Dr Stuart Ritchie03 October 2022

Why Is Behavioural Genetics Such A Hated Science? - Dr Stuart Ritchie - #534

0Frameworks

21Insights

Insights & moments

The myth-busts, hot takes, explainers, and tools worth keeping.

Myth Buster· 8

Myth Buster00:30

The Core Misconception Fueling Distrust of Behavioral Genetics

Ritchie argues the main reason people distrust behavioral genetics is a false assumption that 'genetic' means 'fixed and unchangeable.' He explains that when people hear a trait is linked to genes, they wrongly infer the researcher must believe nothing can be done to change outcomes or improve people's lives politically.

People assume genetic influence implies immutability and a fixed political stance
Behavioral genetics studies how things are now, not how they must always be
The fear of immutability drives a lot of the field's controversy

“That's not what behavior genetics says at all. Behavior genetics is about trying to understand how things are right now, not necessarily how things might…”
Stuart Ritchie · 01:30

#behavioral genetics#misconceptions#science communication

Myth Buster06:30

The Double Standard: Why Height Genetics Is Fine But IQ Genetics Isn't

Ritchie names the exact double standard at the heart of the controversy: the same twin, family, and DNA methods used to study height or eye color provoke outrage when applied to intelligence or personality. He also cites Robert Plomin's finding that school quality (private vs. state, Ofsted ratings) explains less than 5% of variation in educational outcomes once other factors are controlled.

Same scientific methods (twin studies, DNA studies) accepted for height/eye color but rejected for intelligence/personality
Plomin found school quality explains less than 5% of variation in UK educational outcomes once controlled for selection
Applies to both the private-vs-state-school comparison and the Ofsted-rating comparison
Even 'simple' traits like eye color turn out to be genetically complex on closer study

“You've put your finger on the thing here, which is the double standard... use those exact same methods to study stuff like intelligence, personality, whatever,…”
Stuart Ritchie · 06:30

#double standard#school quality#robert plomin#educational attainment

Myth Buster22:00

How an Entire Field of Genetics Research Turned Out to Be Nonsense

Ritchie details the candidate-gene research era (through the 2000s-2010s) where single genes were claimed to strongly predict depression, memory, and other traits — spawning careers, PhDs, and top-journal papers. When later tested in samples of thousands rather than hundreds, almost all of these findings failed to replicate, one of the earliest and most complete field-wide wipeouts by the replication crisis.

Candidate gene studies claimed single genes explained large chunks of variance (e.g. 20% of memory ability from one variant)
Careers, PhD dissertations, and job offers were built on this research
When retested in samples of thousands, nearly all candidate gene findings failed to replicate
The field has since moved to genome-wide association studies (GWAS) looking at hundreds of thousands of variants with tiny individual effects
Ronald Fisher predicted in 1918 that gene effects should be small — but this was ignored for decades

“It was all — asterisk, not all, but like 99% — nonsense. It was all unreplicable.”
Stuart Ritchie · 23:30

“For decades, maybe a decade, we were going completely on the wrong track... everyone was wasting taxpayers' money on statistically invalid studies.”
Stuart Ritchie · 28:00

#replication crisis#candidate genes#genome-wide association studies#science fictions

Myth Buster33:30

Howard Gardner's 'Multiple Intelligences' Theory Has No Data Behind It

Ritchie explains that the well-established general intelligence factor (g) explains 40-50% of variance across all cognitive test types, and specific skills like vocabulary or spatial rotation do vary somewhat independently. But he sharply criticizes Howard Gardner's popular 'multiple intelligences' theory (existential, interpersonal, naturalistic intelligence, etc.) as having zero empirical data behind it — it was simply invented.</br>

General intelligence factor (g) explains 40-50% of variance across different cognitive test types
Specific skills (vocabulary, spatial rotation, etc.) can vary somewhat independently of g
Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory (naturalistic, existential, interpersonal intelligence, etc.) was created with no supporting data
Gardner kept adding new 'intelligences' over the years without research backing

“There's actually no empirical content to the multiple intelligences theory whatsoever. It's just one guy's opinion.”
Stuart Ritchie · 35:00

#intelligence#howard gardner#general factor#myth busting

Myth Buster35:30

Emotional Intelligence and 'Grit' Are Just Rebranded Old Concepts

Ritchie argues EQ (emotional intelligence) and Angela Duckworth's 'grit' are examples of the 'jangle fallacy' — giving an old concept a new name and treating it as novel. A meta-analysis found EQ's predictive power on job performance disappears once IQ and Big Five personality are controlled for, and grit correlates roughly 0.9 with conscientiousness — essentially the same trait.

