#1066 - Dr Kathryn Paige Harden - The Genetics of Evil: Are People Born Bad?

Summary

MODERN WISDOM #1066 — Dr Kathryn Paige Harden
The Genetics of Evil: Are People Born Bad?
[March 2, 2026 | Host: Chris Williamson | Guest: Dr Kathryn Paige Harden]

---

Episode Overview

In this deeply engaging and wide-ranging episode, Chris Williamson is joined by Dr Kathryn Paige Harden, clinical psychologist, professor, and author, to explore the vexing questions at the intersection of genetics, behavior, morality, and society. The conversation delves into the genetic underpinnings of “evil” and antisocial behavior, examines the limits of free will, discusses individual responsibility, justice, punishment, and restoration—and tackles how genetic perspectives challenge cherished cultural narratives about blame, punishment, and human nature.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Public Response to Genetic Research

[00:00–05:20]

• Harden describes the polarized aftermath of her previous book: warm, grateful responses from ordinary readers, but significant backlash and "villainization" by some fellow academics.
• She reflects on how deeply people’s lives and identities are affected by learning about genetic influence, and how misunderstood her work can become.

"It was a wild time... I felt like some people needed to turn me into a villain in order to get their own message out... There's something very alienating and disorienting about feeling like you're talking, but people are deliberately not hearing you." (B, 00:04–02:13)

• Harden draws on her father's advice about receiving 'flak when you're over the target' to suggest that genetics touches profoundly personal—and therefore controversial—social territory.

2. The Genetics of Risk-Taking and Bad Behavior

[05:28–12:09]

• Dr. Harden discusses a major study involving 4 million individuals’ DNA, investigating genes associated with risk-taking behaviors (e.g., ADHD, early or atypical sexual activity, substance use, etc.).
• Explains how these behaviors are connected by disinhibition—acting against social or internalized rules, seeking reward, and tolerating risk.

"[We asked] can we find genes that are generally involved in being a risk taker?... There’s nothing magical about those seven behaviors—they just happen to be the ones in which we had enough data." (B, 06:29)

• Her research found that certain genetic variants are overrepresented in those who exhibit a propensity for risk across multiple domains.
• Ties research origins to her own upbringing (fundamentalist religious environment, then working in mouse models of addiction), and describes the paradigm shift from seeing substance use as moral failing to as (partly) biological.

3. Evolutionary Roots of Aggression, Impulsivity, and Deviance

[11:59–19:38]

• Discussion of the evolutionary psychology behind self-domestication in humans vs. primates: less aggression, more cooperation, but always some need for risk takers and outliers.
• Observes that entrepreneurs, for instance, are more likely to have engaged in "mild delinquency" as teenagers.
• The same spectrum of genetic variance that at its extreme may be maladaptive—e.g., schizophrenia or risk-taking—at lower levels can underlie creativity, innovation, and social advancement.

"Genes that are associated with schizophrenia... at lower levels, you see people who are more likely to be artists, engineers, musicians... To the extent that these genes that are 'disease genes' are also predisposing people towards art and creativity, that's going to keep them around in the human gene pool for longer." (B, 17:15)

4. Genetics, Free Will, Agency, and Blame

[25:04–30:59]

• The discussion transitions to philosophical territory: do genetic predispositions undermine notions of free will and responsibility?
• Both agree that the free will/determinism debate, while intellectually fascinating, is less helpful than examining how society actually assigns blame and designs justice systems.
• Harden proposes separating accountability (protecting society, changing behavior) from punishment-as-suffering-for-its-own-sake.

“I don’t think anyone deserves to suffer… That doesn’t mean we have no rules; we pull those two things apart.” (B, 63:36)

5. Heritability of Antisocial Behavior—The “Genetics of Evil”?

[31:06–43:05]

• Antisocial behaviors (rule-breaking, cruelty, violence) in children can be as heritable as schizophrenia; particularly when coupled with low empathy ("callous-unemotional traits"), heritability estimates reach ~80%.
• The most severe cases—those not explained by adverse environment—are also the hardest to treat.

“Children who hurt others, break rules, upset their parents, and don’t feel bad about it... that's the most heritable kind of subtype of conduct problems.” (B, 32:05)

• Not all antisocial behavior is heritable; it’s lowest for kids whose antisociality stems from trauma, maltreatment, or environmental chaos.
• Discusses societal gut reactions (avoidance, harshness, “controlling that which we cannot trust”) and how these may backfire for genetically predisposed kids: harsh punishment can escalate, not mitigate, behaviors.

6. From Childhood to Criminal Justice: Culpability and Moral Intuitions

[43:05–53:59]

• The “problem” intensifies as these children become adults: when do we treat someone as responsible for their actions? At what age is someone truly culpable?
• Harden points to the confusion around legal systems’ treatment of child offenders (e.g., school shooters, child soldiers, the limits of “insanity” or “mitigation” pleas).
• Holds up recovery from addiction as a model of practical philosophy—simultaneous radical compassion and taking whatever agency one can muster.

7. The Paradox of Genetic Evidence in Court & Society

[73:40–80:01]

• In the court system, environmental explanations for criminal behavior (abuse, neglect) tend to reduce punishment; genetic explanations often do not and can even make judges/juries more punitive (“If badness is in the genes, the risk can never be mitigated”).

“People reason about the genetic and environmental causes differently… with genetics, you see more retribution.” (B, 79:03)

• This points to problematic “genetic essentialism”—the idea that your genes are your “true” nature, and thus being “bad to the bone” renders you irredeemable.

8. Punishment, Retribution, and the Biology of Justice

[87:03–110:38]

• Retribution (the desire to make wrongdoers suffer) emerges early in childhood and is, Harden argues, “a cooperation enforcement mechanism”—reward circuits fire when we see defectors punished.
• Empathy is painful; retribution alchemizes pain into reward—explaining the pleasure people may feel at the suffering of defectors/outsiders.

"Empathy is painful...but if that person was a wrongdoer, I could alchemize that pain into pleasure." (B, 91:30)

• Harden uses the case of the Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik to contrast American and Nordic attitudes to punishment and the collective reckoning with “Who is one of us?”
• Both she and Chris wrestle with the difficult, unsatisfying remainder after even the “best” justice system: “There is no perfect response to harm... but how we act in our worst moments reveals what we value most as a society.” (paraphrased)

9. The Limits of Science for Individual Biography

[112:58–117:08]

• Harden shares correspondence with a violent Texas prisoner reflecting on whether he was “born bad”, highlighting how individuals seek meaning, hope, and story—beyond probabilities or averages.
• The question beneath the science: “Was it all my fault? Can I change? Am I okay? Does science help me answer that?”

10. Epigenetics & Generational Transmission

[118:16–129:10]

• Harden briefly explains epigenetics (heritable chemical modifications "on top" of DNA) and the ongoing debate about the reality and significance of epigenetic inheritance in humans.
• Discusses evidence (e.g., Dutch famine) that extreme in utero stress can create marks that last generations, but cautions against overinterpretation or extrapolation.
• Notes that the biggest flux in plasticity—genetic, epigenetic, behavioral—is in childhood: “childhood is our period of peak plasticity.”

11. Embryo Selection & Genetic Inequality

[133:45–149:42]

• Embryo selection raises profound ethical questions—not just about avoiding disease, but the effects on society’s fabric, definitions of normality, and collective solidarity.
• Harden notes dual reactions: as a mother, she wants to reduce her child’s suffering; but as a citizen, she worries about the stratification of choice and the social pressure it creates (“If you could have chosen, why didn’t you?”).

"How does turning a matter of chance—a roll of the genetic dice—into a matter of choice change the way we see one another in society?" (B, 136:37)

• Examines the “crumbling genome” idea (are we accumulating mutations by softening selection pressures?), but is skeptical about framing evolution as unidirectionally “progressive.”
• On drawing lines for “fit for the world”: any attempt to eliminate all “risk” from the gene pool might yield a society lacking in diversity and progress.

12. Gender, Socialization, and Modern “Domestication”

[156:44–168:47]

• Considers whether modern society (“domesticated”, less tolerant of dominance/aggression) asks men to be further from their set point than women—i.e., if the emotional/behavioral self-restraint demanded of men is a hidden cost, comparable to women’s “double shift.”
• Harden is cautious: sex differences exist, but overlap is large and extremes account for much perceived difference.
• Is it fair? The deeper question is, what kind of society are we designing, “if you didn’t know what hand you’d be dealt?”

13. Looksmaxing Culture, Mate Value, and Loneliness

[169:23–179:45]

• Harden finds the “looksmaxing” movement (men using sometimes extreme means to enhance attractiveness) both ironic (it can undermine fertility) and nihilistic.
• With less in-person socialization and more “display” online, modern culture elevates show over substance, yet evolutionary pair-bonding is built on competence, cooperation, and genuine connection—not mere signals.
• Harden’s personal take: career/education level matter little to real relationship satisfaction compared to competence and contribution, but acknowledges average trends toward assortative mating.

14. Motherhood, Luck, and the Ethics of Design

[130:15–144:39]

• Harden sees parenting as "the most optimistic gamble," a lesson in chance, humility, and relinquishing control: “No children are reproduced; children are produced… each child is a unique roll of the genetic dice.” (B, summarizing Andrew Solomon, 131:43)
• She wrestles with how much to intervene: “Motherhood means meeting a person as they are, not as a project to perfect.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the agony of misrepresentation: "When someone says, she said X, when I literally had said the exact opposite... there's something very alienating about feeling like you are talking, but people are deliberately not hearing you." (B, 02:13)
• On luck and blame: "The luck of having your genes, your parents, of how those combine, the choices you make before you know the ramifications—those shape who you are. And so that person might experience themselves as freely choosing. But the chooser is profoundly shaped by factors outside their control." (B, 25:12)
• On the hardest kids to help: "Parents say, my kid is aggressive and my kid doesn't feel bad about the fact they’re aggressive. That is the form for which we have the fewest effective treatments." (B, 33:20)
• On retribution: "We experience dopamine being released... when we see someone who's been portrayed as a wrongdoer being made to suffer. Empathy is painful; retribution can alchemize that pain into pleasure." (B, 88:02–91:30)
• On the Norwegian justice approach: "This person did a horrible thing. We have our maximum retributive impulses, but he is still one of us... Our response to our most antisocial people can bring out the most callous instincts of ourselves." (B, 101:17–102:44)
• On parental humility: "No children are reproduced. Children are produced... It's a miracle we ever met." (B, 130:15–133:45)
• On genetic determinism and essentialism: "Genetic essentialism is not you were shaped by luck, but you are a bad person, bad to the bone." (B, 84:46)
• On behavioral change and agency: "You can say, 'my sins are the genetic part, but my willpower is not.' But both your smoking and your quitting come from your genetics. Even your belief in free will is heritable." (B, 51:19)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–05:20 — Harden discusses reaction to her last book and academic controversy
• 05:28–12:09 — Risk-taking genes: 4-million person study, ADHD and behaviors
• 11:59–19:38 — Evolutionary roots of deviance, advantages and risks
• 31:06–35:14 — Heritability of antisocial behavior in children
• 43:05–53:59 — Culpability, the age of responsibility, and legal tensions
• 73:40–80:01 — How jurors and judges interpret genetic vs. environmental explanations
• 87:03–93:55 — Punishment, pleasure of retribution, empathy, and scapegoating
• 130:15–133:45 — On luck, motherhood, children as unpredictable creations
• 133:45–149:42 — Embryo selection, Down syndrome, and social consequences
• 156:44–168:47 — Gender, modern expectations, and hidden costs for men

---

Style & Tone

The conversation is engrossing, earnest, and at times vulnerable—marked by intellectual rigor, compassion, and humility. Harden is forthright about scientific complexities, personal discomforts, and the deep ethical tensions new biotechnologies raise, while Chris blends curiosity with humor and challenging questions.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a profound examination of the ways genetics, environment, luck, and human choice intermingle in shaping behavior—and thus society’s approach to “evil,” responsibility, and justice. Dr. Harden’s nuanced views challenge binary thinking, urging deeper humility and compassion in how we think about ourselves, each other, and the systems that govern life, blame, and forgiveness.

Recommended for listeners interested in psychology, philosophy, genetics, justice, bioethics, and anyone wrestling with the question of why people do bad things—and what we should do about it.

Transcript

[A]

What happened after the publication of your last book?

[B]

Oh, it was a wild time. There was a lot of controversy. There was a lot of pushback. The conversations that I had with real people, not with other academics, but with just people who wrote me, people who happened to encounter the book in some way, that was fantastic. People wrote me and they said, I've always wondered why I'm so different from my parents or why I'm so different from my siblings. And your work has given me a new way of understanding that. They wrote to me about their decision to have kids or their decision not to have kids and how thinking about genetics has shaped that. So that part of the conversation, which is the dialogue between an author and their readers, was fantastic. I loved that. And then there was another part of the dialogue which was me with other academics. And that was really surprising to me, in part because I felt like they. Some people needed to turn me into a villain in order to get their own message out. And I was kind of caught off guard by that whole process. So I wish I could say that I had a thicker skin now, but I. But I don't. In many ways, I really do care what people think. I care about getting it right. So it took me a bit to think about how to get myself back out there in terms of the ideas in the wake of that.

[A]

Especially if you're doing something that you think is trying to educate people about what is true. Yes, I'm trying to emancipate you from ignorance and explain things that make you feel less broken and alone. And then someone comes in and says, well, actually, what she's trying to.

[B]

What she's really saying, dude, don't try

[A]

and fucking imbue me with your perspective of who you think I am or what you think my work is. And that's where we get indignant. There's that line, right, that the only insults that hurt are the ones that we believe. I don't think that's true. I think the only insults that hurt or the insults that hurt most are the ones that we think other people might believe about us.

[B]

I think the insults that hurt most are the ones in which I didn't recognize the person they were insulting. So when you write a book, you have ideas, and they're literally, you know, in black and white. They're on the text. You can point and you can say, look, I wrote this. And then when someone says, she said X when I literally had said the exact opposite of that, there's something very alienating and disorienting about Feeling like you are talking, but people are deliberately not hearing you.

[A]

Surely part of that must be a sense that other people could pattern match it as truth, though, because if not, if I call you fat, you're not fat. So you go, well, it's funny, if I say that you're too tanned, you've got too much fake tan on, you go, I'm not wearing any fake tan. So obviously that's not going to land. So that's what I mean, that the lens through which these criticisms at least seem to bite the most are. Someone somewhere might believe that this could be true.

[B]

That's true. The author, Sally Rooney, she's a novelist, an Irish novelist, and she talks in one of her books about. There's you, the author, and then there's a version of you that wears your name and has your face and everyone talks about her, but it's not you. And in some ways she's saying the exact opposite things. And so you almost feel like there's like a doppelganger of you walking around that is making the exact opposite argument that you are. And I think you're right that it's thinking that other people are going to think that she's me.

[A]

Yes, yes.

[B]

Is so disorienting.

[A]

This weird shadow page.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. It's also, I think there's something about relationships, like, I don't know if you've ever been in a relationship where you say something and the other person doesn't hear it at all the way you intended, and then you end up having this fight where you're like, but I didn't say but. You can't convince the other person that you didn't say that. And you're really just seeing the world and you're hearing words in a totally different way, and it makes you feel really estranged from other people. I think when that happens, like, what's, what's going on? That I can't get my message across clearly. And as a writer, words are so important to me. They're the way that I feel like I'm. Make sense of the world and I make change in the world. And so when I. When I feel like my words are saying this and someone is saying the exact opposite, I feel like, wait, what, what is happening here? My dad was really helpful in the whole process. So my dad was a fighter pilot for the US Navy when he was a young man. And he just kept saying, you always get, you know, the, the most fire when you're directly over the target. And I just kept remembering that that there's something about genetics, which is a scientific field that really gets the. It really touches on issues that people think are really important in their actual lives, not just academically. And so if I'm getting all of this fury about a book that I wrote as a college professor, I must actually be talking about something important to people on some deeper level, on some real level.

[A]

You did a big 4 million person study. You were a part of that?

[B]

I did.

[A]

What did you learn?

[B]

Well, it wasn't just me. There's many co authors. Science, especially with this is very much a group endeavor. And I was really lucky to work with two of my former trainees who are now independent scientists on that paper. So we pulled DNA from 4 million people, mostly from UK Biobank 23andMe customers, participants in a big study called all of Us. And we were looking at what genes are more common in people who have done one of seven things. So they have ADHD symptoms in childhood, they had sex at a young age, they have more sexual partners, they have ever smoked pot. They are engaging in what we call problematic alcohol use, which is drinking to the point that it causes problems in your life. They've ever smoked a cigarette. And they describe themselves as someone who really likes to take risks. I'm a person who likes to take rests. So what we were looking at is genes that are more common in people who not just in do one of these things but are more common in any, any one of these behaviors. Can we find genes that are just generally involved in being a risk taker?

