Is It Nature Instead of Nurture That Makes You, You? - with Robert Plomin
Psychologist Robert Plomin argues that our genes are the single most powerful influence on the type of person we are.
Robert’s book "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are" is available to buy now: geni.us/rpjwKn
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: What Makes You, Y...
Humans have long been wondering how much we are defined by nature vs nurture. Were your school achievements predictable at birth, and would you be the same person today if you’d been raised by another family?
In this talk Robert Plomin explores how the DNA revolution is transforming psychology, society and the way we understand ourselves, in conversation with Adam Rutherford.
Robert Plomin is a leading researcher in behavioural genetics and psychologist who works at King’s College, London. He has published more than 800 papers and is the author of the best-selling textbook in the field.
This talk was filmed in the Ri on 29 October 2018.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Alan Latteri, Andrew Downing, Andrew McGhee, Anonymous, Dave Ostler, David Crowner, David Lindo, David Schick, Greg Nagel, Jan Bannister, Joe Godenzi, John C. Vesey, Kellas Lowery, L S, Lasse T. Stendan, Matt Townsend, Osian Gwyn Williams, Paul Brown, Rebecca Pan, Robert Hillier, Robert Reinecke, and Roger Baker.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinsti. .
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
Product links on this page are affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.
My son's friend at high school came from a very deprived background. His mother was a single parent who was barely literate and unemployed. He gained a first in Mathematics from Cambridge. It turned out his father was a post-doctoral particle physicist from a one night stand.
Beware anecdotal reasoning. (Rely on statistics.) The boy's mother may have placed a high value on learning... that would also explain why she chose to have a one night stand with someone educated.
People like to compensate against the failings of their peers (parents). I'd be motivated to succeed if people were breathing down my neck notions I was doomed to fail just like my mother. However, had I not learned what success looked like, I wouldn't be motivated to obtain it. Your son's friend likely had successful peers in school, perhaps your son was an influence on him? Anecdote nonetheless.
Please post the question and answer session as well!
There's a link in the description 🙂
He's(Plomin) absolutely right, he's very calm in the way he talks, very easy to listen to.
I have watched/read a lot of Adam‘s work and actually find him a good science communicator. Therefor, this interview was a let down. It seemed he was constantly comparing himself with the host, which I thought talked very well about a tough subject. I also agree that scientists should present data and not policy.
Scientists have a duty to raise ethical questions about their research, and not just present data. But they have a financial incentive (and a curiosity incentive) not to raise questions until it's too late.
It might be his ego.
This video was cut off before the end. It would be great if the rest of it were uploaded, too.
I would say it is rather irresponsible and manipulative not to do so.
It's called censorship
Maybe a coverup of remarks that were regretted. For example, perhaps there was a disagreement between host and interviewee over the interviewee's lack of concern over possible uses of his research and his attempt to disclaim all responsibility.
There's a second half in the description 🙂
This interviewer is so disjointed... stop interrupting Plomin just as he's wrapping up a well articulated thought then changing direction. Try to achieve some flow instead of just chirping in with your opinion or clarifying something the audience doesn't need clarifying.
I needed clarification on a lot of that stuff.
@@john_hunter_ I think he has more against who Adam is than what he did.
@@john_hunter_ this is BG 101
@@hhhhhhhh6008 less than 10% of people have ever visited such a class (prob way less). do you want to exclude them?
Its not the interviewers fault that Plomin is so bad at public speaking
I don't know who either of these men are, but the dynamic between them is quite odd. The speaker (Robert Plomin) seems to be entirely motivated by intellectual inquisitiveness and just wants to talk about his work. The host (Adam Rutherford) seems to be under some stress and is motivated by a covert agenda. The way Adam keeps interjecting to reframe or minimize what Robert is saying it rather annoying.
You are picking up on the deep ideological and political currents around the nature vs nurture debate, which was alluded to in the talk. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate if you are curious to learn more.
Agreed. It's pretty tedious to watch.
I totally agree, LikeATree. The interviewer seemed unfriendly, nervous and rude, almost like a petulant child. And, he is the junior in years here. The guest seem entirely reasonable and entirely non-political. The end result is that I came away liking Plomin, and disliking the host. Interesting subject, but terrible interview.
I disagree. The host's job is to interrupt when necessary... to explain jargon used by the interviewee, to connect the interviewee's narrow ideas to other questions and issues facing society, etc. There are important ethical questions regarding how DNA research may be used, including whether certain branches of scientific research should be fettered (like locking Pandora's Box before it's too late). There's a potential for new knowledge to be weaponized in catastrophic ways, so society should do a better job of monitoring and restricting research in fields like genetics and neuroscience.
