What do you think?
Rate this book
Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality
Sensibly not regarding the perennial nature-nurture debate as an either/or issue, nonspecialist Wright surveys the last half-century of research used to support the view that human behavior is more genetically than environmentally based. Provocative chapters address the chemistry of self, twin studies, stars of the new field, the short and happy life of the tabula rasa, the Jensen furor over race and IQ, and the possibility of a crime gene. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 9, 1998
6 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
About the author
William Wright
14 books6 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
This is William Wright (1930-2016).
This is William Wright (1930-2016).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 8, 2022
William Wright (October 22, 1930 – June 4, 2016) gives a journalist's overview of behavioral genetics as the field stood in 1998, along with the history of the field's development to that time. Behavioral genetics studies the influence of genes, acting in concert with environmental factors, on behavior. The field covers all of animal behavior but the main focus of the book is on human behavior. Behavioral genetics overlaps with the field of evolutionary psychology (sort of a rebranding of sociobiology as it applies to humans), but traditionally evolutionary psychology focused on broad similarities in human behaviors across cultures, while behavioral genetics focused mostly on differences between individuals, both within the same racial, ethnic, cultural, or gender group, and (much more controversially) between groups.
The writing quality is excellent and Wright's account is highly readable, making it a fine example of popular science writing. Wright spent several years researching behavioral genetics for the book, embedding with and interviewing a who's who of researchers prominent then, as well as the field's more outspoken (Marxist) critics. The book holds up well despite being 24 years old and continues to be worth reading. However, 24 years is a long time in any rapidly developing field of science, so you'll need an update. Sadly the author passed in 2016 so we must look to others for that.
In particular, the book came out just four years before the first successful genome-wide association study (GWAS) was published in 2002. Since then, GWAS methods (part of the genomics revolution we are currently enjoying) have revolutionized the field. Fortunately, plenty of newer books cover the recent progress, such as Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. The author of that book, Robert Plomin, features prominently in Born That Way. It's interesting to read what Plomin was saying then, and how well his hunches have stood up to the vast increase in evidence.
When Wright wrote in 1998, the revolutionary technology was twin studies. The still active "Minnesota Twins" collaboration led by Thomas Bouchard features heavily in several chapters. (For more details closer to the source, see Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior.) For behavioral geneticists, monozygotic (identical) twins are a fabulous gift of nature, since they develop from a single zygote that splits, creating two individuals with identical genomes. Any subsequent discordance between MZ twins must be due to the differing environments they experience as they grow and develop. The degree to which sets of MZ twins are more similar with respect to some measurable trait (such as height, weight, intelligence, psychopathology, etc.) than are heterozygous twins, ordinary siblings, or unrelated people provides an estimate for the heritability of that trait. That is, how much of the observed variation in the trait is due to genetic, as opposed to environmental, influences. Heritability is normally not a fixed property, but tends to increase as the environmental variability decreases. For example, if every individual experiences exactly the same environment, and the trait still varies between individuals, then the variation can only be due to their genetic differences, increasing heritability for that trait to 100%. Thus if the heritability of a trait is rising, it probably means we are making environments more equal for everyone - a traditional measure of social progress.
Wright also covers - and savages - the field's critics. Sadly, at the time Wright seemed unfamiliar with the broader field of science denial, so he didn't explore the odd parallels between the Marxist critics of behavioral genetics and their ideological opposites over at Answers in Genesis who deny evolution altogether. Back in the 1990s, politically conservative climate change deniers were just getting warmed up, and they too have since gone on to crib from the social constructionists' anti-science playbook. Namely: don't do any counter-research of your own. Instead just scour the research of real scientists, think of possible ways the work might be wrong, continue to voice those objections without bothering to test them, and steadfastly ignore the real researchers after they test your objections and find them groundless.
Wright devotes much of a chapter to debunking Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature which, appallingly, still attracts five-star reviews from today's "woke" science deniers. This despite the book's already having been refuted before it was published, and becoming even more comically erroneous after the flood-tide of modern genomics data.
I had only a few complaints about the book. Wright engages in the obligatory pearl-clutching over the evils of eugenics. That is, eugenics in the form of rather rare compulsory sterilization as practiced by the civilized nations that didn't sink into Nazism. Wright does not attempt a cost-benefit analysis or acknowledge that there could be one. He portrays any state restriction on personal reproduction as an unalloyed horror, while remaining apparently oblivious to the ongoing state interference in adoption. Nobody complains when the state rules some individuals unfit to adopt a child, whereas the interests of the child and of the broader society cease to matter when those same unfit individuals decide to breed.