[A]

Is that suite of things altogether risk taking? Where's the ADHD part coming to that?

[B]

Well, ADHD is mo is impulsivity and hyperactivity. So. So one way you can think about it is this is disinhibition. These are, all of these things are behaviors that violate some rule. Right. So someone says it's not healthy to smoke, you shouldn't drink if you have problems. Kids who have ADHD get the diagnosis of ADHD because they're doing things in school that they shouldn't be doing. Sexual behavior is moralized. So if you're having sex at 14 or if you're having sex with very many sexual partners, that's against kind of a conventional morality. So they're all things where people are engaging in a behavior in which they might experience consequences or might experience social judgment and they're doing it anyways. So there's a risk taking element there and there's a kind of reward seeking element there and there's nothing magical about Those seven behaviors, they just happen to be the ones in which we had enough data where enough people had done them, and we could get, gather enough genetic data from people. And then we looked and saw what genes could we discover that are associated with all of these things. And then what else about a person's life do they project? If we can tap into this genetic liability, this genetic predisposition towards loss of risk taking. It's actually a follow up to a study that we published a couple years ago. So it's a similar concept, but just more people this time, which gives you more power. And it's interesting how much people vary in those behaviors. So to just think of one of them, which is number of sexual partners, number of sexual partners in our data set ranges from zero. So people who are lifelong abstinent to 99 because you're not allowed to put three digits of sexual partners into the survey. So it's really a whole range of human behavior. And so thinking about what are the genes that influence you at literally every stage of your lifespan from when you're a kid to you're turning into a sexually mature adolescent, into, you know, substance use and risk taking in adulthood, what

[A]

got you thinking about wrongdoing and impulsivity and bad behavior, antisocial behavior?

[B]

I've kind of always been interested in it. Maybe it's the opposite of me search, because I was a very not cool, not risk taking adolescent. But when I my first job in science was in a mouse lab. So it was a behavioral neuroscience lab that studied mice and it was studying opiate addiction and withdrawal in mice. So it was getting mice addicted to morphine and then taking it away and seeing if we could manipulate something about their biology, about their brain to make them more or less addicted to that opiate substance.

[A]

More resilient.

[B]

Yeah, more resilient. And this was, this was when I was a college freshman. So 1999 to 2000, when I started, the draft of the human genome hadn't even been completed yet. But my PI was using a method where you manipulate how genes are expressed in the mouse brain. So my very first job in science, my only job before that had been being a waitress at this diner in South Carolina that served meat and three vegetables. And you got the church ladies. So, so I went from that to working in this lab where my job was to basically do little brain surgery on the mouse brains. So put them on this little apparatus and drill a hole in their heads and put a little shunt in so that we could inject things in this Very particular spot in their brains. And I just thought, this is awesome. Like, this feels like science fiction to me. We're taking this behavior that I've always seen. We can get into this if you want, but I was raised in a fundamentalist household, in a very evangelical Christian household. So I was raised to think of drug use entirely in moral terms. Like, this is about willpower, this is about your relationship with Jesus. And now we're modeling it in mice. And now we're going to manipulate something in mice brains in order to see if we can change that behavior. It has something to do with their genes. I just thought that was an incredible paradigm shift. And so I never really switched my interest in risk taking phenotypes or substance use phenotypes. What I switched was the species. Instead of studying it in mice, now I study it in people.

[A]

What's the talk to me about the evolutionary roots before we even get into the really, really spicy stuff of the heritability of antisocial behavior and things like that? Let's. The palate cleanser of evolutionary psychology. What's the evolutionary roots of sort of aggression, dominance, impulsivity, that kind of.

[B]

I mean, I think we're still figuring it out. In fact, I have a project on this going on right now to think about. Can we trace some of the specific evolution of the genes that are associated with these behaviors? But there is a theory that essentially humans have self domesticated, that they, if you look at us compared to our most, you know, closest genetic ancestor in comparison to chimpanzees, all of us, all humans, males and females, juveniles and adults, engage in less aggression, more cooperation. Um, our physiology has changed in ways that are less aggressive. We have, you know, we've lost our big canines and we don't have the same huge jaw in the same way. And so there's some interesting theories about essentially humans in their long journey towards becoming this incredibly cooperative species. We selected each other to be more self controlled, more self regulated. At the same time, there's, there's a countervailing force there, which is that there's a lot of ways in which some risk taking is rewarded in a society and even necessary in a society. So I talk in my book about this one study where they looked at who was most likely to be a successful entrepreneur by the age of, I think 35 in the United States. And it was people who had some level of, you know, what we might think of as social privilege or material resources. So white men from middle to upper income families, but amongst them who was most likely to become an entrepreneur when

[A]

controlling for white men from upper income families.

[B]

Yeah. Like amongst people who might have.

[A]

Because there's lots of them and not all of them, not many of them become successful entrepreneurs.

[B]

Exactly. Most of them do not. Right. So amongst people who might, say, have enough resources, raw material. Raw materials, who does become a successful entrepreneur? And one of the best predictors is, did you engage in some delinquency as a teenager?

[A]

Risk taking.

[B]

Yeah. So did you ever get. Did you. Were you ever arrested? Did you ever paint graffiti? Did you ever do. Not serious. Not serious aggressive delinquency, but some. Something that was a little bit rule breaking. Maybe got in trouble at school, maybe got in trouble with the law. And, you know, entrepreneurs, like, that tracks, right? Like, you can think of them as people who are like, there's a conventional way of doing things. And I don't really care that that's the conventional way of doing things. I want to do it my own way. And so I think that as a species, we. We need cooperation, but then we also need some level of risk taking, some outliers. We need some level of deviance in order to push the society forward too. So these things are kind of always in tension.

[A]

The level of deviance is less because the waterline of domestication has also gone down. Yeah. I think Rutger Bregman talks about the puppification is the term he uses. I was talking to before I came in about my friend Greg from Bloom, and I asked him, how is it that you have managed to grow so quickly, this huge company, it's maybe gonna be worth a billion dollars this year. And he unironically turned to me and said, I just think I'm too retarded to work out what risk is. He's like, I don't have. It's not that I've overcome risk. It's that I don't have the capacity to be able to feel risk. He's like, I just don't. It sort of doesn't register for me. So he just. I put it all on black and then put it all in black again. And put it all in black again. He just keeps on betting the house, and obviously that's gonna be a competitive advantage and you're gonna end up with survivorship buyers, the ones who stick it out.

[B]

Cause there's a lot of people who are gonna put it on black and they're gonna lose.

[A]

And they're gonna lose. Yeah, precisely. But you don't need. You don't hear those stories Right, you get self sack. Okay, so we have. Humans need to cooperate more over time. That means that we need to have more pro social behaviour. We need to be able to self regulate, we need to not be deviating from norms. They become cultural norms which get enforced a little bit more too. We're worried about what other people think of us, so on and so forth. And that opens up. If you're gonna be a Viking that wants to raid Lindisfarne and pillage and come back and not have trauma about it, if you're gonna be a person who aggressively goes to become chieftain and all the rest, there's some opportunities that open up. But humans have built themselves into a pretty well regulated and self regulated species.

[B]

I mean compared to almost all other species, especially our primate relatives, like we have the ability to forecast into the future, the ability to anticipate, well if I do this, then this might happen and then this might happen and the ability to take seriously the consequences not just for ourselves, but for other people. So compared to many other species, humans have an extraordinary amount of empathy, emotional empathy, the ability to feel the distress of other people, to be able to anticipate what the other person is feeling. And that's again across sexes, across genders. It's visible very early in life. So we have this architecture of self regulation that exists for a reason. And then we also have, I mean humans are just like an endlessly varying species, right? Like I say in my book that in every crack in human sameness we see evidence of the genotype, because that's the grist for the evolutionary mill, is us being genetically different from one another. And so you're going to see that genetic variation and risk taking too. And that's not all. It can be very maladaptive at the extreme, but it's not maladaptive all the way through distribution. As another example there was. I mean this is not risk taking per se, but I think it exemplifies a similar point, which is that if you look at the genes that are associated with schizophrenia, so with this very serious mental disorder characterized by psychoticism, you know, hearing things, believing things that aren't true. If you look at people who have a high number of those genetic variants but aren't schizophrenic, you see that they're more likely to be artists, they're more likely to be engineers, they're more likely to be musicians, they're more likely to be in creative professions, which is a hypothesis that we've had for a long time. And to the extent that these genes that are bad genes or disease genes are also predisposing people towards art and creativity. That's going to keep them around in the human gene pool for longer. And I think my hypothesis is that is that it's a similar thing with disinhibition, that at the extreme, that's very maladaptive outcomes. But, you know, to the extent that your friend has, you know, it's made

[A]

me seem to a little bit further down. Yep. You get Greg from Bloom, and then

[B]

he gets lots of material resources and he has lots of mating opportunities and, you know, he's seen as a very attractive partner. And that's gonna increase. It's gonna keep those genes circulating around in the gene pool.

[A]

It's an interesting challenge to look at pop stars or founders and think, how many genes away from schizophrenia were you? You know, like, I look at, I don't know, like a Marilyn Manson or a Machine Gun Kelly or something. I'm like, dude, you are. I mean, you're pretty skitsy as it is. You're fascinating. A fascinating individual has such an interesting life with all different directions that you've gone in and dressing in cool, weird, different ways. I reckon if I gave you just like another 5% of the genes, I reckon you could be completely crazy.

[B]

Yeah. Or if you'd had just that much worse of a childhood environment. Right. Like, if you activate it a little. Yes. Like if they'd had the same genotype, but instead of it being channeled into creativity and being raised by nurturing parents directed in the way, you know, abuse or a maltreatment or real or. Or even like a birthday, you know, an insert a difficult birth or labor and delivery experience, if that kind of pushed them in that way.

[A]

An inverse question would be to look at schizophrenic people and think how many of you were meant to be artists and you just had the wrong foundations for the first decade of your life. I have a friend here in Austin who was in the sort of psychedelic Y scene that is everywhere in the city for a good while. And I asked him, have you ever partaken in any mushrooms or anything like that? Nah, man. I've got a few close relatives that have got schizophrenia. And I think he was 28. So once you get past 30 or 35, I think the risk of it causing a schizophrenic break. But this isn't just myth. This is actual truth. Oh, cool.

[B]

Yeah. So I think there's evidence to suggest that people who have a family history of Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are potentially more negatively affected by cannabis and by hallucinogens, by psychedelic drugs generally. And that the risk for that first psychotic break is really, you know, most commonly 15 to 30, like really concentrated in young adulthood. So if you've made it to your, to your 30s without experiencing a psychotic

[A]

upbringing, psyche snapping in half, you've probably

[B]

passed through the period of major risk. That doesn't mean the risk is over, but it's a lot smaller. And that track's also about brain development. We don't really see a fully adult brain in terms of the wiring of the prefrontal cortex until 27 to 30. So if you're thinking about not adding something that might disrupt brain development while it's still, still cohering, and then maybe it's a little bit safer after. After that period of time, I told my kids, if you ever want to try psychedelic drugs, you should wait until after 30.

[A]

Have you got schizophrenia in your family?

[B]

We do not have schizophrenia in our family.

[A]

You just didn't want them to have a psychotic break. Anyway.

[B]

I feel like psychedelic drugs are really great. I mean, what they do is they take disrupts your normal patterns of brain communication and they allow parts of your brain to talk to each other that don't ordinarily talk to each other. And I think that can be really powerful in middle age when you're kind of tending towards a neurobiological rut, you know, when every day is the same and you're. But I think your 20s are already a chaotic time. It's already a time of rapid development, rapid neuroplasticity. I don't think there's a need to add that additional element of disruption to it at that point in age. I mean, lots of people do, but. And I don't know, I. Is there great data on is it worth to do it at 25 versus 35 or riskier? I don't know. But I've done psychedelic drugs and I'm a psychologist that knows something about neurobiology. And my reading of the evidence was like, I don't think so. This would be terrible. But I think you should wait until your brain is cooked before you mess with it.

[A]

Before we continue, I've been drinking AG1 every morning for as long as I can remember now because it is the simplest way I found to cover my bases and not overthink nutrition. And that is why I partnered with them. Just one Scoop gives you 75 vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and whole food ingredients in a single drink. Now they've taken it a step further with AG1 next gen the same one scoop, one once a day ritual, but this time backed by four clinical trials. In those trials, it was shown to fill common nutrient gaps, improve key nutrient levels in just three months, and increase healthy gut bacteria by 10 times. Even in people who already eat well, they've upgraded their formula with better probiotics, more bioavailable nutrients and clinical validation. Plus it's still NSF certified for sport, so you know that the quality is legit right now. When you first subscribe, you can get a free bottle of D3K2 and AG1 welcome Kit plus bonus AG1 travel packs. And for a limited time, US customers also get a sample AGZ and a bottle of Omega 3s. Just go to the link in the description below or head to drinkag1.com modernwisdom that's drinkag1.com modernwiry do you think wrongdoing is something that's freely chosen?

[B]

Then Are we just going straight into the free will question here?

[A]

Yeah. Well, look, are we born predisposed toward transgression?

[B]

I think we're definitely predisposed to our transgressions. I think that luck, the luck of having your genes, the luck of having your parents, the luck of how those have combined, the choices that you make when you're not really old enough to know the ramifications of those choices, you know, the choices that you make as a young teenager, all of that really shape the person that you are. And so that person might be, well, might certainly experience themselves as freely choosing. But the person who is doing the choosing, the person that is deciding between the options, that person is so profoundly shaped by factors outside of their control.

[A]

Run a set of train tracks.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I find the free will question, actually, I find the free will question not, not the most interesting question. Because the question of do we have free will? Is. Is a question about all of us. Either all humans have free will or all humans don't have free will. And even if we don't have free will, we still have to figure out how to treat each other. And we still have to figure out how to get on with the business of life. I'm more interested in the question of what, given the science, do we know about how our genes, our environments have shaped us? And then given that, given that we definitely know that how shaped we are by those forces, what role should that play in punishment, in reward, and how we and again, in how we treat each other?

[A]

I completely agree. I'm not Particularly interested in the free will question. Annika Harris been on. She was great. Sam's been on. I know you know him, like, cool. Alex o', Connor, one of my friends, is big into this. It's fine. It's okay. But to me, it feels like a little bit of a cognitive dead end. I'm sure. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to fully. I appreciate the arguments of determinism and compatibilism, so on and so forth, but for me, a much more sort of functionally interesting one is to assume that we do and then play with the variables inside of it.

[B]

Inside of it?

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This is the sandbox that we're in. There's a cool idea that Derek Thompson came up with. Not Derek Thompson, sorry, Derek Sivers. And he says, functionally true, but literally false. And something which is functionally true but literally false but functionally true would be a belief that we have free will.

[B]

Oh, that's interesting.

[A]

Even if you're a determinist, acting as if you're not makes your life better because you don't outsource your agency. Something that would be literally false but functionally true might be. Porcupines can throw their quills. They can't. They're not dark. But if you give them a wide enough birth, they can.

[B]

If you do, project them.

[A]

Yeah, you're safer. You're more likely to be safe. Pigs are uniquely dirty animals, morally dirty animals, and you shouldn't eat them. They're morally just the same as pretty much any other animal. But their skin does carry a higher pathogen load, especially if you're in sort of Middle Eastern style. So again, literally false, but functionally true.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Treat the gun as if it's always loaded.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So all of these things are interesting. Anyway, that's my position on that. Okay, so antisocial.

[B]

I agree. I mean, I think the. I think the free will question is intellectually interesting but of limited practical utility for a lot of the questions that we have. So, for example, someone runs someone else over with their car, and you learn that that person had epilepsy and they were having a seizure when they did it. And then you learn that that person knew they were epileptic but didn't take their medication. And then you learn that that person doesn't have epilepsy but was having a panic attack because they have a history of extreme childhood maltreatment. And then you find out that, no, it's not that, but they're.

[A]

Make it stop.

[B]

Yeah. So all of those are different reasons. Right? So we can think of like it's a seizure. It's a seizure that's governed by this medication choice. It's a panic attack. It's panic attack that's linked to their. Their mistreatment history. It's none of those things. They seem to have mowed someone down in cold blood. But their father was also in prison for a violent crime, and their mother is also in prison for a violent crime. And they might have inherited a tendency. We have all sorts of wild intuitions, and people really differ in their intuitions about all those scenarios, about who's the most culpable and who's the most blameless out of all of those. And the free will question doesn't help

[A]

you, it just wipes it.

