Michael Eriksson
A Swede in Germany
Home » Humans » Thinking | About me Impressum Contact Sitemap

Those evil genes


The main text was originally written in 2012, but only published in 2024 and after a partial re-write. However, I have not updated it with regard to all societal changes, own experiences, own developments of opinion, whatnot, that have taken place in the interim.

Of the societal changes, the extensive “trans” issues are likely the most important by a considerable distance, and I have added an excursion to cover this topic to some degree. (Also see some other texts that cover other aspects of that issue. TODO import from Wordpress and link.)

A particular caveat is that the described below view of “evil” and “good”, in my impression, varies more strongly today than in 2012 and often, among Leftists, depends on the more detailed ideological positions of the speaker. This, in particular, when various LGBT movements clash with “nurture only”/“social construct” ideologists, including many Feminists. As a consequence, I have considerably shortened (and moved to an excursion) an original discussion of homosexuality, where this is particularly complicated and where homosexuality-as-an-example does not, in 2024, work as well as intended in 2012. This conflict reappears in the aforementioned excursion on “trans” issues.

Main text

I have long been annoyed by a common-yet-absurd take on heritability, genetics, etc: if something is ruled by genes it is (in some sense) “evil”; if it is not, then it is “good”. This with the complementary take that those who propose a genetic explanation are “evil” and those who oppose them “good”. (With little or no regard for who is factually correct.)

To make matters worse, this is often combined with the (usually) Leftist error of “this must not be; ergo, cannot be”—indeed, these mistakes most commonly occur in a context of Leftist/pc/woke/whatnot pseudo-reasoning or propaganda.

The likely most common misapprehension/straw-man/whatnot:

If differences in average I.Q. scores between different races are hereditary, then those of different skin color automatically have different worth. This often combined with the presumption that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites and/or that Whites are inherently superior to everyone else. In both cases, the aforementioned “this must not be; ergo, cannot be” follows, with the mis-conclusion that I.Q. scores cannot be hereditary—and that those who propose such heritability are necessarily evil racists or, by 2024, White supremacists.

Apart from the mistakes of measuring “worth” just by I.Q. and of ignoring individual variation, even the first conclusion is a gigantic and absurd non sequitur. (The following steps the more so.) The absurdity follows e.g. through the following thought experiment:

As the world is about to end, two groups of alien visitors each collect a few hundred persons to set up separate colonies under equivalent conditions on an Earth-like world. The one sample contains black-African STEM PhD holders; the other White high-school dropouts. As the aliens might notice over time, the members of the first sample are considerably brighter (and, likely, better behaved, more successful, whatnot). Moreover, if (!) genetic mechanisms dominate I.Q., the same applies to the respective descendants.


Based on my experiences with various Leftist groups: Keep in mind that this is a thought experiment—nothing more. (Specifically, a variation on the ending of “Knowing”, one of Nicolas Cage’s worst movies.)

Obviously, then, it is entirely and utterly absurd to believe that a genetic mechanism would, say, make Blacks inherently inferior (Whites, superior; Ashkenazi, even more superior; whatnot). On the contrary, it implies that the current average characteristics are likely to change over time—slower than with environmental differences, true, but change nevertheless. The current average characteristics of various populations are just that: Current average characteristics of various populations. Moreover, these population characteristics might look very differently within sub-populations of these populations, e.g. in that sub-populations chosen based on education can go in different directions than the respective greater population.

In stark contrast: If we apply a “nurture only” view of humans, where all differences in mental abilities supposedly arise only through different treatment, external circumstances, whatnot, we will find no good way of explaining differences in I.Q. scores between different groups—an average difference (not necessarily as large) remains even when adjusting for such external circumstances. Absent a genetic (or otherwise “evolutionary” hereditary mechanism), we would then have to conclude that the “nurture only” premise must be modified in some manner—most likely, through limiting it to differences within races (or some other sub-group). In effect, assuming the absence of a genetic explanation leads to the conclusion that there is some form of truly inherent and unchanging difference between the races. (Presumably, provided by some form of creator and/or deity, outside the scope of science. Creationism is, indeed, much easier to combine with “nurture only” and its various consequences than is Evolution.)

Thus: If I.Q. is genetically hereditary, then this is good news for those truly anti-racist.


Of course, it would be even better news, if a sufficient amount of training and education could turn anyone into a highly competent scientist, engineer, physician, whatnot. That this is very, very far from possible, however, is obvious from the severe limits of educational success during the last hundred years. A too limited intellect (entirely independent of race) simply means that there are some goals that are not realistically reachable, be it at all or with a reasonable effort. (With reservations for future advances that today remain science fiction.)

A particular interesting observation is the ever less plausible contortions of explanation that have, in vain, been used by various PC groups to explain away stubbornly recurring differences.

