Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may

Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may be considered a sub-field of the latter, but I think it is important to be clear as much of the controversy lies in attempts to use DNA to explain/predict the personality/behavior of a modern individual). I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view). I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.