Wright was also a bit weak on the field of human intelligence, although some of that isn't his fault as a lot of progress has been more recent. For a vitally needed catch-up I recommand:
Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction
Intelligence: All That Matters
In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence
The Neuroscience of Intelligence
The writing quality is excellent and Wright's account is highly readable, making it a fine example of popular science writing. Wright spent several years researching behavioral genetics for the book, embedding with and interviewing a who's who of researchers prominent then, as well as the field's more outspoken (Marxist) critics. The book holds up well despite being 24 years old and continues to be worth reading. However, 24 years is a long time in any rapidly developing field of science, so you'll need an update. Sadly the author passed in 2016 so we must look to others for that.
In particular, the book came out just four years before the first successful genome-wide association study (GWAS) was published in 2002. Since then, GWAS methods (part of the genomics revolution we are currently enjoying) have revolutionized the field. Fortunately, plenty of newer books cover the recent progress, such as Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. The author of that book, Robert Plomin, features prominently in Born That Way. It's interesting to read what Plomin was saying then, and how well his hunches have stood up to the vast increase in evidence.
When Wright wrote in 1998, the revolutionary technology was twin studies. The still active "Minnesota Twins" collaboration led by Thomas Bouchard features heavily in several chapters. (For more details closer to the source, see Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior.) For behavioral geneticists, monozygotic (identical) twins are a fabulous gift of nature, since they develop from a single zygote that splits, creating two individuals with identical genomes. Any subsequent discordance between MZ twins must be due to the differing environments they experience as they grow and develop. The degree to which sets of MZ twins are more similar with respect to some measurable trait (such as height, weight, intelligence, psychopathology, etc.) than are heterozygous twins, ordinary siblings, or unrelated people provides an estimate for the heritability of that trait. That is, how much of the observed variation in the trait is due to genetic, as opposed to environmental, influences. Heritability is normally not a fixed property, but tends to increase as the environmental variability decreases. For example, if every individual experiences exactly the same environment, and the trait still varies between individuals, then the variation can only be due to their genetic differences, increasing heritability for that trait to 100%. Thus if the heritability of a trait is rising, it probably means we are making environments more equal for everyone - a traditional measure of social progress.
Wright also covers - and savages - the field's critics. Sadly, at the time Wright seemed unfamiliar with the broader field of science denial, so he didn't explore the odd parallels between the Marxist critics of behavioral genetics and their ideological opposites over at Answers in Genesis who deny evolution altogether. Back in the 1990s, politically conservative climate change deniers were just getting warmed up, and they too have since gone on to crib from the social constructionists' anti-science playbook. Namely: don't do any counter-research of your own. Instead just scour the research of real scientists, think of possible ways the work might be wrong, continue to voice those objections without bothering to test them, and steadfastly ignore the real researchers after they test your objections and find them groundless.
Wright devotes much of a chapter to debunking Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature which, appallingly, still attracts five-star reviews from today's "woke" science deniers. This despite the book's already having been refuted before it was published, and becoming even more comically erroneous after the flood-tide of modern genomics data.
I had only a few complaints about the book. Wright engages in the obligatory pearl-clutching over the evils of eugenics. That is, eugenics in the form of rather rare compulsory sterilization as practiced by the civilized nations that didn't sink into Nazism. Wright does not attempt a cost-benefit analysis or acknowledge that there could be one. He portrays any state restriction on personal reproduction as an unalloyed horror, while remaining apparently oblivious to the ongoing state interference in adoption. Nobody complains when the state rules some individuals unfit to adopt a child, whereas the interests of the child and of the broader society cease to matter when those same unfit individuals decide to breed.
Wright was also a bit weak on the field of human intelligence, although some of that isn't his fault as a lot of progress has been more recent. For a vitally needed catch-up I recommand:
Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction
Intelligence: All That Matters
In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence
The Neuroscience of Intelligence
February 10, 2014
I think it's pretty clear we have genetic predispositions.
It's also clear enough that our environment affects us in lots of ways.
Now, trying to answer "are genes the primary influence on human personality and behavior?" seems pretty silly to me.
Human behavior is an extremely complicated phenomenon to go crazy quantifying it.
We can certainly study it, but to turn that into a science might be out of our reach.
There's not enough data, and no way to isolate influential factors to do true scientific experiments.
So, guys and gals on both sides of the controversy
please keep the research going,
but chill out with the spectacular claims.
It's also clear enough that our environment affects us in lots of ways.