Mediation between Plomin's neutral ideas and the potentially impressionable audience is necessary. Not that Plomin himself or his ideas are entirely dangerous, however they can be easily misconstrued by people who want simple answers to complex problems; eugenics. Remember, Plomin is the genetics expert, the audience members are not, he may not even realize the political/social impact of his corroborations. The interviewer was hasty at times, but he should've had discussed it with the guest beforehand.
I find it interesting that the video cut off as soon it started to get non PC...
A slightly older release to round up 2020. Psychologist Robert Plomin is in conversation with Adam Rutherford to discuss his controversial book "Blueprint" where he argues that it's nature rather than nurture that plays the predominant role in what makes you, you.
Silly Human animals you're the most studied biological animal on the planet you think your Elite Masters don't already absolutely know the answers to these questions ....and laugh at you while you entertain yourself fumbling around in the dark
Controversial? The only controversial thing here is the video ending at 38:07 😂 He makes such a good point as well!!
You fools paired the good doctor with an imbecilic interviewer, then cut him off. Post the whole interview, you cowards!
@@ShredCo why is he an imbecile?
@@Freja_Solstheim : Some fields of scientific research are potentially very dangerous. Researchers who aren't interested in ethical questions raised by their research should be defunded.
This is simply brilliant! : )
Too little time devoted to such an important subject.
Agreed! And too small a book!
Whoa I've long suspected that there had to be a link between genetics and phycological traits. But I've not looking into current science into the area. This book sounds essential to understanding just how much that is true.
But I've not looking into current science into the area
So interesting! 👏
Interesting perspectives
Not trying to be annoyingly pedantic here (deeply respect Dr. Plomin!) but at 25:20 Dr. Plomin says about "chance" that it is just something we don't know how to measure yet. This may be true but quantum mechanics appears random inherently (again maybe it isn't, but maybe it is). This normally isnt very important but since dna molecules are so small it may be that they, or some other biologically relevant molecule (atom?), are effected by quantum processes enough to render "chance" as he is using it an immutable part of biological development and through that life outcomes. Here I admit I love finding a reason to be needfully pedantic. It is one of life's great joy's :)
Woooo that ending statement!!! 👍 First class
Seconded!
Robert Plomin is good here, but the interviewer is underestimating the audience.
Good work
Plomin was involved in this debate decades ago when it concerned IQ. The definitve work on this is a book out of print : The Science and Politics of IQ by Leon J Kamin. But what he asks is a mistake that those in Medicine Biology and Psychology make which is they are asking the wrong question . The real solution is grounded in Stochastics which they clearly do not understand. While Kamin shows how investigators were guided by their politics instead of the data he came up with a 60% enviornment and 40% genetics. Again this is asking the wrong question when the complexity of the interaction grounded in time series data provides us with a first look at complex evolutionary processes and can lead to an ultimate understanding and control of Aging, Cancer and the behaviors that govern how we adapt to our enviornment.
"educational achievement is the business end of learning ability" Well, I'd say business success is the business end of learning ability.
The interplay of nature and nurture is more complex than most people make it out to be. Especially when you begin to take into account epigenetics. We just filmed a podcast about this the other day, interesting stuff.
No. Most ‘epigenetics’ nonsense is overstated or even fake news. The neuroscientist and geneticist Kevin Mitchell debunked it in his book “Innate.”
Biology is my major and I plan on studying cancer and what causes diseases in certain populations
I think pathogens is probably the most likely answer... from an evolutionary perspective.
