Science

The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality

The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality

  • Downloads：4580
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-12-07 03:41:49
  • Update Date：2025-09-23
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Kathryn Paige Harden
  • ISBN：0691242100
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

A provocative and timely case for how the science of genetics can help create a more just and equal society



In recent years， scientists like Kathryn Paige Harden have shown that DNA makes us different， in our personalities and in our health--and in ways that matter for educational and economic success in our current society。

In The Genetic Lottery， Harden introduces readers to the latest genetic science， dismantling dangerous ideas about racial superiority and challenging us to grapple with what equality really means in a world where people are born different。 Weaving together personal stories with scientific evidence， Harden shows why our refusal to recognize the power of DNA perpetuates the myth of meritocracy， and argues that we must acknowledge the role of genetic luck if we are ever to create a fair society。

Reclaiming genetic science from the legacy of eugenics， this groundbreaking book offers a bold new vision of society where everyone thrives， regardless of how one fares in the genetic lottery。

Download

Reviews

Michael Borowitz ，

I have deliberately avoided reading others' reviews but I suspect this book has elicited significant commentary with strong opinions expressed。 In my view this is a well-reasoned book， possibly a really important book。 Harden tackles a very controversial subject， which most people would summarize as genetics and intelligence， although she is especially careful to make clear that what she is more precisely discussing is genetics and academic achievement， which she in turn links to metrics of succ I have deliberately avoided reading others' reviews but I suspect this book has elicited significant commentary with strong opinions expressed。 In my view this is a well-reasoned book， possibly a really important book。 Harden tackles a very controversial subject， which most people would summarize as genetics and intelligence， although she is especially careful to make clear that what she is more precisely discussing is genetics and academic achievement， which she in turn links to metrics of success in today's society。 Harden spends a great deal of time making sure the reader understands the complexity of the topic， and using analogy and thought experiments points out how best to understand what the data she presents tells us。 Much of the evidence she cites is based on GWAS studies。 While I am not a geneticist I know what GWAS studies can and can't do: they are good screening tools to identify possible associations between genetics and an outcome， and while they can point to areas that might be fruitful to investigate， they say nothing about mechanisms。 Thus a link from genetics to academic achievement， might not be anything intrinsic in an individual， but rather could be mediated by societal factors。 In one beautiful thought experiment she uses the example of a world in which red-headed individuals were not allowed to attend school。 In such a world， a naively interpreted GWAS study could conclude that red headed individuals were less intelligent than others because of a genetic "defect"。 Unfortunately， in a world of sound bites much of what she puts forth about genetics and achievement could be--and has been--misinterpreted to perpetuate racist stereotypes， and for this reason has also elicited push back from those who argue， without strong evidence to refute her contentions， that all differences in academic achievement are environmental。 However， I agree with her fundamental conclusion that in a society that wants to improve opportunities for those who are disadvantaged， disadvantages coming from drawing the short straw in the genetic lottery should not be ignored。 。。。more

Matt ，

I listened on audio， which I would not necessarily recommend （going forward I think my guideline will be to stick to non-fiction books narrated by the author）。 I read this book after reading the New Yorker piece （https://www。newyorker。com/magazine/20。。。） on Harden。 In this book， the author makes a case that， if you're interested in equity， you can't just ignore genetics -- I'm not going to try and summarize her further than that but I found her convincing。 She also manages to navigate the inevit I listened on audio， which I would not necessarily recommend （going forward I think my guideline will be to stick to non-fiction books narrated by the author）。 I read this book after reading the New Yorker piece （https://www。newyorker。com/magazine/20。。。） on Harden。 In this book， the author makes a case that， if you're interested in equity， you can't just ignore genetics -- I'm not going to try and summarize her further than that but I found her convincing。 She also manages to navigate the inevitable political and ethical minefield ably。 If you try to talk about this book with anyone， I wish you similar success （but I am pessimistic -- even the reviews section here is full of junk）。 。。。more

Mia Finsness ，

I’m not sure that the book itself reflects the title/subtitle， but you do walk away with some additional viewpoints on DNA and genetics。 But it’s not the best book I’ve read on the subject and if you plan to read only one book on the subject and want a better one， I recommend “Gene” or “She has her mother’s laugh。”

J Katz ，

Very good book and understandable。 The debate she discusses with much research and argument that persuades to view life as luck and that it can influence behaviors- a very wrought point of view。 I found it inspiring and thought provoking。