Now, trying to answer "are genes the primary influence on human personality and behavior?" seems pretty silly to me.
Human behavior is an extremely complicated phenomenon to go crazy quantifying it.
We can certainly study it, but to turn that into a science might be out of our reach.
There's not enough data, and no way to isolate influential factors to do true scientific experiments.
So, guys and gals on both sides of the controversy
please keep the research going,
but chill out with the spectacular claims.
October 5, 2016
This book perfectly converts the theory of genetic engineering to a language that is easy and fun to read about, by reading actual testimonials and stories of cases it makes it enjoyable for anyone to learn about our genetics and how they may play roles in areas we thought had nothing to do with genetics
August 4, 2012
A few minor scientific inaccuracies, but altogether a fascinating look at the history of behavioral genetic research.
November 30, 2025
本性難移。萊特。梁若瑜。
本書的作者是位記者。一位業餘人士，能這麼認真的去瞭解行為基因學的相關知識，我很佩服。但本書還是太過囉嗦。介紹主體是明尼蘇達雙生子研究。我想，作者如果老老實實，平鋪直敘的把該研究的過程、結論給集中表達出來，會比他東拉西扯的穿插其他人的講法、評論要好很多。主要的東西講完了，再去講其他有的沒有的，就能涇渭分明，一氣呵成。不管作者的用意是表現他的見聞廣博，或是為了使內容不致太過枯燥，顯然都妨害了閱讀。依他這樣的行文風格，書本後半敘述基因決定與環境決定的爭議史時，看來就更囉嗦，更不忍卒睹了。
但是，他支持的觀點我卻是非常同意。明尼蘇達雙生子研究雖然只是軟科學，但在我看來，證據已經夠充分了：基因決定勝過環境決定。如果一定要再補充的話，那就是基因的勝利是「全面性的勝利」(因為基因對人的影響是全面性的，甚至連環境也由基因決定)。明尼蘇達雙生子的樣本多為中年人，表示基因的影響不僅不因年紀的增加而減少，反而因年紀的增長而愈趨明顯。雖然不知道為什麼，但諸多同卵雙生子不可思議的相似性已無可置疑的證明了這一點。
明尼蘇達雙生子研究的依據很簡單，主要就是比較同卵雙生子和異卵雙生子間的行為差異。他們徵集出生後不久便分離，並在不同家庭長大的雙生子(最後得到的樣本數是七十組分離的同卵雙生子，以及五十組分離的異卵雙生子)，調查(測量)他們的相似性。就一般印象而言，科學期刊上發表的相關性統計數據反而不甚重要。書中那些鮮活的例子，顯示異地同卵雙生子間戲劇性的相似，無疑更震撼人心。一樣的臉孔、體型，對同卵雙生子而言並不希奇。但一樣的太陽眼鏡呢(都是圓鏡片)？一樣的八字鬍呢？一樣的藍色襯衫(深淺不同)、都有墊肩、正面都有四個口袋呢？都習慣將橡皮筋繞在手腕上呢？都喜歡在餐廳裡閱讀，並且看雜誌都習慣由後往前翻呢？都愛把抹了牛油的土司浸入咖啡裡呢？上廁所都會先沖水呢？乃至於，以上的一切「巧合」都加起來呢？太多的巧合應等於荒謬，或是事件背後的「定律」。
