This feels like the “nature versus nurture” false dichotomy all over again. Even the tagline tries to frame the debate as a false dichotomy of two extremist pos

This feels like the “nature versus nurture” false dichotomy all over again. Even the tagline tries to frame the debate as a false dichotomy of two extremist positions: > The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything. Most reasonable people know that human beings are the product of both nature and nurture. Your genes alone won’t make you successful, but they can help (or hurt) your progress in many ways. The article touches on the actual nuance of the debate further down: The real debate seems to be about whether or not the genetic influence should be studied. Opponents argue that studying it could open the door to discrimination or, at the extremes, eugenics. The opponents would rather not look, under the idea that if we ignore it then nobody can use it against us. I don’t find that argument very compelling, and I kind of doubt it’s very common anyway. I think it gets attention because it’s a way to inject controversy into the subject, which is a way to get more clicks.