EQ predicts job performance in isolation, but the effect vanishes once IQ and Big Five personality traits are controlled for
Grit correlates about 0.9 with conscientiousness on a -1 to 1 scale — essentially identical constructs
Both are examples of the 'jangle fallacy': renaming an existing concept and treating it as a new discovery
Ritchie says the popularity of these concepts may owe more to good branding than new science

“It's correlated like 0.9 with conscientiousness. It's just the same thing.”
Stuart Ritchie · 38:00

#emotional intelligence#grit#angela duckworth#jangle fallacy#big five

Myth Buster39:00

The Bizarre 'Priming' Studies That Fooled Psychology for Decades

Ritchie recounts the now-infamous social priming studies that helped trigger psychology's replication crisis — including a famous study claiming people who read old-age-related words walked more slowly out of the lab, and one claiming sitting near a cardboard box boosted creativity via 'thinking outside the box.' Later replications using objective measures (infrared timers instead of biased human observers with stopwatches) found no effect at all.

Classic 'elderly priming' study claimed reading words like 'Zimmer frame' or 'Florida' made people walk slower afterward
A study claimed sitting near a cardboard box improved creativity via 'thinking outside the box' association
Original studies used biased stopwatch observers who knew the hypothesis
Replication using objective infrared timers found no difference at all
Basic linguistic priming (grammar structure) still holds up; social/behavioral priming largely did not

“When you do it objectively like that, there's no difference in the people who'd seen the old words versus not.”
Stuart Ritchie · 42:30

#priming#replication crisis#social psychology#research methods

Myth Buster42:30

Growth Mindset Was Wildly Oversold — Including a Claim It Could Solve Israel-Palestine

Ritchie says growth mindset research isn't entirely bogus like social priming, but was massively overhyped in its early days — including a paper published in the journal Science claiming growth mindset interventions could help solve the Israel-Palestine peace process. Meta-analyses now show only small, modest effects on educational attainment, concentrated among low-income students, yet no one has publicly walked back the earlier dramatic claims.

A paper published in the journal Science claimed growth mindset could help resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict
Modern meta-analyses show only small-to-modest effects on kids' educational attainment
Effects appear somewhat larger for low-income student populations
No public correction has been issued for the earlier inflated claims despite the field walking them back quietly

“They published a paper in Science... saying that growth mindset could solve the Israel-Palestine peace process. I'm not kidding.”
Stuart Ritchie · 43:30

#growth mindset#replication crisis#education#angela duckworth

Myth Buster51:00

The Serotonin Theory of Depression Isn't Backed by Evidence — But SSRIs May Still Work

Ritchie unpacks a widely-reported UCL study finding no clear evidence that depressed people have lower brain serotonin, undermining the popular 'chemical imbalance' theory behind SSRIs. He argues this doesn't mean antidepressants don't work — their real side effects prove they're doing something biologically — but flags serious publication bias: about half of registered antidepressant trials show no effect, yet almost none of these negative trials get published, while positive ones do.