Mike Smith ，

Luck plays a huge role in our lives， although most people don't seem to like admitting that。 In this challenging but thought-provoking book， Kathryn Paige Harden argues that （1） some of that luck is genetic and （2） we need to acknowledge and consider genetic luck when designing social policies to make people's lives healthier， wealthier， and more satisfying。 Partly because of the history of eugenics， society is reluctant to admit that some people do less well in life in part because of their gen Luck plays a huge role in our lives， although most people don't seem to like admitting that。 In this challenging but thought-provoking book， Kathryn Paige Harden argues that （1） some of that luck is genetic and （2） we need to acknowledge and consider genetic luck when designing social policies to make people's lives healthier， wealthier， and more satisfying。 Partly because of the history of eugenics， society is reluctant to admit that some people do less well in life in part because of their genetics and therefore need and deserve extra attention from society to address those genetic disadvantages。 Harden also argues that ignoring the genetic contribution to our "life outcomes" will only entrench existing social inequalities。The book has two main parts。 Part I is "Taking Genetics Seriously"， while Part II is "Taking Equality Seriously"。 The aim of Part I is to convince the reader "that genetics do， in fact， matter for understanding social inequality。" Harden does this by explaining the methods and findings of behaviour genetics research。 She explains such concepts as polygenic indices and genome-wide association studies， which show conclusively that genetic differences between people cause different life outcomes for those people。 （Harden also notes that almost all this research focuses on populations of European ancestry who identify as White。 More research is needed on populations whose ancestry lies in other parts of the globe， but she expects similar results， even if the specific genes involved are different。）Part II tackles the question of "what we should do with the knowledge that genetics matter for understanding social inequality。" A key point in this discussion is to counter the eugenic notion that having certain genes （and genetic traits such as intelligence） makes one person "better" than another。 Genes are not neither good nor bad in a social sense， but they be more or less advantageous to an individual in our particular society （that is， a society that values certain traits， such as those that cause people to do well in school）。 We must avoid blaming people for factors they can't control， including their genetic profiles。 Indeed， we should feel morally obligated to help such individuals。 （This also means we must avoid praising successful members of society for their own success; at least part of their success is genetic luck。）This is a complex， technical book。 Harden does an excellent job of making the material as clear as she can， with plain language， useful metaphors， occasional charts and graphs， a few anecdotes， and repetition of important terms and concepts。 Harden acknowledges that， if you're reading this book， you're probably high on the polygenic index for educational attainment （a polygenic index measures the distribution of genes associated with a particular trait （like height or staying in school）; being high on an index means you have more of those types of genes）。Harden makes few specific policy recommendations for making life fairer for those who are genetically disadvantaged in our current society。 Her focus is more on encouraging policy-makers to consider genetic differences （along with other differences that affect life outcomes， such as environment and parenting） when crafting their policies。 Still， she concludes that it makes scientific and moral sense to direct a greater share of society's resources to those with fewer genetic advantages。 Harden never mentions it， but it seems to me that ideas such as basic minimum income apply here。 I know it's not Harden's area of expertise， but I'd like to see an exploration of the economic consequences of Harden's suggestions。This book really made me think about luck and genes。 It brought to mind other books I've read that touch on similar topics。 Outliers acknowledges the role of luck， but suggests that environment is far more important than genes。 Never Enough discusses the neuroscience of addiction， including the fact that some people get addicted and others don't， partly because of their genes。 The Psychology of Intelligence talks about evolving social attitudes towards one particular genetic trait。 Who We Are and How We Got Here is a survey of ancient DNA and what it tells us about modern humans and the genetic differences between populations。 I think they're all saying the same things， so I assume it will just be a matter of time before we acknowledge the role that genes and genetic chance play in our lives， and organize our societies and our resources so that everyone can live long and prosper。 。。。more

Saruul ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 It was a very eye-opening book， especially for someone with no biology background。 It connects biology， psychology， philosophy， and politics through genetics and educates the reader on various topics surrounding genetic research。 The biggest takeaways from the book were "gene matters for success"， "gene can be weaponized"， and "gene can also be used as a tool to build a better society" but "this task will be tough！"To list out some interesting points in the book:**POLYGENIC INDEX:**1。 Barth， Pap It was a very eye-opening book， especially for someone with no biology background。 It connects biology， psychology， philosophy， and politics through genetics and educates the reader on various topics surrounding genetic research。 The biggest takeaways from the book were "gene matters for success"， "gene can be weaponized"， and "gene can also be used as a tool to build a better society" but "this task will be tough！"To list out some interesting points in the book:**POLYGENIC INDEX:**1。 Barth， Papageorge， and Thom used the polygenic index to measure a person’s genetic endowment and found +1 st。dev increase in the polygenic index was associated with an 8% increase in wealth。 2。 A research team led by Dan Belsky， a professor at Columbia University， found that the sibling who had the higher polygenic index， who inherited more education-associated genetic variants than his or her sibling， was wealthier at retirement。3。 A polygenic index typically captures about 10–15 percent of the variance in outcomes like years of schooling， performance on standardized academic tests， or intelligence test scores。 **HERITABILITY:**1。 Heritability index measures how much of the variations of a certain trait are explained by genetic factors。 For instance， the heritability of height is about 80 percent。 That is， about 80 percent of the total variance in height was due to the fact that people inherited different genes。2。 50 years of studies on over 1 million twins have shown following traits are all highly heritable: personality， education， employment， social hazards to health， mental disorders， and interpersonal relationships。 About one-quarter to one-half of the variation is due to differences in inherited DNA sequence。3。 Non-cognitive skills such as perseverance and grit are also driven by genes。 Also， serious behavioral problems beginning in childhood， physical aggression， and a variety of impulsive or risky behaviors， such as ADHD symptoms in childhood are all heritable。 Psychotic experiences and neuroticism are also proven to be heritable。 **OTHER FACTORS MATTER:**1。 Children with high polygenic indices but born to poor families are still worse off than children with low polygenic indices but born to wealthy families。 So other factors like parents’ education， wealth， and environment matter a lot for success。 **POLITICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING GENETIC STUDIES:**1。 What is equality？ Is meritocracy fair？ How can we achieve a more egalitarian society？2。 Three positions concerning genetics:i） Eugenic position - Inequality is inevitable and some people are innate superior because of their genetics。 It is a morally wrong and scientifically erroneous theory that provokes racism， misogyny， homophobia， xenophobia， etc。ii） Genome blind position - Genetic data is the enemy of social equality。 Genome blind position simply ignores the existence of genetic influence。 They think what people achieve is purely determined by their hard work。 iii） Anti-eugenic position accepts the genetic differences in people and aspires to a more egalitarian society using genetic information。 It promotes equity。 。。。more