[B]

Yeah, right. It's like from the perspective of determinism, epilepsy, and the choice not to take your epilepsy medication and the being the psychopathic child of two psychopaths are all the same. But that's not how people reason about things. And part of what I was interested in this book project is, okay, from the perspective of academic philosophy, these might all be the same, but from the perspective of the average judge or juror or person in relationship trying to think about, why did this person hurt me and should I forgive them? Free will doesn't help us solve that problem. And. And why do we reason so differently?

[A]

Literally true, but functionally false. Yeah, literally true, but functionally false. All right. Heritability of antisocial behavior. Yeah, what's it. How does that look? Give me the suite of.

[B]

The suite of it. Okay, so antisocial behavior are doing things persistently that violate social norms, moral norms, the rights of others. And so in childhood, this looks like skipping school, lying to parents. That's mild forms to robbery, to stealing, to hurting another person, beating them up, to torturing the family cat, cruelty to animals. What we see is that the heritability, which is to back up a second heritability, is are people who are more genetically alike more behaviorally alike. So we see very high heritability, 80% for schizophrenia. So identical twins are not perfectly similar for schizophrenia. But if your identical twin has schizophrenia, you have a 50, 50 shot of developing yourself, which is way higher than a base rate of 1%. So that's.

[A]

I thought you said it was 80%.

[B]

So. Oh, the. The percent of variance is 80%. Um, so. So that's kind of a benchmark that I think that people can have in their heads about, like a highly heritable mental disorder is something like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. What we see is that childhood antisocial behavior is nearly as heritable as schizophrenia, particularly if you're looking at kids who also have what is called callous unemotional traits. So callous unemotional traits is basically like psychopathy in children. So children who hurt others, break rules, upset their parents, and don't feel bad about it, don't feel guilty about it. And that's not just risk taking. That's not just I want to do something and I and risk tolerant. There's also an element of, again, callousness, of lack of empathy towards whether other people are hurting in that scenario. So what we see is that in children who have, you know, early onset of antisocial behavior and antisocial behavior accompanied by these callous, unemotional, lack of guilt, lack of remorse feelings, some of the heritability estimates are also at 80%, just as high as schizophrenia. Now, not every child who has antisocial behavior shows this lack of remorse, lack of empathy. And some of them seem to be, you know, dealing with environmental factors that are causing them to act out. So they might have a trauma history, they might have a maltreatment history. So what you see is the heritability of antisocial behavior tends to be lower in those kids. That seems to be more of a response to your environmental circumstances. Whereas it's the kids where you look at the parents and you're like, these seem to be completely average parent. They're not maltreating the child. No one's living in poverty. They're not living in a high led environment. And this kid is still acting in this antisocial way and doesn't feel bad about it. That is the most heritable kind of subtype of conduct problems. And it's a real problem in psychiatry because parents come to the psychiatrist or the doctor's office or the therapist office and they're like, my kid is aggressive and my kid doesn't feel bad about the fact they're aggressive. And that is the form of child mental health problems for which we have some of. Some of the. We have the fewest effective treatments for compared to, say, my child is depressed or my child is anxious. You know, even my child, even if your child is manic, there's medication for that. It's not going to cure it, but it's going to manage the symptoms. Whereas the persistently antisocial children, we are at the limit scientifically of knowing how to effectively help them and help their families.

[A]

How do you think most people typically Interpret the behavior of a kid like that. And what's a different frame that you would give them using a behavioral genetic lens.

[B]

Yeah. So I think often people describe interacting with really antisocial children. Their most common responses is avoidance or harshness. So a lot of times when people are very callous children or adults, you'll hear people say and makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. There's this sense that there's something eerie or off or off putting about a child or an adult that doesn't seem to be displaying the kind of empathic distress at another person's distress that we typically see in other humans. And I think that spidey sense feeling that my hair is on the back of my pretty adaptive And I think it's a, I think it's an old thing like I mean I think it's an evolutionarily old mechanism to say okay, there's something about the, the way this

[A]

organism untrustworthy

[B]

or, or, and, or they respond with harshness like I, they can't act this way. They have to know they can't act this way.

[A]

You know, I heard a line, a phenomenal line from my friend Connor Beaton from Man Talks the other day. He says we try to control that which we feel we cannot trust.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And you see in relationships if you're concerned about whether or not you're. Is my partner gonna stray, Are they gonna cheat on me on a night out? That is when you will see more controlling behavior. Or text me when you get there. Who are you with and how long are we out for? You said that you were gonna go. Did you go to. I saw a photo of you in the background as opposed to. I feel like I can try. I don't need to do control because the trust is there and it feels like it's sort of the same here. This child that doesn't seem to be showing pro social behavior and isn't remorseful. I don't trust that if they first off, I don't trust that they're not going to do something bad. And if they do do something bad I'm not convinced that they would own up to it or tell me or care enough to learn to not do it again. So I need to come in as this sort of external structure to constrain this behavior.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's totally true. And I think with kids the temptation is control and control through harshness. So I'm going to take away all your toys. I'm not gonna allow you to have playdates. I'm gonna withdraw my affection. I'm gonna verbally berate you, shame you, blame you. I'm going to spank you or use some sort of other corporal punishment. There are these studies from the 90s where they take a child with conduct problems and they bring them into the lab and they have them interact with a woman who's not their mom. So this is just a volunteer, no interaction with the child. And they see over the course of the interaction that even this stranger begins to respond to the child with no warmth, with coercion, with harshness, with impatience. And I think that's a very. Again, I think that you're picking up on the right thing, which is there's a fear and an uncertainty, and we respond to it. Lack of trust with a lack of trust with a control. And also, the way that we try to control children in our culture is often through a lot of harshness. The problem is that those children are the most vulnerable to harsh punishment. So the best. One of the best predictors of an antisocial child escalating in their antisocial behavior is how harshly have they been punished by the grownups in their lives?

[A]

Why do you think that is?

[B]

I think. I think there's a couple of reasons. One, I think that we're back to your friend. I'm not saying her antisocial, but this. This, you know, attitude towards risk and potential negative consequences. Some people are much more sensitive to punishment than other people. They learn immediately from punishment, or they're like, I lost it all. Let's go again. And I'm. I'm willing to do that same thing over and over again. You see this Even with animals where some rats, if you train them to press a lever and they get alcohol for it, and then midway through the experiment, you switch it such that instead of getting alcohol, they now get shocked. Most rats, 75 to 80%, will stop pressing the bar. They're like, okay, well, I used to be able to get drunk off of this, but now I'm getting shocked. So I'm not going to do this anymore. But there's a minority of rats that will actually increase their rate of behavior. They will start pressing the bar more. And I think some of that is like, I'm not learning from. To anthropomorphize the rat. If I'm the rat in the situation, I'm not learning from punishment. I learned really well from reward. So maybe this time, maybe this time it'll be the time that I get this reward that I'm expecting. And I think that there's the same sort of individual differences between people where some people are very reward sensitive and not at all punishment sensitive. If they don't learn from being punished, then punishing them isn't going to help them learn. Right. Like that. It's. And what we see with children with antisocial behavior is that they're. One way to think about it is it's almost like a learning disability, this inability to learn from pain, learn from negative consequences. And so the parent is like, well, that didn't work. How do I ratchet this up further?

[A]

Yeah, become more extreme.

[B]

More extreme. You don't get your phone for two months. You don't get to see any of your friends. We're, we're going to take everything that you like out of your room. You don't get to do sports. And now they're like, or I'm going to spank you. I'm going to, you know, I'm going to berate you for being such a bad kid. And if none of that punishment they're actually learning from and all you're doing is taking away any opportunity for them to connect with you and care about the reward of being in relationship with you, then you're, then you're actually destroying the one handle that you might have, which is. People grow from connection. People grow from wanting to be attached to another person. So I, I think there's this really vicious feedback loop that, that especially antisocial children can get in where they elicit from adults the exact opposite of the treatment that they would need in order to stop their behavior.

[A]

That is so fascinating. We'll get back to talking in just one second. But first, if you have been feeling a bit sluggish, your testosterone levels might be the problem. They play a huge role in your energy, your focus, and your performance. But most people have no idea where theirs are or what to do if something's off. Which is why I partnered with Function, because I wanted a smarter and more comprehensive way to, to actually understand what's happening inside of my body. Twice a year, they run lab tests that monitor over a hundred biomarkers. They've got a team of expert physicians that analyze the data and give you actionable advice to improve your health and lifespan. And seeing your testosterone levels and tons of other biomarkers charted over the course of a year with actionable insights to actually improve them gives you a clear path to making your life better. Getting your blood work drawn and analyzed like this would usually cost thousands. But with function, it's just $499. And right now you can get $100 off, bringing it down to 399 bucks. Get the exact same blood panels that I get and save that $100 by going to the link in the description below or heading to functionhealth.com modernwisdom that's functionhealth.com modernwisdom what about when this evolves into adulthood?

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, I think that's what's. I think. So troubling and difficult for our moral intuitions is that by the time someone's a man, if they're still impulsively hurting other people, then of course we feel outrage at that. How could you do that? How can we stop you? Other people need to be protected from you. But every single one of those people was once a child. And that evokes more of our empathic response of did they ever really have a chance to, to be a different sort of man? If they, if all of so much of this is rooted in the experiences and in the neurobiology of their childhood development. So where this really, I think comes, I think comes to a crucible where we don't really know what to do as a society is around adolescent school shooters. I mean, you see how confused our response to this is, right? If someone's 15, you now have states some crimes where the shooter is being tried as an adult and their parents are being charged as responsible for providing with the gun. And when you see something like that, you're like, we have no idea what to do with teenagers as a culture. If we're saying both the parents are responsible for their behavior and a 15 year old is responsible for themselves as if they were a grownup, that's a sign of, I think, deep moral confusion on the part of our society about what we're going to do with, what do we do with people who harm. And their harming is rooted in this long developmental process that started way before they were, you know, really able to make any real choices about who they were going to be or how their lives were going to go.

[A]

There is definitely a question, when do you become culpable for your own actions? We don't look at a two year old and they've got a nature, oh, he's a bit fussy, a bit boisterous, and then you roll the clock forward and he's five years old and pulling the wings off flies in the garden outside. And then you roll the clock forward a little bit more and he's setting fire to stuff in School and bullying the kids. And this is now his fourth different education establishment and he's been put on some special segregated thing and he's 14 and he's hanging around with gangs and he's. When do we say you are now culpable for your actions?

[B]

Well, I think that as humans, as individual humans, that differs by people. And it's really kind of a, I mean, it's sort of also like when is an animal conscious? You know, it's a sliding scale. There's a lot of gray there. And then you have a criminal legal system that's trying to take this fuzziness between a 13 and an 18 year old and say, okay, this is the age at, you know, at 16 or at 15 you can be tried as an adult. And but before that you're, you're a child. This isn't just the United States, this isn't just high income countries. They have the same debates in, in the aftermath of genocide in Africa, in several countries because of the use of child soldiers. And there's been this exact same problem, which is if someone, be, someone was recruited by an army to be a soldier and hooked on drugs and given a machine gun at 13 and at 18, they're still a combatant and committing more crimes, to what extent are they culpable for that? Are they a victim because they were, they were made to go to war or are they an agent that we're holding responsible because now they're a grown man and they're still doing these things. In my book, I talk about how some of the most successful programs for the reentry of these child soldiers are communities where there's rituals that both recognize that they were hurt and also ask them to kind of admit responsibility and take responsibility for the actions that they've committed. Whereas we have very little like that within the American criminal legal system, even within a lot of our relationships. Like, I did a terrible thing. I'm not an innocent victim. And these are all the reasons that I was shaped to do that. Holding both of those in your head at the same time, I think is a challenging thing for us.

[A]

What about addiction?

[B]

Addiction? I mean, I think addiction is a very similar process. I think that some of the most sophisticated philosophers are people in recovery from addiction, like practical philosophers. Because think about what being in recovery for addiction asks you to do. Even just the steps in aa, it's, I'm powerless against alcohol, I'm gonna submit to a higher power, I'm going to atone and ask for forgiveness from other people. I'm gonna vow to do differently today. So it's this, I think, that's a beautiful example of holding in mind those two things that I was just saying, which is there's lots of reasons, including my brain, including my biology, that I'm addicted to alcohol. I am powerless. I'm admitting my powerlessness against this, and I'm taking responsibility. I'm seeking forgiveness, and I'm vowing to behave differently today, one day at a time. And. And there's nothing about the academic philosophy of free will that gets you to that point. That is both radical compassion for a self that's been shaped by forces beyond your control and a determination to seek whatever agency and responsibility that you can in, like, in this current, present moment. So I think that addiction is an area in which we are starting to get to a. Both and perspective when it comes to violence. We have a lot harder time doing that because then there's victims that aren't, you know, you can say, like, oh, the addict's just hurting themselves. That's not usually true. There's also other people hurt by that. But moving the. The keeping that tension in mind for other things, like we do for addiction, I think is a move that's difficult to do, but I think a necessary one.

[A]

Yeah, because the blast radius of damage begins to cover other people. And in that, we have a desire for retribution, revenge, to make an example of somebody, et cetera, et cetera, I guess. Is there not a relationship between people's genetics and their ability to choose or enact agency?

[B]

Yeah, that's such a good question. I really do think that everyone

[A]

has.

[B]

I think that everyone can change. I don't think that everyone's capacity to change necessarily comes through their own willpower. I think often people change because their community helps them change.

[A]

Does our willpower come from our own willpower?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I. I think the will. I think everything about us is related to our genetics. Like, there's no part of ourselves that's exempt from coming from the brain that we have. I think often people think of, well, my sins are the genetic part. That's the flesh. My addiction, my riskiness, my temptation, my tendency towards aggression. And then there's some, you know, willpower or like, overcoming part that's like somehow not your body or sometimes somehow not your genes. That everything is related to your genetics. Both, both your smoking and your quitting of smoking. Both your addiction and your recovery. Even your belief in free will is heritable. Is more similar in identical twins.

[A]

Persuasion, size of stomach, ghrelin Release. Da da da da da da da.

[B]

I mean, it's this again. Heritability. Heritability studies or twin studies or genetic studies are never going to tell you like, this part's your body because this other part is your soul or your spirit. It's all your body. It's turtles all the way down. It's genotype all the way down. You're never going to find some aspect of yourself that's sort of exempt from being embodied. I talk in my book about this study of twins reared apart, where two of them met in later life and realized that they were both very religious and both believed in both free will as a reflection of God's grace. And the author of the study was talking about the irony that they see themselves in terms of this, you know, spiritual freedom. But even that belief in their spiritual freedom is very similar to their long, long, separated, identical time.

[A]

I can see where you're going. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

Then the study was done by this guy, Lyndon Eaves, who was, in addition to being a behavior geneticist, also an Anglican priest who a fellow Englishman who felt came over to the United States. And what I love about Dr. Eve's writing, I guess, Reverend Eve's writing, is that he really resists either or. He's like, I am a man of the cloth. And also I have studies showing that your genes affect whether or not you believe God, right? So, like, how do we put those together? That's kind of a mystery of being human.

[A]

It's messy. And this is one of the reasons why I think the behavioral genetics argument in the same way as the evolutionary psychology argument. I'm sure you've seen Corey Clark's study that she did a couple of years ago of what are the most reprehensible things to talk about. And the two that came up were your area of work. In evolutionary psychology, it's much cleaner to say it is all environment. It is just blank slate all the way down. Because if we take. We know that it can't be entirely. And the behavioral geneticists are never apart from Huntington's, are never saying it's exclusively on your genes. And as soon as you open the crack, the optics of the argument just fall apart. Because it's nowhere near as pithy as it's just environment, bro. Is there a difference in heritability of antisocial behavior that's sexed. Do men inherit more accurately, more. Is the heritability greater effect on boys than it is on girls generally?

[B]

No. But there's one exception that I want to come Back to. So what we see is that the genes that are associated with antisocial behavior in boys also affect girls. If you have a fraternal twin, if you're female and you have a fraternal twin that's a male sibling, then his antisocial behavior predicts your likelihood of manifesting it. That the same liabilities are reflected in the same way. Same. So the same genetic liabilities make you more likely to be physically aggressive, they make you more likely to be relationally aggressive, they make you more likely to be substance using, they make you more likely to be risk taking. It's just for everything, the mean for men, the average for men is shifted up, so.

[A]

Oh, so the same impact would have a. Sorry, the same raw materials would have a greater impact in real life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The same way as women commit suicide. Sorry, women attempt suicide more than men, but men commit suicide more than women. Their ability to enact violence, antisocial stuff tends to be greater. So it's magnified. Right, Interesting.

