Barbara Oakley (author of Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend) is puzzled by the fact that psychologists (and many "social scientists") continue to oppose growing evidence that psychopathology has a strong biological and genetic component.

Noting that "the DSM in its current incarnation hasn't incorporated the seminal recent findings from neuroscience and personality genetics," she asks what I think is an excellent question:

...why have researchers for so long been certain that environment was the one and only explanation, and why have they been so extraordinarily antagonistic towards simple and obvious scientific findings involving genetics?

Oakley points out the historical downside to this approach, noting that parents once blamed themselves for things like schizophrenia and autism in children, and that many people suffered in the process. It's becoming more and more clear that the earlier these things can be identified, the better the ultimate result. The evidence is accumulating that some people are born with a genetic propensity towards evil. (Yeah, I'm thinking of some kids who recently burned a pit bull to death in Philadelphia. It would not surprise me if they were undiagnosed sadists at age three.)

But as Oakley points out, this threatens the entire field of (gulp) social science!

Sociology, unfortunately, is in an even worse situation--you don't want to even get me started on about a profession whose very livelihood seems to depend on denying the effects of genetics.Frankly, I have a more enjoyable time talking with my fundamentalist friends who deny evolution.

However, the inconsistencies never cease to intrigue me. It completely escapes me how it can be that sexual preference is genetic (and homosexuals are said to be "born that way"), but yet there are absolutely no differences between the male and the female brain. That physical size and strength can be inherited, but not mental ability. The idea that IQ might be inherited is almost a heresy in the same circles which would fight like tigers to defend the idea that homosexuality is. It makes no sense unless you consider the possibility that they're more concerned with the consequences of the particular application of the theory than the theory itself.

What they're doing amounts to cherry picking. If they like the result, they allow for the genetic theory. If they don't, why, genetics must be ignored, and it's all to be blamed on the environment. This is often grounded in political considerations, and it is not limited to the left. It has long baffled me how many social conservatives will maintain that pedophilia is innate and cannot be cured, but homosexuality is a choice which can be. They might selectively cite scientific studies in support of their arguments, but there is nothing scientific about agendas driven by politics.

What's interesting to me is how this might interact with human free will. Genetic propensities do not dictate behavior so much as they motivate it. Free will is not negated, but strengthened. Someone with evil genes who can find a legitimate outlet could end up being a great credit to himself and society. In fact, if he knows that he has a genetic propensity towards evil, the awareness of it might inspire him in a way that being told society made him that way might not. In fact, psychopaths delight in telling society that "you made me this way."

...in your hearts and your own souls, you are as much responsible for the Vietnam war as I am for killing these people. . . .

I can't judge any of you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I think that it is high time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.

I can't dislike you, but I will say this to you: you haven't got long before you are all going to kill yourselves, because you are all crazy. And you can project it back at me . . . but I am only what lives inside each and everyone of you.

My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system. . . I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you.

I suspect many sociologists agree, and I think that buttresses Manson's psychopathic claims into a sort of justification for his life. It's as if he's fulfilling society's prophecies. Bad societies make bad people, who are not born bad, but are instead the fault of bad societies. The individual is never defective, never at fault. This seems to remove free will and hope (if I can use that tired word) from the equation. What would have been the harm in telling Manson during his first juvenile incarceration that he had a genetic propensity for evil, which he might be able to overcome? Could it have made him any worse? I'm sure that sociologists would argue that telling a bad kid he has evil genes would harm his self esteem, but would it? Might it instead make him more capable of making informed choices than the current approach of blaming an evil society? Or would such people only seek each other out on the Internet and form "evil gene support groups"?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answers, but it strikes me that the current politically selective approach to dealing with scientific evidence is foolish.