Feng Ouyang ，

“Nature or nurture” is a central issue in social policy discussions。 Are people’s abilities and behaviors the results of their free will？ Should they be responsible for their life choices and be rewarded for their efforts and talents？ Modern genetics would like to weigh in。 Behavioral psychologist Kathryn Harden wrote the book “The Genetic Lottery” to advance her view。 In the book， Harden discussed recent research by her team and others that show genetics plays a role in determining school perfo “Nature or nurture” is a central issue in social policy discussions。 Are people’s abilities and behaviors the results of their free will？ Should they be responsible for their life choices and be rewarded for their efforts and talents？ Modern genetics would like to weigh in。 Behavioral psychologist Kathryn Harden wrote the book “The Genetic Lottery” to advance her view。 In the book， Harden discussed recent research by her team and others that show genetics plays a role in determining school performance。 She further discusses the implication of this discovery on social policies and moral deliberations。 This pioneering book touches on the “taboo” subject of classifying people by genetics and advances progressive policies instead of the old eugenic views。 The book begins the conversation with thin supports and many speculative arguments。 It also leaves some important questions unanswered。 The book is watered down without a clear target audience。“The Genetic Lottery” draws on recent populational research， which identified genes related to educational achievement or， more specifically， school retention。 A combination of these gene metrics forms a “genotypical score” that can predict school retention at 10%。 This predictivity does not sound high， but it is among the highest contributing factors。 And the author is also careful to point out that “genotypical score” may not be helpful universally because it may predict how one responds to specific educational and social conditions， which may not exist in every society。 Based on these results， the author asserts that the “genetic lottery” predicts a child’s place in the academic pecking order。 What does this result tell us？ According to the author， it first means we should not attribute the performance gap entirely to social inequality。 Both socioeconomic environments and genetic heritages manifest in family continuation: children from low-income families tend to stay at the bottom of the income spectrum。 If we address social mobility by pouring money into low-income families， we may not achieve our goal because we are not doing anything with genetic factors。 Instead， social policies should be crafted with the recognition that some children will have learning difficulties no matter how hard they are told to work and how much money is sent to their families。 We should help children who intrinsically learn differently and let them benefit from the school system。 In other words， social interventions should be tailored to “genetically disadvantaged” students。Another important part of the book addresses the moral implications of the “genetic lottery” theory。 The author adamantly distances herself from the eugenics ideal。 Eugenics says people of different races have intrinsically different abilities and thus are placed in different social hierarchies。 First， Harden points out， genetic differences have nothing to do with race， as proven scientifically。 Second， the mapping between abilities and social order is based on specific political and economic systems。 Recognizing the role of genes does not justify these systems。 On the contrary， it implies the need to change the current meritocratic system to achieve true equity。 The author seems to subscribe to John Rawls’ moral value that a society should take care of its most disadvantaged member， and she argues that the genetically disadvantaged deserve help and preference。 Although the genetic roots of learning abilities and， by extension， life achievements sound like a touchy moral topic， we have already accepted the genetic roots of many traits such as heights and attractiveness。 These traits also affect life outcomes in our social settings。 Therefore， the author argues， we should not shy away from pondering the moral implication of the genetic lottery。This book is bold and intriguing in addressing a little-known and somewhat taboo topic。 On the other hand， its treatment is simplistic and incomplete。 The book does not clearly explain the scientific evidence。 The description of the relevant findings is interleaved with general discussions of causality determination， statistical methodologies， and other genetic findings， such as genetic roots of heights。 The author also described in great detail studies of siblings and twins in identifying genetic and environmental factors。 These are fascinating discourses， but they are not clearly tied to the discoveries that support the genetic roots of intelligence and learning ability （they are not the same）。 The scientific discussions can be better organized so a reader can follow the train of thought from background information to specific results。 The author can also help us by clearly outlining the open questions instead of implying them。The social and moral implications of the genetic lottery theories are thinly supported by facts; they are mainly based on the author’s personal views and some analogies and revelations。 This is fine for a new field。 However， I wish the book would spend less space pontifying and speculating and more space on factual introductions。 The author’s moral discussions leave out many important questions。 For example， the author acknowledges that society would be better off by allocating power and resources to the more capable， regardless of whether the capabilities are acquired justly。 However， the author argues that such “utilitarian” allocations should not have moral values attached， as eugenicists would suggest。 The question is: how are moral values attached today？ Why would a CEO command more respect than an office worker， even outside the workplace？ Why would people respect， even admire， talented musicians and athletes who clearly benefit from their genetic endowments， even though they have no power over us through the societal system？ Without delving into the root of these respects and implied moral values， there is no way to untangle resource allocation and its moral implication。The completely unaddressed question is that the rewarding mechanism needs not only to be fair but also motivating。 As long as people have some agency in developing and applying capabilities for more contributions to society， they should be encouraged to do it by meritocracy。 We need a balance between cut-throat Darwinian competition and flat distribution regardless of contribution。 The book’s sole focus on fairness limits its value in informing social policy deliberations。Even on the scientific level， the author should have explained to us how to understand quantitatively the association （I won’t call it causality at this point） between genes and learning abilities。 What does the 10% predictability mean？ Will the author’s prescription of social policy changes differ if the predictability is 5% or 20%？ Without going quantitative， the book's value is limited to but one of the many voices in the social justice debates。The intended audience of the book is not clear to me。 The author spends a lot of energy distancing herself from the eugenic view and argues that her scientific results do not lead to racism。 This suggests that she expects the reader to be familiar with the eugenic views。 On the other hand， the book spends much space introducing the rudimentary knowledge of statistics and genetic study methodologies， which appeared to aim at novices。 People interested in genetic studies would have a hard time bridging the “genetic lottery” findings and their social and moral implications。 People specialized in social policies would need to get used to the author’s intuition-based deliberations。 I think the author would do better by focusing on her expertise and explaining the scientific discoveries and open questions in greater detail。 Discourses on social and moral issues can be left to a different book， targeting a different audience。Doubtlessly， the discovery of genetic roots of learning disparity has profound and far-reaching policy implications， as did the discovery of the “gay gene。” On the other hand， the research in this area is only at the beginning。 Genetic research is intrinsically difficult because one needs to tease out causal connections among many， many other factors。 I expect that the advent of cheaper sequencing technologies and larger-scale data collection （e。g。， through massive online learning platforms） will advance the research area。 The book “Genetic Lottery” does a great job of starting the conversation and promoting awareness of the structure。 However， the scientific evidence is not yet enough to spark a revolution in the discourse of social justice， equity， and the morality of success。 I hope that the attention this book generates will result in more research and contemplation in this area。 。。。more

