References & Notes
1. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Also see notes 10, 17, 171, 235.
2. Plomin, R., & Viding, E. (2022). Commentary: Will genomics revolutionise research on gene–environment interplay? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(10), 1214-1218.
3. Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “Active rGE refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g. friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits.”
4. Wiley, R. H. (2021). Natural selection. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5330-5341.
5. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
6. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220. “Active gene-environment correlation occurs when individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version.
7. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
von Stumm S, Smith-Woolley E, Ayorech Z, et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12925
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
8. Ibid.
9. DeYoung, Colin G. “Cybernetic big five theory.” Journal of research in personality 56 (2015): 33-58. “The conscious self-concept, and conscious awareness more generally, is created from moment to moment using a very limited subset of the information being processed by the brain unconsciously.”
10. von Stumm, S., Kandaswamy, R., & Maxwell, J. (2022). Gene-environment Interplay in Early Life Cognitive Development.
“Children’s differences in early life cognitive development are driven by the interplay of genetic and environmental factors.”
“By the time they start formal education, children’s differences in cognitive ability are powerful predictors of their contemporaneous and future academic achievement.”
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. von Stumm S, Smith-Woolley E, Ayorech Z, et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12925
“…SES is often assumed to represent solely environmental advantages of wealth and privilege, but it is actually just as heritable as most other complex traits, with estimates from twin studies of about 50%. The main ingredients in most SES scores are parents’ educational attainment and occupational status, both of which are substantially heritable.”
14. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11. “GxE is important because it recognizes that one size does not fit all and offers the possibility of personalized tailoring of children’s environments based on their genetic propensities. Moreover, weak environmental effects in the population could have strong effects on children with particular genetic proclivities. GxE is the genetic extension of phenotypic research on differential reactivity to the environment.” “GxE is distinct conceptually from gene-environment correlation, which denotes experiences that are correlated with genetic propensities, that is, genetic exposure to environmental effects and genetic mediation of associations between environmental factors and psychopathology.”
Slavich, George M., Summer Mengelkoch, and Steven W. Cole. “Human social genomics: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for health. Lifestyle Medicine 4.2 (2023): e75.
Bann, D. (2021). The scope of health injustice. European Journal of Public health, 31(3), 458-459.
Bagot, R. C., Labonté, B., Peña, C. J., & Nestler, E. J. (2022). Epigenetic signaling in psychiatric disorders: stress and depression. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. “Environmental factors, such as stress, play a major role in… psychiatric disorders by inducing stable changes in gene expression, neural circuit function, and ultimately behavior. Insults at the developmental stage and in adulthood appear to induce distinct maladaptations. Increasing evidence indicates that these sustained abnormalities are maintained by epigenetic modifications in specific brain regions. Indeed, transcriptional dysregulation and associated aberrant epigenetic regulation is a unifying theme in psychiatric disorders.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “…the environment can also affect gene expression through epigenetic processes (e.g. biological changes that can affect gene expression without changes to the DNA sequence)…”
15. Hufer, A., Kornadt, A. E., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2020). Genetic and environmental variation in political orientation in adolescence and early adulthood: A Nuclear Twin Family analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 762.
16. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.
17. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: prediction versus explanation. Molecular psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
18. Kweon, Hyeokmoon, Casper Burik, Richard Karlsson Linnér, Ronald De Vlaming, Aysu Okbay, Daphne Martschenko, Kathryn Harden, Thomas A. DiPrete, and Philipp Koellinger. “Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.” (2020).
19. Bartels, M., Nes, R. B., Armitage, J. M., van de Wijer, M. P., de Vries, L. P., & Haworth, C. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness.
“Another key finding is that the importance of genetic influences is not fixed from birth but can change throughout the lifespan and in response to current environmental conditions.”
20. OPEN
21. Martorana, P. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Rao, H. (2005). From system justification to system condemnation: Antecedents of attempts to change power hierarchies. In Status and groups (Vol. 7, pp. 283-313). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
22. Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(1), 1-16.
23. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
See notes 6 & 7.
24. Meaney, Michael J. (2001). “Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, New York, 2001: 50-61)
25. Meaney, Michael J. (2001). “Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, New York, 2001: 50-61)
26. Falk, A., Kosse, F., Pinger, P., Schildberg-Hörisch, H., & Deckers, T. (2021). Socioeconomic status and inequalities in children’s IQ and economic preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 129(9), 2504-2545. “This paper explores inequalities in IQ and economic preferences between children from high and low socio-economic status (SES) families. We document that children from high SES families are more intelligent, patient and altruistic, as well as less risk-seeking. To understand the underlying causes and mechanisms, we propose a framework of how parental investments as well as maternal IQ and economic preferences influence a child’s IQ and preferences. Within this framework, we allow SES to influence both the level of parental time and parenting style investments, as well as the productivity of the investment process. Our results indicate that disparities in the level of parental investments hold substantial importance for SES gaps in economic preferences and, to a lesser extent, IQ. In light of the importance of IQ and preferences for behaviors and outcomes, our findings offer an explanation for social immobility.”
Selzam, S., Ritchie, S. J., Pingault, J. B., Reynolds, C. A., O’Reilly, P. F., & Plomin, R. (2019). Comparing within-and between-family polygenic score prediction. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 105(2), 351-363. “Notably, cross-trait analyses have revealed that EA GPS is widely associated with traits other than educational achievement, including intelligence,2,6,7 socioeconomic status (SES),8–11 behavior problems,12 mental health,13 physical health,13 and personality,14,15 in some cases accounting for as much as or more than the variance in cross-trait associations explained by the target GPSs themselves.”
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological bulletin, 144(1), 26. “…intelligence seems to be quite malleable, and changes in the environment can, by interacting with genes, explain a great deal of differences in IQ across families, lifespan, socioeconomic status, and generations. Here we will provide evidence and rationale for the conclusion that environmental interactions and correlations with genes (rather than genes alone) are key determinants of an individual’s IQ.”
Grigorenko, E. L., Bundy, D. A. P., Silva, N. D., Horton, S., Jamison, D. T., & Patton, G. C. (2017). Evidence on Brain Development and Interventions. Disease Control Priorities, 8. “Two environments that contextualize brain development are particularly prominent: social-economic status (SES), especially poverty (Hanson and others 2013), and early life experience in general and parenting quality in particular (Kundakovic and Champagne 2015). There is a growing field of studies into socioeconomic neurogradients, defined as neural differences associated with differences in SES (Schibli and D’Angiul 2013). For example, it has been demonstrated that low SES environments in general and poverty in particular influence the rate of human brain development (Hanson and others 2013). Specifically, children from lower SES environments differ in their gray matter accumulation in the frontal and parietal lobes, such that differences widen throughout development as the exposure to impoverished environments continues (figure 3). Of note was that volumetric brain differences were associated with the emergence of disruptive behavioral problems (Hanson and others 2013).”
27. Redhead D, Power EA. 2022 Social hierarchies and social networks in humans. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20200440. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0440
Peter, T., & Sergey, G. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evolution & History, 8(2), 167-198.
“…all human societies, even the simplest ones…are organized hierarchically.”
28. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Bates, T. C., Maher, B. S., Medland, S. E., McAloney, K., Wright, M. J., Hansell, N. K., … & Gillespie, N. A. (2018). The nature of nurture: Using a virtual-parent design to test parenting effects on children’s educational attainment in genotyped families. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 21(2), 73-83. “…environments too are heritable, either due to passive parental creation of the environment, or active evocation of the environment by offspring.” “…behavior present in parents…forms an environmental inheritance for children, operating in addition to their genetic inheritance and impacting their attainment.” “The results thus demonstrate that, in part, offspring cultural and cognitive development results from genes operating in parents.”
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on psychological science, 11(1), 3-23.
Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS genetics, 16(11), e1009153. “Our study investigates the complex interplay between genetic and environmental contributions underlying educational achievement (EA). Polygenic scores are becoming increasingly powerful predictors of EA. While emerging evidence indicates that polygenic scores are not pure measures of genetic predisposition, previous quantitative genetics findings indicate that measures of the environment are themselves heritable. In this regard it is unclear how such measures of individual predisposition jointly combine to predict EA. We investigate this question in a representative UK sample of 7,026 16-year-olds where we provide substantive results on gene-environment correlation and interaction underlying variation in EA. We show that polygenic score and environmental prediction models of EA overlap substantially. Polygenic scores effects on EA are partly accounted for by their correlation with environmental effects; similarly, environmental effects on EA are linked to polygenic scores effects. Nonetheless, jointly considering polygenic scores and measured environments significantly improves prediction of EA. We also find that, although correlation between polygenic scores and measured environments is substantial, interactions between them do not play a significant role in the prediction of EA.” “Our findings have relevance for genomic and environmental prediction models alike, as they show the way in which individuals’ genetic predispositions and environmental effects are intertwined. This suggests that both genetic and environmental effects must be taken into account in prediction models of complex behavioral traits such as EA.”
29. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: prediction versus explanation. Molecular psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.
Torvik, F. A., Eilertsen, E. M., Hannigan, L. J., Cheesman, R., Howe, L. J., Magnus, P., … & Ystrom, E. (2022). Modeling assortative mating and genetic similarities between partners, siblings, and in-laws. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1108.
30. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.
31. Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
32. Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
33. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.p3
34. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
35. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
36. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. P133
37. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. P133
38. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P557-558 Kindle edition
39. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
40. Peter, T., & Sergey, G. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evolution & History, 8(2), 167-198.
41. OPEN
42. Turchin, P., Whitehouse, H., Gavrilets, S., Hoyer, D., François, P., Bennett, J. S., … & Benam, M. (2022). Disentangling the evolutionary drivers of social complexity: A comprehensive test of hypotheses. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn3517.
43. Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2022). Innovation and inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies.
“Another source of top income inequality is entry barriers and lobbying: lobbying activities typically help incumbents prevent new entry and thereby preserve their rents. But precisely because they get in the way of new entry and creative destruction, lobbying activities reduce both productivity growth and social mobility.”
“In fact one can show, using cross US states panel data on lobbying, that: (i) like innovation, lobbying is positively correlated with the top 1% share of income; (ii) unlike innovation, lobbying is negatively correlated with social mobility and entrant innovation; (iii) unlike innovation, lobbying is positively and significantly correlated with the Gini coefficient (i.e., with broad inequality).”
“Should we worry that innovation increases top income inequality, now we know that, unlike lobbying, it also enhances social mobility, and consequently does not seem to affect global measures of inequality? In other words, should we worry about the rich? One reason to worry is that the wealthy, including those that have become rich by successfully innovating in the past, can use their wealth to lobby in order to protect their own markets, for example, by preventing new innovators from entering the market.”
44. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
45. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/about-the-review/our-approach/
46. von Stumm, S. (2022). Early childhood inequalities: The rocky path from observation to action. The IFS Deaton Review on Inequality: Invited commentary on the Chapter: Early childhood inequalities.
47. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
48. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
49. Amis, J.M., Munir, K.A., Lawrence, T.B., Hirsch, P. & McGahan, A. (2018). Inequality, institutions and organizations. Organization Studies, 39(9): 1131-1152.
50. Kriss, P. H., Weber, R. A., & Xiao, E. (2016). Turning a blind eye, but not the other cheek: On the robustness of costly punishment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 159-177.
51. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge. 67-99
52. Slater, M., Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Haggard, P., Vinkers, C., Gregory-Clarke, R., Jelley, S., … & Silver, J. (2020). The ethics of realism in virtual and augmented reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1, 1.
53. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge. 67-99
54. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge. 67-99
Rauscher, Frederick, “Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/kant-social-political/>.
55. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
56. Open
57. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
58. Open
59. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
60. Rai, Tage Shakti, Alan Page Fiske. 2011. “Moral Psychology Is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality.” Psychological Review, Vol 118, No 1, 57-75. Shaki and Fiske show the relational nature of moral judgment.
Rilling, J. K., Gutman, D. A., Zeh, T. R., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G. S., & Kilts, C. D. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35(2), 395-405.
Haidt, Jonathan (2012-03-13). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Kindle Location 95). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Sanfey, Alan G. 2007. “Social Decision Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience.” Science 26 October Vol 38. No. 5850.
Tabibnia, Golnaz, Matthew D. Lieberman. 2007. “Fairness and Cooperation are Rewarding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118: 90–101. Dominique De
Quervain et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004). Ernst Fehr, Urs Fischbacher and Michel Kosfeld. “Neuroeconomic Foundations of Trust and Social Preferences: Initial Evidence.” American Economic Review, 2005, 95(2), 346-351.
Gospic, Katarina, Erik Mohlin, Peter Fransson, Predrag Petrovic, Magnus Johannesson, Martin Ingvar. “Limbic Justice—Amygdala Involvement in Immediate Rejection in the Ultimatum Game.” PLoS Biology, 2011; 9 (5).
Sigmund,Karl. “Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans.” TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 22, No. 11.
Henrich, Joseph, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer, John Ziker. “Costly Punishment Across Human Societies.” 2006. Science, Vol 312, 23.
Hinde, Robert A, Jo Groebel, ed. 1991. Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour. Cambridge University Press. Introduction. Psychologists Robert Hinde and Jo Groebel explain that from a psychological perspective there are different motives behind prosocial behavior. “Prosocial activities may be based on mixed motives, some of them centered around positive outcomes for the individual, some however more related to survival or well-being of the group, society or nation.” “In an actual war situation…individual aggression may be absent and the primary psychological process may even be prosocial behavior and cooperation between soldiers of the same army who simply fulfill the task they are given…the relationship between antisocial and prosocial behavior is not as clear-cut as it might seem.”
Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gachter. 2002. “Altruistic Punishment in humans.” Nature 415, 137; De Quervain, Dominique J-F., et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004)
Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2011-05-31). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Penner, Louis A., Johan F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, David A. Schroeder. 2005. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:14.1–14.28
Buckholtz, Joshua W., Rene Marois. 2012. “The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms…
Joseph Henrich, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer, John Ziker. “Costly Punishment Across Human Societies.” 2006. Science, Vol 312, 23
Samuel Bowles, Gintis, Herbert (2011-05-31). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Kindle). Princeton University Press; Kindle Edition.
Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Christopher Boehm, 2000. “Conflict and the Evolution of Social Control.” Journal of Consciousness Studies
Benedikt Herrman, Chistian Thoni, Simon Gachter. 2008. “Antisocial Punishment Across Societies.” Science, Vol. 319 No. 5868
Dominique Quervain, Urs Fischbacher, Valerie Treyer, Melanie Schellhammer, Ulrich Schnyder, Alfred Buck, Ernst Fehr. 2004. “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment.” Science Vol 305
Gachter, Simon, Elke Renner, Martin Sefton. 2008. “The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment.” Science, Vol 322. According to research by economist Simon Gachter and associates “punishment not only increases cooperation, it also makes groups and individuals better off in the long run because the costs of punishment become negligible and are outweighed by the increased gains from cooperation. These results support group selection models of cooperation and punishment, which require that punishment increases not only cooperation but also group average payoffs.”