A UCL study found no clear evidence of a serotonin deficit in depressed people's brains
The 'chemical imbalance' theory behind SSRIs is not well supported by evidence, despite being commonly cited by doctors
SSRIs still have measurable real effects (evidenced by side effects), even if not via the serotonin mechanism assumed
Registered trial data shows roughly half of antidepressant trials find no effect, but almost none of these negative results get published
Some published 'negative' trials were spun positively or switched to a different outcome measure that did show significance
After adjusting for publication bias, meta-analyses still show a small overall effect size (~0.2) for antidepressants

“There's no obvious differences in the amount of serotonin in the brain of people who are depressed versus people who aren't.”
Stuart Ritchie · 54:00

“It was about 50/50 — about half of the trials in the antidepressant [registry] didn't work... but almost all of the negative studies just no…”
Stuart Ritchie · 55:30

#ssri#depression#serotonin#publication bias#antidepressants

Hot Take· 2

Hot Take21:00

Plomin's Controversial Claim: Your Partner Matters More Than Parenting

Ritchie recalls a tweet that drew heavy backlash — a Robert Plomin quote stating the single most important thing you can do for your child's future happiness, education, and income is the partner you choose to have them with. He contrasts this with weaker, less certain environmental interventions like breastfeeding.

Plomin's claim: partner choice is the single most important factor for a child's future outcomes
The tweet of this quote generated significant public pushback
Ritchie contrasts it with shakier evidence for interventions like breastfeeding's effect on intelligence

“The single most important thing that you can do for your child's future happiness, educational outcomes and income is the partner that you choose to…”
Stuart Ritchie · 21:00

#robert plomin#parenting#controversial claims#genetics

Hot Take76:30

Why Academic Psychology Is Too Polite to Find the Truth

Ritchie criticizes the culture of psychology academia for being too nice and non-confrontational, which lets weak research go unchallenged. He contrasts it with a more adversarial economics seminar culture he experienced, where he was assigned to critique someone else's data live, and argues science needs more of that constant skepticism, not less.

Psychology seminars often open with praise ('that was a brilliant talk') rather than critique, setting the wrong tone
Ritchie experienced a more adversarial economics seminar culture where he was assigned to critique another researcher's data live
He argues constant mutual criticism is essential to how science should work
Being 'too nice and too trusting' of each other's research is identified as a structural problem in psychology

“That sort of level of constant skepticism, constant argument, is what science is all about, and I think we lose that if people are basically…”
Stuart Ritchie · 77:30

#academic culture#peer review#psychology#criticism

Explainer· 4

Explainer04:00

Why 'Genetic' Doesn't Mean 'Unchangeable' — The Glasses and Height Examples

Ritchie uses eyesight and height to show that highly heritable traits can still be radically altered by the environment. Myopia is very heritable yet fixed instantly with glasses; height is heritable yet North Koreans are several inches shorter than South Koreans due to malnutrition, not genetics.

Myopia (short-sightedness) is highly heritable but instantly correctable with glasses
We don't yet have an equivalent 'glasses fix' for personality or intelligence
Height is heritable, but North Koreans are ~4-6 inches shorter than South Koreans due to malnutrition, not genetic difference
No one disputes height's heritability despite this environmental effect — showing a double standard

“Things in the environment can completely alter the way that genetics has its effect.”
Stuart Ritchie · 04:30

#heritability#myopia#height#north korea#environment

Explainer19:30

Why Genetics Matters MORE As You Age, Not Less

Ritchie explains a counterintuitive finding: the heritability of intelligence actually rises as people get older, going from lower percentages in childhood to 60-80% by later adulthood. He cites the Vietnam Experience Twin Study, where twins tested at around age 20 and again later in life show increasing genetic influence on IQ over time.

Environment has more relative influence on IQ early in life
Heritability of intelligence rises to roughly 60-80% by later adulthood
The Vietnam Experience Twin Study tracked twins' IQ from around age 20 into later life to show this trend

“There's this weird result where the heritability goes up over time... it's 60, 70, 80% by the time you're in older folks.”
Stuart Ritchie · 19:30

#heritability#aging#twin studies#intelligence

Explainer25:30

The One Candidate Gene That Actually Replicated: APOE and Alzheimer's

Amid the wreckage of candidate gene research, Ritchie names the one that held up: the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene, where carrying one allele roughly doubles Alzheimer's risk and two alleles increases it about tenfold. He notes he personally carries one copy.

APOE is the rare candidate-gene finding that consistently replicates for Alzheimer's risk
One allele copy: roughly 2x Alzheimer's risk; two copies: roughly 10x risk
Ritchie discovered via 23andMe that he carries one copy

“If you've got one allele of this, I think you've got twice the risk of getting Alzheimer's disease. You've got two alleles, it's something like…”
Stuart Ritchie · 25:30

#apoe#alzheimer's#genetics#23andme

Explainer58:30

Does 'Depression' Even Exist as a Single Thing?

Ritchie explores researcher Eiko Fried's argument that depression may not be one underlying latent condition (like intelligence's 'g factor') but rather a shifting network of interacting symptoms — insomnia triggering low mood, which triggers anger, and so on — that differs person to person. This could explain why antidepressant trials produce such inconsistent results, since 'depression' is measured inconsistently across studies.

Eiko Fried's network theory: depression may be a web of interacting symptoms rather than one underlying cause
Insomnia, low mood, and irritability can trigger each other in a feedback loop that differs between people
This contrasts with the 'latent variable' model used for intelligence (the g factor)
If true, this would explain why antidepressant trials measure depression inconsistently and get inconsistent results
Ritchie says he remains undecided on the debate himself

“Is there this thing called depression, or should we be focusing on the symptoms — this kind of network of symptoms which sometimes bump into…”
Stuart Ritchie · 59:30

#depression#eiko fried#network theory#latent variables

Story· 5

Story02:00

How Communism's Fall in Estonia Revealed Genetics' Hidden Influence

Ritchie describes a striking study using polygenic scores in Estonia showing that genetics explained more of the variation in people's educational attainment after the collapse of communism than before. The finding suggests a freer political system lets people's genetic potential express itself more fully, rather than being suppressed by an oppressive environment.

Study compared genetic contribution to educational attainment before and after Estonian communism ended
After communism, genetics explained more variation in outcomes
Interpretation: freer environments let genetic potential 'come through' more
Ritchie notes it would need replication in other former Warsaw Pact countries

“A freer political system, one that doesn't oppress people in the same way that communism does, allows them to reach their genetic potential more effectively.”
Stuart Ritchie · 03:30

#heritability#polygenic scores#communism#education

Story15:30

The Surprising Progressive Origins of IQ Testing and the Grammar School System

Ritchie recounts the history of intelligence testing, showing its pioneers had egalitarian, not eugenic, intentions. Godfrey Thomson wanted equal state funding for every child regardless of ability, and his ideas fed into the UK's 1940s Butler Education Act and grammar school system, meant to find smart kids from poor backgrounds — though it later produced poorly-resourced secondary moderns for those who failed the 11-plus. Alfred Binet's original 1910s IQ test was designed to help struggling schoolchildren get extra support.

Godfrey Thomson, an early 20th-century Edinburgh intelligence researcher, advocated equal funding for every child
His influence helped shape the UK's Butler Education Act (1940s) and the grammar school system
Grammar schools aimed to identify smart kids from poor backgrounds via objective testing, not favor the rich
The system's failure was the poorly-resourced 'secondary moderns' for kids who failed the 11-plus
Alfred Binet's original 1910s IQ test was built to identify struggling children for extra help, not to rank or exclude

“The intention of the psychologist who set this up was a noble one — we were going to try and find smart kids from poor…”
Stuart Ritchie · 18:00

#history of psychology#iq testing#education policy#grammar schools

Story30:00

The Cyril Burt Fraud Scandal in Intelligence Research

Ritchie discusses Cyril Burt, whose famous twin studies on intelligence and heritability are widely suspected of being fraudulent. He notes he's writing an article investigating whether Burt really committed fraud, and points out that despite the suspected fraud, subsequent legitimate research has confirmed Burt's general conclusions about heritability.

