Why Is Behavioural Genetics A Hated Science? - Dr Stuart Ritchie

Why Is Behavioural Genetics A Hated Science? - Dr Stuart Ritchie

Modern WisdomOct 3, 20221h 18m

Stuart Ritchie (guest), Chris Williamson (host), Narrator, Chris Williamson (host)

Public distrust and political fears around behavioral geneticsGene–environment interaction and misconceptions about immutabilityReplication crisis and the collapse of candidate gene researchGenome‑wide association studies and polygenic scoresIntelligence, multiple intelligences, EQ, and over‑branding in psychologyEvaluation of popular psychological interventions (growth mindset, priming, grit)Antidepressants, serotonin theory, and problems in psychiatric researchScientific integrity, fraud, and how laypeople can critically read research

In this episode of Modern Wisdom, featuring Stuart Ritchie and Chris Williamson, Why Is Behavioural Genetics A Hated Science? - Dr Stuart Ritchie explores why Behavioral Genetics Alarms People: Politics, Fairness, And Bad Science Stuart Ritchie explains why behavioral genetics provokes hostility, arguing that people wrongly equate genetic influence with immutability and right‑wing politics, especially around traits like intelligence and education. He shows how genes and environments interact, using examples from post‑communist Estonia, eyesight and height, and school quality to illustrate that heritable traits are still malleable. Ritchie then details how behavioral genetics was an early casualty of the replication crisis—especially the complete collapse of ‘candidate gene’ studies—and how newer genome‑wide methods, while better, still face scientific and sampling challenges. The conversation broadens into how to interpret contested findings in psychology and medicine (mindsets, priming, antidepressants, ECT), and how the public can be properly skeptical of research without sliding into conspiracy thinking.

Why Behavioral Genetics Alarms People: Politics, Fairness, And Bad Science

Stuart Ritchie explains why behavioral genetics provokes hostility, arguing that people wrongly equate genetic influence with immutability and right‑wing politics, especially around traits like intelligence and education. He shows how genes and environments interact, using examples from post‑communist Estonia, eyesight and height, and school quality to illustrate that heritable traits are still malleable. Ritchie then details how behavioral genetics was an early casualty of the replication crisis—especially the complete collapse of ‘candidate gene’ studies—and how newer genome‑wide methods, while better, still face scientific and sampling challenges. The conversation broadens into how to interpret contested findings in psychology and medicine (mindsets, priming, antidepressants, ECT), and how the public can be properly skeptical of research without sliding into conspiracy thinking.

Key Takeaways

Genetic influence is not destiny; heritable traits can still be changed by environments.

Ritchie emphasizes that high heritability does not mean a trait is fixed—myopia is strongly genetic yet trivially altered with glasses, and height is highly heritable but dramatically reduced by malnutrition, as seen in North vs. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

People apply a double standard to genetics depending on how politically sensitive the trait is.

Most accept genes for height or eye color but react angrily when the same methods show genetic influence on intelligence, personality, or educational attainment, largely because of fears about inequality, determinism, and past eugenic abuses.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Behavioral genetics was badly misled by ‘candidate gene’ studies that mostly failed to replicate.

For years, large swaths of the field claimed single genes explained big chunks of traits like memory or depression; large‑scale replications showed ~99% of these findings were false, forcing a pivot to genome‑wide association studies that reveal thousands of tiny genetic effects instead.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Newer genetic methods are more robust but still limited and biased.

Genome‑wide studies and polygenic scores reliably detect small genetic effects, yet are heavily based on European‑ancestry samples and are confounded by factors like assortative mating, so their predictive power drops in other populations and requires cautious interpretation.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Many fashionable psychological constructs are rebrands of older, well‑known traits.

Concepts like grit and emotional intelligence do predict outcomes, but meta‑analyses show they are largely repackaged conscientiousness or combinations of IQ and personality, with little truly new explanatory power despite heavy popularization.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

The replication crisis has revealed entire swathes of social psychology to be fragile or wrong.

Dramatic social priming effects (e. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Antidepressants likely work modestly, but mechanisms and evidence quality are murky.

The classic ‘serotonin imbalance’ story is poorly supported, trials are heavily biased by selective publication and spin, and yet meta‑analyses still show small but real benefits for many patients—highlighting the need for much higher‑quality psychiatric research rather than wholesale rejection.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Good scientific skepticism requires standards, openness, and aggressive but informed critique.

Ritchie argues that to avoid both naïve trust and conspiracism, people should look for open data, preregistration, critical peer commentary (e. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Notable Quotes

People have this strange double standard: they’re happy with genes for height, but the moment you use the same methods on intelligence or education, they flip out.

