
So is it nature not nurture after all? - uxhacker
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing
======
lumberjack
When people try to be positive by saying: "it's not all natural talent, you
must also work hard and persevere!", I wonder, aren't those also shaped by our
genes? Is the ability to work hard and the mental fortitude not to give up not
also something dictated by our genetics?

~~~
whamlastxmas
This is my lazy excuse for not being an overachiever. I see people at the top
of their fields and they so obviously seem innately driven to perform and be
amazing. I was not born with that instinct and my brain doesn't reward me the
same way theirs does. I'm fine with this.

~~~
dwaltrip
You could also be "fated" to begin achieving the things you want tomorrow. The
universe being deterministic doesn't mean that you personally know your own
future. Our predictions for ourselves are likely to be wrong in many ways. We
can't know until we try.

It's a balance to both accept reality as it is while also striving to achieve
things that we didn't know for sure were possible (or that we hadn't even
conceived of yet!).

It seems that we must carefully straddle the boundary between the known and
the unknown. Of course, this will look different for everyone.

~~~
whamlastxmas
I focus on gaining meaning and happiness in life from things other than
achievement. The things I do mean less to me than the experiences and
relationships I have in life. I don't need a $100 million yacht and a
Wikipedia page to love the people around me and feel loved in return. I think
what I have is a lot more valuable.

~~~
dwaltrip
That is awesome. Nothing wrong with that at all. I was mainly responding to
the fatalist side of your comment.

------
21
It's not controversial that the large intelligence differences between cats,
dogs and chimpanzees are genetic. Nobody says that in the right environment
and nurture a cat will become as smart as a chimpanzee.

But somehow it's very controversial that the small intelligence differences
between humans might be genetic, as if a species has a fixed IQ number, and
the only IQ jumps are strictly between species, but not between individuals.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
It's not controversial at all in the scientific community, is it?

If people are talking about political ideology and wishful thinking, rather
than science, then that's another matter. As the article says:

> those on the left have tended to see the environment as the critical factor
> because it ties in with notions of egalitarianism

~~~
tptacek
That depends on what you mean. If you mean "there is a genetic component to
intelligence", that is not controversial. If you mean "there are intrinsic
differences in the genetic backgrounds of particular races that lead to
differences in intellectual ability", that is extraordinarily controversial.

~~~
idlewords
Sorry, what is the evidence that there is a genetic component to intelligence?

~~~
torstenvl
All of it.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I feel that you and I must have
drastically different starting assumptions, because your question seems
meaningless in my context.

Do you dispute that Homo sapiens has a higher intelligence than H. erectus
did? Than other primates?

Or are you alleging that the genetic basis for that intelligence difference
shows _no_ variation across human populations?

I feel like I have to stretch what you said to give it a charitable
interpretation, but here goes: are you asking whether there's any evidence
that the genetic component's variation across human populations contributes to
significant phenotypic variation _when compared to_ environmental factors?

------
l0b0
If you want a very good summary of recent genetics research results, have a
look at Adam Rutherford's _A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The
Stories in Our Genes._ Basically, even the most careful and underwhelming
claims from the popular press overstate how much we actually understand about
the connection between genes and real world attributes of people.

------
jaggederest
Anecdotally, anyone who has ever recontacted an adopted-out sibling will be
able to tell you how much this is true.

We got back into contact with my older sister who had been adopted when I was
about 12. She's absolutely the spitting image of her parents, both in looks
and behavior, despite being raised in about as different a household as is
possible.

~~~
morgtheborg
Yea, we reconnected with a half-brother on our Dad's side. Jeezum. It's just
so clear, it's weird.

------
awkward
The obvious pull quote, already in this thread, seems to say that this is a
case of looking where we have the tools to look rather than where it makes a
difference. Because you can get DNA with a swab and a MiSeq, you should try to
determine the causes there rather than do the hard work of determining
confounding environmental factors.

The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes. If
the goal is engineering change, the article makes it's own countercase -
improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in
behavior.

~~~
stcredzero
_The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes._

If your argument is that it must be so for reasons of ideological aesthetics,
then you're in the company of Lysenko.

 _If the goal is engineering change, the article makes it 's own countercase -
improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in
behavior._

If the culture would broadly accept that _both nature and nurture_ contribute
something, we'd be much better able to deal with a ground truth which is
complex and nuanced.

Biology is one of those areas where ground truth tends to be complex and
nuanced. Psychology is another field like this. The practice of good
governance is yet another.