However, Gachter’s research also shows the long-term effects of punishment based upon moral acceptance of the punishments as prosocial, which includes the duplicity of prosocial behavior when he notes “the widespread existence of antisocial punishment” aimed at individuals “who behave prosocially.”
61. Krasnow, M. M. (2016). Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely. Behav. Brain Sci, 39, 27-28.
62. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333-1347.
63. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333-1347.
64. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333-1347.
65. OPEN.
66. Snyder-Beattie, A. E., Ord, T., & Bonsall, M. B. (2019). An upper bound for the background rate of human extinction. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1-9.
67. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
68. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
69. OPEN.
70. OPEN
71. OPEN
72. Bartels, M., Nes, R. B., Armitage, J. M., van de Wijer, M. P., de Vries, L. P., & Haworth, C. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness.
73. OPEN
74. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
75. Ibid.
76. Kandler, C., Richter, J., Zapko-Willmes, A. (2017). Genetic Basis of Traits. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1473-1 “Genetic factors can drive experiences and the development of traits through genetically driven preferences, choices, and behavioral patterns across time. People select and create their niches, they are attracted to or avoid environments, evoke social reactions, and thus construct their own experiences. In this way, the genetic basis influences the course of trait development. The genetic unfolding, however, depends on the access to or the limitation of opportunities afforded by the environment, and people are differently sensitive to same environments depending upon their partly heritable traits. Individual differences in personality traits result from the product of both the individual genetic makeup and experiences, which are individually filtered and constructed from the opportunities provided by the environment.”
77. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
78. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. Principles of neural science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division. Kindle version. P95 & P3756
“…neurons are computational devices.”
79. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of research in personality, 56, 33-58.
80. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of research in personality, 56, 33-58.
81. Haworth, C. M., & Davis, O. S. (2014). From observational to dynamic genetics. Frontiers in Genetics, 5, 6.
82. Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version. p100-101. “We actively perceive modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.” “…children make their own environments regarding their parents. That is, they select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.”
83. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version.
84. Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880.“Given the methodological barriers to studying the relationship between social-relational exposures and human individual differences, the present study provides evidence that social support and work-family spillover are related to hedonic well-being through genetic and environmental pathways.”
85. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
86. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
87. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
88. Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
89. Morris, T. T., von Hinke, S., Pike, L., Ingram, N. R., Davey Smith, G., Munafò, M. R., & Davies, N. M. (2022). Implications of the genomic revolution for education research and policy. British Educational Research Journal.
90. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
91. Claessens, S., Chaudhuri, A., Sibley, C., & Atkinson, Q. (2022). The evolutionary basis of political ideology. The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology, 22-36.
92. Milanovic, Branko 2021. “What Happened to Social Mobility in America?” A New Aristocracy Has a Lock on Capital and Jobs. Foreign Affairs. January 8, 2021
93. Torvik, F. A., Eilertsen, E. M., Hannigan, L. J., Cheesman, R., Howe, L. J., Magnus, P., … & Ystrom, E. (2022). Modeling assortative mating and genetic similarities between partners, siblings, and in-laws. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1108.
94. OPEN
95. OPEN
96. Oesch, D., & Vigna, N. (2022). A decline in the social status of the working class? Conflicting evidence for 8 Western countries, 1987–2017. Comparative Political Studies, 55(7), 1130-1157.
97. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
98. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
99. Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., … & Cutler, D. (2016). The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014. Jama, 315(16), 1750-1766.
100. Angus Deaton, PhD, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. Published Online: April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4072
Deaton, Angus. Global patterns of income and health: facts, interpretations, and policies. No. w12735. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006 Organization
Deaton, Angus (2013-09-22). The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
101. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. P259
“The K-12 educational system is largely designed to prepare people to go to college, although only a third succeed in doing so, something that is wasteful and unjust.”
102. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health. “It is well-known that people with high SES also tend to live longer and healthier lives than those with lower SES.”
Acemoglu, D. (2010). Theory, general equilibrium, and political economy in development economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 17-32. “Typically, policymakers introduce or maintain such policies to remain in power, or to enrich themselves, or because politically powerful elites oppose the entry of rivals, the introduction of new technologies, or improvements in the property rights of their workers or competitors.”
103. Allen, R. C. (2011). Global economic history: a very short introduction (Vol. 282). Oxford University Press. P85-89
104. Allen, R. C. (2011). Global economic history: a very short introduction (Vol. 282). Oxford University Press. P85-89
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.
112. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
113. https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/ai-colonialism-supertopic/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/20/1050392/ai-industry-appen-scale-data-labels/
114. https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/ai-colonialism-supertopic/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/20/1050392/ai-industry-appen-scale-data-labels/
115. OPEN
116. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
117. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
118. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
119. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
120. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220. “…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.” “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “An active rGE arises when individuals’ genetically influenced traits affect their choice of environments (e.g., friends, activities). Environmentally mediated pleiotropy–whereby genetic influences on a specific trait predispose an individual to experience a specific environment, which in turn affects an additional trait–can be viewed as an extension of rGEs: a gene-environment-trait correlation.”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Also see notes 10, 17, 171, 235.
121. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
von Stumm S., Smith-Woolley E., Ayorech Z., et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925. https ://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12925
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., …& Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
“…we propose that the social environment can also transform the genetic link between two traits.”
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
122. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
Batson, C. Daniel. 2008. “Empathy-Induced Altruistic Motivation.” Draft of lecture/chapter for Inaugural Herzliya Symposium on “Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior. p 3-5.
123. Batson, C. Daniel. 2008. “Empathy-Induced Altruistic Motivation.” Draft of lecture/chapter for Inaugural Herzliya Symposium on “Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior. p 3-5.
“Given my definitions of altruism and egoism, helping another person even at great cost to self—may be altruistically motivated, egoistically motivated, or both (see chap. 5, this volume, for a conceptually similar typology of prosocial behavior).”
Reference is made to Batson’s idea altruistic and egoistic motivations can be selfish, moral, amoral or immoral based on the moral standard applied.
124. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
125. Gowdy, J., & Krall, L. (2016). Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.
Cutler, D., Deaton, A., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). The determinants of mortality. Journal of economic perspectives, 20(3), 97-120.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.“In America, money buys access to better healthcare” P133
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118. (The incomes of the less educated are also more likely to be at risk, exacerbating the income to mortality gradient.)
126. Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415), eaam5979.
127. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(supplement_2), 8993-8999.
128. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(supplement_2), 8993-8999.
129. OPEN
130. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
131. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
132. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
133. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1-43.
134. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1-43.
135. Jebb, A.T., Tay, L., Diener, E. et al. Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world. Nat Hum Behav 2, 33–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0
136. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 107(38), 16489-16493.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid.
139. https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com 2023
140. https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com 2023
141. https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com 2023
142. Bowles, Samuel 2004. Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution. Princeton University Press. p7
143. Milanovic, Branko 2012. “Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and Now, Policy Research Working Paper 6259
144. Kenworthy, L. (2022). Economic Inequality and Plutocracy. #55
145. OPEN
146. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic%2C_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
147. Ibid.
148. Ibid.
149. Bitarello, B. D., & Mathieson, I. (2020). Polygenic scores for height in admixed populations. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 10(11), 4027-4036.