[B]

And so, you know, part of that is around social opportunity. Like for many years, you know, women were very discouraged from drinking, very different discouraged from smoking. So you saw a big sex difference in smoking and drinking. Now it's more socially acceptable for women to smoke and drink. And so that average difference has narrowed. And it's the same genes that seem to be involved in both. The exception there is that most of our current studies have focused on what are called the autosomes. So we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. One pair is the sex chromosomes XY or XX in typically developing children, and then the other 22 pair are the same across sexes. And nearly all of our contemporary studies have focused just on those 22 pairs of autosomes for kind of boring technical reasons that I'm not going to get into. We're just now really diving into the X chromosome to see is there something about the X chromosome that might have specific effects on antisocial behavior. And the reason why that's interesting is because men only have one X, whereas women have two. And so men are much more vulnerable to the effects of a genetic variant that's X linked because they don't have another copy to compensate.

[A]

Oh, that's so cool.

[B]

So that's why colorblindness, for instance, is much more prevalent in men versus women. Because it's a sex link. It's an X chromosome linked genetic variant.

[A]

That is so sick.

[B]

So the reason why we think the X chromosome might be important is. And again, just to back up a second Most of what we study in our lab is what we would call common genetic variation. So these are genetic differences between people that exist in at least 5%, sometimes people say at least 1% of the population. The thing about common genetic variants is that they're common, which means that they are likely to have a relatively small effect in isolation, because if they had a big effect, evolution would make them not common, would weed them out very, very quickly. So you have this trade off between how common is a genetic variant and how big of an effect, how powerful it is. So what we're looking at is lots of common genetic variants, each of which have a tiny effect. But if you add them all up, then you get an appreciable effect, one that's meaningful. But there are studies of rare genetic variants, and there's one very famous study that was done in the 1990s where they looked at a rare variant on a gene on the X chromosome, and that gene was called maoa. So your monoamines are how your neurons are talking to each other. It's like serotonin's a monoamine, dopamine's a monoamine. So monoamine oxidase is an enzyme that basically is like a pac man eating the neurotransmitter in your brain. And if it doesn't work well, then you get this incredible buildup of the signals that your brain ordinarily uses to communicate with each other. Okay, so why is that important? In this one family, where they found this genetic variant on the X chromosome, it made the MAOA enzyme not work. And all the men in that family suffered from extremely serious antisocial behavior problems, whereas their sisters were completely typically functioning. So the men, Juan raped his sister, Juan committed arson, Juan stabbed his boss with a pitchfork. Huge levels of antisocial violence in this family. And their sisters and their moms were like, what the fuck is going on here? Like, why. Why do my sons and my brothers keep doing this and we don't have this problem? And it's because they have two exes. And so if they inherited the mutation, it didn't matter because there was another functioning version of.

[A]

To regress them back toward the mean

[B]

to kind of dosage, like they could compensate for it. Whereas if. If you're a man and you only have one ex and you got this, you know, 50, 50 shot, which of your mom's exos are you getting? It's a 50, 50 shot whether or not you were going to be antisocial. So that's a rare variant. You know, the Vast majority of people who are deeply antisocial do not have this MAOA problem.

[A]

Can't use the MAOA excuse.

[B]

They can't use the MAOA excuse. But I think it's important for two reasons. And one is that we think, think of our moral faculties as our ability to not go around stabbing our boss every time we're mad at him in moral terms, in spiritual terms, or in cognitive terms. And it turns out that it's very vulnerable to disruption. You can change one letter of your genome, that changes one gene, which changes one enzyme, and that capacity is really, if not destroyed, very, very impaired. And so the extent to which our morality is a biological faculty, I think is very much supported by the fact that we can so profoundly disrupt it by this one change in our genome. And the other thing that I find so interesting about this case study is that these men were in the criminal legal system in the Netherlands and no one was like, oh, this must be a genetic problem. They weren't not guilty by reason of insanity. They weren't, you know, lacking capacity to stand trial. They were indistinguishable from the rest of the offending population based just on their behavior. And the only reason we know that their behavior was due to this genetic cause is because of the familial data that made the pattern of transmission so clear. And I think that really brings up the question, how many other people who are persistently violent, in families that are persistently violent, there might be some genetic or neurobiological explanation that we just haven't discovered yet. Like, we just don't know that in the 80s they would have considered it ridiculous. Like this persistently violent family. It's, you're telling me it's because they have a one gene? That's wrong. Like, what if scene sounded like science fiction, but that was the case for this family. So I, you know, we haven't in modern genomics turned our attention very often back to the X chromosome. But my lab's doing this now and I'm, I'm really excited about this project.

[A]

In other news, you've probably heard me talk about element before, and that's because I am frankly dependent on it. And it's how I've started my day every single morning. This is the best tasting hydration drink on the market, you might think, why do I need to be more hydrated? Because proper hydration is not just about drinking enough water. It's having sufficient electrolytes to allow your body to use those fluids. Each grab and go stick pack is A science backed electrolyte ratio of sodium, potassium and magnesium. It's got no sugar, coloring, artificial ingredients or any other junk. This plays a critical role in reducing muscle cramps and fatigue while optimizing brain health, regulating your appetite and curbing cravings. This orange flavor in a cold glass of water is a sweet, salty, orangey nectar and you will genuinely feel a difference when you take it versus when you don't. Which is why I keep going on about it. Best of all, there's a no questions asked refund policy with an unlimited duration. Buy it, use it all and if you don't like it for any reason, they give you your money back and you don't even have to return the box. That's how confident they are that you'll love it. Plus, they offer free shipping in the US Right now you can get a free sample pack of Element's most popular flavors with your first purchase price by going to the link in the description below. Heading to drinklmnt.com ModernWisdom that's drinklmnt.com Modernwisdom it kind of makes me think, well, if suffering and vice are highly inherited, how do we justify punishment?

[B]

Yeah, that's the heart of the heart of the question. I want to pull apart two ideas which were very confounded in my mind too, which is accountability and punishment. So in my mind, punishment is deliberately making someone suffer as retribution for, for the harm that they've caused. Whereas accountability is saying you've done this, you've harmed someone. We as a community are enforcing our rules that you don't get to do that. And we're doing what we need to do to keep you from doing it again and keep other people safe. The United States, we hold people accountable, but we do it through a very retributive punishment system. We incarcerated more people in worse conditions than any other country has ever done in the history of the world. I think it's more people were incarcerated at the height of mass incarceration than were ever put in the gulag by the Soviets. Like it's a. We have a truly massive incarceration carceral state here. So I want to reframe your question and I think your question's so good and it's your question is the question that I started my book at. I started my book thinking, well, can we justify punishing people? If and how do we. Who deserves to be punished? Based on what we know about science and I, I have come to the conclusion that I don't think anyone deserves to suffer and that doesn't mean that we have no rules and we don't hold people accountable. And pulling those two things apart is.

[A]

It's a very unsexy argument.

[B]

It's very unsexy.

[A]

It's incredibly unsexy.

[B]

Well, you know, because Americans like the either or simplicity. Simplicity. Like, there's a philosopher, Hannah Picard, who writes about what she calls the rescue blame trap. And the rescue blame trap is this vacillation that we do where we say, this person stabbed his boss with a pitchfork. This person committed a horrible sexual crime. They did it. They deserve to be punished for it because they did it. They did this horrible thing. And then you think, oh, but they were maltreated. Oh, but their genes, oh, but their neurobiology. Oh, but they're extenuating circumstances. Maybe all of that rescues them from blame. And that lasts for about 35 seconds until you think about what a horrible thing they did. And then you go back to the rescue and it's this very unsatisfying cycle that we do see sawing between this person is awful. But I can also, I'm a scientist, I can think about all the extenuating circumstances and it's unsexy and nuanced and difficult and I think takes a lot of imagination, practical and moral. But what if you're trying to keep both of those things at the same in your head at the same time rather than seesawing back?

[A]

Does that mean that somebody who commits a murder but has a particular genetic profile should get extenuating circumstances, should be treated in a different way by the court?

[B]

I mean, I think that they. I mean, I think what we do now, which is like, let's lock you up with no therapy and no education and no possibility of ever being rehabilitated and never getting out again, that's not good for that person, which you might not care about. But we also know that it doesn't work to defer violent crime. Like, it's just like, not very effective.

[A]

I agree. I've had a couple of conversations about the ineffectiveness of like, retributive justice, just punishing for the sake of it. Let's use something else that isn't quite as contentious as whether or not the penal system works. Well, let's say that somebody has the genes to make them high desire for sexual novelty, they cheat in a relationship, and they have every genetic variant under the sun that predisposes them to it. And their dad cheated on their mum, they had all of the environmental factors that reinforced it. Should that person's Partner take them back more easily, knowing that they had. If we were able to say, well, my 23andMe or my intellect, DNA came back and actually said that my dopamine, I've got the comb T variant like the double A for this, which means that my dopamine baseline's higher and I process cortisol in a different way. And I actually, I don't think so.

[B]

No, not necessarily.

[A]

You know, the extenuating circumstances outside of the legal system trying to get to.

[B]

So I think the cheating partner example is a great example because I1, I think it, it gets to why we find the kind of Roberts of Polsky determinist framework to be unsatisfying, which is that we matter to each other. We matter to each other in this way that we call ethical or that we call moral. And we have a long evolved neurobiological architecture that is like I experience myself as a mind that makes choices and I experience you as a mind who makes choices. And when you make choices that hurt me, you can give me all the philosophical, philosophical arguments all day long about why you were determined to cheat. I don't care. There's this philosopher, Peter Strawson, who was writing in the mid to late 20th century, and he called these the reactive attitudes, which is the resentment, the blame, the praise, the admiration that we have to each other. And he basically said, even if the thesis of determinism is true, there's no escaping the fact that we matter to each other in ways that generate these reactive attitudes.

[A]

Do you not end up with a kind of genetic determinism that gets slipped in under a different guise with the predisposition of people towards certain types of behaviors, which is level of culpability changes that there's an amount that you are culpable, there's an amount of you that did this thing, and then there's a bit of you that kind of didn't do this thing.

[B]

Yes. And again, as a behavior geneticist, I do not think of it that way at all. Like, it's sort of the way that people used to talk about the God of the gaps. God was what we couldn't explain. I think people are tempted towards like a free will of the gaps, right? Like, however much you, your behavior was heritable or genetically determined, that's the part that you're not responsible for. And then whatever is left over in the remainder is the part that you're responsible for.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

I think the condition of being human on this planet is that none of us chose to be who we are and we are responsible for all of ourselves anyways. And also that means that we should be kinder to each other and more reluctant to make each other suffer for the sake of suffering. Yeah.

[A]

Thinking about the genetic lottery and the fact that people start from different genetic baselines, certain people, if your impulse control is better, you're probably gonna do better in school, you're probably gonna do better in higher. I have to assume that you'll do better in higher education. It means more qualifications, you're less likely

[B]

to be suspended for like bringing a gun to school.

[A]

Yes, all of these things. All of these things. And is it fair to say that one of the perspectives that you have about the world is that trying to re level some of the genetic inequality so that everybody gets a more equal access to be able to be successful in life is one of the things that we should go for?

[B]

I think it can be so.

[A]

So just on if that's the case, when it comes to having somebody who stands in the accuser box or the accused, the persecutor box in court, should the same thing not happen, but just in reverse? If we want to give a leg up to people who have a genetic profile which makes them less amenable to the current reward system that this society has offered people, does that not mean the same thing just holds true when they've misbehaved as opposed to when they can't behave well?

[B]

Yeah. So to some, okay, God, I have so many different responses to this. Like my mind is going in five different places at once. So to some extent we already do this. And it's in the criminal sentencing phase of trials, which is the quote unquote mitigation phase. And this is where someone says insanity plea. No, not insanity. So insanity is, are you going to be exempted from the normal criminal penalties entirely? So if you are, you know, actively psychotic at the time of the try at the time of the crime, and you could, you could not know that what you were doing is wrong and you could not have stopped yourself, then that's not guilty by reason of insanity, which is rarely attempted, even less commonly successful. I think it's like 1% of defendants get off by not reasoned by guilty of insanity. Andrea Yates drowned her five children in Texas in the early 2000s. That's an example I talk about in my book of a not guilty by reason of insanity. What most people have is a, are you guilty or not? Did you do it or not? And that's not focused on do you deserve to be punished? That's focused on the facts of the.

[A]

Did you do the thing?

[B]

Did you do the thing? And then there's a separate phase which is the sentencing phase for at least for a capital crime, where it's how much does this person deserve to be punished? And that is the point of the sentencing phase. And that's where people come in and they. That you have what are called mitigation specialists. And their job is to humanize this defendant and say they were born preterm, they were born addicted to drugs, they were deeply maltreated by their parents, they were the victim of sexual abuse. Here are the things that have happened to them that might explain how they got to this place. What I find so interesting about that is there's this idea built into the system that some people have been negatively affected by luck and then there's other people who haven't, right? Like there's like everyone, everyone got to the place where they were doing. If they're at this point in a criminal trial, they've all gotten to this place somehow. And then the options are, are you going to be incarcerated with no hope of rehabilitation forever versus only for 25 years? And that's different from how other societies and other countries treat this problem, which is someone has harmed someone else grievously. What do we do now? So I think this whole process of like, someone's done something and now we're gonna try to adjudicate how much it was environmental luck versus some magical free will that they might have versus genetics. And then we're gonna put this in a blame value.

[A]

At no point have they brought genetics in.

[B]

Well, that's what's. I mean, I find this fascinating on so many levels. And it goes back to how academic philosophy doesn't match the public conversation. The reason why they don't bring genetics in is because bringing genetics in tends to make jurors and judges. Either has no effect on their retributive sentiments or it actually makes them more retributive.

[A]

Oh, what was that experiment? Wasn't this some. What was that experiment?

[B]

It's a. Okay, so there's an experiment where they have people. Well, there's several. But I'm going to tell you about this one where they have just ordinary average Americans come into the lab and they are given information about a number of hypothetical sperm donors. And they say, you know, some people say, this sperm donor speaks French. This sperm donor is 6 foot 4. This sperm donor is. Has a college education. This sperm donor has bipolar disorder. This sperm donor was later found to have committed a violent crime. And then they have to estimate what is the likelihood that a child conceived from this sperm would be tall, would graduate from college, would speak French, would. Would also commit a violent crime themselves. And then they ask, okay, so in this, the situation in which the child conceived from the sperm donor has committed a violent crime. Here's details of the crime. You're on the jury, you have to recommend the sentence. How many years in prison do you think this person should get? So this person. I'm forgetting the exact details, but it's something along these lines. In this study, this person came up to a couple and they were leaving a movie theater and they tried to rob him. And they ended up, you know, killing the male half of the couple with like a box cutter. So violent, impulsive.

[A]

Now they have superhero for a son.

[B]

And. And so they're asked to put themselves in the. In the jury's place. If you. I'm asking you this. So if you were a juror and you had this case in front of you, how many years in prison would you recommend as a sentence for that?

[A]

Just from that crime? I don't know anything.

[B]

From that crime, you don't know anything else?

[A]

20.

[B]

Yes. So that's right about the average. I think the average in the study is between 20 and 25 years. But what they find is that the people who believe that violence can be inherited. So the people who believe that if the sperm donor was violent, the child conceived from that sperm is violent, regardless of their upbringing, actually suggested higher prison terms rather than lower.

[A]

We need to keep that person incarcerated because they have so little control over their behavior that they might go and do it again.

[B]

Yes, exactly. So there's this interesting thing where both genes and your environment combine. They interact, they're interwoven to shape the person that you become who's more or less likely to do these things. But people reason about the genetic causes and the environmental causes differently, whereas the environmental causes are more likely to be seen as mitigating. If you say this person committed a crime, but he was beaten by his parent.

[A]

Oh, wow, that is so crazy.

[B]

Whereas if you say this person committed a crime and his dad also was violent and he maybe even has inherited genes and makes you more retributive. And that again, like, from the perspective of like a Sapolsky style determinism. That makes no sense. Right? They're both causes. But the average person, the average juror, the average judge reasons about the genetic causes and the environmental causes.

[A]

Oh my.

[B]

Differently. Which I have lots of reason I have lots of thoughts as to why that is, but I think that's part of like. Part of why we have. We don't have ready answers for how does our growing knowledge of the genotype fit into our everyday blaming practices is because we as a culture are so confused about like. Or not even confused, but we, we reason about these things in such different ways.

[A]

Well, let me give you why I think at least. Yeah.

[B]

What's your theory about why 1.