~~~
tptacek
It would help if would-be popularizers of the "nature" factor could get basic
concepts straight, like (in Plomin's case) the difference between correlation
and causation, or (in Plomin's pop-sci advocates' case) the meaning of
"heritability".

~~~
stcredzero
These are general problems in the interpretation of science, and their
presence isn't exclusive to the political left or right. (The one exception I
can make out being Climate Change.)

~~~
tptacek
"Left" or "right"? I'm talking about the "nature" versus "nurture" debate in
human behavior and performance.

~~~
stcredzero
It shouldn't be a debate. It should be a "knob" we're tuning in. In general,
the Left has had an ideological stake in "nurture." Various progressive
utopian visions had such an ideological stake, communism being the most
obvious one. Intersectionality and Feminism have taken up the nurture baton,
as they have an ideological stake in forwarding nurture and denying any
significant role for nature.

Again, in a field like biology, many of the answers are going to be complex
and nuanced. Black and white binaries mandated by ideology are not going to be
the likeliest answers.

~~~
tptacek
It... clearly is a debate? Like, a fundamental and unanswered question
spanning many scientific fields? That’s interesting to me. The political
valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not so much.

~~~
stcredzero
_It... clearly is a debate?_

In as much as Climate Change is a debate. Which is to say, it isn't, except
for ideological wishful thinking. It's settled science that both nature and
nurture are involved in human behavior to some extent. It's only a question as
to how much, with a lot of noise generated in popular accounts motivated by
ideology.

 _The political valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not
so much._

Skewing of politics to the left or right in a given field can cause systemic
bias. Both conservative and more open voices need to be heard to avoid
groupthink causing the social environments within each field from going off
the rails.

You and I have already had discussions about how fields can engage in such
behaviors to produce artificial exclusivity and act in ways contrary to facts
and their own and society's self interests.

~~~
tptacek
I think you're pretty much begging the question now, aren't you? "There's no
debate except HOW MUCH genes influence behavior". Well, we pretty much all
agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew going into this thread
that there was _some_ genetic component.

I'm just not interested in your politics, sorry.

~~~
stcredzero
_Well, we pretty much all agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew
going into this thread that there was some genetic component._

It's not begging the question, if you're going to concede the point that it's
not a question of if, but how much. Are you also in denial of genetic,
epigenetic, and in-utero biological factors affecting behavior in large
mammals and highly intelligent animals? I should hope not. Are you in denial
of biological factors affecting social organization behaviors in such animals?
Are you asking for a special exception to all the above for _Homo sapiens_ for
reasons of ideology? In that case, I'm not the one begging the question here.

 _I 'm just not interested in your politics, sorry._

If you're politicizing science, then you are interested in such politics. So
is your position now that the effect is nonzero, but it can't be much larger
because of ideological/aesthetic reasons?

What I'm asking for is _less_ politicization of science. Science has gotten
politicized in the US and much of the west, to the point where people can be
_un-personed for wrongthink._ Ideas should be tested and bad ideas should be
debunked. Suppressing words and ideas for the sake of feelings is the real
danger. Incitement and other real harms are ultimately fueled by strong
feelings combined with de-personalization, not by cold rationality.

------
rectang
Biological determinism flatters the current elite -- "You're on top because
you're inherently superior!" \-- so it will always find an eager audience
regardless of whether it is true. All the excess cheerleading makes it
incredibly hard to assess.

