are sharp, eloquent, with a good mind for facts, and highly analytical.

If, one day, people could choose the genes to be more lawyer-like (intelligent, motivated by intellectual battles, well-spoken, able to defer gratification during long years in law school), would the world be a better place?  Certainly there would be a greater diversity of ideas (although less genetic diversity).  Would we have more truth?

Politics in the Age of Genetics

In America, Democrats (liberals) believe that everyone has the potential to become anything they choose, given access to a the right government programs (education, medical benefits, social security). Any mental disability can be overcome with treatment. Anyone can become the CEO of a large company, or President of the United States with the right opportunity and education.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that there's a natural hierarchy in society, which is God's design (in other words, don't ask questions). Some people are just naturally subservient, dumb or unmotivated -- yet anyone with the inborn desire and talent can rise up and become a leader, as long as government does not stand in their way.

I believe the Republicans are correct in one respect - published studies certainly show that we are unequal in our innate talents.

The Democrats are right that we can pursue anything we choose. But we are not free in what we choose, because our choices emanate from our innate feelings and desires. Speaking for myself, I don't choose to become President -- because I don't crave power and I don't enjoy the limelight; it makes me uncomfortable. No one taught me to feel uncomfortable, it's just who I am, and that obviously differs from who other people are. We are free to follow our chosen path (after we make a choice), but we are not free in our desires.

I believe the Democrats are wrong to assume that many people would chose to become a CEO or the President if only social obstacles were removed. Bill Clinton is one example of someone who was raised with modest means (by an abusive step-father and a mother who gambled) and became President. His natural intellect helped him win the attention of mentors. He didn't need a state-run mentoring program. His natural political talents helped him build a base of support. He faced enormous barriers, yet was motivated (from within) to overcome them.

Being poor is not an obstacle to success. Some people rise up every generation, so they show it can be done. Those people attribute their success to hard work, and would be insulted by any implication that it's simply inborn motivation. But it's true nonetheless. A rat will press a lever day and night until it dies of exhaustion, if the "pleasure zone" in its brain is artificially stimulated with each press. Similarly, those with innate motivation will work tirelessly for their goals. It doesn't mean they will reach their goals, but motivated people can be extremely resourceful and relentless in their quest.

You can't teach desire and motivation. It comes from within. It determines the choices you want to make. It makes the other choices seem undesireable. Programs like Head Start have been shown to have limited affect beyond the first couple of years. Because Head Start can't motivate you, and it can't motivate your potential mentors. They are people, too. Mentors look for the best and brightest, someone who makes them feel good and furthers their agenda.

The best case that the Democrats can make is that they help the sick, unmotivated, poor, and uninspired, retain their human dignity. Some people do get better with therapy or treatment. We are all morally equal, even as we are not equal in innate talent, so this policy is gracious and kind-hearted. And most voters probably fall into this category.

Politically, it is suicide, however. As soon as the genes are discovered that explain the differences in motivation and desire across society, we as individuals and society will tirelessly find a way around our natural limits.   We will want a new party to protect our choices over our genes, and  our ability to select our children's genes.

Genetic Diversity and Fairness

Even though all the genes responsible for establishing human character traits have yet to be discovered, we can be sure that many temperamental variations are genetic in nature. How do we know this? Because observations of identical twins (i.e. two people who have the exact same set of genes, as clones do), even when they are separated at birth and raised apart in a different environment, have shown that they often develop very similar habits, hobbies, traits and personalities. They are more similar than other children from the same family! This could only happen because our genes play a major role in establishing our personality. Otherwise the environment would have held more sway, and the twins would have developed different temperaments. So the identification of genes which establish human temperamental variations will certainly move forward, it's just a matter of time.

Not everyone has the same temperament. The Myers-Briggs test, for example, is often given in high-tech companies to help in forming diverse teams (i.e. teams with a diversity of temperaments). The test can identify one's personality along four separate axes: Introverted/Extroverted (I/E); Sensing/Intuitive (S/N); Thinking/Feeling (T/F); and Perceiving/Judging (P/J). Computer programmers, who can command high wages, are often born with the genes for an ISTJ, INTP or INTJ personality type. This combination of traits is what makes them good at what they do.