[A]

One part of it. I mean first off, that is fucking brilliant. I mean it's tragic, but it's absolutely brilliant. The fact that you can have someone for whom all of the raw materials of being very aggressive and dysregulated and antisocial with low inhibition somehow makes them more. More deserving of retribution and maybe in some ways actually less culpable, but more deserving of retribution because in future they may do it again as opposed to this inherent sort of perspective we have. He was such a sweet boy until. And then this thing happened and sort of perverted or molested the direction that he would have been a good person. I think most of us see good in everybody else and that's probably a good. A very right idea to sort of trust first and then scrutinize second. Personally, I think that the entire world needs to read the genetic lottery and blueprint by fucking Plowman because just nobody. The number of people who actually understand the genetic influence on behavior is essentially zero. It's essentially zero. Like when you. And this has gotten worse. I think we've learned less of it. We've somehow managed to unlearn shit. I mean you even see this. You even. And maybe it's that we don't know or that we ignore because there's some fascinating studies around. When you ask women what sort of traits they want in a sperm donor versus what sort of traits they want in a partner, you get some really interesting differences.

[B]

Oh.

[A]

Because what you get to do is separate out the traits I want in my future children from the traits that I'm versus the traits I'm gonna be attracted to.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

Because I don't need your investment. I don't need.

[B]

Yeah, that's interesting.

[A]

So when you split those up. So just the fact that that exists shows that people, at least women understand that their kids are gonna be made of the raw materials of the person that they have them with. But I think the. The big problem is just a denial of the genetic influence on behavior or a lack of understanding or a belief that there is some sort of A limit that, you know, very pervasive blank slate cyst perspective which you were thrown under the bus for going against after your last book. And yeah, anytime that I want to try and talk about Ploman or any embryo selection or anything, it just. Hitler's got a lot to answer for. Right. But this is another one of those things.

[B]

We should definitely come back to embryo selection. So I. You said many interesting things in there.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

I think there's. Okay, so one interesting thing you said was, with a guy who was abused, you can think, oh, but he was a sweet kid. And then this happened. What you can do is you can imagine an alternate self, an alternate person where this didn't happen to him, and you can empathize with this counterfactual, what would he been like if he hadn't been abused? Or what would he be like if he hadn't gotten a brain tumor? Whereas with genes, it's much harder to come up with the alternate version of the person if they didn't have the genotype. And that gets into the idea of genetic essentialism. So genetic determinism is, my genes made me do it. My genes determine my behavior, so maybe I'm less culpable for my behavior. And that's one frame that we can think about genes. And it happens a lot, right? Like I am genetically predisposed to have a higher body weight. So therefore I'm not at fault if I have a higher body weight. Like, that's a conversation that we're having in our culture. And that's a genetic determinist frame. But it can switch to a genetic essentialist frame where it's your genes caused you to be a bad, to do a bad thing, therefore you are a bad person. Like an inherently bad person. Genetic morality, yes, you're bad to the bone. You're a natural born killer. You're bad seed. Right? We have these English idioms that reflect an idea that we can kind of wander into, which is there is an essence to a person, there's a true self. There's a deep down thing that is Chris. And in a previous time we might have thought that was your soul or that was your spirit. And people talk about how genes have become a quote unquote essence placeholder. So now instead of talking about, like Chris's immortal soul, we might think, well, Chris's genes are his true self, his deepest self. And it's when people switch from genetic determinism to genetic essentialism that genes stop being reliably mitigating because it's not you were shaped by luck. And so therefore none of us is fully under, you know, none of us. None of us. Nietzsche said something like, no one, you know, dragged himself by the hair out of the swamp, right? Like no one is creating themselves from scratch. But if you switch to the essentialist frame, it's I don't care what your genes are, your genes are who you really are. And now you're telling me that this person is essentially bad. Like, why would that make me feel more sympathy for them?

[A]

A quick aside. You've probably heard experts like Dr. Rhonda Patrick talk about the benefits of omega 3s. They reduce. Hello omega 3s. There they are. They reduce brain function. No they don't. They support brain function. Maybe I should take more. They support brain function, reduce inflammation, improve heart health and are backed by hundreds of studies. But here's the thing. All Omega 3s are not made the same. Most brands cut corners, they use cheap fish oil, skip purity testing, throw in fillers and call it a day. But with Momentous, you know you are getting the highest quality Omega 3s on the market. They're NSF certified for sport and they're tested for heavy metals and purity. So you can rest easy knowing anything that you take from Momentous is unparalleled when it comes to rigorous third party testing. What you read on the label is what's in the product and absolutely nothing else. Best of all, Momentous offers a 30 day money back guarantee so you can buy it and try it for 29 days and if you don't love it, they'll just give you your money back. Plus they ship internationally. Right now you can get 35% off your first subscription and that 30 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemomentous.com and modernwisdom and using the code modernwisdom at checkout, that's L I V E M O M E N t o u s.com ModernWisdom and ModernWisdom a checkout. What about what else has been experimentally tested around Retribution? I'm pretty interested in the role that this has.

[B]

Yeah, so retribution is something. So retribution is in my mind the desire to make another person suffer. It is a instinct that emerges very early in childhood development. There's some great work by Paul Bloom and his colleagues showing that three year olds are not that retributive. But by the time you're five, five year olds will pay stickers, you know, their version of money. This prize that they really, like, in order to see someone who has been portrayed as taking away a ball clubbed by a. By a puppet. So it's like you children will pay to see someone that they think is a ball taker, like, physically hit.

[A]

What do you think that is? Before we even get into that, what's. What is the emotional drive for retribution?

[B]

I think it's an evolved cooperation enforcement mechanism.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

I think that we experience dopamine really being released. We experience this kind of neurobiological mechanism of wanting when we do things that historically have been good for human survival and fitness. Right. Like, we don't go walk around being like, oh, maybe I should eat in three days. Like, it feels good to eat, it feels good to. Good to have sex, it feels good to drink water. Because we have to do all of that to exist and survive and propagate our genes. And we also feel good. We also see dopamine being released in the ventral striatum when we see someone who's been portrayed as a wrongdoer be made to suffer.

[A]

Has that been tested experimentally?

[B]

Yes, you can see that in the scanner. So ordinarily, if you see someone be hurt, you have an empathic response. But if you. If that person who's being hurt is first portrayed as violating some cooperative or moral norm, then what you see in the scanner is that people show a pattern that's consistent with reward when they see that person suffer. And I think the fact that you see it in the same areas, in the same neurotransmitters as you see other, other basically rewarding processes is a clue that this is something that was necessary. That sense of at least outrage and willingness to endure some cost in order to enforce your cooperative norms against someone else.

[A]

Willingness to endure some cost.

[B]

So I. One way that we can also see whether or not someone's find something rewarding is are they willing to pay for it. Like, children will pay stickers, adults will pay money. And so that we. There's these economic games where you see, how much digital money will someone pay for the opportunity to punish a freeloader?

[A]

Right.

[B]

All of these are.

[A]

But if it was somebody that hadn't been seen as a defector previously, they would be like, why am I going to give my money to punish this person that didn't do anything wrong and may even give you money to not punish the person that didn't do anything wrong. That would be pro social. Exactly what it's got me thinking about. If we feel pleasure when somebody who is seen to have contravened Some social contract is punished. This explains why Hitler called Jews vermin and rats to dehumanize them, because that then legitimates and traitors, globalist traitors, that is their transgression. The othering thing makes sense. The reason that we want to care so much about our reputation makes an awful lot of sense. Because somewhere in the back of our mind we realize, if I'm not careful and if the optics of Chris or if the optics of Paige are sufficiently poorly interpreted, that not only might other people not want to support me, but other people might want to punish me. And not only might they want to punish me, they might get pleasure from punishing me, and they might get pleasure from watching other people punish me, and they might even pay a cost in order to support it. So, you know, it really does reinforce what's important is not who you are. What's important is what other people think you are.

[B]

And I think you see this play out. You know, empathy is painful. Like to see someone be hurt and hurt for them, hurt with them, is so uncomfortable. And if that person was a wrongdoer, then I could alchemize that pain into pleasure. And I think that gives us the temptation to search for the ways in

[A]

which someone needs, oh, this is how I'm gonna get some pleasure. I'm gonna. My morality is gonna stand on the shoulders of other people that have fallen behind. So we saw this. Two interesting things that obviously we're in the middle of the fucking Epstein furor at the moment. And a couple of things that I've noticed. First one was a bunch of memes floating around about Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, that neither of them seemed to appear in the Epstein emails, at least not yet. And that was. They were sort of lauded as super chads of the Internet because they hadn't. Presumably they had the opportunity to go, but they didn't. Something like that. And that made me think, oh, people see morality as zero sum. So that those two people, by doing nothing differently to what they'd done yesterday to today, because the total amount of morality in the other people was decreased, the remaining people have sort of all been raised up by it. Like the fact that this owner of a fashion brand and this shake were in the emails, but other people who are peers of theirs weren't. They lost. So you gain. So there is this sort of supply, this fixed supply of morality, and by some people losing it, others have been raised. So it wasn't just, you're not as bad as them, it's you're actively Better than you were before.

[B]

Yeah, the standards have.

[A]

Yeah, you have been increased by this. I thought that was really interesting.

[B]

I mean, I think if you. If you see any victim of violence, the process by which others then seize on what they might have ever done wrong in their life and transmit that. Once you start noticing that pattern, it's really, really obvious.

[A]

Can you say that in a different way?

[B]

So someone is. Victimized by the police and there's a debate about whether or not, you know, the police were justified in hurting this person or whether the person was resisting arrest. And then you have this always this outpouring of news about everything that this person has done in their life. And it's. They were an honor student. They were, you know, they love to play the guitar. And then it was like, no, they once shoplifted or they once like kicked a tire. Five, five years ago. What is that? Like, why are. Why are we having this. This not just in the incident, but everything leading up to it, this moral reckoning with whether or not this person ever did a bad thing or was a. Did a. Ever. Ever did an admirable thing. And I think the process behind that is really complicated. It's not just one process, not. Not just one thing that's going into that kind of digging through the person who's died. Life. But if you remember that if you're feeling empathy for someone suffering, you can toggle it over to pleasure. If you can convince yourself that they're bad and they deserved it. It is such a temptation.

[A]

It is so wild.

[B]

That's such a temptation that's out there.

[A]

But it's the freest. It's some of the freest pleasure that you're ever going to get as well. It's completely costless to you. And you would be familiar with the bless her heart effect from evolutionary psychology. It's one of the reasons that female intersexual competition has venting, whereas male intersexual competition tends not to in quite the same way. And it's Paige. I'm really worried about Jenny. Like, she just keeps on sleeping with all of these guys and I'm so worried about her.

[B]

Oh, it's like Beau concern.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, it's vented. So you allow your. What is couched under pro social concern for somebody else is actually a way of spreading rumor. But implicit in that is. I mean, I would never sleep at the. No, of course. I mean, not me, but I'm worried about Jenny. So it's this sort of very paternalistic, very caring. But what you get with this is something not too dissimilar where your morality gets to stand on the shoulders of somebody else's. So not only are you getting the pleasure at this person who rightly or wrongly you think is a defector of the social laws, but you, by pointing it out, you get to feel good,

[B]

you get to feel like a person.

[A]

Also everyone else gets to see you as the, oh, it's always good that Christine was there, you know, to tell us about the bad behavior of Jenny, isn't that so? Yet your morality gets to stand on their shoulders. And I think there are a lot of combining reward pathways to get people to behave in this sort of a manner. Their sense of social righteousness gets raised up. They just endogenously get pinged with a fucking ton of dopamine for having done this thing. They get to. Potentially the sort of justified self deception or true honest approach to this is that person needs to be told that they've misbehaved and pushed out. Potentially we need to be protected from them. So they need to be outcasts sufficiently and it's all messed up in is do they, do they, should they be on the outside or are we actually.

[B]

Yeah, and I think so this idea of like you just said, pushed out, right? Like pushed out. This idea that we're deciding who gets the protection of the group and who is going to be cast as an outsider, as a moral reprobate, as someone who deserved it and then they can be pushed out, they can be pushed out of life and we still feel pleasure at it. The other thing about the, you know, the pleasure of retribution, thinking about that changed, My thinking is we have evolved pleasure at eating sugar that was necessary for our survival of our species. And then now we're in an environment where you can either eat that sugar on steroids, ultra processed foods with no

[A]

other nutritional value, you're thinking about scapegoating on steroids, right?

[B]

And. Or you can say that evolved desire is important and it's not going away. And I'm not gonna academic philosophy my way out of it, but I'm also not gonna let it lead.

[A]

You're saying we need a zempic for retribution.

[B]

And I mean, or I think we need like a better food culture for retribution. I mean I really think that so much of American culture is predicated on feeding people the retributive version of empty calories. How can I get you to feel good at other people's suffering and convince you that you're. That you're. And you get to feel Like a good person. While you doing it. While you're doing it. Like, what a draw. In my new book, I talk about this trial that took place in Norway when there was, you know, Norway has so much less crime, so much less violent crime than the United States does. They incarcerate way fewer people. They incarcerate them in less harsh institutions for much shorter periods of time. And it's very rare for them to have like a mass shooting event. And, and, but they did. They had this guy, Anders Breivik, who shot I think 60 children on an island. They were there for a summer camp. It was the worst mass murder in Norway's history. This is someone who has had, like, who had terrible genetic and environmental luck. He had a very unstable mother. And it also. He was described as someone who was antisocial from the time he was three or four. Norway has this incredible wraparound social welfare state. And so you can see the high visibility, the notes from the social worker being like, this child is aggressive and violent. The other kids won't be or aren't allowed to play with them because he keeps torturing their pets when he's five. So even in this, in this environment where there's incredible social resources, this person still grew up and still grew up to be violent. I found the trial fascinating because they ultimately sentenced him to the maximum sentence in Norway, which is 21 years.

[A]

Doesn't seem like a lot. It's what, like four months per child?

[B]

And they gave him. He's in the maximum security prison, which there was an Instagram meme which is, is this a Norwegian prison or a London hotel room? And people can't tell the difference between them. The only thing that puts it away is the security camera dome on the ceiling of the prison room. So things that seem quite cushy for an American system. And in the trial you see the reckoning of a society where they are saying, this person did a horrible thing. We have our maximum retributive impulses towards him. Of course we do. He murdered our children and he is still one of us. And how will it corrupt us and our culture to indulge those maximum impulses? So we want to keep our society safe, but we're recognizing that he's still one of us, he's still Norwegian, he's still part of our society. And from an American perspective, it was wild, like reading this trial transcript because it was a way of feeling that retribution, but not leading entirely with it, and also recognizing the inherent humanity of this person who's part of their society.

[A]

Do you think somebody that shot 60 kids has that much humanity?

[B]

I think we all have that humanity. I mean, I think that's what it comes down to. I think that every single person, even when they do horrible things, is still human. And also that even if they don't, that me treating them like they don't does something to my humanity.

[A]

That seems to be two different arguments.

[B]

I mean, there are. So they're related.

[A]

Yeah, of course. Yeah, I'm trying to separate them out. I mean, yeah, I was gonna try. I was about to say something before that. My ability to flip empathy into pleasure at a defector's pain pathway is defunct. I always seem to err on the side of, oh, I'm so sorry for that person, you know, Always, always, always. You've managed to find an example where not just one, but it tends to be. My threshold for it tends to be a bit higher. So I'm thinking about this person that shot 60 kids. The residual amount of humanity in that person seems to be very low for me in how I would see them. That, to me seems to be the kind of thing, even if you were to say, what does this do for society outside of it, that is such a heinous crime that I would say it is so far beyond even the normality of abnormal crime that that should be a. You don't get to come out again. And that would be a pro social. As far as I can see, that would be a pro social thing to do. First off, as a, hey, we have a limit here in Sweden. Norway, Norway. Here in Norway we have a limit. We may be very loving and a fun accent like a typewriter covered in foil kicked downstairs, but this person has gone beyond the limit. Therefore other people shouldn't. So I guess, yeah, I like warning them off. But the other one being like, that is such an extreme crime. The likelihood of. Even if, Even if his desire to murder children drops by one per year over the next six decades, he still wants to murder a child. Like, I'm aware that's not the way that like a fall off murder desire was.

[B]

I got this weird like line graph in my head.

[A]

Yeah, of course. But it's like murder desire, inertia or whatever the fuck, but to me that seems weak, that seems wimpy. And I don't think, I don't think that that is a sufficient deterrent to others. And I also don't think it is a sufficient amount of time to basically quarantine this person.

[B]

So there's so many different threads in your argument And I want to pull them apart because I think they're each interesting. And in some ways it's like you just touched on what are. Why do we incarcerate people? Like why do we have a criminal legal system? What is the purpose of it? Right. And one is just containment, just protecting the other people from this person. Right. I do believe in Norway it's possible that at the end of the sentence he's judged to still be a risk to others. Then he could be. That sentence could be lengthened for the sake of other people. One is some sort of expression of retribution. Like I don't care if you could be better in the future. I don't care if you kind of. You're going to have a.

[A]

You lost that privilege.