Tailoring healthcare services based on people’s DNA differences relies on polygenic scores that are “limited by their lack of applicability to non-European ancestry populations.”
Sirugo, G., Williams, S. M., & Tishkoff, S. A. (2019). The missing diversity in human genetic studies. Cell, 177(1), 26-31. “It is clear that patterns of genetic variation among populations can affect both disease risk and treatment efficacy and safety. Yet, a majority of studies still occur in European ancestry populations and the results can have limited utility across populations. This bias effectively translates into poorer disease prediction and treatment for individuals of under-represented ancestries. Importantly, studying diverse populations increases our ability to broadly understand genetic disease architectures that will, ultimately, lead to increased precision in medical care.”
150. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
151. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
152. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
153. Conway, C. C., & Slavich, G. M. (2017). Behavior genetics of prosocial behavior. Compassion, 151-170.
Schlag, F., Allegrini, A. G., Buitelaar, J., Verhoef, E., van Donkelaar, M., Plomin, R., … & St Pourcain, B. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular psychiatry, 27(3), 1588-1598.
154. Penner, Louis A., Johan F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, David A. Schroeder. 2005. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:14.1–14.28; Buckholtz, Joshua W., Rene Marois. 2012.
Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
Boxer, P., Tisak, M. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2004). Is it bad to be good? An exploration of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 91-100.
Hinde, Robert A, Jo Groebel, ed. 1991. Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour. Cambridge University Press. Introduction.
155. Alexander, Richard D. “How did humans evolve.” Reflections on the uniquely unique species. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 1 (1990): 1-38.
156. Ibid.
157. see note 60.
158. Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., … & Zefferman, M. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e30.
159. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
160. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P25 Kindle edition
161. Bowles, Samuel and Arjun Jayadev. 2005. “Guard Labor.” Journal of Development Economics, Vol 79, Issue 2. p328-348; Also see: Bowles, Samuel and Arjun Jayadev. 2007. “Garrison America.” The Economists’ Voice 4:2, Article 3. In this article, Bowles and Jayadev estimate that America devotes about a quarter of its labor force to conflicts over dividing up the pie rather than producing it–far more than other nations.
162. Ibid.
163. Ibid.
164. Ibid.
165. Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version.
166. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
167. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
168. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
169. OPEN
170. See note 6.
171. Plomin, R., & Simpson, M. A. (2013). The future of genomics for developmentalists. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1263-1278.
172. See note 120 and notes 6,7,13,14,125,43.
173. Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Cai, T. (2008). The integration of genetic propensities into social-control models of delinquency and violence among male youths. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 543-568.
Liu, H., Li, Y. & Guo, G. (2015) Gene by social-environment interaction for youth delinquency and violence: thirty-nine agression-related genes. Social Forces, 93(3), 881-903.
174. Krasnow, M. M. (2016). Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely. Behav. Brain Sci, 39, 27-28.
175. von Stumm, S., Kandaswamy, R., & Maxwell, J. (2022). Gene-environment Interplay in Early Life Cognitive Development.
Also see: von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., Lyon, K., & Nancarrow, A. F. (2022). New methods, persistent issues, and one solution: Gene-environment interaction studies of childhood cognitive development.
176. von Stumm, S., Smith‐Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., McMillan, A., Rimfeld, K., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental science, 23(3), e12925.
177. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
178. Gintis, H., & van Schaik, C. (2013). Zoon Politicon: The evolutionary roots of human sociopolitical systems. Cultural evolution, 25-44.
179. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(supplement_2), 8993-8999.
180. Wrangham, R. W. (2019). Hypotheses for the evolution of reduced reactive aggression in the context of human self-domestication. Frontiers in Psychology, 1914.
181. Ibid.
182. Boehm, Christopher. 1993. “Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp 227-254. Also see: Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Kindle Location 908).
183. Boehm, Christopher (2012-05-01). Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame (p. 321). Basic Books. Kindle Edition
184. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle. L177.
185. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 178-179.
186. Boehm, Christopher (2012-05-01). Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame (p. 204). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.
187. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 573.
188. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 926.
189. Tilly, C. (2011). Cities, states, and trust networks: chapter 1 of Cities and States in World History. In Contention and trust in cities and states (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
“No states existed anywhere in the world before 4000 BCE.”
https://archive.org/details/KA_Where_and_Why_Did_the_First_Cities_and_States_Appear
190. Open
191. Chirot, D. 1994. Modern tyrants: The Power & Prevalence of Evil in our Age, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
192. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L1846
193. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P557 Kindle edition
194. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
195. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
196. Lucas, R. E. (2002). The industrial revolution: Past and future. Lectures on economic growth, 109, 188.
197. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. P14 Kindle
198. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
199. Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M., & Reimchen, T. E. (2015). The unique ecology of human predators. Science, 349(6250), 858-860.
200. Wallach, A. D., Izhaki, I., Toms, J. D., Ripple, W. J., & Shanas, U. (2015). What is an apex predator? Oikos, 124(11), 1453-1461.
201. Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 5(1), 325-383.
202. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L11236
203. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version.
204. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L242
205. Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental review, 19(1),
97-132.
206. Pybus, K., Power, M., Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. (2022). Income inequality, status consumption and status anxiety: An exploratory review of implications for sustainability and directions for future research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1), 100353. “Income inequality has been associated with higher levels of status consumption with well-established harmful effects on health, wellbeing and economic stability. Research has suggested that status anxiety may be the mechanism that connects income inequality with status consumption, but the literature is disparate. In this interdisciplinary review, we draw together the evidence and explore the implications for climate change and sustainability, identifying that status anxiety may be a key driver of the higher levels of consumption in more unequal contexts. We find that status-anxiety fueled consumption is associated with household debt, spatial inequalities, cycles of unsustainable consumption and longer commuting times, ultimately contributing to higher carbon emissions.”
207. Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine, eds. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. OUP USA, 2010. P 147:154:149-150:
An article in The Oxford handbook of the History of Eugenics makes this point: “Worldwide, eugenic rhetoric and practices have been intertwined with political ideologies ranging across the entire political spectrum, from anarchism, social democracy, and feminism to conservatism and fascism.” “The strong connection between eugenics and nationalism is now a clear interpretative strand in the historiography. From strident British “race patriotism,” to “blood and homeland” arguments in central and southeast Europe, from anti-colonial nationalism in Latin America to nationalist race hygiene in Spain, eugenics was a key component of modern discourse on race and nations.” “Caution must therefore be exercised in assuming that the scale of eugenics in national settings can be judged from the presence or absence of eugenic legislation by the state. In other, more unusual cases, eugenicists never appealed for state intervention in the first place, as illustrated by the Spanish anarchist versions of eugenics. Eugenic practices thus occurred not only within, but also outside of and against the state.”
208. Stratford, Beth. “The threat of rent extraction in a resource-constrained future.” Ecological economics 169 (2020): 106524
209. Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (p. 95). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
210. Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (p. 47). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
211. Witting, Volker: Opinion: We need rights protections on the supply chain – DW.com – 07/18/2020 https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-we-need-a-supply-chain-law-to-protect-human-rights-in-business/a-54215386
212. Kern, A. D., & Hahn, M. W. (2018). The neutral theory in light of natural selection. Molecular biology and evolution, 35(6), 1366-1371. “…genomes are shaped in prominent ways by the direct and indirect consequences of natural selection.”