Albert ，

a sad example of how tortured has to be one's writing when exploring topics like genetics in contemporary USA。。。 there is only a very little about genetics， without much nuance， and the rest is mostly about how genetics does not necessarily lead to eugenics and an ad nauseum repetition of the statement that it is impossible to tell anything about racial differences based on the genetic research。。。also， if so much of current genetics is based upon principal components anaylsis， we will likely see a sad example of how tortured has to be one's writing when exploring topics like genetics in contemporary USA。。。 there is only a very little about genetics， without much nuance， and the rest is mostly about how genetics does not necessarily lead to eugenics and an ad nauseum repetition of the statement that it is impossible to tell anything about racial differences based on the genetic research。。。also， if so much of current genetics is based upon principal components anaylsis， we will likely see it debunked in the next ten years， in the same way as a decade of candidate gene studies was debunked a few years earlier。。。 。。。more

Ana Reif ，

Damn， some of these reviews are insufferable。 I actually appreciated that Harden spent so long explaining how she’s not a eugenicist。 Eugenics is really bad。 Other authors I’ve read have distanced themselves from eugenics but not explicitly stated how their views are incompatible with eugenics， so I actually thought this was refreshing。 Genetic difference is an incredibly nuanced topic and since this is not an academic book， it’s important to be very careful about how the data are perceived。 It’ Damn， some of these reviews are insufferable。 I actually appreciated that Harden spent so long explaining how she’s not a eugenicist。 Eugenics is really bad。 Other authors I’ve read have distanced themselves from eugenics but not explicitly stated how their views are incompatible with eugenics， so I actually thought this was refreshing。 Genetic difference is an incredibly nuanced topic and since this is not an academic book， it’s important to be very careful about how the data are perceived。 It’s not just woke cancel culture pc sjw。 Get a job。 。。。more

Chris Branch ，

I’d say 3。5 for this one， but I’ll round up for two reasons: one， Harden’s honest commitment to discovering what is true， and two， her clearly evident desire to make the world a better place。 The main goal of this book is to convey that “…the existence of genetic differences does not obviate our social responsibility。” （p。 94）， and Harden later notes that “genetics can be causes of stratification in society， _and_ measures to address systematic social forces can be effective at enhancing social I’d say 3。5 for this one， but I’ll round up for two reasons: one， Harden’s honest commitment to discovering what is true， and two， her clearly evident desire to make the world a better place。 The main goal of this book is to convey that “…the existence of genetic differences does not obviate our social responsibility。” （p。 94）， and Harden later notes that “genetics can be causes of stratification in society， _and_ measures to address systematic social forces can be effective at enhancing social change。” （p。 155）One of the most important points in the book is one that should be obvious， but unfortunately isn’t: that genetics really does have a significant effect on people’s life outcomes。 Summarizing the results of a sibling study， Harden concludes that “…the sibling who had the higher polygenic index … was also wealthier at retirement。” （p。 43） Her explanations on this point seem excessively belabored， likely because she has to pause to defend herself against charges of eugenics multiple times， since there are many who think that _behavioral_ genetic differences among people are not allowed to be mentioned。 Equally important is her point about “[r]ecognizing the role of luck， both genetic and environmental， in shaping the development of socially valued skills and behaviors…” （p。 249）。 These two points， taken together， should be enough to convince skeptics that people are really much less responsible than they think they are for how their lives turn out。 Having conveyed this， Harden spends much of the book explaining why this doesn’t mean that people’s outcomes are predetermined。 She then goes on to argue that genetic data， rather than being ignored， should be used in the project of making people’s lives better， though social policies that selectively target those who have been genetically less fortunate。It was Harden’s appearance on a Sam Harris podcast episode that brought her to my attention， and I’ll have to go back and listen to it again。 I remember noticing that she held her own surprisingly well against Harris， even though I found his argument more convincing。 Reading this book， I now think they agree on more than they disagree on， and Harris is more convincing mainly because his argument is less nuanced。 Their main point of disagreement， as I recall， was the characterization and treatment of Charles Murray， one of the authors of the controversial book， The Bell Curve - and Harden continues her excoriation of Murray here， referring to him as a “conservative provocateur” （p。 134） This seems overly harsh from what I’ve heard of him。 And even as she is critical of Harris for supporting Murray， she agrees with him on what is probably the most important point he was making in the podcast， which was that “people’s moral commitments to racial equality are on shaky ground if they depend on exact genetic sameness across human populations。” （p。 90）Overall， the book is a well-presented argument in favor of social policies that address real genetic disadvantages in some populations， and Harden’s writing is solid， though there are occasional turns of phrase that strike me as a bit awkward。 The larger problem is that both the explanation of the genetic data and the policies that might be effective are complicated and nuanced， and those who oppose such policies likely won’t carefully read and understand this book before arguing against them。Note， Harden mentions the Templeton Foundation in the acknowledgements， which is normally a red flag due to their emphasis on reconciling religion and science， but I can't say I found anything along those lines in the book， so maybe she managed to take their money without veering off into anything unscientific。 。。。more

Tutankhamun18 ，

I did not end up enjoying this book that much。 It very much argued for the importance of understanding genetic factors that can contribute to privilege or underprivilege by mainly focusing on working class white people and only very occasionally pulling in comments about other races。 While classism is definately also a topic of great importance， I think its a shame that both could not be given equal time in the examples。 The times it was mentioned， I felt it was an insert after she had already w I did not end up enjoying this book that much。 It very much argued for the importance of understanding genetic factors that can contribute to privilege or underprivilege by mainly focusing on working class white people and only very occasionally pulling in comments about other races。 While classism is definately also a topic of great importance， I think its a shame that both could not be given equal time in the examples。 The times it was mentioned， I felt it was an insert after she had already won over the reader to her poimt of view without using the race word。 I wonder if the target audience for this book was less left wing than myself。My favourite thing about this book was her metaphor of a recipe， ingredients for a dish and the dish itself and how these represent genetics， environment and outcomes。 。。。more

