Skip to main content

The Genetic Lottery - Kathryn Paige Harden ****

Sometimes you get hold of a book, then keep putting off reading it, because it seems like it's going to be hard work. That's what I did with The Genetic Lottery - in a sense I was right. It could have been more accessible in its writing style, but where I was expecting a woke, knee-jerk response to genetics and social equality, what we get instead is a well-reasoned argument for taking a different approach, combined with more in-depth explanation of the traps it is possible to fall into when dealing with the influence of genes on cognitive ability, earning etc. - and how to avoid them.

Kathryn Paige Harden has to tread carefully. Any mention of linking genetics and ability is liable to face an instant accusation of resorting Galtonesque eugenics. However, Harden espouses what she calls anti-eugenics. It is not enough, she suggests to be genetics blind. If we really want equity of opportunity, we need to try to level out genetic favourability just as much as we should try to deal with the impact of social deprivation on opportunity.

Harden shows in some detail how it is possible to discover the level of genetic contribution to anything from height to educational attainment. And though this may well only contribute 10 to 20 per cent of the difference, it has a bigger influence than does, for example, how rich mummy and daddy are. She also makes it very clear that this has nothing to do with race. Although there are some relatively minor genetic differences between groups of people which tend to be labelled as races (the concept of race itself is totally non-scientific), they are trivial compared with genetic differences where these labels don't apply.

Although Harden writes in quite a personal fashion, I did find the text difficult to read - it works around points at length, often without really coming down to a clear conclusion. The reader gets a feeling of where she is going, but it's hard to pin down clear ways forward. She tells us, for example, of the uselessness of a communist regime's levelling down approach to dealing with inequity - but doesn't really give a practical path for doing anything in modern Western society, particularly in the US, with the exception of overhauling its ridiculous healthcare system.

Harden often uses religious examples or metaphors, and to some extent, this book seems like the John the Baptist of the genetic lottery and how to deal with it - it lays some of the groundwork, but doesn't really tell us how to get there. Like many books on climate change, it's a lot better on the problem than the solution. Even so, it is a real eye-opener and an important book. For too long we have assumed that if we could fix the unfairness in the system, we would be fine having a hierarchy based on genetic ability - reward based on talent. Harden underlines the unfairness of this approach, while still recognising that we want the selection of people doing a job like an airline pilot or surgeon to be based on what they can deliver, rather than equity of outcome. It may be that we can never square this particular circle. But it's a topic that benefits from discussion.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more