Another Nine-Inch Nail for Behavioral Genetics!

Human Development (Impact Factor: 1.38). 01/2006; 49:336-342. DOI: 10.1159/000096532

ABSTRACT About the time that I was completing my doctoral training (in 1971), reactions to Jensen's [1969] paper in the Harvard Educational Review about the heritability of intelligence were beginning to be published [e.g., Hebb, 1970; Hirsch, 1970] and were explaining to social and behavioral scientists the egregious flaws in theory and meth-od associated with behavior genetics. As a neophyte in developmental science, I na-ively believed that the matter of genetic reductionism would have been settled by this exchange, and by the classic paper of Anastasi [1958] and the earlier one by Schneirla [1956]. I was certain that no one would again take seriously the idea that genes (na-ture), split off from the environment, from the multiple levels of the context (or ecol-ogy) of human development (nurture), could provide an independent, noninteractive source of intelligence or of any other functional (or structural) feature of human de-velopment, no matter what dazzling statistical [but ill-founded; e.g., Feldman & Le-wontin, 1975; Layzer, 1974; Wahlsten, 1990] methods were used to estimate the addi-tive and isolated influence of genes on behavior. I was wrong. Across the ensuing third of a century the erroneous claims and mis-interpreted data of behavioral genetics, and of associated biologically reductionist ac-counts of human development (such as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology), have continued to 'rise from the grave' [e.g. Rushton, 2000], despite the biological, psychological and statistical scholarship that should have kept these ideas 'dead and buried' [e.g.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While most outcomes may in part be genetically mediated, quantifying genetic heritability is a different matter. To explore data on twins and decompose the variation is a classical method to determine whether variation in outcomes, e.g. IQ or schooling, originate from genetic endowments or environmental factors. Despite some criticism, the model is still widely used. The critique is generally related to how estimates of heritability may encompass environmental mediation. This aspect is sometimes left implicit by authors even though its relevance for the interpretation is potentially profound. This short note is an appeal for clarity from authors when interpreting the magnitude of heritability estimates. It is demonstrated how disregarding existing theoretical contributions can easily lead to unnecessary misinterpretations and/or controversies. The key arguments are relevant also for estimates based on data of adopted children or from modern molecular genetics research.
    Economics and human biology 05/2012; · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • International Journal of Advertising 01/2011; 30(4):559. · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although genetic models were in the ascendance within psychology during the early 20th century, the association of early behavioral genetic research with the eugenics movement served to discredit the field in the eyes of many. Twin and adoption studies throughout the latter half of the 20th century helped to reestablish the importance of behavioral genetic models and set the stage for the current focus of the field on developing and testing models of gene-environment interplay. Research findings on developmental behavioral genetic research, gene-environment interaction, and the use of behavioral genetic models to test causal hypotheses are used to highlight the contributions of contemporary behavioral genetic research to psychological research. It is argued that future efforts to investigate models of gene-environment interplay will depend heavily on the field’s ability to identify the specific genetic variants that contribute to individual differences in behavior. The anticipated yield from genome-wide association studies gives much reason to be optimistic about the future vitality of behavior genetics.
    Acta Psychologica Sinica 10/2009; 40(10):1073-1087.


Available from