Where's the audience q&a
Biologist here: I think a big problem that a lot of these behavioural studies have, is that scientists often take whatever metric society uses to evaluate success and what is normal, and assume that these metrics are a valid proxy for whatever they are looking at. Educational attainment correlates with success, but seeing as it is also required for success within our society, I would say that it is an absolutely horrendous proxy for biological phenotype. Moreover, many societies are structured in such a way that there will be plenty of genetic correlates for educational attainment (and other similar variables like IQ) that are more a reflection of geography or history. For example, the north of England is poorer than the south, there are definitely genetic correlations with regions within the UK - just ask the team at 23&me. Many of these variants are intergenic and likely functionally meaningless, yet I would be completely unsurprised if they correlate with education due to the economic structure of the country. The fact that genetics are a stronger predictor than ofsted is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless. I would argue that the Ofsted ratings philosophy is also flawed, by assuming that differences in school performance arise from the quality of administration and instruction, and not from the home environments of the students attending the schools. Plomin also conveniently ignores the biggest correlation for educational attainment in just about every society, which is parental income. I have no doubt that there are genetic factors that are strongly correlated with behaviour, and with traits that are helpful for individual success, but if we assume the "phenotypes" provided to us by a complex society are devoid of any biologically arbitrary biases, we don't have any hope of figuring out what's actually important. Larger sample sizes will tease out smaller effects and more predictive associations, but they'll never correct for flawed assumptions. It's telling that psychiatric diagnoses like bipolar, depression, and schizophrenia, often show weak or confusing GWAS results. In someways this is likely because these conditions are complex and multi factorial, but it could also be because these categories aren't useful as biological phenotypes. Running a GWAS for conditions defined by pseudo scientists like schizophrenia and bipolar might be as silly as running a GWAS on everybody in a wheel chair - many unrelated causes leading to the same result.
You have mastered the art of talking a lot while saying nothing.
@@dinsel9691 Huh, funny how "nothing" managed to trigger you.
Does educational attainment correlate with parental income in adoptive studies though? Because higher class parents would have those genes.
Aren't mutations still random? How often are they considered to happen within humans?
Different cells can mutate at different rates. Our immune system is known to mutate at an incredible rate. As far as I know, most mutation is not random.
@@fritsgerms3565 Excuse me, may you please explain me in your own words what is the immune system?
Adam Rutherford is rude...
@Robin Hack :D
He is very disagreeable.
05:25 long term systematic originates in our DNA
Please arrange for automatic foreign language translation.
Ancients say: "you have only the right to work not for its Fruits! You cannot not work as well. Nor can you own the cause of your work!!!" That's a tall & certainly impractical one! But, a lot of studies and these type of understanding is indirectly indicating a high level of Destiny but with flexibility choice to free (but cannot totally own the flexibility). So, it's like Author, don't be Owner!!! Interesting more is that Ancients knew! So DNA itself is Environment in a different configuration!!! There is that majority of 96 or 98 % which sounds like the aspirational Reality!!!
The interviewer needs to get over himself
I believe nurture cultivates aspects of personality made available to us by nature
It doesn't. Its the random events that people face in their. There is no "believing". Its just what experiments showed and what we can show.
@@subhuman3408 I think he was pointing out that some people might have a predisposition to doing well in 'nature' (or certain environments). I have a 2 children that are 7 and 9 (go to an elementary art show or any sporting event for that age group, and the clarity of 'who has it, and who doesn't' is astounding). I didn't really teach my son to hit a ball with a bat, or climb a tall tree, until he showed me how easily he could do it. I never showed my daughter how to draw a picture, or to be more aerobically inclined, but she can just do it. Now sure, I could teach each child to build on those abilities, but if I had to draw a reasonable conclusion, I'd lean heavily toward my wife and myself being predisposed (genetically) artistically and athletically.
I have both Blueprints- Plomin’s and Christakis’s. I think Christakis is closer to the truth, but Plomin is the superior author of the two. I would recommend reading Plomin’s first, just to get really smart about DNA and how it impacts people and society. Then read Christakis’s, who argues that the environment does have more of a systematic affect than Plomin argues here.
It doesn't matter who you like more. It's the data that is more important.
@@iseriver3982 - That's fine. You read both and see which one you think aligns best with the data.
Host should look for another job
Steven Pinker's Blank Slate had similar takeaways about 20 years ago.
'I've written this book now because the evidence wasn't so strong 30 years ago.' This is why his last comment is so important. We should follow the data, not the person. No hate on pinker though, I think he's alright.
interesting
Less easy to follow as each speaker wants to push a view, rather than the typical RI which is a monologue by one expert.
The lack of illustrations and reliance on spoken words is a problem too. "A picture is worth a thousand words."
xx:xx the helix of DNA can be seen as staircase. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is like taking out a step and putting another in that doesn't belong there (metaphor) 32:29: I like how he says that when something is not accepted in the community, it sets the bar very high to convince them of the latter. Imagine how this appears in COVID-19 research, regarding its nature, for example. You need a bomb paper to claim that it is not from animal origin... (perspective)
I'm diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia (among other things) and yet nobody in my biological family has any kind of diagnosed mental illness, my "mother" says that my youngest brother is Autistic but there's no diagnosis whatsoever, they never even looked into it at all, just decided one day that he was Autistic and slapped on the label, personally I don't see it in him at all, he's definitely a momma's boy but that's about it 🤣
Mental illness is usually predisposed by a variety of genes.. Perhaps, both sides of your family carry some of the genes each, but not enough to cause mental illness - then you got the unlucky combination of both sides?