Another, how Leftists tend to be very keen to proclaim their belief in Evolution, while rejecting or not understanding the consequences that follow from Evolution. A good example is how it would be a near statistical impossibility for each racial group to have, e.g., the same average I.Q. under the assumption of Evolution—but how many Leftists are adamant that the averages are the same. (Or, should they reject I.Q., something of a similar nature, e.g. average academic potential.) This while such a sameness would be unproblematic with a non-Evolutionary Creationist take.

Excursion on homosexuality

My unpublished 2012 version of this page used homosexuality as a second example, in that “genetic homosexuality” was somehow viewed as “evil” and “social-construct homosexuality” as “good”, and, as above, the respective proponents were viewed as “evil” or as “good” in accordance.

While the approach to the discussion might have been sound, the premise that “genetic homosexuality” is viewed as “evil” (etc.) rings false in 2024. It might have held in 2012 with a change occurring in the interim; it might be that I had, in 2012, seen a non-representative sample of opinions. Either which way, by 2024 a “born this way” (whether through genes or some other mechanism) seems to be the preferred take among most homosexuals (or, if in doubt, activists) and large portions of the Left. There is still a notable conflict between different parts of the Left, with many naively wanting to see absolutely everything, including e.g. human sexuality, as a “social construct” and many others keeping to the discredited “nurture only” ideology; however, if anything, the view that a homosexuality caused by external influence, and/or a proponent of this, is “evil” seems considerably more common today—in a reversal of my original premise.


I would speculate that a partial explanation is a reaction to and/or deliberate opposing of the sometime U.S. Conservative and/or U.S. Christian take that homosexuality “is a choice”, can be cured, or similar. (As I have noted in the past, the Left seems to take the opposite-to-their-opponents stance on many questions for the sake of being opposite. In the U.S., Evolution, cf. above, might be an example of this, in that belief in Evolution is professed, not because of an actual understanding of Evolution and the evidence for it, but because Creationism is seen as Conservative—and whatever is Conservative must be opposed.)

While I make no statement as to who is right and wrong in the underlying issue (I have never looked into the causes and whatnots of homosexuality and remain agnostic on the topic), I do have the impression that at least the “is a choice” is partially misunderstood: The point does not seem to be that we have choice in to whom we are or are not attracted—but in with whom we do or do not have sex. Clearly, the latter is and remains a choice; and a great many examples can be found both of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts and of homosexuals engaging in heterosexual acts.

I also make no statement on how common such U.S. Conservative/Christian opinions might be, except to point to the possibility that the prevalence has been exaggerated or, e.g., been misrepresented in various TV series. (And the repeated inclusion of “U.S.” is very deliberate.)

This approach, in highly abbreviated form, was that: (a) If homosexuality arises through outside influences, then it could be justified to see homosexuality as a problem, something to protect against. (Note that there are pragmatic disadvantages, most notably with regard to reproduction.) (b) If homosexuality is genetic, then we should take it in stride.

As an analogy from a far less political/controversial area: If someone is born with a predisposition to be, in some sense, “too short”, then we have to take that in stride—but we should still try to avoid a scenario where someone with a “normal” disposition turns “too short” through malnutrition during the growing years.

Excursion on trans-this-and-that

By 2024, topics like homosexuality have been drowned out by variations on the “trans”-theme, often in a manner that goes beyond what is even remotely sane.

Here we, again, have a radical conflict between, on the one hand, the proponents of a “nurture only” view of humans and/or of “X is a social construct!”, and, on the other, the “born this way” take on transsexuals. (Where X, in this context, is usually “gender”; however, the range of other values in other contexts is very large.)

To this, we have to add at least two major complications:

Firstly, there are deliberate attempts to give something mental (e.g. a feeling of being a boy in a girl’s body; current cases seem to be dominated by young girls) a physical manifestation by hormone therapy, surgery, whatnot. We might then have a mental side caused by genetics, or some other “nature” component, while the physical manifestation falls solidly in “nurture”. (Notwithstanding that the word “nurture” might seem absurd in context, if applied in its everyday meaning.)


Note that I do not necessarily and automatically see changes to one’s body as a negative, outside the following “Secondly”. A secondary issue, however, is a certain superficiality: at the end of the day, the changes are cosmetic in nature.

(It certainly seems more reasonable to me to remain an “X in the body of Y” than to go through all that effort for a cosmetic change, but, of course, I cannot speak with certainty for how I would feel and react if I were in that position myself.)

Secondly, there is great reason to believe that the vast majority of current claimed cases are not true cases. While I do not rule out that cases of “an X in the body of a Y” occur, they are almost certainly very rare, the historical records are unimpressive, and there has been an almost absurd explosion in cases after the issue went political. Worse, when looking at alleged cases, they appear to, more often than not, go back to outside influences, especially directed at the very young (in general; girls, in particular) and very impressionable. (Many of whom later regret actions taken.) We then have an environmental/“nurture” influence causing an alleged “nature” effect, after which this alleged “nature” effect is used to justify various “nurture” measures.