Cyril Burt's twin studies on intelligence heritability are a famous suspected fraud case
Ritchie believes Burt probably was a fraud, though it remains disputed
Despite this, later robust research has confirmed similar heritability findings independently

“I think probably he was a fraud, but his results have been confirmed by subsequent research.”
Stuart Ritchie · 30:00

#cyril burt#scientific fraud#twin studies#history of science

Story45:30

The Placebo-Like Power of Expectations: Gluten and VO2 Max Studies

Discussing David Robson's book on the expectation effect, Ritchie and the host describe two striking studies: one where people without real gluten intolerance were falsely told a gluten-free meal contained gluten and broke out in physical symptoms (hives, diarrhea), and another where athletes' VO2 max performance was more affected by being told they had a favorable gene variant than by actually having it.

Self-reported gluten intolerance rose from ~3% to ~30% of the population over 20 years
In a study, people without gluten intolerance developed real physical symptoms after being falsely told their meal contained gluten
A VO2 max study found being told you had a performance-boosting gene mattered more than actually having it
Takeaway (per David Robson): expectations can be more powerful than genetics itself in shaping some outcomes

“David's synopsis for this was: your expectations are more powerful than your genes.”
Host · 47:00

#expectation effect#placebo#gluten intolerance#vo2 max#david robson

Story64:30

Why Scientologists Protest Outside Ritchie's Psychiatric Hospital

Ritchie shares that Scientologists regularly protest outside the Maudsley psychiatric hospital where he works, rooted in L. Ron Hubbard's personal grudge against psychiatry. He contrasts this fringe anti-psychiatry stance with legitimate open questions, like the unclear long-term effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and firmly rejects 1970s-80s claims that schizophrenia was merely a social construct rather than a real, severe brain condition.

Scientologists regularly protest outside the Maudsley Hospital in London where Ritchie works
Their anti-psychiatry stance is rooted in L. Ron Hubbard's personal negative experience with a psychiatrist
ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) appears to help catatonic severe depression cases, but long-term effects remain unclear
Ritchie firmly rejects the 1970s-80s 'anti-psychiatry' claim that schizophrenia is just a societal construct, calling it a real and serious brain condition

“They are trained from day one that psychiatry is the evil thing and psychiatrists are out to manipulate us, control us.”
Stuart Ritchie · 65:00

“There's this thing called schizophrenia, it's really bad... people lose complete control of their grip on reality, and that's a really serious thing, and it's…”
Stuart Ritchie · 67:00

#psychiatry#scientology#schizophrenia#ect

Tool· 1

Tool70:30

How to Spot Bad Science: PubPeer, Science Media Center, and Open Data Checklists

Ritchie recommends concrete tools for evaluating scientific claims: the Science Media Center, which gathers rapid expert reactions to controversial papers in the news; PubPeer, a site (and Twitter bot) that surfaces public critiques and fraud-detection discussion on papers; and a general checklist favoring pre-registered, open-data, open-access studies. He also cites Elizabeth Bik, who has found thousands of manipulated images in biological papers.

Science Media Center gathers reactions from unaffiliated scientists on controversial published papers
PubPeer aggregates public critique and fraud-detection discussion tied to specific papers, including a Twitter-scraping bot
Elizabeth Bik has identified thousands of duplicated/manipulated images across biology papers that passed peer review
Good signals for trustworthy research: pre-registration before data collection, open data, open access, and shared materials for replication
Journals increasingly publish peer reviews alongside papers, revealing when editors overrode reviewer objections

“If you find a paper that looks dodgy in some respects, put it into PubPeer and see if there's any discussion.”
Stuart Ritchie · 71:30

#science media center#pubpeer#elizabeth bik#open science#research quality

Takeaway· 1

Takeaway12:30

Why Mothers With Multiple Kids 'Get' Genetics Better Than Anyone

Ritchie cites research showing that the people most accurate at estimating how heritable traits like obesity, height, and intelligence are turn out to be mothers with more than one child — because raising siblings similarly and watching them turn out totally different makes genetic influence obvious.

Mothers of multiple children are the most accurate group at judging trait heritability
Seeing siblings raised similarly but turning out very differently makes genetic influence intuitive
This everyday intuition often gets lost in academic/political debates about genetics

“The people who are most accurate at saying yeah, genetics are probably involved in that, are mothers with more than one child.”
Stuart Ritchie · 12:30

#heritability#parenting#siblings#intuition