當然，同卵雙生子還是會有許多差異。例如，宗教信仰。本書如要再深入，我覺得就該研究為什麼某些行為(生理)會相似，某些行為會不同。畢竟，基因會影響到這麼微小的細節，還是頗怪異的。例如作者就提到「命名的契合性」。因為，雙生子相似中，有兒女同名及小狗同名的現象。對這個現象，作者引葛詹尼加的理論來引申。他「把葛詹尼加所說的上千種心智想像成軍隊的一群軍官，每個人都負責執行不同的任務。......裡面有一位低階少尉，他只有一個任務：負責命名。」不論這個假設正確與否，基因透過對大腦的影響來影響人的思想行動，這點應是必然。就算沒有直接負責命名的腦區，但相近的喜好、相近的智商、相近的性格，乃至相近的生理狀況，導致命名的偶合，應也是較合理的。有學者認為，內向孩童的「下視丘邊緣系統對於環境中未預期的改變或不易掌握的新事件，其喚起的閾值較低。」這還只是性格中的一部分而已呢。
在介紹了雙生子研究之後，作者接著介紹了行為基因學的發展與人類本質的論戰史等等，雖不能說毫無可觀，但實在太過沉悶、冗長，令我費盡耐心讀了好幾次才讀完。我想是因為敘述偏向史料性質，對我缺乏知識上的吸引力的緣故。但論及先天與後天，雖說先天的影響勝於後天，但基因的開閉或突變也是受到不同「環境」(生理環境)刺激(誘發)的緣故。因此，就哲學上來講，說：環境(條件)即本質(存在)，倒也不算誇大不實。
本書的作者是位記者。一位業餘人士，能這麼認真的去瞭解行為基因學的相關知識，我很佩服。但本書還是太過囉嗦。介紹主體是明尼蘇達雙生子研究。我想，作者如果老老實實，平鋪直敘的把該研究的過程、結論給集中表達出來，會比他東拉西扯的穿插其他人的講法、評論要好很多。主要的東西講完了，再去講其他有的沒有的，就能涇渭分明，一氣呵成。不管作者的用意是表現他的見聞廣博，或是為了使內容不致太過枯燥，顯然都妨害了閱讀。依他這樣的行文風格，書本後半敘述基因決定與環境決定的爭議史時，看來就更囉嗦，更不忍卒睹了。
但是，他支持的觀點我卻是非常同意。明尼蘇達雙生子研究雖然只是軟科學，但在我看來，證據已經夠充分了：基因決定勝過環境決定。如果一定要再補充的話，那就是基因的勝利是「全面性的勝利」(因為基因對人的影響是全面性的，甚至連環境也由基因決定)。明尼蘇達雙生子的樣本多為中年人，表示基因的影響不僅不因年紀的增加而減少，反而因年紀的增長而愈趨明顯。雖然不知道為什麼，但諸多同卵雙生子不可思議的相似性已無可置疑的證明了這一點。
明尼蘇達雙生子研究的依據很簡單，主要就是比較同卵雙生子和異卵雙生子間的行為差異。他們徵集出生後不久便分離，並在不同家庭長大的雙生子(最後得到的樣本數是七十組分離的同卵雙生子，以及五十組分離的異卵雙生子)，調查(測量)他們的相似性。就一般印象而言，科學期刊上發表的相關性統計數據反而不甚重要。書中那些鮮活的例子，顯示異地同卵雙生子間戲劇性的相似，無疑更震撼人心。一樣的臉孔、體型，對同卵雙生子而言並不希奇。但一樣的太陽眼鏡呢(都是圓鏡片)？一樣的八字鬍呢？一樣的藍色襯衫(深淺不同)、都有墊肩、正面都有四個口袋呢？都習慣將橡皮筋繞在手腕上呢？都喜歡在餐廳裡閱讀，並且看雜誌都習慣由後往前翻呢？都愛把抹了牛油的土司浸入咖啡裡呢？上廁所都會先沖水呢？乃至於，以上的一切「巧合」都加起來呢？太多的巧合應等於荒謬，或是事件背後的「定律」。
當然，同卵雙生子還是會有許多差異。例如，宗教信仰。本書如要再深入，我覺得就該研究為什麼某些行為(生理)會相似，某些行為會不同。畢竟，基因會影響到這麼微小的細節，還是頗怪異的。例如作者就提到「命名的契合性」。因為，雙生子相似中，有兒女同名及小狗同名的現象。對這個現象，作者引葛詹尼加的理論來引申。他「把葛詹尼加所說的上千種心智想像成軍隊的一群軍官，每個人都負責執行不同的任務。......裡面有一位低階少尉，他只有一個任務：負責命名。」不論這個假設正確與否，基因透過對大腦的影響來影響人的思想行動，這點應是必然。就算沒有直接負責命名的腦區，但相近的喜好、相近的智商、相近的性格，乃至相近的生理狀況，導致命名的偶合，應也是較合理的。有學者認為，內向孩童的「下視丘邊緣系統對於環境中未預期的改變或不易掌握的新事件，其喚起的閾值較低。」這還只是性格中的一部分而已呢。
在介紹了雙生子研究之後，作者接著介紹了行為基因學的發展與人類本質的論戰史等等，雖不能說毫無可觀，但實在太過沉悶、冗長，令我費盡耐心讀了好幾次才讀完。我想是因為敘述偏向史料性質，對我缺乏知識上的吸引力的緣故。但論及先天與後天，雖說先天的影響勝於後天，但基因的開閉或突變也是受到不同「環境」(生理環境)刺激(誘發)的緣故。因此，就哲學上來講，說：環境(條件)即本質(存在)，倒也不算誇大不實。
March 7, 2022
A very good, although dated (re: GWAS vs candidate gene), history of things.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews