Danny Finklestein at the Times argues today that we ignore genetic influence on behaviour at our peril. He makes this point after the recent sacking at Google of the guy who said there are less women working there because they’re more ‘neurotic’. Fair comment. Or not. Google thought not. Or thought they had to say ‘not’ rather than look bad, easier to sack him, easy to employ another man, Google employ men all the time. Disproportionately, so it would seem.

But is this a problem with ‘genes’? People react strongly to implications that ‘you are your genes’ and you’re stuck with it. Because that leads to a whole raft of horrible extrapolations. Most of which end with mass sterilisations or elevations of the chosen ‘alpha’ (say… Aryans?) to an exalted position that they neither justify nor deserve. And consequently creates an ‘underclass’. One which, because you can’t change your genes, not yet anyway, you will never leave.

This is how the caste system works in India. Its how the nazis thought. Its why Singapore had a program for years in which wealthy people were encouraged to have lots of kids, using tax breaks, whereas poor (presumed ‘inferior’) were penalised for having more than one kid. And none of it ‘nice’ or ‘friendly’. You are your genes, it says, and you’re never going to be any better/higher/anything. So you might as well give up now.

Its all so predestined and nasty. And Danny’s point was that we’re all blessed/cursed with our genes and they’re not bad and they do contribute and all is good and it shouldn’t frighten the more sensitive or PC among us to just accept that. A good point. He wasn’t proposing extermination of the gypsies.

But its all about nature/nurture. Which is why everyone’s obsessed with the quite ridiculous concept of ‘gender neutrality’ for little kids. Boys CAN wear pink. Girls CAN play with soldiers (long as they’re not real).

The problem is that you cannot ever really separate nature from nurture, genes from environment. Which is why identical twins are so interesting. Which is why I married one. As a longitudinal psychological study. But twins are always different. Virtually always raised in the same environment, with 100% identical genes, yet behave differently. In Mel’s case, rather badly. So that’s conclusive (??)

The biggest affect on behaviour is environment/upbringing. I look at Lila, just 4 months old and she is ‘bright’ because she experiences levels of stimulation that are verging on cruelty. Its non-stop. And I look at what she ‘has’ in terms of her things. Books, educational games, masses and masses. But it works. She can now chew books that are French, or Latin, as easily as English ones. That speaks volumes. Unlike Lila, who doesn’t yet, but makes a lot of noise anyway. Kids raised in a non-caring environment will not do so well. Other than the chewing.

Happy Wednesday

A xxxx