{"id":715,"date":"2008-07-15T09:40:33","date_gmt":"2008-07-15T13:40:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=715"},"modified":"2008-07-15T11:50:09","modified_gmt":"2008-07-15T15:50:09","slug":"methodological-individualism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=715","title":{"rendered":"Methodological individualism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/07\/15\/opinion\/15brooks.html?_r=1&amp;ref=opinion&amp;oref=slogin\">David Brooks<\/a> has discovered that human behavior is more complicated (and the science more uncertain) than some headlines he vaguely remembers seem to have suggested:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>It wasn&rsquo;t long ago that headlines were blaring <\/strong>about the discovery of an aggression gene, a happiness gene or a depression gene. The implication was obvious: We&rsquo;re beginning to understand the wellsprings of human behavior, and it won&rsquo;t be long before we can begin to intervene to enhance or transform human life. &nbsp; <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>But, alas. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Few talk that way now. There seems to be a general feeling, as a Hastings Center working group put it, that &ldquo;<strong>behavioral genetics<\/strong> will never explain as much of human behavior as was once promised.&rdquo; <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Behavorial genetics&quot; seems kind of scientific.&nbsp; What conclusion can we draw from the new-found skepticism about the glories of the scientific mind:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p> Today, we have access to our own genetic recipe. But we seem not to be falling into the arrogant temptation &mdash; to try to <strong>re-engineer society on the basis of what we think we know<\/strong>. Saying farewell to the sort of horrible social engineering projects that dominated the 20th century is a major example of human progress.<\/p>\n<p> <strong>We can strive to eliminate that multivariate thing we call poverty.<\/strong> We can take people out of environments that (somehow) produce bad outcomes and try to immerse them into environments that (somehow) produce better ones. <strong>But we&rsquo;re not close to understanding how A leads to B, and probably never will be. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p> This age of tremendous scientific achievement has underlined an ancient philosophic truth &mdash; that there are severe limits to what we know and can know; that the best political actions are incremental, respectful toward accumulated practice and more attuned to particular circumstances than universal laws. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Wholly crap!&nbsp; &quot;Aggressive behavior in an individual&quot; might be the subject of behavorial genetics (worthy of all well-informed (not Brooksian) skepticism), &quot;poverty&quot; is not a genetic property but rather a (relative) social and economic one.&nbsp; One whose causes, by the way, are largely well known: lack of financial resources, etc.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>By linking poverty with behavorial genetics (whatever that might mean exactly), Brooks seems to claim the explanation for poverty lies mainly with the individual poor person.&nbsp; But Brooks is then too respectful of the deep human mystery to inquire further about it.<\/p>\n<p>So Brooks&#39; pseudo-skepticism masks a very dogmatic adherence to the claim that individuals are largely responsible for their social destiny.&nbsp; And that&#39;s not very skeptical.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>*minor edit for &quot;cogency&quot; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>David Brooks has discovered that human behavior is more complicated (and the science more uncertain) than some headlines he vaguely remembers seem to have suggested: It wasn&rsquo;t long ago that headlines were blaring about the discovery of an aggression gene, a happiness gene or a depression gene. The implication was obvious: We&rsquo;re beginning to understand &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=715\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Methodological individualism<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,73],"tags":[136,160,231,230],"class_list":["post-715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brooks","category-inexplicable","tag-david-brooks","tag-poverty","tag-pseudo-skepticism","tag-pseudo-intellectualism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}