Is It Nature Instead of Nurture That Makes You, You? - with Robert Plomin

Psychologist Robert Plomin argues that our genes are the single most powerful influence on the type of person we are.

Humans have long been wondering how much we are defined by nature vs nurture. Were your school achievements predictable at birth, and would you be the same person today if you’d been raised by another family?

In this talk Robert Plomin explores how the DNA revolution is transforming psychology, society and the way we understand ourselves, in conversation with Adam Rutherford.

Robert Plomin is a leading researcher in behavioural genetics and psychologist who works at King’s College, London. He has published more than 800 papers and is the author of the best-selling textbook in the field.

This talk was filmed in the Ri on 29 October 2018.

---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Alan Latteri, Andrew Downing, Andrew McGhee, Anonymous, Dave Ostler, David Crowner, David Lindo, David Schick, Greg Nagel, Jan Bannister, Joe Godenzi, John C. Vesey, Kellas Lowery, L S, Lasse T. Stendan, Matt Townsend, Osian Gwyn Williams, Paul Brown, Rebecca Pan, Robert Hillier, Robert Reinecke, and Roger Baker.

---

Product links on this page are affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[sidewinderxx]

This interviewer is so disjointed... stop interrupting Plomin just as he's wrapping up a well articulated thought then changing direction. Try to achieve some flow instead of just chirping in with your opinion or clarifying something the audience doesn't need clarifying.

[chriswales]

My son's friend at high school came from a very deprived background. His mother was a single parent who was barely literate and unemployed. He gained a first in Mathematics from Cambridge. It turned out his father was a post-doctoral particle physicist from a one night stand.

[PrincessCatGirl]

He's(Plomin) absolutely right, he's very calm in the way he talks, very easy to listen to.

[LikeATreeOnAMountain]

I don't know who either of these men are, but the dynamic between them is quite odd. The speaker (Robert Plomin) seems to be entirely motivated by intellectual inquisitiveness and just wants to talk about his work. The host (Adam Rutherford) seems to be under some stress and is motivated by a covert agenda. The way Adam keeps interjecting to reframe or minimize what Robert is saying it rather annoying.

[fritsgerms]

I have watched/read a lot of Adam‘s work and actually find him a good science communicator. Therefor, this interview was a let down. It seemed he was constantly comparing himself with the host, which I thought talked very well about a tough subject. I also agree that scientists should present data and not policy.

[harrispinkham]

Please post the question and answer session as well!

[seamusoluasigh]

Too little time devoted to such an important subject.

[TheRoyalInstitution]

A slightly older release to round up 2020. Psychologist Robert Plomin is in conversation with Adam Rutherford to discuss his controversial book "Blueprint" where he argues that it's nature rather than nurture that plays the predominant role in what makes you, you.

[InsightsInterviews]

The interplay of nature and nurture is more complex than most people make it out to be. Especially when you begin to take into account epigenetics. We just filmed a podcast about this the other day, interesting stuff.

[sebastianelytron]

I find it interesting that the video cut off as soon it started to get non PC...

[tantzer]

This video was cut off before the end. It would be great if the rest of it were uploaded, too.

[LorePetter]

Robert Plomin is good here, but the interviewer is underestimating the audience.

[BenTajer]

Biologist here:

I think a big problem that a lot of these behavioural studies have, is that scientists often take whatever metric society uses to evaluate success and what is normal, and assume that these metrics are a valid proxy for whatever they are looking at. Educational attainment correlates with success, but seeing as it is also required for success within our society, I would say that it is an absolutely horrendous proxy for biological phenotype. Moreover, many societies are structured in such a way that there will be plenty of genetic correlates for educational attainment (and other similar variables like IQ) that are more a reflection of geography or history. For example, the north of England is poorer than the south, there are definitely genetic correlations with regions within the UK - just ask the team at 23&me. Many of these variants are intergenic and likely functionally meaningless, yet I would be completely unsurprised if they correlate with education due to the economic structure of the country. The fact that genetics are a stronger predictor than ofsted is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless. I would argue that the Ofsted ratings philosophy is also flawed, by assuming that differences in school performance arise from the quality of administration and instruction, and not from the home environments of the students attending the schools. Plomin also conveniently ignores the biggest correlation for educational attainment in just about every society, which is parental income.