[B]

You've lost the privilege. I. You did something that's beyond the pale. And now I. You deserve, you deserve to not live, you deserve to suffer. You deserve like whatever that is. And then one of them is rehabilitation. So given that someone has done this, is there some intervention by the state, by other people, by. That can prevent it from happening again? Repair, essentially repair this person and repair their relationship to the community such that they don't commit any more violent crimes. And we don't stick with like, we don't have one lane. Like your answer combined all of those things where you're like, but like what if he's still a danger? And also he did such a horrible thing. Maybe it doesn't matter if he's a danger. And also if he. If this is such a long rooted problem, how could he ever hope to change? Yep. And I'm really interested by the word weak. Like what is it? It's weak by the state, it's weak by the juror. Like what. What is the. It reflects weak social bonds. Like what is. What is being weak where. Like that's an interesting. It is

[A]

insufficient. When held up. Yeah. You asked me earlier on this person stabbed one guy with a Boxcraft.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And you were like 25 years. Yeah, I gave him 20 years. Homeboy managed to do it to 60 children. Yes, exactly. Have you considered the role of 120 parents needing to feel vindicated?

[B]

Yeah. I mean I think there's this idea of vindication and also this sense of. I guess I should say, like I was very moved by this.

[A]

I'm not saying that you're defending the guy just getting. Doing the thing or getting the 20 years.

[B]

And I do think it speaks to a very different way of thinking of the role and function of punishment in a society. Because it is so radically different from what we would do in the United States. But I just want to echo, like, I'm a mother, I have three kids. Like, if I were one of those parents, would I be able to coolly sit here and talk to you about not letting the retributive instinct lead? I'm not sure. Like, the only time I've ever, like, blacked out in anger was when someone hurt one of my children. Like, I think there's a really basic thing in there, and I think the other thing that you're getting at is we signal the value of people by how much we're willing to punish others who've hurt them. So, you know, when we say, like, one of the. One of the things that made that. That denotes or it comes along with the status of being an enslaved person in a culture is that their masters get to hurt them and no one. There's no punishment for that. Right? So. So I think one of the things you're picking up on when you say, like, what about those parents? Is does it signal something about the value of those children or the value of those children to their parents, to their society, to the collective, if someone is not punished for hurting them? A lot of times when someone does something outrageous, not even outrageous as mass murder, we say, who do you think you are? And I think that's saying, who do you think I am that you think you can get away with treating me like this? So we assert the value of people. That's part of the social signal of punishment. And I think that's why it rankles. And I don't think there is any. I don't think there's any response to harm, especially harm at that level where there isn't gonna be some remainder that feels unsatisfying either.

[A]

We're gonna kill him, burn him and kill him, string him up and burn him and kill him.

[B]

What does that do to us? Right? Like, I think that really. I think what does that do to our society's. Again, honoring of the inherent value of every human. If we are so easy for anyone to say, string em up, you know, good riddance. Like, I. There. There is a really. The. Our response to our most antisocial people can bring out the most callous and. And unemotional and like, antisocial instincts of ourselves where you would never, under any other circumstances, be like, let them die. But, like, in this case, it comes so easily to us. So again, I don't think there's a per. I don't think there is a Perfect solution to the problem of harm. But I do think by looking to other societies, we can begin to think, well, what are we overemphasizing in our approach to this? Which is very. People deserve to suffer, and our job is just to figure out how much they deserve to suffer.

[A]

Well, definitely the retribution for something like addiction or psychopathy feels very different to antisocial disorder retribution. But really that's only because the first two are more pathologized and we have names for them. But if we start to sort of take the behavioral genetics red pill, then we go, well, take the pill.

[B]

Yeah, take the behavioral genetics pill.

[A]

Well, you know, you start to think that person that's an addict might not have had that much of a predisposition toward it and might actually have some pretty strong genetic influences toward willpower. And they chose to do this thing and they chose to. Or that psychopath who's acting in this way is sort of choosing to be callous. It's not so much outside of their. You know what I mean? Yeah, you can see where I'm talking here. Whereas the person who's antisocial disorder could have been fighting against all of the tides of their genetic predisposition and their epigenetic impact and the upbringing that they had and so on and so forth. We don't. Because we don't have this global perspective. I can't see through you and see sort of what contributes, what is left inside.

[B]

I mean, I think this is where there will always be a gap between science, which is about averages and trends and statistical patterns and biography, which is this is the individual person. And I know exactly how these combined in this individual person. And I can see what could have gone differently. I began my new book. Well, the first real, first full chapter of the book. I began with this letter that I got from someone in prison in Texas. And he's been there for his whole adult life. He's been there since he was 16, and he committed a sexually violent crime, kidnapping a woman at knifepoint. An awful thing, I think, when he was 15, since he's been in prison since he was 16. And then he's been, you know, in an adult kind of notorious prison in Texas since then. And he wrote me this letter and he said there was an article in Texas Monthly magazine about my lab. And so he said, I read about you in Texas Monthly, and I know some people, you know, don't believe in behavioral genetics, but I do. I think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[A]

The idea of not believing in Behavioral genetics is hilarious, but please go on.

[B]

And then he wrote me this series of questions, and one of them was, what do you think makes a child go bad? Nature or nurture? And it was. I mean, it was such one. Like, most of the mail, 99% of the mail I get in my university mailbox is like academic journals. So this is. This was very surprising to get this letter. And then I got in, I opened it, and he had cut out cartoons from other magazines and taped them to the letter. And one of them was this white tiger on a psychoanalyst couch. And the caption goes, they train me to perform, but when I do what I'm really good at, they go ballistic.

[A]

Oh, that's great.

[B]

Which is funny and dark and also like, oh, this is coming from someone who's in jail for a sexually violent crime. Like, that is a newsletter on that cartoon. And, you know, he's asking. He was asking me the same question that you're asking me, which I think we're. Which I don't think has unanswer, because I think it is part of the tension of being a modern human. Why did I do this thing? Why do you, as a scientist, think I did this thing? And when I was reflecting on it, it's like, well, I can give you a scientific answer. Like, on average, people who are exposed to lead and abused as children and had labor and delivery complications and had a certain set of genetic variants, these things combine to make you more likely to commit a violent crime. But is that really why he's writing me? Like, it's easy one a science lesson? Or is he like, I think when people ask why, they're really asking, was it all my fault?

[A]

Yep. Yep.

[B]

Do I have hope for change? Am I okay? They're looking for a different story. Story about themselves. And this is someone who, on paper, might seem like you. You didn't even make it to 15 years old without raping a woman. Like, why should we? But there's some part of him that's asking, why? And there's some parts of him that wants information. And that, to me, speaks to something very universal and human. I think it is. I think it is a. A really understandable thing to have done something. And you're like, why did I do that? Am I a stranger to myself? Does this mean that it's all my fault? Could I have done differently? Will I do differently in the future?

[A]

Interesting that we don't necessarily ask ourselves that with the same level of, like, sanguine reflection when we do something that's outside our positive bound of what we thought we were able to do. Yeah, we don't. We flatter ourselves with, oh, well, I scored that goal. I mean, you know. Yeah, it takes a very particular sort of person to go, I don't know where that came. I don't know where that skill came from. I don't know where that romantic gesture for Valentine's Day came from. I don't know where that level of love and depth and reflection came from.

[B]

That's interesting. I feel like with writing, I definitely have that experience where.

[A]

Fuck, where did this sentence come from? Better than my upper bound.

[B]

I'll look back on writing that I've done in the past, and I'm like, that's not bad. And I have no conscious memory of writing it. And that idea of genius is not something about you, but a genius is some sort of, you know, inspiration in the ether that can move through you and that moves through you. I find that a really. I. That's. Whenever I've seen my work where I'm like, that's not terrible that I. I actually am less likely to think of it as mine.

[A]

What have you learned about the epigenetic inheritance stuff?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, so the idea of epigenetic inheritance. So the idea of. So your genome is your DNA, your DNA sequence, and then your epigenome, which is. And your DNA is the same in every cell in your body, and it's the same every day of your life. Whereas your epigenome is everything on top of your genome that affects how the genome is read in a cell, your epigenome is why your neurons are different than your liver cells and why you look different than you did when you were nine. You have the same DNA, but you have a different body now, and that's because of these epigenetic changes. So epigenetic inheritance is this idea that not just the DNA sequence, but something about the epigenetic marks that affect how the gene is read could be transmitted from parent offspring. That is a really difficult and controversial area of research. Like, some biologists think that humans do not inherit the epigenome. What egg and sperm cells do is they strip out, you know, most of the epigenetic marks so that they aren't inherited. There is some animal models and mice that.

[A]

Do we not just see one about

[B]

exercise, probably in mice.

[A]

Maybe the children of mice that had exercised more work. Yeah.

[B]

So in humans, research on epigenetic inheritance is really hard to do. You need multiple generations of data. The confounding is terrible. And I. I'M okay with social and political controversies, but even I have not waded into epigenetic inheritance. I do do stuff on epigenetics within the lifespan of a child. Right. So like, how does your environment, what's,

[A]

what's real and what's bullshit about epigenetics?

[B]

Oh, gosh. I mean, I think there's these cultural memes about like, all of trauma is epigenetically inherited or that you can't believe anything from behavior genetics because it's all actually epigenetics. I think those are vast oversimplifications. I think we understand. I gave a talk for a group of students on campus last week and they were like, well, how do you. You know, I'm not really that interested in genes because of everything we know about epigenetics. And I was like, what is, what do we know about epigenetics? Like, what exactly are you thinking about? This is actually a very new area of research.

[A]

What did they say?

[B]

Humans? They had no answer to that question.

[A]

Great statement.

[B]

So, I mean, I'm fascinated. The sort of epigenetics that I study is called DNA methylation. So methylation is the addition of a methyl group which is kind of like a chemical tag that binds to the DNA sequence at particular spots and changes how DNA is expressed. And I'm really interested in the, the DNA methylation is particularly in children because I'm interested in the idea that we can look at how, you know, poverty or stress or trauma or insults to health that are ultimately going to affect your, you know, your aging 60 years later. How are they getting under the skin in early life long before we can actually see any of these health problems. Like, we know that children who are, for instance, being raised in poverty are likely to die sooner. It's very hard to see the health consequences of poverty when children are four, because four year olds are healthy. Like four year olds all look healthy.

[A]

But is that not. How do you know the difference between epigenetic impact and just during a period where you really needed to feed a body and an immune system, it didn't have the fuel to be able to do it. The epigenetic stuff feels to be a little bit more deep and long lasting as opposed to this is a more transient, important period where like if you just never went to the gym, well, I'm smaller and weaker, but I'm smaller and weaker because I didn't do the thing required to make me big and strong.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I. So that's, you're right that like there's a phenotype of a child, which is like, what is their growth status? Are they overweight? Are they too short for their age? Do they have more infections than usual? And the epigenome is getting at something that's like, you know, more at the level of the cellular machinery. And although it's controversial whether or not epigenetic marks can be transmitted from parent to child, we know that they're, they are propagated across cell division. So part of how your epigenome works now is because your epigenome was changed when you were five. And those epigenetic marks, even though you have different cells now, because they've been replicating this whole time, those same epigenetic processes have been carried over that cell division.

[A]

I've heard something about that. This is probably getting into the realm of what one of your students tried to ask you last week. Yeah, that when the epigenetic dial is turned up for a particular however something is being expressed, it is very difficult to turn that back down.

[B]

Oh, I don't. That's an interesting question. I don't know if that's true. On a general level.

[A]

A kind of lock in of this thing happened. The expression is occurring at this particular level and that is now the level it's going to continue at.

[B]

I think, generally speaking, what I do think is a general pattern is that it's just much harder to change your epigenome in adulthood than it is in childhood. So if we look at measures of the epigenome at 60, they're very correlated with where you are at 70. If you look at it at 40, they're very correlated with your 50. That doesn't mean that health interventions don't matter. Health interventions can definitely make a difference in middle age and older adulthood. But where you see the most flux in what is the epigenome doing, what is behavior doing, what is body weight doing is in the first 10 years of life. I mean, and that's kind of across the board. Like childhood is our period of peak plasticity. And then including epigenetic plasticity, including, I think, epigenetic plasticity.

[A]

That's cool. That's a cool way to think about it. What's some of the interesting studies around in utero epigenetic changes? Because, you know, we do have some periods where for a brief amount of time, every girl that is watching was inside of their grandmother.

[B]

Yes. Isn't that fascinating?

[A]

So cool.

[B]

And the, you know, the canonical studies on this are ones where you've had, like in humans at least, are where you've had a very serious insult or deprivation at a particular point in pregnancy. So for instance, when the Nazis blockaded Holland, there was this very serious famine in Holland, but it affected different regions of the country differently. And also people just happened to be pregnant for different parts of their pregnancies during the pandemic.

[A]

So you had a little split test. You had a little split test. Some were first trimester, some were second, some were third.

[B]

Yes. And then some were just across the border, but they were getting food from somewhere else. And so they were just like the village next door, but they were not nearly as affected by the Nazi blockade. And so they never had so much famine. And you see that the children and then I think the grandchildren of those moms who were starved when they were pregnant have worse health outcomes. They have higher body weight, they have higher rates of antisocial behavior. And we're seeing that in our research too, that the second trimester in particular is like a very sensitive period of time potentially for the development of. Of. For brain development, for the development of lots of behavioral.

[A]

Same thing goes. Is it mothers that go into poverty? I've seen. Is it Joyce Benson? I feel like she did something to do with this.

[B]

Yes. So we're working now. I'm not allowed to talk about the results yet, but I'm pretty excited about them. We're working with a group that is doing a cash transfer, unconditional cash transfer. So essentially cash gifts to low income moms. So some moms get 30 extra dollars a month and some moms get $300 extra per month. And then the kids have been followed. They're now six. And so we are looking at dead cash to moms change children, epigenetics.

[A]

And the mechanism that that would move through would be moms had an alleviation of stress, less cortisol, better nutrition.

[B]

So there seems to be moms who get money don't report that many much lower levels of stress. They do report more being better able to breastfeed as long as they wanted to and they delayed the start of childcare. So if they wanted to stay home with the baby for longer, they could.

[A]

This feels less epigenetic.

[B]

And they also it improves the nutrition of the child. So they're spending the extra money on.

[A]

So I get it. This to me doesn't feel that epigenetic though. This is just look at attachment theory. If the kid gets ripped away from mum, what is that imbuing into their nervous system? What is the learned nervous system behavior?

[B]

So it's interesting that you Say that that doesn't feel epigenetic to you because in some ways, every. Every behavioral change is going to be somewhat epigenetic because, again, you have the same genotype your whole life. So if you're changing, something is changing, and that change is a little record that's being made.

[A]

Okay, that's interesting. I mean, this is one of the reasons I was excited to speak to you about epigenetics, because I haven't done. I need to ask you who the best person to talk about, like, who's the spicy world expert? Who's the plowman of epigenetics?

[B]

Probably Steve Horvath.

[A]

I've been in touch with him. I should bring him on.

[B]

Yes, Epigenetic age.

[A]

I should bring him on.

[B]

There was this episode of the Kardashians where the Kim and Khloe get their epigenetic age measured, I think with blood, although it could have been with saliva. And one of. So there's these. These DNA methylation clocks that were trained on how old you are in years or trained in how many years you have left to live. And then now with new people, you can be like, you're. I don't know how old you are.

[A]

37.

[B]

37. You're 37. But epigenetically you're more like a 32 year old or. And that would predict you having a longer lifespan. So it's this kind of biological age.

[A]

Different to doing telomeres.

[B]

Yes, it's different. So telomeres is the end of your DNA, whereas this is the pattern of those methyl groups attaching to your. And so there's this funny scene where they're, like, talking about doing these epigenetic age clocks. And Kim Kardashian says, oh, we're going to do the Horvath test after Steve Horvath, who's an epigenetic researcher, and Khloe Kardashian, I think it's Khloe goes Horbath horse bath, and she just keeps mishearing Steve Horvath's name as whores bath.

[A]

Imagine that the most people on the planet that will ever hear your name is one of the Kardashians mispronouncing it.

[B]

If I was Steve Horvath, I would have that in every slide for every talk.

[A]

Horsva. Horsva. Khloe Kardashian. Fantastic. Okay. What did you learn about the role of luck through motherhood?