Wainschtein, P., Jain, D. P., Yengo, L., Zheng, Z., Cupples, L. A., Shadyab, A. H., & Visscher, P. M. (2019). Recovery of trait heritability from whole genome sequence data. bioRxiv 588020. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1101/588020. “Natural selection shapes the joint distribution of effect size and allele frequency of genetic variants for complex traits in populations…”
213. Ding, Y., Hou, K., Xu, Z., Pimplaskar, A., Petter, E., Boulier, K., … & Pasaniuc, B. (2023). Polygenic scoring accuracy varies across the genetic ancestry continuum. Nature, 1-8. Polygenic scores are “estimates of an individual’s genetic predisposition for complex traits and diseases”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: prediction versus explanation. Molecular psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
214. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: prediction versus explanation. Molecular psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.
215. Selzam, S., Ritchie, S. J., Pingault, J. B., Reynolds, C. A., O’Reilly, P. F., & Plomin, R. (2019). Comparing within-and between-family polygenic score prediction. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 105(2), 351-363. “…EA GPS <polygenic score> is widely associated with traits other than educational achievement, including intelligence, socioeconomic status (SES), behavior problems, mental health, physical health, and personality…”
216. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
217. Ruan, Y., Lin, Y. F., Feng, Y. C. A., Chen, C. Y., Lam, M., Guo, Z., … & Ge, T. (2022). Improving polygenic prediction in ancestrally diverse populations. Nature genetics, 54(5), 573-580.
218. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
219. Koch, S., Schmidtke, J., Krawczak, M., & Caliebe, A. (2023). Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores: a critical 2023 appraisal. Journal of Community Genetics, 1-17.
220. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634. “People do not randomly select environments, but maneuver and position themselves into environments and milieus where they can thrive, as well as react to environments provided to them (e.g., by caregivers). That is, people select into certain environments (e.g., niches) to reinforce innate or learned abilities…”
Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880. “…individuals are not randomly assigned to social-relational environments. Rather, individuals select into and evoke responses from environments based on their heritable characteristics.”
Sophie von Stumm et al point out, research shows people “are systematically assorted to environments rather than randomly distributed across them”1 and that “children are assorted to environments in line with their genetic propensities”10 (See reference notes 1 and 10.)
221. Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing. P26
222. Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing. P41
223. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P25 Kindle edition
224. Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880.
225. Domingue, B. W., Belsky, D. W., Fletcher, J. M., Conley, D., Boardman, J. D., & Harris, K. M. (2018). The social genome of friends and schoolmates in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(4), 702-707.
226. Shipman, P. (Ed.). (2010). The animal connection and human evolution. Current Anthropology, 51(4), 519-538.“The first and second stages of human evolution reveal a trajectory in behavior that is marked by an intensifying focus on the behavior and ecology of animals, accompanying a progressive broadening of the human predatory niche.” “An alternative scenario is that the hominin lineage, including modern humans, is characterized by an ability to be increasingly successful predators that shift to other resources when necessary.”
Vermeij, G. J. (2002). Evolution in the consumer age: predators and the history of life. The Paleontological Society Papers, 8, 375-394. “Three properties of predation make this form of consumption an important agency of evolution: universality (all species have predators), high frequency (encounters of prey with predators test both parties often), and imperfection (many predatory attacks fail, enabling antipredatory selection to take place). On long time scales, predators have two principal effects: they influence their victims’ phenotypes, and prey species that are highly vulnerable to all phases of predatory attacks are evolutionarily restricted to environments where predators are rarely encountered. Although predator and prey can affect each other’s behavior and morphology on timescales commensurate with individual lifespans, predators have the evolutionary upper hand over the long run, especially in the expression of sensory capacities, locomotor performance, and the application of force. Only in passive defenses (armor, toxicity, large body size) does escalation favor the prey.”
227. Hendrycks, D. (2023). Natural selection favors ais over humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16200.
228. Hendrycks, D. (2023). Natural selection favors ais over humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16200.
“We offer three practical suggestions. First, we suggest supporting research on AI safety. While no safety technique is a silver bullet, together they can help shape the composition of the evolving population of AI agents and cull unsafe AI agents. Second, looking to the farther future, we advocate avoiding giving AIs rights for the next several decades and avoid building AIs with the capacity to suffer or making them worthy of rights.”
229. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
“Quantitative genetic theory distinguishes two types of interplay between genetic and environmental effects, genotype-environment correlation (rGE) and genotype-environment interaction (GxE).”
230. Soergel, B., Kriegler, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., & Popp, A. (2021). Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nature Communications, 12(1), 2342.
“With the adoption of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) an ambitious agenda for mitigating climate change, fostering human development and protecting the biosphere has been set by the international community.”
231. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling
232. Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(10), e2208661120.
233. Powers, S. T., van Shaik, C. P., & Lehmann, L. (2012). Cooperation in large-scale human societies – What, if anything, makes it unique, and how did it evolve? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 30(4), 280-293. Powers et al write: “Broadly, individuals are assumed to express behavioral rules that serve, over their lifetime, their genetic interests. This is the standard model of human behavior of evolutionary biology, where individuals are expected to treat interaction partners according to their degree of genetic relationship towards them, and should thus appear to behave as if they strive to maximize a measure of inclusive fitness.”
Steven Pinker makes this point about inclusive fitness: “Critics who are determined to misunderstand this theory imagine that it requires that organisms consciously calculate their genetic overlap with their kin and anticipate the good it will do their DNA.” “As with all aspects of our psychology that have been illuminated by evolutionary theory, what matters is not actual genetic relatedness…but the perception of relatedness.”
Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L7879
234. Ayorech, Z., Baldwin, J. R., Pingault, J. B., Rimfeld, K., & Plomin, R. (2023). Gene-environment correlations and genetic confounding underlying the association between media use and mental health. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1030.
“Genetic differences contribute to how young people create their online environments and support the widely demonstrated finding that many so-called “environments” are themselves under substantial genetic influence.”
Additional references:
Plomin, R. & Bergeman, C. S. The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. Behav. Brain Sci. 14, 373–386 (1991).
Plomin, R., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M. & Howe, G. W. Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Dev. Psychol. 30, 32 (1994).
235. Rimfeld, K., Ayorech, Z., Dale, P. S., Kovas, Y., Plomin, R. (2016). Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Scientific reports, 6(1), 26373. “The findings that DNA differences substantially affect differences in appetites as well as aptitudes suggest a genetic way of thinking about education in which individuals actively create their own educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities.”
236.
237.
238.
239.
240. Hussain, Waheed, “The Common Good”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/common-good/>.
Reference to the phrase: “There is something morally defective…”
241. Below is information about the ‘oldest Homo Sapiens remains yet found.’ There is also a reference to the use of hominin vs hominid.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com › science-nature › essential-timeline-understanding-evolution-homo-sapiens-180976807 An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens | Smithsonian “But fragments of 300,000-year-old skulls, jaws, teeth and other fossils found at Jebel Irhoud, a rich site also home to advanced stone tools, are the oldest Homo sapiens remains yet found.”