TJS ，

Only the most courageous are willing to take on the question of how our genes may affect our personal attributes and life prospects。 The topic is not just incendiary， but， in the West， essentially taboo， which is not surprising after a century of phrenology， eugenics， and Nazi “racial science。” People are terrified of it。Ms。 Harden walks this ideological and scientific tightrope with intelligence and humanity。Despite her efforts， the denunciations in The New York Review of Books and the Los Ange Only the most courageous are willing to take on the question of how our genes may affect our personal attributes and life prospects。 The topic is not just incendiary， but， in the West， essentially taboo， which is not surprising after a century of phrenology， eugenics， and Nazi “racial science。” People are terrified of it。Ms。 Harden walks this ideological and scientific tightrope with intelligence and humanity。Despite her efforts， the denunciations in The New York Review of Books and the Los Angeles Review of Books， and elsewhere， were predictable。 Those apprehensive about this area of science and social science will strain to find any flaws in the reasoning of books like The Genetic Lottery and drill down on them。I will admit， however， that this area of inquiry makes me nervous too！ Anyone familiar with Brave New World and the like is going to be nervous。 The potential for abusive classifying of people cannot be discounted。 If it turns out to be the proverbial slippery slope， the harm caused could be vast。Still， rearguard actions to suppress scientific inquiry don’t have a history of success。 That was true of Galileo and is going to be true here too。 Michael Specter’s 2013 New Yorker article “The Gene Factory” made clear that the Chinese do not possess whatever qualms the West has about exploring genetics， and they are vigorously conducting research in the field。I have one question。 Ms。 Harden uses the terms “homogenous” and “homogeneous。” I understand that the former has a specific meaning in biology， whereas the latter just generally means “of like kind。” Did she intend this difference？ I couldn’t tell。 。。。more

Jeremiah ，

"What do i need to do to protect the most vulnerable in my community。" p 256 "What do i need to do to protect the most vulnerable in my community。" p 256 。。。more