[B]

Oh, gosh. I mean, I think that becoming a parent is the riskiest thing you could do. In some ways, it's the most optimistic gamble you could ever make. And I. In my new book, I should say the name. My new book is called Original Sin. I feel like my publisher would want me to say the name, the title of it. In my new book, I quote the writer Andrew Solomon, who wrote this fabulous book called Far from the Tree, which is all about parents and children who are very different from each other. So deaf children of hearing parents, or like normally functioning parents who have savants, chess or music prodigies as children. And in the introduction to his book, he writes, no, reproduction is a myth. No children are reproduced. Children are produced. And as a behavioral geneticist, I think that's a perfect description of, I have my genes, my partners. I have children with my first husband, my second husband. So that's why I'm saying partners. I'm not in a thruffle. My children's dads, they have their genes, and we have recombined them in ways that are unpredictable. With every single one of our children, I think there's something like 70 trillion possible combinations that each set of partners could have with all their potential kids. And if you think about that, about how different those children could be and how much their characteristics are going to shape your life just as much as you shape your kid's life, you really are opening yourself up to fortune, I think, every time you produce a child. And I mean, so many parents describe this phenomenon where they have a kid and they're like, I'm a really good dad. I'm a really good mom. I'm doing everything perfectly. If you have your easy baby first, and then you have your second kid, and you're like, this is. This person is totally different. Same mom, same dad, but they don't sleep at the same time. They don't eat at the same time. Their temperament is different, how they respond, how I parent them is different. So my children didn't ask to be here. They were thrown into consciousness and then brought home from the hospital with this genetic package that no one had control over and a family environment that they don't have any control over. And, you know, they're so different from one another. They're so different from one another. And I really feel like my role as a mom is to, who did I get, like, who am I getting to know while they get a grip on what it means to be on this planet? So I have a picture in their room, and it's a print from an artist I like, Haley Bateman. And it says, it's a miracle we ever met. And that's really how I feel about them. I met these people who are so different from me and so different from each other based on the luck of the draw. And now we have to ride out this relationship with each other. You know, we have to figure out how to attach while they grow up.

[A]

What's your perspective on embryo selection?

[B]

I have very complicated feelings about embryo selection. Okay. So the first thing I want to say is I think that having a child again is an incredibly risky, ultimately optimistic thing. And I think babies are good. So I really support people's right to build their families on their own terms, even if that's not the terms that I would build them on. I think reproductive autonomy is really, really important.

[A]

Good disclaimer.

[B]

I think that's very, very important. I think that there are some situations in which the upsides seem very, very clear to me. Like if you have a disorder that's prevalent in your family and you want to mitigate even by a few percentage points, the risk of that, and that's what's going to make you feel safe to bring a child into the world. Like that feels like a good to me. Here's what I worry about. So those are the pros. The things I worry about is one. You said yourself that no one understands genetics like it's polygenic scores and genetic risk assessments are complicated to understand and complicated to communicate, even to experts. And I do worry about are the claims that some companies are making, are they being matched by the evidence, and are they being communicated to prospective parents in a way that appropriately conveys the sort of uncertainty?

[A]

As far as I can. As far as I can see, the only company that's even remotely close is Herricite. If it's not them, I think everybody else, and even they are still at the absolute frontier of how it is that they put their stuff.

[B]

I mean, and they, to their credit, have been very transparent about their statistical models and their reasoning, which not all companies have done.

[A]

I think they're trying to do it right.

[B]

I think there's also the larger question. I wrote about this on my sub stack recently, which is how do. How does something becoming a choice, particularly around the body, change everyone else's experience, even if they don't make that choice? So if you, if. If we've kind of already seen this a little bit with down syndrome in that in some countries, screening for down syndrome amongst embryos is near universal.

[A]

And Iceland, I think.

[B]

I think Iceland is in there, Denmark is in there, and nearly all of those pregnancies are terminated or never Implanted. And that has changed the perception of a downs birth from this is something that happens and it's part of our social solidarity to support this child growing up to. You chose to have this kid because you could have avoided it. And those are in countries that have really strong sort of traditions, cultural, legal, social, financial of social solidarity. They have public medicine systems in America. We already have such a fractured sense of solidarity with each other around our bodies. And how will. How might that. What's going to happen when that system, when everyone's responsible for themselves and no one's responsible to each other is further pressured by. And now if you have a kid who's sick or you have a kid who has a condition, we perceive it as. You chose that because you could have prevented it by doing embryo selection. So how. How does this new technology which makes something that for all of human history has been an. Something a chance event, turning it into a choice, how does that change all of our relationships with reproduction? I don't think we know the answer to that question. But that's just. That's what I'm thinking about right now.

[A]

That's interesting. Net net. If you had the choice between a parent having to have a kid that's sick so that other kids that are also sick don't feel uncomfortable or strange

[B]

because

[A]

no one is using this new technology or them stepping in. Because the most compelling thing, weirdly enough, I've been thinking about this a lot. The most compelling thing that I've seen is I didn't realize when you do ivf, the doctor already comes over and eyeballs the embryos.

[B]

Oh, yes. They're already choosing. Yes. I mean, I think.

[A]

Which you would want to do. Like you would want to do that. You wouldn't say, hey, we're gonna use ivf. Maybe one of us is a little bit older. Maybe it's gonna be a geriatric pregnancy. Maybe we've had some fertility complications. Maybe. Yeah, fertility. We've been struggling to just get it to take. So we're gonna get a big harvest, do the embryo thing and then implant. The doctor is already looking through the

[B]

microscope and they're already selecting usually for aneuploidies or things like that.

[A]

Correct. And so they're already.

[B]

And they're like, is this one blob, Is this blobby one symmetrical?

[A]

Is this the most circular one? I think that. I think number three is the most circular one. So as soon as you accept that that is the way the IVF is done at the moment, having a dashboard that Explains it to me. Makes very little difference.

[B]

I think the bigger jump is medically unnecessary. Ivf. Like if someone's getting IVF and then they already are having to decide and then you're like, I'm getting more information. Like, I. I can't implant all of them. I gotta pick one. It's. That feels like less of a frontier. And this is. I mean, I don't know if that's right. Like, this is just like, it feels more different, but I don't.

[A]

Was this coming from, from an ethical perspective, do you think? For you?

[B]

I don't know if it's an ethical perspective. It feels like a bigger technological leap and a bigger social leap in our understanding of what reproduction is.

[A]

What you end up with there is if somebody has got some fertility complications, some conception issues, they are ethically more justified in having kids that they can select against negative traits and poor four positive traits than somebody. It's the same. One of my friends was telling me that if he uses full self driving on his Tesla and he texts, the self driving thing turns off because it can see where your eyes are. It's got driver facing cameras that look at them. So interestingly, the safest way for him to text while he's in his Tesla is to drive it himself while he's texting.

[B]

Yeah. It's like a weird incentive structure, correct?

[A]

It seems like a weird incentive structure here.

[B]

Yeah. I wouldn't even say like, again, I would not. I would not feel comfortable saying that someone who had done elective IVF and used embryo selection was behaving unethically because I'm very wary of imposing my own.

[A]

But why does it give you the heebie jeebies? What does it do to you? Given that I read, just to add one element here, I read an article from Ethan Strauss. It is house of Strauss. Fucking awesome. Substank SPORTS REPORTER but every time he writes something, I don't know much about basketball and March Madness and shit, but every time he writes something not about sport, it's one of the best things I've ever read. He wrote this one, it's called My Boy and his son has got autism. And I think he describes it as not the send rockets to space autism, but the flap your arms and make noise autism. And he describes sort of really sort of dour detail what happens when his son goes to a party and he sees other parents begin to react to his son's behavior and he almost wants to go over and give a disclaimer to everybody in the room.

[B]

I want to explain to you what's happening.

[A]

Yeah. I just need you to know. Have they noticed? When are they going to notice? Are they going to say something to me, to him? Is he ever going to be able to look after us in old age, or are we always going to have to look after our own child? And he loves his son. Pretty sure he says, I love my son, but it would be better if I could have him not as this. And I understand there's a personhood problem here, right. That you don't get to have him without that. The only him is the him with that. But anybody that is pro choice, I think, has to be pro ivf, because the only downside that you have from the IVF is the castaway embryos that don't end up getting implanted, which, if

[B]

you're not thinking of them, it's probably people.

[A]

Correct? Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, I think the technology. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. New technology makes us have to grapple with tensions between our values that maybe we wouldn't have had to grapple with without the technology. Kind of putting a fine point on it. As a mother, like, you asked me, like, why does it give me the heebie jeebies? Does it give me the heebie jeebies? It makes me uncomfortable for reasons I can't fully articulate.

[A]

That's the heebie jeebies.

[B]

I think part of it is, on the one hand, as a mom, I can think about ways in which my children suffer because of the genetic hand they were dealt. And wouldn't I love to take away that suffering and. And make the world safer for them, make motherhood safer for me? Reduce suffering. Right.

[A]

Like increased flourishing.

[B]

I mean, the value of your kid not hurting is.

[A]

Or not hurting other people or not.

[B]

It's so, so, so high. And at the same time, I think motherhood does. At least it has for me, involves being in a relationship with a person and meeting with them, who they are and them not being a. Them not being a project for me to perfect them not being a vehicle or a vessel for my hopes and my dreams and my aspirations. But I'm confronted with another person, and my job is to love them as they are.

[A]

Would it not be easier then to try and make that person as fit for the world as possible, and then that allows you to take your hands off the wheel even more?

[B]

Fit for the world. I mean, fit for the world is tough in part because we don't really know, especially when we're moving away from Monogenic diseases where it's like, okay, we have this, there's this, there's this genotype and we, it causes this disease. It's going to happen 100% of the time as soon as we move from that to these more polygenic anything I study polygenic behavioral autism. Some of the genes associated with autism are also associated with going further in school, being more likely to graduate from college.

[A]

Well, IQ is negatively correlated with happiness.

[B]

Um, some of the same genes that are associated with going further in school or being an artist are associated with schizophrenia, as we've talked about before and we've talked about risk taking. One of the thought experiments I talk about in my book is again, thought experiment audience. I'm not suggesting this thought experiment is what if some embryo selection dictator came to power and said, as of this year, 2026, every couple that wants to reproduce has to use IVF, has to do embryo screening, and has to select the kids that have the lowest antisocial, offending, risk taking genes. We are going to like, stop murders in this country because we're going to like breed the sin genes out of people. And you did that for several generations. And so at every generation you selected only the least risk taking, most inhibited, least antisocial. Is that a world you want to live in? Like, is that you've selected people who are most likely to go along and get along and do well in school and be great at having a boss and like, be really good at working a desk job and like, are very, very self controlled, perhaps to the point of too self controlled. But like, do you, when you think about your family and your friends and the cities that you've chosen to live in, do you want to live in a place that's populated only by the most puritanical and inhibited among us? Like, probably not. I wouldn't.

[A]

You get the. You get to sort of a God's eye coordination problem here though, right? That you parents, what we really need is to keep some of this high externalizing behavior in the gene pool. So we would like you to pay the price so that we can continue to have this grist for the mill that can spread randomly between.

[B]

I mean, I think they're, I think you're picking up on like a really fundamental, like, you're exactly right, which is that we put something so much pressure on individual parents to be entirely responsible for the care of their children to, to mitigate any bad outcomes. And we live in a society in which society is better off when we have variety, when we have Genetic diversity, like, there is no evolution without mutation. There is no. The sociologist Emile Durkheim had this passage, that crime is necessary to every society because unless you have people who are willing to do things differently, a society will never evolve. And.

[A]

But you are asking parents to pay a high price if they are the ones that have to deal with the child that pays.

[B]

And that's why I think there isn't. This is why I feel like the. The dictating reproductive policy from the top down. Like, if someone says, no, I'm Catholic, I don't. I believe that those IVF created embryos are people. I want to have children. I want to have six children. And I'm going to use natural planning. Planning, like, go for it. You know, I really think that diversity in a society is maintained by having diversity. But I mean, this is kind of a classical liberal idea. Like, what is your conception of the good? Like, go pursue it. What is your risk tolerance for parenting? And it's also interesting because, you know, I gave birth to all three of my kids in Austin. Forget polygenic screening of embryos. Even genetic testing for downs was introduced by my obstetrician as if she were like, slowly tiptoeing over a landmine. I'm not saying you have to do this, and I'm not saying you should do this.

[A]

You're talking to a geneticist. Don't worry. You should have just talking to a geneticist.

[B]

I'm not saying that you would have to. I'm not suggesting you would want to terminate the pregnancy if it was. But we do have this option available to you. So it's a funny thing that this conversation about embryo selection and its ethics is happening at the same time where we have a climate where if you, if you wanted to get an abortion in this state, you would have to leave this state. Right. Like, it's. There's very different things happening in terms of our. Our reproductive autonomy.

[A]

What do you think about embryo selection as a counter to the crumbling genome tubies thing?

[B]

I don't know about this.

[A]

Okay. So ancestrally, there are selection pressures that mean people who have got genetic mutations that are suboptimal would have been selected out. Myopia is a good one, Right? Both you and me, you chose to go glasses, I chose to go lasik. We have to assume that if you roll the dice sufficient times, both of us would be more dead than somebody who had perfect eyesight.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And when we are able to alleviate those selection pressures by glasses and lasik, it means that we are able to pass on our suboptimal. So because the selection pressures have been relieved largely through healthcare and support and modern medicine, stuff like that, you do end up with a civilization that accumulates genetic mutations that are non optimal at a greater rate than would have done previously. Because again this lid has been released and the argument is this is too. B's argument, you have a crumbling genome that it moves toward increasing accumulation of genetic mutations, ones that we would not want, but we're able to continue to support and buttress this with technological progress. And the argument is that embryo selection is able to step in and reverse some of this entropy.

[B]

I mean I, I think this idea that what humans are doing with post industrial health care in terms of buffering the negative effects of genes is somehow novel to humanity or novel to evolution. I don't really buy that. Like if you look at other species, you see multiple examples in which their ability to build niches for themselves reduces selection pressure on some genes and increases selection pressure on other genes which are involved in niche making.

[A]

But we would, in at least as far as I can see it with humans there would be no increased selection pressure. It would just be we will continue to compensate over and over again.

[B]

I think this idea that there's no selection, there's always a selection, there's fewer selection pressures. I think there's fewer selection pressures around the things that were historically associated with mortality and now we have new ones. It's a very, it's a very common idea that you see recur, you know, essentially since Galton, this idea that like you know, some, something about modernity is making us soft and that's going to corrode or degrade our genome. This was Pearson's argument against universal public education for kids. We can't be educating all of the children because then you know, they'll be able to like support themselves and reproduce and then we won't be, we won't be winnowing out the feeble mindedness genesis. And that sounds kind of awful and shocking to us in retrospect but it made perfect sense to them, you know, with their logic at the time.

[A]

There's a different kind of lock in from educating or not educating someone versus allowing a much harder inheritance of genetic mutation to keep on moving down. So anyway, I think it's interesting and that to be thing that's about as spicy of a theory basically that we should either use embryo selection to step in or we should limit healthcare in an attempt. And this isn't his proposal at all. But that's like really on the fucking cusp. That's why I wait two and a half hours to bring up crumbling genome. But it's a fascinating thought experiment, right? Like what are we accumulating and are there some things that we could. What is it? The increase in peanuts allergies that we've had and that's behavioral. The increase in asthma because households that use dishwashers and have like a 75% increase likelihood of asthma because not being exposed to. Okay, so we continue to move. It's kind of like snowplow parenting, but

[B]

for not helicopter snowplow parenting. I like that.

[A]

Exactly. It's snowplowing out of the way, but it's snowplow civilization.

[B]

I mean I, I guess the other reason why I'm just not like that concerned about the crumbliness of our genome. When you say that I imagine this like kind of overcooked chocolate chip cookie, like our genome is like falling apart at the edge.

[A]

I think about a wall is.

[B]

Evolution takes place in vast time. Like evolution is, is a slow process that has proceeded over eons and any attempt to like take what's happening in the last 25 years and extrapolate too far in either direction, I'm just not all that convinced by it. Also, I just think this idea that like in some ways the idea that there's like a good direction for evolution or a bad direction, like, I don't think evolution is teething.

[A]

Well, if you were to say, surely you would say a less robust or a more robust immune system. That seems pretty universally good, right? If you had somebody that was more able to withstand pathogens and microbes and insults to their health, somebody who has better respiratory, better eyesight, better hearing. These things seem realistic like, but again, with glasses and hearing aids and antibiotics, we were able to come in and buttress.

[B]

So I think that being able to hear is a good thing. I also know that there's plenty of people in the deaf capital D deaf community who would willingly select a non hearing child, a child that can't hear, if they could, to carry on the community.

[A]

I've seen the personhood of the deaf community, the denial of the personhood of the deaf community.

[B]

I think as a psychologist and a geneticist, I think of what's good or bad in an evolutionary sense is always being relative to an environment. Like white fur is good when it's snowy a lot and it starts to be bad as soon as it's not snowy a lot. If you're, if you're a rabbit and not, not really good or bad in some sort of like absolute sense. So I can see the argument that's like given that humans will always have some new novel pathogens because bacteria and viruses evolve a lot faster than we do. Like having an immune system that can keep up with that is going to be good for most of the environments that humans will likely face in our evolutionary future. But there's still a background of like what the environment is there and not kind of like a genetically good. In like an absolute sense, I guess is the thing that I'm responding to

[A]

one of the things that you said before about more and less appropriate behaviors, especially given sort of the modern world and the domestication, domestication, the pupification, do you think it means, or could there be an argument made that the current push by the mainstream to sort of dissuade men from aggression and dominance and impulsivity is more unfair genetically. Oh, that's interesting. If men are on average less domesticated and appropriate for a gentle modern world and our behavior needs to be curtailed more than women's does, is that unfair?