Bruh eat lithium orotate, walnut, kiwi, avocados, salmon and zinc or copper rich food
Yes, IQ is inherited , this is like striking a lottery. Which is why smart men prefer to father kids with smart women. I know a family tree of doctors: father, two sons, father's cousin , 2 grandkids are doctors.
Darwinian Theory is true put it to the test. From plants to animals to humans.
Is lockdown is open in London??
No most probably
"This talk was filmed in the Ri on 29 October 2018."
Adam is supposed to be a meticulous scientist dealing with nutty gritty of DNA and miss quotes Robert: “The systematic, stable and long-lasting source of who we are is DNA.” At 05:21. There is no “only” in that sentence in the book. There reason could be his activism as his book “How to Argue With a Racist” starts with the sentence “This book is a weapon.” He is weaponising science. But if you ask him his sentence echoes Muslims’ use of Quran as a weapon and what he thinks about it, he cancels you from Twitter! Fascinating Adam!
What are you on about?
@Robin Hack 'if you were adopted, raised by a different family, had different friends, went to a different school, you'd be essential the same person' I have no idea why the pair of you are crying over a civil conversation we're all literally watching.
Although the word 'only' isn't explicitly in that sentence, the word 'The' is, and it implies 'only.'
2:51 ""we reject the nature VERSUS nurture [versus meaning fighting each other, against each other, we are made of 50%-50% each]... nature being DNA and nurture being, well, everything else...those two things are not in conflict they work in CONCERT [depend on each other?? not always for the best?] with each other(?).... environment makes a difference, but we don't KNOW what it is. It seems to be idiosyncratic, random, stochastic... then the DNA revolution came along and we can predict some important psychological TRAITS..."" 6:08 ""...evolution is a genetic process, but it makes us who we are as humans... we're talking about DNA DIFFERENCE that makes us different, our individuality [1%] ...DNA is the systematic source, environment is important but it doesn't seem to work systematically... so if you were adopted and raised in a different family you would be essentially the same person" 17:00 ""It's a matter of perspectives and perspectives aren't right or wrong, they're more or less useful... we do know how genes work at some level...but the hard thing is the biggest differences are so small, we're talking about 0.02% of DNA ... how much of the differences in the population can be explained by DNA differences, and that's 50% " 23:38 ""...we know for centuries that there's resemblance in families... parents and children resemble each other in body weight, ENVIRONMENTALISTS have no problem with that, sure parents give the food they give you the lifestyle... but it turns out nurture has nothing to do with it, the environment is important... but what runs in families is DNA, not these nurture effects, and and the adoption studies make that clear... It doesn't have NOTHING to do with it, that's an extreme? NO it isn't. NURTURE has nothing to do with the differences in bodyweight... you study kids that were adopted and raised with these adopted parents, so those parents also give those kids the food and lifestyle, there is ZERO resemblance between adopted children's weight and parents weight... the adopted kids' weight correlate as much with there biological parents weight [that did not give them food and environment]..."" 26:23 ""we don't need more studies showing heritability, we need to find the genes...that's where DNA revolution is gonna hit psychology, It's doing it now " So ALL traits ARE heritable... mmmmm. And we got 99% of DNA being the same for all humans, and that 50% difference in humans is explained by the 1% DNA difference [actually it is less than 1 percent], 50-50 means that there is a limit to how much the environment can do for you.
Evolution
hello sir pls help and sunrise dis pasaj
Give that guy some water. His lip sounds are inside my ears. Hard to listen the words.
I couldn't make it. Had to quit after 4-5 minutes, even though I'm fascinated by the subject. That noise is just too grating.
@@Meton2526 By the way, I'm trying to improve my speaking English skills. Is it possible to make practice with me?
@@bombabombanoktakom : Try a text-to-speech app, which will read aloud any text, including ebooks. That will help you learn how words are supposed to be pronounced.
Facts VS Feelings...
28:00 is a bombshell for all school policies. The whole thing would have been better without the political tiptoeing..
What political tip toeing?
@@iseriver3982 Around "race realism" and something I would, in short, describe as Social Calvinism.
@@Shroomz0815 where?
Change the interviewer please.