Kate ，

DNF

max ，

Kathryn Paige Harden’s book， The Genetic Lottery， aims to disrupt more than 100 years of scientific discourse on the role of innate human ability and intelligence， with its dark roots in the eugenics movement of Francis Galton and his book Hereditary Genius。Harden， who surveys this history at the beginning of her book， is forced to acknowledge these prejudiced scientists as her forbears。 So as she takes careful aim at how our genes influence various life outcomes， she also seeks to flip the scri Kathryn Paige Harden’s book， The Genetic Lottery， aims to disrupt more than 100 years of scientific discourse on the role of innate human ability and intelligence， with its dark roots in the eugenics movement of Francis Galton and his book Hereditary Genius。Harden， who surveys this history at the beginning of her book， is forced to acknowledge these prejudiced scientists as her forbears。 So as she takes careful aim at how our genes influence various life outcomes， she also seeks to flip the script。 She wants to hold up a mirror to society to show how we have built a castle of rewards and punishments built on the sand of a vacuous value-system。 Harden wants to prove with science what satirists have suspected since the first jester appeared before the first king–life is unfair， fame and fortune are fickle， and those who make moral justifications for why are the worst kind of hypocrites。Harden seeks to demonstrate via a survey of the literature that genes are a kind of “cards-you’re-dealt” of the poker game （or the tarot deck that preceded it）。 They effect health， appearance， emotions， character， intelligence， lifespan， career， marriage–basically everything。 And while we resemble our parents’ “cards” to a certain degree， there’s trillions of possible combinations stemming from the two decks of mom and pop。 Simple statistics say some people are going to be really unlucky and some really lucky–that’s just how the game works。 In 21st-century America， why this idea should even muster a shrug is beyond me。 Every day we’re bombarded by images of athletes， musicians， actors， models， CEOs， and influencers who are just like us， except a lot luckier。 Surely the concept is intuitively obvious。 Yet Harden wants us to feel surprised at how capricious and unfair this all is， even if it’s the system we’ve been living under since birth。 Didn’t Shakespeare call fortune a strumpet？ The problem is， of course， Harden is a scientist， not a playwright， so when she writes a book stating the obvious， people absolutely lose their minds。 Those on the left mischaracterize her as a eugenist， or perhaps an apologist for one， and those on the right attack her for failing to be the social darwinist they hope her to be。Keenly aware that the last breakthrough book in this field， The Bell Curve， earned its authors permanent pariah status for its motivated reasoning in service of white supremacy， Harden is keen to tack the other direction， seeking to justify much greater and more comprehensive interventions， especially in the area of public education。 While she does not promote a specific agenda in any detail， she is clearly unhappy about politically-convenient social programs， such as the sex-ed program in her home state of Texas that stresses abstinence。 Harden is also impatient with literal lip service， such as the well-intentioned but absurd interventions concocted to address the “word gap” between rich mothers and poor mothers that was briefly touted by fashionable think tanks and charitable foundations as the root cause for large discrepancies in lifetime educational outcomes of these mothers’ offspring。 Unfortunately， the studies themselves that purported to prove it crumbled under the crucible of reproducibility。 Harden suggests， convincingly， that the low quality of so many social science studies has at it root an unwillingness to control for genetic factors。Harden isn’t trying to suggest that poor mothers inevitably have stupid children， or that interventions aimed at poor families are a waste of money。 Quite the contrary， in fact。 She suggests， paragraph by paragraph， chapter by chapter， that our society was never truly interested in tackling inequality in the first place， and most of the interventions we offer are band-aids at best， and wishful thinking at worst。 She does not suggest that these charities and institutions are themselves symptoms of the problem， though Harden’s prose betrays no obligation to complete its lines of reasoning。Were we to take Harden’s ideas seriously， her conclusions would directly compel a single course of intervention for society: aggressive expansion of the welfare state and a redistribution of wealth that have only ever been attempted outside democratically-operated countries。 Were Harden to have thought this through and opened with this thesis， the book would be bolder， better， and certainly more entertaining。 For Harden is， whether she knows it or not， a utopianist， who， like B。F。 Skinner before her， truly believes science can help us reimagine society in a way that benefits everyone。 She’s not， at heart anyway， an incrementalist。 If life is a board game， Harden thinks we’re all suckers playing Monopoly–and we’d be better off playing a game with very different rules。Unlike the dystopian critic Aldous Huxley， whose cautionary vision of social darwinism has withstood nearly a century of scrutiny that the science of its time has withered under， Harden isn’t willing to give up on better living through chemistry。 While she leaves breadcrumbs all over her book about the sweep and reach of her ideal reform， we must reach the last page for Harden to spell it out for us:Some people happen to inherit combinations of genetic variants that， in combination with environments…cause them to be more likely to develop a suite of skills and behaviors that are currently valued in…Western capitalist societies。 They are not better people。 They are not more inherently meritorious。 Now just because you think athletes and influencers shouldn’t be lauded as epitomes human virtue doesn’t automatically cast you a Marxist。 But the dig at “Western capitalist societies”， especially in its pluralized form， does clear the floor for a broad， systemic critique of the global political-economic hegemony–the whole kit and kaboodle， as it were。 Harden could benefit from being more open about it。 Earlier passages that condemn soviet-style totalitarianism are particularly difficult to square， in this light。 For example， she summarizes a study on Romanian orphanages and springboards into a fascinating discussion on how the state can suppress human potential。 She observes with respect to human intelligence， totalitarian societies produce not only fewer “lucky” people， on average， but a lot more “unlucky” ones overall。 She then cites the geneticist Richard Lewontin， who offers a “garden” metaphor for human genetics in his own writing。 Lewontin suggests that a well-maintained garden actually promotes greater variability in plant height than a poorly-maintained one， with the insinuation that Western societies are working correctly when they produce a greater diversity of outcomes。 Lewontin was surely aware that the garden is one of the oldest symbols in Western civilization， though Harden does not dwell on his literary provocations。 Yet to this reader， government-as-gardener conjures Plato’s Republic and its ideal society ruled by a philosopher-king that has no need for artists， poets， and other dissimulators。 Which is the great weakness of the book。 Harden can’t articulate what her vision for an ideal society is because she does not herself know it。 She hasn’t read enough outside STEM fields to have an opinion yet。 With only the briefest asides for Dostoevsky and the Bible， Harden has brought a knife to a gunfight。 Who is she to point at the hypocrisy and decadence of Western society as if she herself discovered it？ Whence Chaucer？ Whence Austen？ Has the PhD in psychology even cracked the man who largely founded her field， the good Dr。 Freud？ Why not start with Civilization and its Discontents？Harden could have written a different book， one that attempted to survey trends in genetic psychology that allows readers to draw their own conclusions。 Perhaps Harden felt that such a book would play into the hands of neonazis， as， she concedes， her academic research regularly has。 But， as is so often the case with controversial ideas， hers cause her to swerve in the opposite direction。 Too bad she drives right into a territory she knows little about。Over and over again she tells us how important STEM is to success in life and how our society is failing us in the way it picks STEM favorites and tosses everyone else by the wayside。 But at the same time， she tells what society selects for isn’t what is most important in life: “intelligence tests don’t tell you that a person is valuable， but they do tell you about whether a person can do （some） things that are valued” （italics hers）。 Can’t the same be said of STEM？ Can’t it only tell us about the former， and not the latter？And if intelligence–and the STEM riches is delivers–isn’t the most important thing in life， then， what is？ These problems may be new to her， but they’re not new， they are older than Christ。 At least she has passing familiarity with that particular social critic， whose millenarian ideas her unconfronted and largely unexplored reflexes inadvertently echo。 Saying every single person deserves dignity and respect is still a revolutionary idea， two thousand years later。Eugenicism may also be comparatively new， but the evil it articulates is ancient。 It’s the same old story: societies always and inevitably have winners and losers， but only in a properly structured society will the winners be empowered， via their innate and natural nobility， to solve the problem of the losers better than the losers could ever solve for themselves。 Change “winners” to “gentry” and “losers” to “peasants” and you have feudalism。 A search-and-replace later， you get colonialism， or fascism， whatever other “system” you want where the few rule the many through a system of inherited privilege。This is the argument Harden never addresses， because she lacks the breadth of education to be aware of it。 It’s not that she’s not smart， it’s just she hasn’t yet been granted access to a large enough garden。 Instead， Harden ends up calling for more solutions that got us into this mess in the first place–those implemented by experts like her–intelligent people with exceptional credentials， granted access to comprehensive and accurate data， genetics not excluded。 The problem is that a society run in this manner is not a democracy。 For the sake of ours， I hope Harden and her peers learn to appreciate that。 。。。more

Jitse ，

Geweldige uitleg van de gedragsgenetica， filosofie redelijk goed :） Recensie zie: https://geloofenwetenschap。nl/harden-。。。 Geweldige uitleg van de gedragsgenetica， filosofie redelijk goed :） Recensie zie: https://geloofenwetenschap。nl/harden-。。。 。。。more

