Behavioral genetics is much less controversial among the general public than within the academy. Most laypeople, especially parents of multiple children, intuitively accept that genes influence personality and life outcomes. The academic controversy is fueled by historical and political factors that are less salient to the public.
Sam Harris reflects that the scientific differences he had with critics were quite minor but were amplified by the perceived political importance of the topic (race and IQ). In polarized fields, the line between scientific debate and political signaling blurs, with small disagreements often cast as fundamental, irreconcilable flaws.
Catherine Page Harden reflects that in 2017, there was a common belief that preventing certain figures from speaking on major platforms could curb far-right extremism. In retrospect, she views this strategy as naive and ineffective, highlighting a significant shift in thinking about the impact of media gatekeeping on political movements.
Catherine Page Harden was unpleasantly surprised rereading her own 2017 Vox article, realizing it was a far more direct, normative critique of Sam Harris than she had remembered. Her intentions as an author didn't match the text's actual content, highlighting a blind spot where memory sanitizes past actions.
Behavioral geneticist Catherine Page Harden only truly understood Sam Harris's anger after she herself was labeled a "eugenicist." This demonstrates that intellectual disagreement is vastly different from the visceral experience of public caricature, making empathy difficult without shared suffering.
Beyond the history of eugenics, behavioral genetics is deeply unsettling because it treats the human 'subject'—our conscious sense of self and free will—as an 'object' of scientific study. It reveals how our choices are influenced by inherited molecules, creating a fundamental tension with our experience of being agents in control.