Many influences of small effect are harder to address with policy than a few big ones.

From Seek and Destroy by Freddie deBoer.

The general topic is education and relative performance based on race and class (income) and most especially the role of genetics in those outcomes.   

deBoer is a principled man of the left.  He is in the difficult position of seeing the genetic writing on the wall when the rest of his ideological peers wish to bury their heads.

In April, I did this roundtable with Paige Harden for the University of Bristol on the topics of genes and education. I think it touches on a lot of important points for both Dr. Harden and I, and in particular really hammers home the answer to the “why bother to study this, what good can come of it” question that liberals have asked approximately six million times since the New Yorker piece came. Though I know I will never convince many of you, I do want to again insist that the most important point is that genetic research will continue to grow more and more sophisticated and effective over time. There is no arresting that growth. Companies like Genomic Prediction Inc. are already offering genetic testing that not only detects likely congenital disorders but also predicts if they’ll be short or unintelligent. No doubt this process is clumsy at present and produces small effects. But in ten years? Are you willing to bet this testing won’t be much more powerful and sophisticated?

Friends: this stuff is not going away. And even if all of the progressive handwringing on these topics leads to a ban on research in the United States, will such qualms stop labs in South Korea from developing better genetic testing? Will people tweeting the word “eugenics” stop labs in China from working on how to directly manipulate the genome? No. So let’s talk, openly and honestly, and come up with an ethical framework for understanding genetics and behavior that avoids all of the terrible thinking of the past. We won’t accidentally fall into selective breeding and genetic ID cards as long as think and act carefully. “There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.”

The basic problem is that statist leftists depend, to an unacknowledged degree, on a blank slate mindset.  In their world view, every individual is born with identical capability and therefore any variance in performance must be due to social structures, power dynamics, and malicious action.  

For Classical Liberals and anyone following the science, this is nonsense.  People are not blank slates whose outcomes are determined by state choices.  Everyone is unique and has inalienable rights which they share with anyone else.  Because everyone is different for innumerable reasons, there is inherently always going to be variance in outcomes.

For committed leftists, variance is evidence of State policy failure.  For Classical Liberals , variance is expected.  

The science of genetics is forcing committed leftists to confront their operating assumption that everyone is necessarily equal in capability.  As soon as you acknowledge the reality that the tactical, constrained random distribution of genes determines much of life's broader outcomes, the more their ideological position is weakened.  

Variable outcomes are no longer about bad behavior that the state has to control.  Variable outcomes are normal.  In order to justify State coercion, you now need to demonstrate that some unequal outcomes are indeed the result of deliberate or unconscious actions by individuals or groups rather than variant capability.

This is often exceedingly difficult to prove except in rare and egregious cases.  Were they to concede variance in natural ability is the norm, Leftists would effectively be conceding the philosophical field to Classical Liberals.

The goal shifts from making sure everyone receives equal outcomes to the goal of ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential.  A position incompatible with most authoritarian Leftist policies.

Without the Blank Slate mindset, there is far less scope for the authoritarian statist Leftist worldview.  

deBoer is open to the science but still wrestling with its implications.  He wants other Leftists to be aware that the science is increasingly clear that people do indeed start with a random assortment of capabilities, inclinations, and propensities based on the genetic cards they are dealt and that those different hands have strong predictive power as to actual capabilities.  

This is one difficulty.  The other is that there is also clear evidence (the work of Gerry Clark) that through assortative mating, these capability advantages are persistent over generations.

I empathize with the quandary and admire deBoer's efforts to both remain true to his ideological position while acknowledging the reality of what we now know through the rapidly advancing field of genetics.

To be clear, genes are not destiny.  But they are powerfully predictive.  

The essay is deBoer's hard work to bridge ideological conviction and scientific evidence.  The notable line is:

Unfortunately, many influences of small effect are harder to address with policy than a few big ones. 

Independent of genes, this is something I have argued for some years now.  We have picked most of the easy low hanging monocausal fruit, i.e. we have solved the simple problems which have single causes.

For example, we all enjoy much higher healthier lives due to sophisticated incremental medical improvements.  But the increase in life span worldwide from 35 to 80 was primarily due to attention paid to cleanliness during childbirth and due to basics like clean water, clean accessible food and clean environments.

A healthier life is due to dozens or scores of influences.  Longevity is due to four causal elements - improved childbirth, clean water, clean accessible food, and clean environments.

Virtually all remaining societal issues are wicked problems.  They are multi-causal in nature with each cause being of a de minimis influence.  In addition, there is a tendency for the entire problem definition to evolve over time.  

Just like genes.

deBoer is right.  Best to acknowledge and deal with reality rather than get stuck in ideological convictions.

This is especially true when we have ready examples of how to, morally and ethically, address the inequality arising from genetics.  It is the Classical Liberal worldview.  Embrace natural rights, rule of law, equality before the law, individual freedom, equal rights and obligations, etc..  This has been the source of all progress over the past five hundred years.  Those nations most adherent to the Classical World view are the ones which have prospered the most.  

The price is inequality but the benefit is that the very poorest quintile are objectively and empirically better off in terms of resource access (wealth and income) and range of choice than the middle class in any authoritarian State.  And while there is indeed inequality, everyone of capability is usually able to rise to their highest potential regardless of their birth circumstances such as familial wealth, familial income, familial (dis)functionality, educational attainment, class, race, ethnicity, etc.