[B]

Gosh, Is unfair the word that I use to that so to. Absolutely.

[A]

Well, we're being asked to modify our behavior in a manner that women aren't simply because of what modern society.

[B]

Well, I mean, this has been Richard Reeves argument. I don't know if you're familiar. He wrote a book. Oh really? So you know, like if we're not going to change schools, then we should redshirt all the boys and give them an extra year is the only. Because asking a five year old boy to do developmentally the exact same thing as a five year old girl isn't unfair in his comparison.

[A]

You've spent a lot of time talking about dominance and aggression.

[B]

I want to go up a level to think if I can articulate this in terms of sort of more general principles and then go back to your specific question. So in questions like this, when we think about fair or unfair, just or unjust, I'm still very heavily influenced by Rawls, political philosopher John Rawls and his thought experiment, which is if you didn't know what hand you were going to be dealt in the natural lottery and in the, in the social lottery, what rules would you want for society? And that's an interesting question to think like, if I didn't know whether or not I was going to be a man or a woman, would I set school up the way that school is set up now? And I can't. I actually wish that I could like inhabit the mind of a man For a day, just to see, like, is it really different? Is it very similar? I'd be fascinated with that. I can't do that. But I have a son. I have a child. And so I can get to. Given what I know about sex differences in brain development, in rates of adhd, in rates of conduct disorder, how would I design, how would I design an educational system such that my sons and my daughters would have an equal opportunity to thrive in them? And it sure as heck wouldn't be what we do now. I mean, my son's in middle school and I am. I think it's culturally insane what we do. Like, there is no culture on earth before industrial capitalism that was like, do you know what we should do with our 12 and 13 year old pubertal boys? We should put them inside all day, ask them to sit still with each other. And no older boys and no younger kids and no responsibilities. And we should put a 25 year old woman in charge of them. Like.

[A]

And we should get them to learn stuff that they won't be able to remember a decade later.

[B]

Like I. Whereas he does these once a month, like go play in the woods for the whole day. And there's no screens and there's a bunch of young men and it's like we're gonna build a fire and we're gonna carve things out of wood and we're gonna like catch turtles and we're going to fish and we're going to hide in the brushes and while we're there we're going to talk about math and we're going to talk about the stars and you can read stuff to prepare for your Earth native day.

[A]

Well, okay, maybe, maybe, maybe I put it in a different way to unfair.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Should the additional level of discipline that males, specifically men.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Required.

[B]

Oh, so that we have lower standards for them.

[A]

No, no, the opposite. Yeah, the opposite. The emotional containment that men are forced to do in order to adhere to a much more domesticated modern world takes more effort than it does for women. It just straight up takes more effort because we are being asked to be further away from our set point. Right. Our predisposition pushes us in a direction that modern society has said that we're not allowed to go in on average, more so for there will be more

[B]

people who find it harder to do

[A]

that that are men in a way

[B]

that are, that is considered that are men.

[A]

Yes. There has been what you could say, a feminization of society, at least in as much as traits that were more typically on the feminine Side of the conscientiousness, orderliness, et cetera, et cetera. Lower risk taking, lower aggression, lower dominance, those things are being selected for. That means that men need to pay an additional price. It's more effortful for men to behave. And given that, is that something that should be recognized? Is that a kind of price? We often talk about the double shift that women do where women have worked during the day and then they come back home. But nobody ever talks about the additional emotional containment that men have to do, especially given their nature.

[B]

I mean, so I. Oh gosh, I've never thought about this before. So all of everything I'm about to say is I don't have high confidence that I'm right in anything I'm about to say. That's just as a, as a preface,

[A]

I should do that before every episode.

[B]

I mean, part of what's difficult for me to think through that is that the distributions differ, but they're highly overlapping. Like most men are in the range of normal women and most women are in the range of normal men. When it comes to conscientiousness or agreeableness or risk taking, like the, the sex difference or the gender difference, depending on how you conceptualize it in these traits, is going to be the most evident at the extreme.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So, you know, we're, we and we

[A]

do see, but this works all the way, right? Like if you start to squeeze the bracket and squeeze the window of what

[B]

is acceptable outside of the tails, men are within the female range and women are in the.

[A]

On average, you're gonna have. It's gonna be a. It's gonna be.

[B]

Yeah, but the, I mean, the distributions are very overlapping.

[A]

When you run it across multiple different traits, though, when you're talking aggression and externalizing behavior and impulsivity and risk taking and dominance, like when you roll all of those together and this isn't just a. It's someone isn't just aggressive or aggressive and risk taking all of these things together. And when you start to lollapalooza this, there's almost no woman would be as risk taking, aggressive dominant person, as outlying as the outlier. No. Even if you were to. Because on average you have like these massive overlapping distributions, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But as soon as you go, it's this trait and this trait and this trait and this trait.

[B]

But I don't think that's true because all those things are all correlated with each other. So I think even if surely it

[A]

would start to push those ills out further.

[B]

I mean, we could run a simulation to do this. But I think if you were envisioning like let's say just three, three traits, some sort of three dimensional terrain surface, I think that what the things that you're talking about are quite correlated enough such that men and women are more similar than is commonly assumed. So I do think that there, there's. We definitely clearly see sex, sex differences at the extremes at the outlying one. But in terms of like is your ordinary experience.

[A]

But that's.

[B]

Sorry that different than a, a woman in the 60th percentile.

[A]

Like a question would be we can only see the behavior of people who manifest it. And to say, well this is where the tails are. How many men should be out on the tails but are wrangling, they're white

[B]

knuckling their way through life, they're white

[A]

knuckling their way through domestication and they're thinking, look, modern society says that I can't behave in that way. I'd really better not. That's a price that men have to pay that women don't.

[B]

I mean I think there's a price to, I think I'm being hung up on the price to pay like effort. I think that there's effort, a denial

[A]

of, a denial of their nature, a type of containment. All I'm saying is in a modern world that basically seems to continue to say unless you're addicted to drugs, in jail or homeless, you are still from a kind of privileged background and there is ways that you as a man aren't even seeing some of the additional costs that women pay, the double shift, the domestic stuff. And I think some interesting data around that. But I think that that is a, the unseen cost, right? Like that would be the unseen cost of being a woman, of being a mother, of the things that you need to get over. I'm just seeing if there's any leeway for sort of guys to have their

[B]

own equivalent, their own equivalent like source of grievance or like sense of things that are unfair. I mean whether or not they should, they clearly do. Like again, I'm not a man, I'm not going to speak for men. Obviously. You know, the men that I interact with are my husband. And honestly the, the, the, the modal man that I interact with these days is a, is an 18 year old college student who's in my class.

[A]

So sorry to hear that.

[B]

And you know, who are really just trying to figure out like what is this life thing about? Like what is this adult thing about? You know, there's whether or not people should feel like society is unfair or society stacked against them. I don't think any data point, even if I had them, that I could come up with to be like, you shouldn't feel like life is unfair because here's why I think that data is really bad at counteracting these kinds of like, vibes of feeling like the headwinds of culture are against you. And everything that I read and all the data I've seen is that men, and young men in particular, feel like they really struggle to articulate what is my role in society, Am I valued in society. I, I, there used to be a lane for me and now I don't know what that lane is anymore. And you could think about like, no, you shouldn't feel that way because like the distributions are overlapping or like, yes, you should feel this way because, but like neither one of those really get at the question about, like, well, what do you do about it? Like, well also like, this is your personal experience. But I mean I find the gap between young men and young women in terms of their perception of society, of politics, of hope for the future, of whether or not they trust each other to be really sad and alarming. And I think anytime you start seeing society in terms of like a zero sum game, like if women are gaining, I'm losing because I'm being asked to do something that's more against my nature. Or if men's problems are given any airtime, that is unfair because actually like

[A]

women are away from a more deserving growth.

[B]

Yes, like this. I mean, I think it goes back to what I was talking about earlier with like the Norwegian crime, which is that like when we begin from the perspective of each one of us has value as a human and we are all, we, we are all in the same boat now. Like we're all in this society together. So how are we going to make it work for everyone? That feels like a much more productive way forward than trying to adjudicate. Like, which should people think it's unfair or not? Like if they do, you're gonna have to start with that, like as a

[A]

starting point, what do you think of the looksmaxing movement?

[B]

As a geneticist, I mean, I know very little about this at the end of the day. Like I'm a middle aged college professor, so I am like somewhat buffered from online world. From what I read, it does seem to me to be very ironic because it seems that some of the interventions are making people infertile. Like I'm going to, I'm going to look smacks and take A bunch of testosterone and ruin my ability to like procreate feels really deeply ironic.

[A]

Like genetic seppuku.

[B]

Yes, exactly. And also my friend Paul Eastwick, who I think you talked to.

[A]

I did a couple of weeks ago.

[B]

Paul is an old friend. I've been talking about research with him for 15 years. And when I first met him I was like, what do you mean you don't believe in mate value? Like, I don't believe you that that doesn't exist. And now I'm like, oh, mate value exists among strangers and acquaintances and then it declines as people get to know each other. That actually makes total sense to me. But I am very convinced by his, his argument that the core task of evolution was how do we survive and raise the next generation. And so our biggest boon towards that was the ability to form pair bonds and attach to each other, not to out compete strangers for some like signals vaguely related to genetic fitness.

[A]

So what do you think? It says that that's what's being optimized for now by young men.

[B]

Oh, what do you, I mean you're, you, you are younger and a man. So what do you like? What do you think? I actually don't. It feels very nihilistic. It feels like if we were, if we were looking at this in another species and we were like, there's a subset of the young mammals who aren't dating, aren't interested in romance, aren't interested in reproducing, but are interested in extreme body modification to give the signals that

[A]

typically would be attractive by the other sex, but not in order to get the other sex.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So the lux maxing community I think is pretty broad. And in that will be a subset of guys who are doing it in order to get sexual access to women. They want to get laid, they want to get laid. So they're going to be tall or they want to go to the gym to get track. I did, I did lug smacking, right? It was called going to the gym.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So a couple of interesting things. This is def, this is kind of an inevitable end point or one of the points along the journey of understanding behavioral genetics, understanding some mate preferences from women, at least aesthetically for men. Because when you combine those two things together, there are certain things that are going to be more difficult for you to change without doing something that's extreme. And if you are growing up inside of a culture that is making it increasingly difficult for guys to be, to get in front of women in a way that seems warm and welcomed, if you're in A post me too world where approaching women in public is something that many young men have been told that they shouldn't do, that you have a little bit of a tall girl problem. Socioeconomic success amongst women means that they're rising up through their own competence hierarchy. So there's ever fewer men that are above and across from them. So if they want to date, typically on average a woman wants to date a man as educated or more than her and as wealthy or more than she is and as tall or more than she is, you end up with an ever increasing group of high performing women and an ever decreasing group of ultra high performing men. If you do that and you keep on pushing, I think what you're actually seeing is guys competing with other guys as a way to find some end goal. You'll even hear it in the way that they speak like clavicula, who's kind of the number one of this. He'll say I don't care about getting girls, I just want a mog. And what he means is I want to out alpha other guys. And what he's talking about with that like mogging is not just good looks, it's formidability. And I'm sure that you've seen a lot of the stuff around male formidability is as good if not a better predictor of sexual success than Lux art. So it's a really funny. I don't think that this is what's meant to happen. They've ended up at what the outcome should be in any case, which is formidability is better. A better predictor of male sexual success than attractiveness tends to be by pushing for formidability. That's coded in a very man way. It's all about brow ridge, heavy cheeks, like strong jawline.

[B]

I just, I being tall, like maybe this is just me being extremely out of touch, but I'm a woman. I've been married twice, I've dated other people. I've been in relationships, I have, you know, I'm a heterosexual woman who has been involved in heterosexual relationships since I was 15, so nearly 30 years now. And every time I read this description of what women or especially like educated or high income or like, you know, women who have some social status want what they're looking for in a partner, how they pick partners, who they choose to have sex with, I it always surprises me because it bears so little relationship to how I have ended up in sexually satisfying, romantically satisfying relationships. And I think with, particularly with the education thing, I've long thought, you know, I've. I'm. My first husband I met during graduate school, so he has the exact same education as me. My second husband has, I guess, on paper, less education than me, made less money than me when we first met. So I'm in one of those relationships that people suggest shouldn't happen, which is like, people marrying, like, across or down as a woman socioeconomically.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I'm like, but my husband is extremely competent. Like, he can.

[A]

But you know what? Competence is a predictor for future socioeconomic success. That is how that would get netted down.

[B]

I guess so.

[A]

But it's the same thing. I always.

[B]

But I think the sense of, like, you want what you. You know, the competence is a signal for, like, socioeconomic status. I actually think it's the reverse. Like, if I reflect on what I want, I'm like, I want a man who knows how to contribute to the family and contribute to the society. And, like, one of those ways could be money. But actually I want someone who, like, again, it's competence. It's contribution.

[A]

And what you're using is education level and employment level are rough hewn aggregates that may. May indicate the level of competence of this person.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I don't disagree. But that's also the same as saying, well, my most recent graduate student, he didn't even go to a very good university, but he was great.

[B]

No, I mean, I'. Obviously, I'm a one person. Like, this is, you know, the end of.

[A]

I know that you're right, but the end of one thing's true. I think if you were to look, on average, assortative mating's real. But that's my. I don't think the guys are even concerned about that. They're not worried about. They're not education maxing. They're Lux maxing. Right. They're not career maxing.

[B]

They're not confidence maxing.

[A]

Well, that would also be something. But I think if you go learn

[B]

how to, like, chop down a tree and diaper baby and hike up a mountain and. And ride a horse. Competence. Max. Instead of looks max. And then, like, I feel like that might get you more places.

[A]

Well, the currency that every man is playing with at the moment is what can be portrayed online. And I can't show you how good I. My good.

[B]

I mean, I think that's the.

[A]

I can show you how much of a chad I am, but not how much of a dad I am.

[B]

Yeah. The part that makes me so, again, like, so much of this is reflected back to me in my role As a college professor and I. I was teaching a class and I was, I made some. We were talking about de individuation. Like when you're in a dark room or you're in a costume, you feel less individually responsible. And I said offhand, I was like, that's why none of the best parties are gonna have bright fluorescent lighting. Like, you're always gonna have dim light at a good party. And my students, I teach online, I teach on a soundstage. And my students have this like, ask your professor a question button. And it lit up with students being like, bold of you to think that we've ever been to a party or. I heard that there would be parties in college and I've never been to one. And my co instructor and I looked at each other and we were like, should we make a homework assignment which is gonna run a potty party, like turn the lights down and put some music on and like maybe make some jello shots and like have people over. And it was so. It was. There are these moments where you, you know, every year I go and every year I'm a year older. And then there are these moments where the students ask something and you're like, oh, wow, the culture has shifted. And I shifted in a way that as an older person, I have not been privy to and how much of this is. They're just not hanging out in person as much anymore. Like. Like our. If college students are writing me and being like, I've never been to a party and all of their socialization is happening, mediated two dimensionally through a screen. You're right. Then the only competence that seems to matter is present presentation. The presentation of it.

[A]

How do you look?

[B]

And. But that's, that's not. That doesn't go. Going back to Paul's work. That doesn't help you sustain an attachment. That doesn't help you raise a baby. Like, that's not really what I think.

[A]

Think about how antinatalist most of the sort of modern culture is at the moment anyway.

[B]

Oh, American culture hates kids.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I got in trouble for this recently. Paige, you're great. I really.

[B]

This was so fun and so varying and all over the place.

[A]

We did it. Where should people go? Let's bring this one home. Tell them where to buy your things and follow your things.

[B]

All right, so my new book comes out on March 3rd in the United States and in April in the UK and it's called Original Sin, the Genetics of the Problem of Blame and the Future of Forgiveness. And if you were at all interested in genetics, addiction, antisocial behavior, how to forgive yourself or someone else for the way they've hurt you or just the free will problem. Or there's a very personal prologue to that about having a body. So if you're interested in any of those things, you should check out my book.

[A]

Heck yeah. Paige, I appreciate you Lifelock.

[B]

How can I help?

[A]

The IRS said I filed my return but I haven't. One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud. What do I do?

[B]

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

[A]

Lifelock fixes identity theft guarantee and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[B]

I'm so relieved. No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

[A]

One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year.

[B]

Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.