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Timeline_of_human_evolution Timeline of human evolution – Wikipedia “Fossils attributed to H. sapiens, along with stone tools, dated to approximately 300,000 years ago, found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco yield the earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Modern human presence in East Africa , at 276 kya.”
https://www.britannica.com › science › human-evolution
Human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts “Viewed zoologically, we humans are Homo sapiens, a culture-bearing upright-walking species that lives on the ground and very likely first evolved in Africa about 315,000 years ago.”
https://www.science.org › content › article › world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco World’s oldest Homo sapiens fossils found in Morocco “Now, their quest has taken an unexpected detour west to Morocco: Researchers have redated a long-overlooked skull from a cave called Jebel Irhoud to a startling 300,000 years ago, and unearthed new fossils and stone tools. The result is the oldest well-dated evidence of Homo sapiens…”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com › history › article › morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science
These Early Humans Lived 300,000 Years Ago—But Had Modern Faces
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference/
https://www.britannica.com › topic › hominin
Apr 25, 2024…”Hominin, any member of the zoological ‘tribe’ Hominini (family Hominidae, order Primates), of which only one species exists today—Homo sapiens. The term is used most often to refer to extinct members of the human lineage, including Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus…”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com › science-nature › whats-in-a-name-hominid-versus-hominin-216054
What’s in a Name? Hominid Versus Hominin | Smithsonian “Here, the term hominin refers to the tribe Hominini. That’s why many of our extinct ancestors are now called hominins. But it’s not technically wrong to call them hominids—all members of …”
242. Dick, Danielle M., Brien Riley, and Kenneth S. Kendler. “Nature and nurture in neuropsychiatric genetics: where do we stand?.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 12.1 (2010): 7-23.
243. Perlstein, Samantha, and Rebecca Waller. “Integrating the study of personality and psychopathology in the context of gene‐environment correlations across development.” Journal of Personality 90.1 (2022): 47-60.
244. Tel-Aviv University. “Humans were apex predators for two million
years, study finds.” ScienceDaily. 5 April 2021.
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm>.
245. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
246. Milinski, Manfred. “Extortion—a voracious prosocial strategy.” Current Opinion in Psychology 44 (2022): 196-201.
247. Schlag, Fenja, et al. “Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population.” Molecular psychiatry 27.3 (2022): 1588-1598. “Social behaviour is known to be heritable. Twin studies have reported heritability estimates of 0.38–0.76 [20–22] for prosocial behaviour …”
Saudino KJ, Ronald A, Plomin R. The etiology of behavior problems in 7-year old twins: substantial genetic influence and negligible shared environmental influence for parent ratings and ratings by same and different teachers. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2005;33:113–30.
Scourfield J, John B, Martin N, McGuffin P. The development of prosocial beha-
viour in children and adolescents: a twin study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
2004;45:927–35
Knafo A, Plomin R. Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood:
genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Dev Psychol.
2006;42:771–86.
248. Stueber, Karsten, “Empathy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/empathy/>.
249. Cikara, Mina, Susan T. Fiske. 2011. “Bounded Empathy: Neural Responses to Outgroup Targets’ (Mis)fortunes.” J Cogn Neurosci 23(12): 3791-3803.
250. Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
251. van de Weijer, M. P., et al. “Capturing the well-being exposome in poly-environmental scores.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 93 (2024): 102208
252. Virolainen, Samuel J., et al. “Gene–environment interactions and their impact on human health.” Genes & Immunity 24.1 (2023): 1-11.
253. Kandler, Christian, Wiebke Bleidorn, and Rainer Riemann. “Left or right? Sources of political orientation: the roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality.” Journal of personality and social psychology 102.3 (2012): 633.
254. Kalmoe, Nathan P., and Martin Johnson. “Genes, ideology, and sophistication.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 9.2 (2022): 255-266.
255. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/
256. Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126. “Gene-environment correlation refers to the phenomenon that environmental effects are not randomly distributed.”
257. Gregory, T. Ryan. “Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions.” Evolution: Education and outreach 2 (2009): 156-175.
258. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
259. Aristotle’s Politics: A Symposium; Aristotle on human nature and political virtue p731-753 Vol. 49 No. 4 June 1996 in The Review of Metaphysics. Julia Annis; JSTOR
260. Aristotle’s Best Regime: A reading of Aristotle’s Politics, VII 1-10 Jeff Chuska. Interpretations of VII 8-10.
261. Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine, eds. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. OUP USA, 2010. P146…Veronique Mottier
262. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
263. INQUIRIES INTO HUMAN FACULTY AND ITS DEVELOPMENT: FRANCIS GALTON
Originally published in 1883 by Macmillan. Second Edition, 1907 by J. M. Dent & Co. (Everyman) First electronic edition, 2001. Based on the text in the Everyman Second Edition (with all cuts from the first edition restored). Edited by Gavan Tredoux…This edition forms part of the online Galton archives at http://galton.org/ This is the first corrected proof, 2004.
264. Leonard, Thomas C. “More Merciful and Not Less Effective”: Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era.” History of Political Economy 35.4 (2003): 687-712.
265. R Haven Wiley “Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science.” Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (2020).
266. Brandon, Robert N. “The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 153-170.
Brandon writes: “This identifies an outcome – differential reproduction – but it has an explicitly causal component to it as well. Natural selection is not just any case of differential reproduction, but is those cases that are due to differential adaptedness (or fitness).”
Brandon makes this additional point: “Alternative ways of saying the same thing are (1) natural selection is nonrandom differential reproduction; and (2) natural selection is nonrandom differential reproduction that is in accord with expected reproductive success.”
267. Gachter, Simon, Elke Renner, Martin Sefton. 2008. “The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment.” Science, Vol 322.
268. Guo, G., Lin, MJ. & Harris, K.M. Socioeconomic and genomic roots of verbal ability from current evidence. npj Sci. Learn. 7, 22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00137-8
269. Trzaskowski, Maciej, et al. “Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children’s intelligence.” Intelligence 42 (2014): 83-88.
270. Ericsson, Malin, et al. “Educational influences on late-life health: Genetic propensity and attained education.” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 79.1 (2024): gbad153.
271. Cerutti, J., Lussier, A.A., Zhu, Y. et al. Associations between indicators of socioeconomic position and DNA methylation: a scoping review. Clin Epigenet 13, 221 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-021-01189-0
272. Stringhini, Silvia, et al. “Life-course socioeconomic status and DNA methylation of genes regulating inflammation.” International journal of epidemiology 44.4 (2015): 1320-1330.
273. Fancourt, D. and Steptoe, A. (2022), ‘The contribution of adult experiences, multimorbidity and positive psychological well-being to social inequalities in health’, IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities
274. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/end-life
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf
275. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/
276. Hyeokmoon Kweon, Gökhan Aydogan, Alain Dagher, Danilo Bzdok, Christian C. Ruff, Gideon Nave, Martha J. Farah, Philipp D. Koellinger. Human brain anatomy reflects separable genetic and environmental components of socioeconomic status. Science Advances, 2022; 8 (20) DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abm2923
277. Ojalehto, Elsa, et al. “Influences of genetically predicted and attained education on geographic mobility and their association with mortality.” Social Science & Medicine 324 (2023): 115882.
278. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/end-life
279. Kanherkar, Riya R., Naina Bhatia-Dey, and Antonei B. Csoka. “Epigenetics across the human lifespan.” Frontiers in cell and developmental biology 2 (2014): 49.
280. Plomin, Robert, and Michael A. Simpson. “The future of genomics for developmentalists.” Development and Psychopathology 25.4pt2 (2013): 1263-1278.
281. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/04/poverty-leaves-a-mark-on-our-genes/
McDade, Thomas W., et al. “Genome‐wide analysis of DNA methylation in relation to socioeconomic status during development and early adulthood.” American journal of physical anthropology 169.1 (2019): 3-11.
282. Raffington, Laurel, et al. “Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents.” Psychological Science 34.2 (2023): 170-185.
283. Richerson, Peter, et al. “Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 (2016): e30.
284. Strath, Larissa J., et al. “Socioeconomic status, knee pain, and epigenetic aging in community-dwelling middle-to-older age adults.” The Journal of Pain 25.2 (2024): 293
285. Abdellaoui, A., Hugh-Jones, D., Yengo, L. et al. Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1332–1342 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0757-5
286. Nielsen, K. S., Nicholas, K. A., Creutzig, F., Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (2021). The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Energy, 6(11), 1011-1016.
287. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature communications, 11(1), 3107
288. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Gregg, J. W., Rockström, J., Newsome, T. M., Law, B. E., … & King, S. D. A. (2023). The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. BioScience, 73(12), 841-850.
289. Koller, W. N., Thompson, H., & Cannon, T. D. (2023). Conspiracy mentality, subclinical paranoia, and political conservatism are associated with perceived status threat. Plos one, 18(11), e0293930.
290. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Gregg, J. W., Rockström, J., Newsome, T. M., Law, B. E., … & King, S. D. A. (2023). The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. BioScience, 73(12), 841-850.
291. Savelli, E., Mazzoleni, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Cloke, H., & Rusca, M. (2023). Urban water crises driven by elites’ unsustainable consumption. Nature Sustainability, 6(8), 929-940.
292. Meritocracy: (oxford English dictionary; middle english) (The concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology)– …fact or condition of deserving XIII; what is deserved; something that entitles one to recompense XIV. — (O)F. mérite — L. meritum price, value, service rendered, sb. use of n. pp. of merēre , -ērī earn, deserve, rel. to Gr. meíresthai obtain as a share, moîa share, fate, méros part. So merit vb. † reward XV; deserve XVI. — F. mériter . meritorious XV. f. L. meritōrius ….
293. Knell, Markus; Stix, Helmut (2017) : Perceptions of Inequality, Working Paper, No. 216, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB), Vienna
294. Aghion, P. and Griffith, R. (2022), ‘Innovation and inequalities’, IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities
295. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
296. Seabright, Paul. 2004. The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life. Princeton University Press.
297. Batson, C. Daniel, Nadia Ahmad, and E. L. Stocks. “Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism.” Social motivation. Psychology Press, 2011. 103-126.
298. Harden, Kathryn Paige. The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press, 2021.
299. Brandon, Robert N. “The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 153-170.
“I have characterized natural selection as follows: natural selection is differential reproduction that is due to differential adaptedness (or fitness) to a common selective environment (see, e.g., Brandon 1990, chapters 1 and 2).”
300. Plomin, Robert. “Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA.” Behavior genetics 44 (2014): 629-638.
301. Trzaskowski M, Harlaar N, Arden R, Krapohl E, Rimfeld K, McMillan A, Dale PS, Plomin R. Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children’s intelligence. Intelligence. 2014 Jan;42(100):83-88. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.11.002. PMID: 24489417; PMCID: PMC3907681.
“Our sample size is just on the cusp of being able to detect as significant the GCTA heritabilities of family SES, which is about 20%.”
“Using SNP genotypes from the children’s DNA, we found significant genetic influence on their families’ SES when the children were age 2 and age 7 (Table 1). The GCTA estimates of heritability were 18% at age 2 and 19% at age 7; the similarity of results at age 2 and 7 is not a foregone conclusion because the correlation between family SES at the two ages is 0.75. These are underestimates of true heritability because GCTA is limited to detecting genetic influence due to additive effects of the common SNPs that are on current DNA microarrays such as the Affymetrix 6.0 GeneChip used in our study.”
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Income, education and occupation are SES factors. “…education, income, personality, cognitive abilities, and occupational choices are all heritable to some extent and parents pass on both their environments and their genes to offspring.”
Krapohl, Eva, et al. “The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence.” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 111.42 (2014): 15273-15278. “The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits…”
Abdellaoui, A., Hugh-Jones, D., Yengo, L. et al. Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1332–1342 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0757-5 “Selective migration has led to geographic clustering of social and economic needs, which can coincide with collective attitudes towards how communities should be organized and governed. We successfully captured heritability signals for regional religiousness and regional political attitudes, both of which have been shown to be partly heritable on an individual level and to cluster geographically. From a regional genetic perspective, the selection outcomes can be roughly divided into lower SES and higher SES electorates. Our findings suggest that the previously reported heritability estimates of these traits on an individual level may contain genetic effects on traits, such as EA, that influence which socio-economic strata and geographic regions people end up living in.”
Schlag, Fenja, et al. “Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population.” Molecular psychiatry 27.3 (2022): 1588-1598. “Social behaviour is known to be heritable. Twin studies have reported heritability estimates of 0.38–0.76 [20–22] for prosocial behaviour and 0.41–0.83 [20, 23] for peer problems.”
Silveira, Patrícia Pelufo, and Michael J. Meaney. “Examining the biological mechanisms of human mental disorders resulting from gene-environment interdependence using novel functional genomic approaches.” Neurobiology of Disease 178 (2023): 106008.
“There is compelling evidence for heritable genetic polymorphisms as one source for these differential responses to the to environmental conditions. An evolution-based interpretation of these differences suggests that the same individuals that are more vulnerable when exposed to adverse scenarios display biological sensitivity to all contexts, and will therefore also benefit more from supportive conditions. The relevant genes involved on these effects have been termed “plasticity genes” (Belsky et al., 2009) as they appear to mediate the impact of environmental conditions on biology.”
302. Rilling, James K, et. al. (2002) “A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation.” Neuron Vol. 35, 395-405.
Sanfey, Alan G. 2007. “Social Decision Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience.” Science 26 October Vol 38=18. No. 5850
Tabibnia, Golnaz, Matthew D. Lieberman. 2007. “Fairness and Cooperation are Rewarding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118: 90–101.
De Quervain, Dominique J-F., et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004)
Fehr, Ernst, Urs Fischbacher and Michel Kosfeld. “Neuroeconomic Foundations of Trust and Social Preferences: Initial Evidence.” American Economic Review, 2005, 95(2), 346-351
Gospic Katarina, Erik Mohlin, Peter Fransson, Predrag Petrovic, Magnus Johannesson, Martin Ingvar. “Limbic Justice—Amygdala Involvement in Immediate Rejection in the Ultimatum Game.” PLoS Biology, 2011; 9 (5)
303. Izuma, Keise, and Ralph Adolphs. “Social manipulation of preference in the human brain.” Neuron 78.3 (2013): 563-573.
“…consistent with the hypothesis that not only agreeing with liked others (Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010; Klucharev et al., 2009), but also disagreeing with disliked others may both be rewarding.”
304. Rilling, James K, et. al. (2002) “A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation.” Neuron Vol. 35, 395-405.
Sanfey, Alan G. 2007. “Social Decision Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience.” Science 26 October Vol 38=18. No. 5850
Tabibnia, Golnaz, Matthew D. Lieberman. 2007. “Fairness and Cooperation are Rewarding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118: 90–101.