CatReader ，

DNF at 44% -- I can't take this book seriously after all the scientific errors and editorializations， possibly deliberate to craft the narrative， possibily out of the author's lack of knowledge of the subject。 These include:- describing the way a tall person inherits tall genes as akin to a pinball that can go either left or right at various forks going in the same direction for hundreds of forks -- no， that's not how that works。 The author is perfectly happy to include R-squared values later in DNF at 44% -- I can't take this book seriously after all the scientific errors and editorializations， possibly deliberate to craft the narrative， possibily out of the author's lack of knowledge of the subject。 These include:- describing the way a tall person inherits tall genes as akin to a pinball that can go either left or right at various forks going in the same direction for hundreds of forks -- no， that's not how that works。 The author is perfectly happy to include R-squared values later in the book for various correlations， yet if she had cited an R-squared value for child height based on parental height， it'd be pretty close to 1。- describing the standardized SNP ID nomenclature beginning in "rs" （which stands for reference sequence， by the way， a logical way of naming genomic positions regardless of assemblies， and a very important tool in our field） as sounding like they belong in the Stasi。- describing Harlow's cloth mother and wire mother experiments on monkeys as cruel and inhumane - well yes， they were， but if she is so horrified by them she can't even use more words to explain and contextualize， then she hasn't read enough on medical research through the ages to find examples that were truly cruel and inhumane enough to be unspeakable。- claiming that Down syndrome is inherited with 100% penetrance by having trisomy 21 -- either you have it and it's full-blown， or you don't。 If she indeed studied genetics enough， she should have explained the concept of mosaicism here rather than oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy。 。。。more

Grace ，

Main Ideas of the Book:1。 Genes significantly influence who we are and has a significant impact on things like an individual’s intelligence， grit， kindness， violence， etc。 Although it may sound nihilistic， it is the truth。2。 Of course， genes do not completely influence everything in one’s life。3。 Instead of eugenic or a “genetic blind” society， we must implement an anti-eugenic society， in which genetics makes little difference in one’s chances of success。Thoughts:Harden obviously has a good und Main Ideas of the Book:1。 Genes significantly influence who we are and has a significant impact on things like an individual’s intelligence， grit， kindness， violence， etc。 Although it may sound nihilistic， it is the truth。2。 Of course， genes do not completely influence everything in one’s life。3。 Instead of eugenic or a “genetic blind” society， we must implement an anti-eugenic society， in which genetics makes little difference in one’s chances of success。Thoughts:Harden obviously has a good understanding of psychology and behavioral genetic research。 The book is an eye-opener in many aspects for me。 I learned lots about why we cannot ignore our differences， how genetics influence our lives， and how causation works in general。 Throughout the book， I mostly agreed with her ideas。 I feel a bit uneasy about some of the anti-eugenic policy she recommends， as sounds like socialism， but it somewhat makes sense。 In fact， I think I am slightly more liberal after reading this book。 She does indeed make some great points about how most of your personality traits and decisions （which may seem to a reflection of some magical internal will）， are actually direct causes of genetic and environmental spontaneities， thus， more equality makes sense。 The argument is quite sound in my opinion。 Although I mostly liked the ideas， I did not like the writing style that much， although this is mostly a personal thing。 I lot of the time， it felt like I was reading a speech rather than a book， which I personally disliked。 There were certain tangents in which the author connected the ideas to things in pop culture （e。g。 GATTACA and parasite）， even though it was not that helpful。 Also， the organization felt a bit off at times。 I liked some of her views about how society should treat research。I got kind of confused with a part during chapter 11。 She seems to a highlight deaf couple specifically choosing deaf children in a positive light。 I mean， I do agree with her point that “good” traits are subjective， and although most people think “intelligence” and “good hearing” are good traits， no one person can be an arbiter as to what the ideal society entails。 I However， as she writes， deaf people are more unlikely to get good grades and good opportunities， and although we can intervene to improve their social well-being， it takes a lot of work to give the exact same opportunities and chances of well-being as a person who is not deaf。 I briefly skimmed Kikkegaard’s review and I think he conveys a similar sentiment much better than me。 However， a couple pages later she comments on Deaf community using reproductive technology to choose non-deaf offspring as a “form of genocide”。 Using “genocide” there is way too exaggerated。 Both seem like forms of eugenics to me… albeit the first example was a bit more unorthodox。 Furthermore， isn’t doing things like not drinking alcohol or coffee when you are pregnant “eugenics”？ Where is society supposed to draw the line？ I realize I am sounding eugenic here :（， but I just was not satisfied with some of Harden’s social equality-related content。Anyways， I mostly liked this book， and I really learned a lot from it， but some sus stuff。 It sometimes felt like Harden was trying too hard to be politically incorrect。 Maybe I’ll come back to this book later when I have a better understanding of society and equality and stuff。 。。。more

Katherine Stevick ，

Very interesting。 She deals head-on with questions about race and eugenics and puts the ghosts of Charles Murray and others to rest in the first few chapters。 I find her argument for why egalitarians must engage with genetics very compelling。 She started losing me a bit in the second half of the book， but that may be my own pre-move mind wandering （have I packed my rainboots？） rather than the fault of the book itself。

Jackie Joyner ，

Good overview of behavioral genetics from a first rate scholar。 Only downside is the absurd "anti-eugenics" stance the author takes。 She's fully aware that eugenics comes in many forms， and that it's not just "what the Nazis did。" As the philosopher Philip Kitcher said， "once we've left the garden of genetic innocence， some form of eugenics is inevitable。" The only question is whether parents will have full autonomy to alter the genetic basis of their children's traits （through editing， selectio Good overview of behavioral genetics from a first rate scholar。 Only downside is the absurd "anti-eugenics" stance the author takes。 She's fully aware that eugenics comes in many forms， and that it's not just "what the Nazis did。" As the philosopher Philip Kitcher said， "once we've left the garden of genetic innocence， some form of eugenics is inevitable。" The only question is whether parents will have full autonomy to alter the genetic basis of their children's traits （through editing， selection， etc）， or whether governments will regulate or guide their choice in any way。 Still， this is worth a read， especially in conjunction with Charles' Murray's Human Diversity and Robert Plomin's Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are， which cover similar topics from different angles。 。。。more