I believe that medicine has much to benefit from genetic studies, they need to be encouraged. But I’m much more than a collection of my genes. PCOS runs in my family and has caused most women affected to die young. But by golly I’m determined to prevent such fate! I keep it under control, and even tho it’s primary cause of infertility in women, I’m expecting my 2nd child! Boom! It Will be a lifetime struggle, but my PCOS prone genetics won’t cut short my lifespan! Not if I can work to prevent it!
I’m not picking a fight, but I wonder how you know “you much more than your genes”. Is that a belief or wish or something more substantive? I’m really curious to your answer.
I came with a pat on the back! I will win, because my will can not be contained in this world
Plomin's notion that we can now talk about genetics is bananas. Just bringing it up can get you cancelled.Plomin in a bubble. He certanly not in a school of ed, a humanities dept or even a social sciences dept.
Wait, what do you mean? I'm curious what context you are referring to?
@@adriennengo5527 Plomin always says you can bring up genetics in discussing differences between people in the academy. Like IQ and other behavioral traits. Fact is in the academy if you bring this up you will be called eugenicist and will be canceled. Try bringing up idea that IQ is largely genetic, it is nearly impossible to change, and that it IQ predicts life outcomes in a school of Ed, or sociology class or any social science class. There is nothing more contentious than genetics talk in colleges. Anyone who has been in grad school will tell you that.
@@killa3x Ah I see. Thanks for responding back so soon. I had no idea that people would shoot down conversations like this. I only have a small group of friends that actually want to talk about these things, and while the topic of eugenics does come up, we don't really react so strongly. 🤔
@killa3 Even if that is all true if you look up the most cited research and where the money and grants are it's all going to genetics instead of environmental studies. GWA studies and behavioral genetics is now a massive field that is well funded by most established research institutions and organizations. A lot of people have to be talking about this in order for it to happen.
👍
if you don't know the answer to that by now, why are you talking in front of an audience?
We are all Earthlingz Try Earthing
This video has less likes than it should
*fewer
My man here loves adoption
Rutherford is jealous of Plomin.
I noticed that 5 seconds in.
@@michaeljames6817 it took me longer.
@@michaeljames6817 His jealousy should be a reason for concern. Rutherford will try to sabotage Plomins career.
Horrible interviewer cutting him off at crucial points
Guy on the right is ideologically possessed.
There are political policy ramifications to this.
India Madhya Pradesh Sagar village-Phular pincode 470232
Did you mean to post that??
Most probably the truth is in the middle. If we go by that school of thought, why didn't Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's children haven't become genius as well? 🙂
There's a difference between genius, celebrity and infamy. There's a lot of genius that's been forgotten. And its not simply down the middle. The book blueprint is actually really good, you should get it.
You might have a point if his children were clones of him.
His children has only half of his DNA. Every child has 50% DNA from both parents. That's why some short parents have taller children or even shorter children. That's why some extremely tall parents have children taller than average, but less tall than their parents.
The usual story... things simple people know, takes 50 years research for scientists to discover.
Nature is nurture
Hi
Didn’t we learn this Fable from Margaret Mead & Samoa,the tribe strikes again
I don't think Margaret Mead knew about DNA in 1928.
@@JustOneAsbesto she started this nature vs nurture,also she was sigmund fraud’s Disciple,this was decades in the making
The moderator comes across as full of himself, often sign of underlying ineptitude
infantilism.
Autism is genetic if I have a child due to me having this condition I could pass this down to my child.
Interesting
I wonder why somebody would like to find genetical reasons for individuality or psychological determinism. Why put everything in a box? In definitions. Frames. I simply adore that we all are psychologically different and not predisposed by genes. And lastly, we live in quantum world - possibilities are endless. Many psychotherapists find connection of quantum reality and psyche to be core of our diversity and psychological differences.
So that we can study geneticaly inherited psychological diseases. And help people.
I'm alarmed and disturbed at the enablement of eugenics that arises from the whole line of research. How long before laboratories of dubious morals start offering genetic screening for IQ in the early stages of gestation, and choosing to only have kids who are smart? I think te whole subject should be closed, as it is building a weapon against people with differences that society doesn't like. As an autistic, should I in self-defence disable these lines of research? I believe I have that right. And I'm disgusted that the RI would host such an obscene event.
That goodness your personal disgust means nothing.
You can't just stop genetic research. There is such a huge potential to revolutionize medicine and other areas of life. If society doesn't want to allow genetic screening you pass a law. That won't stop other countries from doing it, of course.
@@iseriver3982 Thank goodness your lack of grammar means even less. Do you object to self-defence? Or maybe promote eugenics? Because this is building a toolkit for them to use in it, and that IS obscene.