~~~
wizu
I would have thought the exact opposite. Wouldn't the current elite rather
believe that they are on top because they worked hard and earned their place?
That way they can look down on the rest in good conscience while gutting
welfare systems that only benefit those who "didn't" earn their own way.

~~~
rectang
Arguments that the successful are _morally_ superior will also find an eager
audience. In contrast, arguments that successful are inherently inferior in
any way are a hard sell.

------
kpil
It's seems to be an uphill battle. The Swedish researcher Amir Sariaslan has
given up due to a uninterested or even hostile reception.

The Economist called his paper disturbing (but interesting).

One would imagine that bringing facts to the table is a good thing, but
apparently not.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/4/1057/656274](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/4/1057/656274)

[https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2014/08/21/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2014/08/21/to-have-and-have-not)

------
cfmcdonald
Plomin's central argument seems to be that once you control for environment,
genetics explains the remaining differences:

"Plomin’s argument is that, in a society with universal education, the
greatest part of the variation in learning abilities is accounted for by
genetics...

...Thus, the average height of northern European males has increased by more
than 15cm in the past two centuries. That is obviously due to changes in
environment. However, the variation in height between northern European males
is down to genetics"

To conclude that it is "nature not nurture after all" based on this argument,
seems quite backwards.

------
throwawaydna123
Regarding socio-economic status: I have more than 2 university degrees. My dad
attained the lowest higher educational attainment there is. My mom did not
even finish high school. My mom and dad have all kinds of addiction issues
regarding alcohol and drugs. I don't. I have more patience than both of them
and am more level-headed. And I'm also pretty sure I'd be a better parent than
them, since they set such a low bar that I had to be adopted and raised by my
grandparents after 1 year.

Sometimes I wonder how I am a product of both my mom and my dad, because there
are quite a bit of things in which I don't recognize myself in. If it was all
nature, then it'd have been easier to spot and I'd also be addicted to a lot
more things.

My upbringing was similar with regards to my mom (same people). But the
situation was different, my grandpa didn't work much when I was around but was
a workaholic during my moms time. My dad was beaten as a kid. I wasn't.

If it really is al genetics then how do you explain such a difference in
socio-economic status? I think for them it's part drug abuse, a fucked up
childhood and no nudge to do your best at school (in my dad's case, I don't
know about my mom). I know that my dad had a propensity for learning but he
never got to utilize it.

I'm pretty sure that if my dad had been in a better upbringing that he'd have
fared better. I'm also pretty sure that if my momd would've been born around
1995 that she'd have fared better.

~~~
henriquemaia
One interesting thing about genetics, and a very conspicuous one, is that
_randomness_ plays a not so little part in the process. Otherwise you wouldn’t
even have _evolution_. How could a species adapt to a changing environment if
heritability was the only determining factor?

In that case, it could be justified to think of you as one of those wildcards
that nature continuously throws into the mix to sharpen the species
adaptability _.

_ That is, if you spread your genes around and those also prove more adapted.
And so on.

------
dev_dull
On its face this study doesn’t seem controversial, but it’s easy to see how
people can find confirmations of their own biases in it. For example when
discussing race and gender.

------
whatdayistoday
The article mentions that much of this research is based on twin studies. I
have a question about how these studies work - perhaps someone here has done
this sort of research and can answer.

Here's my understanding of twin studies: you have some identical and fraternal
twins. Each pair of twins are raised in the same household, and presumably
experience the same environmental "nurture" effects. So, if we see stronger
intellectual similarities between identical twins than fraternal twins, then
we conclude that this difference is genetic.

But how valid is the assumption that the environments that fraternal twins
face are as similar as those of identical twins? Let's assume for instance
that: 1) women and men have the same innate potential for mathematical skill
2) our education system does a better job fostering mathematical ability in
men than women 3) over time, this discrepancy causes women to score lower on
tests of mathematical skill than men

While our identical twin pairs will all be of the same gender, the fraternal
twin pairs may not. Two identical twin boys might receive the same
environmental effects on their mathematical ability, but a girl and her twin
brother will not, even if they have equal mathematical potential.

Given these assumptions, if we conducted a twin study on mathematical ability,
we would see a stronger correlation between the scores of identical twins than
those of fraternal twins, due to gender difference, and we would conclude that
mathematical ability has a genetic component.

And our conclusion wouldn't be wrong! If gender impacts mathematical ability,
and gender is genetic, then mathematical ability does arguably have a genetic
component. But this gender difference comes about not because of an innate
intellectual difference between women and men, but because of how a child's
environment "nurture" changes depending on an arbitrary genetic trait
"nature". In a world where these assumptions are true, a child's genes
influence their future mathematical abilities - but in another world without
gender-based educational discrepancies, the same genetic difference might not
have any effect.