Stuart Ritchie

Candidate gene research built whole careers and spent millions, and about 99% of it was nonsense.

Stuart Ritchie

High heritability doesn’t mean immutability—myopia is very heritable, and we change it instantly with a pair of glasses.

Stuart Ritchie

If you didn’t know what traits you were going to have, how would you set up a fair world? That’s the Rawlsian, progressive way to think about genetics.

Stuart Ritchie (paraphrasing Paige Harden/Rawls)

Our number one job as scientists is to get to the truth, not to jazz up findings because a more exciting story is easier to sell.

Stuart Ritchie

Questions Answered in This Episode

How should policymakers incorporate behavioral genetic findings into education and social policy without entrenching inequality or slipping into genetic determinism?

Stuart Ritchie explains why behavioral genetics provokes hostility, arguing that people wrongly equate genetic influence with immutability and right‑wing politics, especially around traits like intelligence and education. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

What practical safeguards could prevent another decade‑long misadventure like the candidate gene era across other scientific fields?

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Given the current evidence, how would you advise an average person to think about taking antidepressants versus psychotherapy for depression?

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Where is the ethical line between using genetic information to ‘level the playing field’ and engaging in unacceptable forms of social engineering?

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

What concrete steps can non‑experts take to critically assess a new, highly publicized study before accepting or rejecting its conclusions?

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Transcript Preview

Stuart Ritchie

Candidate gene research. This particular gene is related to depression. This particular gene is related to memory skills and so it makes you smarter. Endless research on that. Loads and loads and loads of papers published across all the top journals. Millions of dollars of research funding. People basing their entire careers, writing their PhD dissertations, doing job talks, getting employed at top universities on the basis of this candidate gene research. And it was all nonsense. (air whooshing)

Chris Williamson

Given your current academic background at the moment, can you explain to people why you think it is that behavioral genetics has so much distaste, distrust, dislike, generally?

Stuart Ritchie

There's a lot of different reasons. I think, uh, the main reason is some kind of a, a misconception about what it actually means to say that behavioral traits are related to genetics. So, uh, I think when people hear that, especially when the trait itself is controversial, like you can get into a whole debate about intelligence or personality without even mentioning genetics. You know, pe- people, people g- get upset by just, you know, mentioning those, those traits. But when you say they're linked to genetics, people make lots of assumptions. People think they know your politics. They think they know, like, what you, what you're trying to say, what you're trying to, like, slip under the, you know, uh, uh, under people's, uh, under, under the radar, under people's notice. Um, and those assumptions are things like, well, if it's related to genetics, it must be completely unchangeable. Uh, if it's unchangeable, then we don't need to do anything about our political situation, uh, uh, and we don't need to, you know, help people out. Uh, and people are just stuck like a tram on a tram line. They can't, they can't turn off or change or, or anything like that. And, uh, uh, you, you... If, if you're interested in behavior genetics, you must be using it to justify our current political situation. So, I think, I think that, that, like, that's one of the major assumptions, like immutability, the, the, the fear of immutability. Um, uh, uh, and that's of course not what behavior genetics says at all. Behavior genetics is about trying to understand, you know, how things are right now, not necessarily how things might be if we change things in the future, um, uh, or indeed they, i- if they may have been different in, in, in the past. We have lots of interesting studies of how, like, the genetic contribution to things, uh, uh, differs across different times and different places and different political regimes even. There's some interesting research on communist regimes and how that might have affected the, uh, uh, the, the, the heritability of traits. We can, we can talk-

Chris Williamson

How so? Yeah, t- tell us about that.

Stuart Ritchie

Well, there's some research, uh, in, uh, Estonia, which obviously used to be a, a communist, uh, uh, country. And, um, uh... So yeah, this is a, this is a research using a polygenic score, which, uh, your viewers may be familiar with from, uh, hearing your interview with Robert Plomin, uh, one of my, one of my colleagues, uh, here at King's College London. Um, uh, and so the idea is that you look at the genetic contribution to various traits and educational attainment being the, being the main one, um, before and after communism in Estonia. So that was, that was... It's just this incredibly cool paper that, that was done. Um, would be nice if it was replicated and stuff, but this is, you know, it's an interesting, it's an interesting, uh, uh, uh-

Install uListen to search the full transcript and get AI-powered insights

Get Full Transcript

Get more from every podcast

AI summaries, searchable transcripts, and fact-checking. Free forever.

Add to Chrome