This leads to questions about fairness and equity. Some temperaments allow people to achieve great success and wealth in this modern information society, whereas other temperaments (such as a low threshold to violence, or a need to perform physical tasks) keep people in low-paying positions. Perhaps a distribution of traits helps keep society running smoothly, allocating some people the role of leader, and others the role of followers, but it is hardly fair to most people. If temperaments are largely genetic, and if certain temperaments are better linked with skills in the modern information society, how can we justify paying certain people more simply because they were lucky to be born with the right traits?

On the Distribution of Traits

Does everyone react the same way in the same situation? Of course not. The clearest and least controversial example of this is with children. Most parents know that each child has a different personality from the very beginning, before he or she is "taught" to act one way or another. Any two children will react differently, for example, if a lollipop is taken away from them. One may cry longer; another may be more passive or even apathetic. It seems that everyone has a somewhat different temperament when reacting to the same situation. Some people are quick to anger, and others are more easygoing
   
What parents may not know, however, is the reason for personality differences in society. They occur when small differentials in daily reactions, motivations and dispositions across people add up to drastically different temperaments over time. People have different skin color, body size, hair color, and so on. No doubt people are allocated different inner eyes as well.

Our dispositions, on a daily basis, determine who we are and who we can become. Some people's inner eye allows them to delay gratification in hope of future reward, a trait highly linked to future success. This is not something that can be learned. Some people are quick to be incited to violence, whereas other people cannot easily be goaded. This threshold is genetically determined. Some people are always somewhat uneasy, searching for answers. This sense of unease is genetic as well.
       
People with certain traits have a greater natural ability to study hard and work toward advanced degrees than those who are not so motivated on a daily basis. They can earn more money, afford better health care, and generally live a better life, because they are more fit in the modern information society.

Certainly there are people who find their greatest joy, say, in standing poised with a spear over a rabbit hole for hours at a time, waiting for a potential dinner to emerge. But people with such dispositions will never again be required in modern society, in which increasing productivity makes their dispositions redundant. Is this fair?

We all have the potential to be psychopaths

Humans only have 20,000 genes, and those differ by only 1% across the population.  That small number implies that we each possess ALL the variants of human behaviors within us, and that a few "master switch" genes turn on or off different scenarios.

Clearly, psychopaths (who form 3 - 4% of the population) engage in complex behaviors -- some have a morbid obsession with sex, rape, indecent exposure and child abuse.  It's repulsive to the rest of us, and we often strive to chemically castrate such people, switching off their master switches (androgens).  But how were those master switches able to effect such complex behavior in the first place?  Why were there a diverse set of hormone receptors in place, designed to trigger such complex behavior? 

A psychopath's DNA only differs from ours by 1%, so there's no way he can have an entirely different set of genes to enact these motivations.  We must all have those genes within us, differing only in our master switches.  In other words, we all possess the motivation to be serial killers, except that motivation is switched off in most of us.

Here is a list of the qualities of a psychopath.  These behaviors are so complex, that they can't be accidental -- They must lay dormant in all of us:

1. Glibness/superficial charm.
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavior problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)

What is Normal?

Three or four percent of the population are psychopaths.  Over ten percent have some sort of so-called disorder.  We don't normally see these people at our workplace or university setting, so we tend to forget they exist.

That translates to millions of people in America alone.  Certainly you could explain having a few thousands of psychopaths in the population as a genetic mistake.  But millions?  That ratio is surely designed for a greater purpose.

A psychopath is not affected by traumatic, stressful situations like war.  So in the case of a great world-wide conflagration, those 3-4% would be the ones who could carry on without having post-traumatic stress disorder.  Perhaps having a few psychopaths around helps the long-term survival of society in extreme circumstances.

A psychopath is not necessarily a human with degraded skills.  Serial killers are highly motivated, they know what they want, they plan meticulously, and find true joy in causing destruction or eating human flesh.  A human with degraded skills would not be able to get up in the morning.

Thinking about psychopaths in this way is disturbing, which is another reason why humans have a hard time exploring their own nature.  Sometimes it's too horrible to look at.  And we cannot imagine why anyone would want to be different from ourselves.