Yousuf Alrawi ，

The title sounded interesting and controversial to me so I wanted to see what kind of evidence the book will present。 I have a background in health and development but it was still difficult to follow with too many conflicting arguments。 The author wants to prove a point but was too afraid to sound racist。

Mark Harris ，

The author argues that genetics should be treated like social-economic condition when deciding on interventions to better society as a whole。 She slowly， carefully， and sensitively argues for recognizing the causal chain that begins with each person’s genetic inheritance and their ultimate social-economic and mental health outcomes。 She cautions against assigning moral judgments to genetic causes and even includes a chapter on how to be anti-eugenistic。

Jacob Libby ，

First gives excellent overview of the state of the science in behavior genetics， then proposes a social justice model for social genetics research on the model of X Kendi's Antiracism。 First gives excellent overview of the state of the science in behavior genetics， then proposes a social justice model for social genetics research on the model of X Kendi's Antiracism。 。。。more

Devin Shuman ，

This book has so many logic fallacies its going to be hard to even finish it

Ross Beck-MacNeil ，

I liked this book。 I learned about polygenic indexes; how scientists use large scale studies to establish correlations between many different genes and life outcomes。 The main thrust of the book is along the lines of Rawl's veil of ignorance: a just society is the one that we would want to be born in， not knowing ahead of time who we would be born to or anything else about or conditions。 As a result， we shouldn't elevate people who got lucky to have good genes and treat them as privileged and so I liked this book。 I learned about polygenic indexes; how scientists use large scale studies to establish correlations between many different genes and life outcomes。 The main thrust of the book is along the lines of Rawl's veil of ignorance: a just society is the one that we would want to be born in， not knowing ahead of time who we would be born to or anything else about or conditions。 As a result， we shouldn't elevate people who got lucky to have good genes and treat them as privileged and some sort of superior caste。 At the same time， we shouldn't ignore genes， since they do have profound effects and are an important thing to understand when designing interventions and policies。A good portion of the book is spent explaining why current studies can't tell us anything about genetic differences between races and ethnic groups。 I suppose that race is so bound up with culture and history that it is hard to disentangle， but over time that might change。The book reminds me a bit of Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst which also discussed genes a bit， as well as implications for understanding blame， personal responsibility etc。。。 。。。more

Spencer ，

Absolute best writing on the important subject of genetics I have ever read。 Harden overcompensates for her liberal values and injects too her values a bit too much for my tastes but that’s a minor critique。 Read it！

James ，

I bought this book after reading a long review essay in the New Yorker。 Harden （PhD UVA） is a psychology researcher at UT Austin， and argues that new techniques in analysis of variations in the human genome （SNPs or “snips”） can help understand human outcomes （“phenotypes”）。 The technique is called GWAS， and consists of constructing personalized scores as sums of correlation coefficients between snips and the phenotype。 Since snips are random， even if the snip-level correlation is tiny we can st I bought this book after reading a long review essay in the New Yorker。 Harden （PhD UVA） is a psychology researcher at UT Austin， and argues that new techniques in analysis of variations in the human genome （SNPs or “snips”） can help understand human outcomes （“phenotypes”）。 The technique is called GWAS， and consists of constructing personalized scores as sums of correlation coefficients between snips and the phenotype。 Since snips are random， even if the snip-level correlation is tiny we can still predict the phenotype outcome by summing up the snip correlations。 She argues （convincingly） that these phenotype-GWAS correlations are causal， and they are sometimes big: for example， the education GWAS predicts a substantial amount of the variation in educational attainment。 This is redolent of eugenics， a stench she deplores and wants to argue against。 The biggest intellectual problem with this research agenda is that we rarely have any idea what the mechanisms are behind the causal chain。 She finishes the book by arguing that progressives need to wrestle with these facts rather than putting their heads in the sand about the genetic influences on variation within human populations。 。。。more

Sarah Cm ，

"First， glasses: Nearsightedness is heritable， we use glasses to address it， and glasses are not a genetic solution。 Et voila！ A social intervention for a genetic problem。"I learnt a lot from this book。 We understand that we have no influence over the situation we are born into and as a society （widely） recognise that these circumstances have a large impact on our prospects in life。 The Left recognises that we have a responsibility to ensure that these circumstances do not lead to long-term disa "First， glasses: Nearsightedness is heritable， we use glasses to address it， and glasses are not a genetic solution。 Et voila！ A social intervention for a genetic problem。"I learnt a lot from this book。 We understand that we have no influence over the situation we are born into and as a society （widely） recognise that these circumstances have a large impact on our prospects in life。 The Left recognises that we have a responsibility to ensure that these circumstances do not lead to long-term disadvantages。 Likewise， we have no influence over the genes we are born with。 Harden lays out a manifesto for research into the impact of genetics on life outcomes。 The Left and society， in general， are yet to realise that we have a responsibility to also make sure that our genetic makeup does not lead to long-term disadvantages。I understand Harden's position that genetic research could be used for a lot of good; to eradicate fundamental inequalities in our society， but I don't think， in practice， it would be used in this way。 We are living in the midst of late-stage capitalism， where some deny that we have the responsibility to eradicate known environmental factors which impact outcomes in life; adding genetic research supporting difference would be adding fuel to the fire。 。。。more

William Hurwitz ，

Anti-Eugenics Explained and Supported A technically sophisticated discussion of the relationships between one's genetic endowment and one's educational and social prospects， and how theses relationships should be considered to promote a humane society。 Anti-Eugenics Explained and Supported A technically sophisticated discussion of the relationships between one's genetic endowment and one's educational and social prospects， and how theses relationships should be considered to promote a humane society。 。。。more

Molly ，

A deftly written examination of a highly fraught and important topic。 Harden is clear and compelling。 Plenty to argue about， but without a doubt Harden advances the conversation here and treats her readers—and her critics—with respect。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0