How do twin studies account for these more nuanced situations, where society
causes nature and nurture to coincide in roundabout ways? Does it make sense
to simply call these "second-order" socio-genetic effects "nature"?

~~~
HALtheWise
The best twin studies look at pairs of identical twins who were separated at
birth and raised in different households. If they still end up more similar to
each other than to their adopted siblings on some trait, we conclude that
trait has a significant genetic component, and more sophisticated analysis can
measure how significant it is. Note that the technique I described is not
strictly able to determine whether the effect is from genetics or some other
pre-birth shared environment, like maternal alcohol consumption. For many
practical purposes, that distinction doesn't really matter.

------
stkdump
I don't like the way he seems to connect the science to the political
spectrum. I think it would be the thinking of the left that we need to improve
the environment especially for the disadvantaged (including those
disadvantaged for genetic reasons) in order to improve society as a whole.
Then he mentions how it was "dangerous" to publish his research, feeding the
victim complex of those whose thinking doesn't line up with what he considers
to be the left apparantly. Whoever claims that raw, uncivilized human nature
bolsters equality can't be thinking straight.

I think it was a good point, that we have come a long way to equalizing the
environment and that leaves a big part of the differences to genetics. I would
say that is very high praise to the achievements we already made and shows
that we are on the right way. I would guess that the same study made in a more
unequal society would have different results.

------
forapurpose
An essential concept for this discussion:

 _Another problem that Plomin encounters with explaining his findings is that
people often confuse group and individual differences – or, to put it another
way, the distinction between means and variances. Thus, the average height of
northern European males has increased by more than 15cm in the past two
centuries. That is obviously due to changes in environment. However, the
variation in height between northern European males is down to genetics. The
same applies to psychological traits.

“The causes of average differences,” he says, “aren’t necessarily related to
causes of individual differences. So that’s why you can say heritability can
be very high for a trait, but the average differences between groups – ethnic
groups, gender – could be entirely environmental; for example, as a result of
discrimination. The confusion between means and variances is a fundamental
misunderstanding.”_

~~~
noobermin
How does this work? How can one thing that causes the motion of the average
not also affect the variation? How wouldn't the one which inherited the worst
genes not benefit from environment?

~~~
raincom
It is like how rising tides lift all boats. A good environment helps people
without the right genetics; but this does not mean that this group can beat
another set with right genetics in the same good environment.

~~~
forapurpose
> A good environment helps people without the right genetics; but this does
> not mean that this group can beat another set with right genetics in the
> same good environment.

I think that's backwards from what Plomin is saying in that quote. He's saying
that, regardless of genetics, a better environment will cause the average
performance of the group experiencing it to outperform the average performance
of a group experiencing a worse environment. And he's saying that DNA
influences the amount of each group's variation around that average
performance. For example, if we were looking at height,

* There are two groups, 1 and 2; people in Group 1 have one kind of tallness DNA (tDNA, something I just made up), and people in Group 2 have another kind of tDNA; also, Group 1 grows up in an environment with better nutrition and exercise than Group 2. Both groups are one gender, let's say women, to simplify height statistics.

* Group 1 averages a height of 5'7" due to their relatively better environment, and due to their tDNA their variance is that 50% are between 5'5" and 5'8", a 3-inch range, and 95% are between 5'3" and 5'10", a 7-inch range.

* Group 2 averages a height of 5'5" due to their relatively worse environment, and due to their different tDNA their variance is larger: 50% score between 5'3" and 5'9", a 6-inch range, and 95% are between 5'0" and 5'11", an 11-inch range.

------
camdenlock
Whoa, this is encouraging. A thoughtfully-written piece on an extremely
important (and, lamentably, controversial) subject devoid of hyperbole and
rancorous partisanship.

... published by The Guardian, no less. I am shocked and very pleased.

------
guy98238710
Human performance depends on a number of factors. These factors form a chain
and this chain is as strong as its weakest link. So yes, some genetic diseases
are severe enough to undermine cognitive performance. But no, genes are not
the weakest link for most people. We are still wasting most of the human
potential we already have. There is no need to seek genetic improvements at
this stage.

------
forapurpose
AFAIK, the consequences of DNA depend as much or more on the processing of
them by RNA and otherwise than on the original genes. I wonder how the theory
accounts for that (I'm not pointing out flaw as an armchair cynic, but asking
a question.)

Also, obviously environment plays a major role in our lives and I'm certain
Plomin would agree: Abusive parents (or no parents), childhood experiences
(think of rape survivors), education, the opportunities around us, access to
resources, etc. etc. I would guess he's talking about an essential
psychological nature that may determine how we respond to those things. My
question is, where does he draw the line between that 'essential nature'
(accepting for sake of argument that it exists) and environmental influence?