@@iAmEhead Or people going to those countries to have their designer babies. It needs to be classed as a crime against humanity so that it can be rooted out from ANY country and the perpetrators brought before the International Criminal Court.
@@phillee2814 self defence? Bit late for you to be aborted. But once again, no one cares that you've been offended.
If 20th century european history taught us anything, it's perhaps that there are some dirty little truths that are best swept under the carpet and ignored for the greater good. Researchers in this field cannot divorce themselves from the social consequences of their publications even if those consequences arise solely from misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
You're about as progressive as the Spainish inquisition.
@@iseriver3982 Wrong, but oddly ironic. Ignatius of Loyola : Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man. Robert Plomin : You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I'm old enough to know how this very ancient difference of opinion finishes. I've been to Belsen.
@@sethoflagos2880 you probably should've gone to school instead. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean we should white wash facts.
@@iseriver3982 : I agree with Seth that some facts may be best left undiscovered. For example, what will happen when neuroscience research produces knowledge of how to control people's thoughts and/or memories and/or values? Then there'll likely be a race to weaponize it into a tool capable of transforming billions of people into compliant slaves. Some fields of research should be carefully monitored, their ethical implications explored, and fettered if necessary. It's irresponsible of scientists to be uninterested in ethical questions about their work.
@@brothermine2292 when you've figured out you're not already one of these mind controlled slaves, then you can comment on KZhead again.
It's both, but mostly nature for some things like intelligence and mostly nurture for some things like weight. Edit: Ha, I wrote that before the videos loaded, and low and behold the guy being questioned wrote the book I'm misquoting from 😊
But in the video they talk about weight being 70% nature...
@@Reashu yeah, I read his book, thought I'd be a smarty pants and quote him, only to get it completely wrong. Edited my comment so it'll make more sense
ri at its worst, again :(
How so?
This was unintelligible
This chat is absolutely terrifying!!! Genetic determinism is a formidable tool of oppression!!!! I’m not against the studies being done or even them talking about them. But they must acknowledge the risk of falling into the genetic determinism trap! We’ve already seen how destructive it can be in kids that are labeled in Pre-K who are seldom able to shake that label off as they grow. Like bright bilingual kids labeled as “slow” because their English vocabulary at 4 or 5 is not as wide as the other language dominant at home. Most times the vocab is the same but the accent throws teacher off so they slap the label regardless... Or a lively happy 4/5 yo kid who has a hard time sitting still in class is labeled as adhd and encouraged by teachers to get medicated! This needs to be acknowledged and prevented!!!
What does teachers labeling children have to do with genetic determinism?
It sounds like rather than looking at the evidence to determine what's true, you start with the position of what you want to be true and filter the evidence accordingly. Do you have any peer reviewed, respected scientific studies to refute any of the claims made here? Or are you just raging at a perceived injustice and ignoring the facts?
Science is not responsible for ignorant people who do not understand findings and misinterpret them to oppress others.
I think S W has a point. The same applies for CRISPR. There's no such thing as isolated science. It will/is eventually used by the community (and, the scientists too belong to a community whatever the size of it) - so let's be respectful in that way. This is why they also said that this whole discussion goes to politics because it comes, at the end of the day, to the question: given the data, what do we want to do as people? And, most of the times the truth is anyways somewhere in the middle. Given the example above, should we consider that the genes of said teacher are "bad" due to her labeling kids in that way? Should we screen such positions by genetics? Or is it more a matter of education? If you're presetted by genetics, wouldn't you be limited? Wouldn't the person invited to talk here in this talk be contradicting himself when he puts forward the idea of education as a whole? I think we've to be reasonable and put a big asterisk for now. And, in general: it never hurts. 🙂 Like: we have some data on this, because it's easy now to measure BUT we're still VERY ignorant when it comes to the bigger picture and so, therefore, take all we say with a grain of salt. 👍🏻
P.S. not that I encourage such behaviours as the one in OPs example with the teacher, of course. Less of what we need is abused folks in this world. 🙂🙌🏻👍🏻
This is absolute rubbish. What a way to end this difficult year with. Robert Plomin and what now looks to be his newest enabler, Adam Rutherford, have lowered the integrity bar of the Royal Institution. What is happening with the world's most esteemed enlightening spaces. I do hope that whichever community of people granted Robert his Fellowship of the British Academy revaluate their questionable decision. Absolute rubbish claims and, possibly, harmful rhetoric. Sigh.
What are you going on about?