I have no doubt that there are genetic factors that are strongly correlated with behaviour, and with traits that are helpful for individual success, but if we assume the "phenotypes" provided to us by a complex society are devoid of any biologically arbitrary biases, we don't have any hope of figuring out what's actually important. Larger sample sizes will tease out smaller effects and more predictive associations, but they'll never correct for flawed assumptions. It's telling that psychiatric diagnoses like bipolar, depression, and schizophrenia, often show weak or confusing GWAS results. In someways this is likely because these conditions are complex and multi factorial, but it could also be because these categories aren't useful as biological phenotypes. Running a GWAS for conditions defined by pseudo scientists like schizophrenia and bipolar might be as silly as running a GWAS on everybody in a wheel chair - many unrelated causes leading to the same result.

[musiclover]

Plomin was involved in this debate decades ago when it concerned IQ. The definitve work on this is a book out of print : The Science and Politics of IQ by Leon J Kamin. But what he asks is a mistake that those in Medicine Biology and Psychology make which is they are asking the wrong question . The real solution is grounded in Stochastics which they clearly do not understand. While Kamin shows how investigators were guided by their politics instead of the data he came up with a 60% enviornment and 40% genetics. Again this is asking the wrong question when the complexity of the interaction grounded in time series data provides us with a first look at complex evolutionary processes and can lead to an ultimate understanding and control of Aging, Cancer and the behaviors that govern how we adapt to our enviornment.

[DennisEdwards-oymm]

We create behavior outcome in animals especially dogs
Through selective breeding that's why it's good to get to know your partner before you make a child illness an alcoholism can be genetic why can't it be behavior I think it doesn't matter about your upbringing bad behaviors in you some people may act bad just to fit in as teenagers we all have choices we could all run red lights when no one's around or jaywalk some people don't have that behavior myself I think it's inherited through your parents

[justinkennedy]

Not trying to be annoyingly pedantic here (deeply respect Dr. Plomin!) but at 25:20 Dr. Plomin says about "chance" that it is just something we don't know how to measure yet. This may be true but quantum mechanics appears random inherently (again maybe it isn't, but maybe it is). This normally isnt very important but since dna molecules are so small it may be that they, or some other biologically relevant molecule (atom?), are effected by quantum processes enough to render "chance" as he is using it an immutable part of biological development and through that life outcomes.
Here I admit I love finding a reason to be needfully pedantic. It is one of life's great joy's :)

[SteveBarna]

Whoa I've long suspected that there had to be a link between genetics and phycological traits. But I've not looking into current science into the area.
This book sounds essential to understanding just how much that is true.

[rs]

I have both Blueprints- Plomin’s and Christakis’s.

I think Christakis is closer to the truth, but Plomin is the superior author of the two.

I would recommend reading Plomin’s first, just to get really smart about DNA and how it impacts people and society. Then read Christakis’s, who argues that the environment does have more of a systematic affect than Plomin argues here.

[wereyare]

Adam is supposed to be a meticulous scientist dealing with nutty gritty of DNA and miss quotes Robert: “The systematic, stable and long-lasting source of who we are is DNA.” At 05:21. There is no “only” in that sentence in the book. There reason could be his activism as his book “How to Argue With a Racist” starts with the sentence “This book is a weapon.” He is weaponising science. But if you ask him his sentence echoes Muslims’ use of Quran as a weapon and what he thinks about it, he cancels you from Twitter! Fascinating Adam!

[thenobleone-]

Biology is my major and I plan on studying cancer and what causes diseases in certain populations