… I agree one one thing in particular: an emphasis on concrete and specific genes for traits is a motif in science journalism that can be very frustrating, and often misleading. Nevertheless, that’s not the only story. I believe our current culture greatly underestimates the power of genetics in shaping broader social patterns.
How can these be reconciled? Do not genes and genetics go together? The resolution is a simple one: when you speak of 1,000 genes, you speak of no genes. You can’t list 1,000 genes in prose, even if you know them. But using standard quantitative and behavior genetic means one can apportion variation in the population of a trait to variation in genes. 1,000 genes added together can be of great effect. The newest findings in genomics are reinforcing assertions of non-trivial heritability of many complex traits, though rendering problematic attributing that heritability to a specific set of genes.
Genes and genetics go together in very nearly the same way as words and language.
Or, even more closely, as terms in a mass of spaghetti code.
Understanding the genetics of an organism is hard, because what they are trying to do is to simultaneously reverse engineer that mass of code and learn what the terms are.
Genes are overrated, genetics is underrated
by Razib Khan
Genes and genetics go together in very nearly the same way as words and language.
Or, even more closely, as terms in a mass of spaghetti code.
Understanding the genetics of an organism is hard, because what they are trying to do is to simultaneously reverse engineer that mass of code and learn what the terms are.