De Quervain, Dominique J-F., et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004)
Fehr, Ernst, Urs Fischbacher and Michel Kosfeld. “Neuroeconomic Foundations of Trust and Social Preferences: Initial Evidence.” American Economic Review, 2005, 95(2), 346-351
Gospic Katarina, Erik Mohlin, Peter Fransson, Predrag Petrovic, Magnus Johannesson, Martin Ingvar. “Limbic Justice—Amygdala Involvement in Immediate Rejection in the Ultimatum Game.” PLoS Biology, 2011; 9 (5)
Andreoni, James. 1990 “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving.” The Economic Journal, Volume 100, Issue 401, 464-477
William T. Harbaugh, Ulrich Mayr, Daniel R. Burghart. 2007. “Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations.” Science 316, 1622
305. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genomic-variation
“any two peoples’ genomes are, on average, ~99.6% identical and ~0.4% different.”
306. Van der Weide, Roy, and Branko Milanovic. “Inequality is bad for growth of the poor (but not for that of the rich).” The World Bank Economic Review 32.3 (2018): 507-530.
307. Milanovic, Branko. “Why might the rich be indifferent to income growth of their own countries?.” Economics letters 147 (2016): 108-111.
308. Piketty, Thomas (2014-03-10). Capital in the Twenty-First Century Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
309. Isakov, Alexander, and David G. Rand. “The evolution of coercive institutional punishment.” Dynamic Games and Applications 2 (2012): 97-109.
310. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2012-06-04). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. Norton. Kindle Edition.
311. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001 P117
312. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
Belsky, Jay. “The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives.” Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Rietveld, C. A. (2024). Heritability and Public Policy Reconsidered, Again. Tinbergen Institute. “A steadily increasing number of studies shows that economic preferences (Benjamin et al. 2012; Cesarini et al. 2009a; 2009b; Wallace et al. 2007) and socio-economic status indicators are also partly heritable (Benjamin et al. 2012; Bingley, Cappellari and Tatsiramos 2023; Branigan, McCallum and Freese 2013; Hyytinen et al. 2019; Polderman et al. 2015; Silventoinen et al. 2020; Van der Loos et al. 2013).”
Hyytinen, A., Ilmakunnas, P., Johansson, E., & Toivanen, O. (2019). Heritability of lifetime earnings. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 17, 319-335. “…it is useful to recall that heritability measures the extent to which genetic variation between individuals account for differences in a particular outcome, in a particular population, characterized by a particular mix of genetic and environmental influences that prevailed at the time of measurement (Plomin et al. 2014).”
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26. “…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.” “Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
Erola, Jani, et al. “Socioeconomic Background and Gene–Environment Interplay in Social Stratification across the Early Life Course.” European Sociological Review 1 (2021): 17.
313. Schlag, F., Allegrini, A. G., Buitelaar, J., Verhoef, E., van Donkelaar, M., Plomin, R., … & St Pourcain, B. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular psychiatry, 27(3), 1588-1598.
ALSO SEE:
Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
“It is possible to test for the presence of gene-environment
correlation, and one method to do this is using the twin design to estimate the heritability of environmental experiences. A systematic review of gene-environment correlation twin studies estimated that the average heritability of measures of the environment was as high as 27%.”
Belsky, Jay. “The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives.” Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Rietveld, C. A. (2024). Heritability and Public Policy Reconsidered, Again. Tinbergen Institute. “A steadily increasing number of studies shows that economic preferences (Benjamin et al. 2012; Cesarini et al. 2009a; 2009b; Wallace et al. 2007) and socio-economic status indicators are also partly heritable (Benjamin et al. 2012; Bingley, Cappellari and Tatsiramos 2023; Branigan, McCallum and Freese 2013; Hyytinen et al. 2019; Polderman et al. 2015; Silventoinen et al. 2020; Van der Loos et al. 2013).”
Kendler, Kenneth S., and Jessica H. Baker. “Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review.” Psychological medicine 37.5 (2007): 615-626.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability “According to Turkheimer, both genes and environment are heritable, genetic contribution varies by environment…”
314. Belsky, J. (2024). The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives. Development and Psychopathology, 1-10. “Epigenetics studies how the environment impacts how genes express themselves in phenotypes. The fact that the genome contains environmentally influenced epigenes that regulate the behavior of genes makes the dichotomy between nurture versus nature misleading. It is more appropriate to talk about nature via nurture; for an interesting introduction to these ideas, see Ridley 2003.”
Mogstad, M., & Torsvik, G. (2023). Family background, neighborhoods, and intergenerational mobility. Handbook of the Economics of the Family, 1(1), 327-387
315. von Stumm, S. (2022), ‘Early childhood inequalities: the rocky path from observation to action’, IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities
316. ILO and UNICEF. 2023. More than a billion reasons: The urgent need to build universal social protection for children. Second ILO–UNICEF Joint Report on Social Protection for Children. Geneva and New York.
https://www.unicef.org/documents/urgent-need-for-universal-social-protection
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-in-the-world/
317. Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, and International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva, 2022
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf
318. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/history-cities/ It is important to note that cities came before states. “The first cities appeared thousands of years ago in areas where the land was fertile, such as the cities founded in the historic region known as Mesopotamia around 7500 B.C.E., which included Eridu, Uruk, and Ur.”
See Note 189 concerning the appearance of cities and states.
“No states existed anywhere in the world before 4000 BCE.”
Also see: Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L202;1055;1207
319. Smith, Adam. The theory of moral sentiments. Penguin, 2010.
320. Bowles, Samuel 2004. Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution. Princeton University Press. p7
321. Hannah Ritchie (2017) – “How much of the world’s land would we need in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country?” Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets’ [Online Resource]
All data used in the article corresponds to 2011 and is based on 161 countries.
322. Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26. “…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.”
“Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
323. Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
324. Rietveld, C. A. (2024). Heritability and Public Policy Reconsidered, Again. Tinbergen Institute.
325. The following notes refer to the framework of how genes and environments, their interplay and interactions, shape social behavior.
90. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
120. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220. “…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “An active rGE arises when individuals’ genetically influenced traits affect their choice of environments (e.g., friends, activities). Environmentally mediated pleiotropy–whereby genetic influences on a specific trait predispose an individual to experience a specific environment, which in turn affects an additional trait–can be viewed as an extension of rGEs: a gene-environment-trait correlation.”
“Active rGE refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g. friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits.”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Also see notes 10, 17, 171, 235.
121. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
von Stumm S., Smith-Woolley E., Ayorech Z., et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925. https ://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12925
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., …& Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
“…we propose that the social environment can also transform the genetic link between two traits.”
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
250. Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
300. Plomin, Robert. “Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA.” Behavior genetics 44 (2014): 629-638.
322. Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26. “…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.”
“Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
82. Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version. p100-101. “We actively perceive modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.” “…children make their own environments regarding their parents. That is, they select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.”
Also see: Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880. “…individuals are not randomly assigned to social-relational environments. Rather, individuals select into and evoke responses from environments based on their heritable characteristics.”
257. Gregory, T. Ryan. “Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions.” Evolution: Education and outreach 2 (2009): 156-175.
326. Bunn, Henry T., and Alia N. Gurtov. “Prey mortality profiles indicate that Early Pleistocene Homo at Olduvai was an ambush predator.” Quaternary International 322 (2014): 44-53.
327. Whiten, Andrew, and David Erdal. “The human socio-cognitive niche and its evolutionary origins.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367.1599 (2012): 2119-2129.