MAIN IDEA:

The main idea of this book is to demonstrate that success in life, or lack thereof, is highly dependent on an individual’s DNA and family wealth. To evaluate the impact of DNA, the author relies on the polygenic index for traits positively correlated with high levels of education. Here is the graphic representation:

The book’s first part is quite scientific, and the author clearly states what she was expecting to achieve:” By this point in the book, I hope I have convinced you of three things. One, genetic research has developed an array of methods, using family members, measured DNA, and combinations of both, that estimate the effects of genes on complicated human outcomes. Second, the overwhelming consensus of that research is that genetic differences between people matter for who succeeds in formal education, which structures many other forms of inequality. Third, while the biology of these genetics is still largely a mystery, progress is being made on understanding the psychological and social mediators of genetic effects on educational success.”

The book’s second part discusses the social environment, especially equity vs equality, and makes an interesting proposition that increases in resource availability actually increase the difference in outcomes:

MY TAKE ON IT:

It is a very interesting book. I enjoy watching how the author turns herself into a pretzel trying to reconcile somehow the knowledge she obtained as a scientist with leftist dogmas that she was brainwashed into via higher quasi-education and the liberal environment she lives in. There are many funny examples, such as diatribes against Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s work, that demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of this work. The same applies to the author’s hate of eugenics and a few other similar things.

However, I fully agree with the author’s conclusions and overall direction of this book. It is just ridiculous to divide the environment into nature vs. nurture. It is all combined into one indivisible system with a multitude of positive and negative feedback loops that make it all but impossible to isolate them from each other.   

As to eugenics, it is just the application of scientific methods developed in agriculture to human beings. The problem is not that it is scientifically wrong. Since humans are biological objects, one can produce tall blond people using the same methods as were successfully used to create more productive milk cows. The attitude of eugenics is wrong because humans are not cows; they exist for their own sake, not to satisfy some collectivistic ideologues of Nazism or Communism. Therefore, a decent society should provide people with resources sufficient to pursue happiness, protect them from individuals whose perceived happiness demands the misery of others, and leave it at that.