EDIT: "Plomin’s argument is that, in a society with universal education, the
greatest part of the variation in learning abilities is accounted for by
genetics, not home environment or quality of school– these factors, he says,
do have an effect but it’s much smaller than is popularly believed."

Calling it "universal education" (the Guardian's paraphrase, not necessarily
Plomin's words) is a big stretch - it's so different in different places,
including in the same country, that it doesn't all fit under one term. Without
more specific claims, it's hard to address that quote but I was reading in the
last year about one poor school district which had accomplished a milestone:
Half the third graders could read. Half those kids are in deep trouble, and I
don't think that's due to genetics.

~~~
iguy
Re processing of DNA etc, this isn't the level these studies are typically
working at. There's no biochemistry knowledge involved. They are just looking
at DNA sequences, and what data they have about outcomes. Whether a piece of
DNA makes something critical for some muscle, or is 10 steps away in part of
some complicated switching apparatus, of indeed just influences something else
which causes the growing animal to enjoy behaviour which happen to exercise
this muscle -- all of this detail is a black box, all of these would
contribute to genetic effect.

Re universal education, etc: in adoption studies this translates to "among
parents who will be approved to adopt", and this indeed cuts the very bottom
off the distribution of some factors. I don't think it's a huge issue, but not
an expert.

But my understanding of the point Plomin is making there is a bit different.
Regardless of the current state of (say) schooling, he's pointing out that
moving from a system with large schooling inequalities, to a system of
absolute schooling equality, would almost certainly _increase_ the
heritability of education. In the unequal system, some bright kids are stunted
etc, weakening the correlation between input and output; but in the equal one,
all the variation in the output will be driven by the input.

At least I think that's what he's saying. Haven't read the book, and not
really my field at all...

~~~
forapurpose
Thanks. Good point about the DNA 'black box'.

------
vanderZwan
> _As Plomin writes: “We now know that DNA differences are the major
> systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental
> effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they
> are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot
> do much about them.”_

I'm not sure what to read in the implied statement that we _can_ do something
about genes

~~~
dash2
The famous example is myopia. Myopia is very, very genetic (something like
70-80% heritable IIRC). But you can do something about it: wear spectacles.

Genetic cause does not imply genetic cure.

~~~
RealityVoid
Can you give a source for that? I remember reading something contradicting
this statement and my own research into possible myopia causes seems to
indicate environmental factors as the cause (but not conclusively).

As a myopic person that has no one in my extended family suffering from it, I
am very confused as to the possible causes.

~~~
dash2
Wikipedia seems to give the relevant cites.

------
go_away_nsa
Not sure why this is so hard to accept, why would evolution stop at the neck?
Nobody has a problem with saying height is mostly genetic, yet say the same of
intelligence and it's controversial.

~~~
hydrox24
> height is mostly genetic

And yet until the industrial revolution, environmental factors were the
dominant effect. Anyone could have been taller with enough nutrition.

Genes are only ever expressed under certain environmntal conditions. The
minimal condition for all of them is being alive. Malnourishment, or perhaps
too much caffeine, amongst a hundred other things, all determine how our genes
for height express themselves.

Which is all to say, people are wrong when they say height is mostly genetic.
It may be true enough under current social conditions though. I think the same
problem applies to calling intelligence "largely" genetic.

~~~
mysterypie
> Malnourishment, or perhaps too much caffeine, amongst a hundred other
> things, all determine how our genes for height express themselves.

Not arguing your idea in general, but the caffeine example is probably a
myth[1].

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/the-claim-
drinking...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/the-claim-drinking-
coffee-can-stunt-a-childs-growth.html)

------
adynatos
steven pinker convinced me some time ago.

------
slantedview
Re: autism, there are examples of identical twins where one has/develops
autism and the other does not. Clearly nurture still plays a role.

~~~
stcredzero
I would be very happy if such scientific inquiries were freed from the
depredations of the culture war, and our culture accepted the nuanced and
moderate truth: both nature and nurture play a role.

~~~
anothergoogler
My lizard brain demands a winner and a loser though.

~~~
stcredzero
_My lizard brain demands a winner and a loser though._

So those of us who strive to do better than the lizard brain should be taking
up the nuanced, moderate view.

