Steve Pittelli, MD
@stevepittelli.bsky.social
Semi-retired Shrink, mediocre singer, yoga dude, swimmer, searcher, Daime and other paths, critic of behavioral genetics, dog owner (Corey), Detroit Lions, 35 year vegetarian. Living in the South Carolina Low Country. Blog: www.unwashedgenes.blogspot.com
I don’t get the impression that Trump would regret that or anything else, regardless of the outcome.
November 24, 2025 at 3:30 PM
I don’t get the impression that Trump would regret that or anything else, regardless of the outcome.
… in our society. I don’t have great solutions, but if you’ve read this far and you have the ability, I ask that you consider spending time dismantling this house of cards instead of adding more cards or trying to rearrange them. Thank you for your time. End/
November 22, 2025 at 4:49 AM
… in our society. I don’t have great solutions, but if you’ve read this far and you have the ability, I ask that you consider spending time dismantling this house of cards instead of adding more cards or trying to rearrange them. Thank you for your time. End/
… genetics is not and never was about what “the missing heritability” really is. It’s about the entire mindset of genetic determinism that is absurd on its face and has trapped us into a limited and inadequate view of the world, with selfishness and greed taking ever-increasing roles … 11/
November 22, 2025 at 4:47 AM
… genetics is not and never was about what “the missing heritability” really is. It’s about the entire mindset of genetic determinism that is absurd on its face and has trapped us into a limited and inadequate view of the world, with selfishness and greed taking ever-increasing roles … 11/
… a simplistic genetic lens, you get - well you get what we have today. Do I need to elaborate? I’m not talking about technological advances. I’m talking about a collective lack of depth in our understanding of the human condition. It’s a bit frightening, really. So my beef with behavioral … 10/
November 22, 2025 at 4:42 AM
… a simplistic genetic lens, you get - well you get what we have today. Do I need to elaborate? I’m not talking about technological advances. I’m talking about a collective lack of depth in our understanding of the human condition. It’s a bit frightening, really. So my beef with behavioral … 10/
… to quantify the harm that this mindset has created over the last century and a half, and while some of it is obvious, the rest is more subtle. When we discuss what mental illness is, or sociopathic behavior or human character, more broadly, and the “experts” are unable to view it outside of … 9/
November 22, 2025 at 4:37 AM
… to quantify the harm that this mindset has created over the last century and a half, and while some of it is obvious, the rest is more subtle. When we discuss what mental illness is, or sociopathic behavior or human character, more broadly, and the “experts” are unable to view it outside of … 9/
What gets lost in all this is the human condition, which instead gets boiled down to a view of people (and animals) as genetic robots. The things that have to be “turned off” or ignored to get us to that starting point is almost comical, if it wasn’t so sad. And so harmful. It would be difficult… 8/
November 22, 2025 at 4:33 AM
What gets lost in all this is the human condition, which instead gets boiled down to a view of people (and animals) as genetic robots. The things that have to be “turned off” or ignored to get us to that starting point is almost comical, if it wasn’t so sad. And so harmful. It would be difficult… 8/
… of a hydra. The broader issue is a lack of understanding of how bias creeps into statistical analyses, because the statistics you produce inevitably confirm your assumptions. Statistical arguments, in that sense, are really just an intellectualized way to make your argument seem more valid. 7/
November 22, 2025 at 4:29 AM
… of a hydra. The broader issue is a lack of understanding of how bias creeps into statistical analyses, because the statistics you produce inevitably confirm your assumptions. Statistical arguments, in that sense, are really just an intellectualized way to make your argument seem more valid. 7/
Unless you are in the field, with some statistical expertise, it becomes impossible to engage in the debate, since you can always be one-upped with pedantic statistical arguments. While I have tried to point out some of the ways in which these studies are prone to bias, they are like the heads … 6/
November 22, 2025 at 4:24 AM
Unless you are in the field, with some statistical expertise, it becomes impossible to engage in the debate, since you can always be one-upped with pedantic statistical arguments. While I have tried to point out some of the ways in which these studies are prone to bias, they are like the heads … 6/
… with the possible exception of more controversial traits like IQ. Thus, it always appears that there is a growing body of scientific evidence, when in fact there is a long string of failures to confirm the genetic assumption, with endless machinations to explain the failure away… 5/
November 22, 2025 at 4:19 AM
… with the possible exception of more controversial traits like IQ. Thus, it always appears that there is a growing body of scientific evidence, when in fact there is a long string of failures to confirm the genetic assumption, with endless machinations to explain the failure away… 5/
… this creates a science that is transparently biased toward a forgone conclusion. This has always been quite easy to see, when you go through the old candidate gene studies up to the present studies, if you actually take time to read them with a critical eye. Unfortunately, that is seldom done … /4
November 22, 2025 at 4:15 AM
… this creates a science that is transparently biased toward a forgone conclusion. This has always been quite easy to see, when you go through the old candidate gene studies up to the present studies, if you actually take time to read them with a critical eye. Unfortunately, that is seldom done … /4
The problem is that it is only acceptable to base opinions on what is considered hard science and, in this case, hard science is the assumption up front that these traits are genetic. This disregards centuries of philosophy as “woo woo,” and frames this debate as already won save the proof. So … 3/
November 22, 2025 at 4:12 AM
The problem is that it is only acceptable to base opinions on what is considered hard science and, in this case, hard science is the assumption up front that these traits are genetic. This disregards centuries of philosophy as “woo woo,” and frames this debate as already won save the proof. So … 3/
… the premise that behavioral traits are driven largely by genetics. The reason I questioned it initially was not what some might consider scientific, in the sense that it was based heavily on my intuition and life experience related to the human condition. Perhaps I’ll discuss some of this, but… 2/
November 22, 2025 at 4:06 AM
… the premise that behavioral traits are driven largely by genetics. The reason I questioned it initially was not what some might consider scientific, in the sense that it was based heavily on my intuition and life experience related to the human condition. Perhaps I’ll discuss some of this, but… 2/
I’m making a bit of a joke, but it’s worth discussing some broader issues, here. The first is that “we” in this sense, points to an ideology. I’ve taken a lot of ridicule from what would be considered leaders in the fields of behavioral genetics and my own field of psychiatry for questioning…. 1/
“but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.”
We?
We?
November 22, 2025 at 3:56 AM
I’m making a bit of a joke, but it’s worth discussing some broader issues, here. The first is that “we” in this sense, points to an ideology. I’ve taken a lot of ridicule from what would be considered leaders in the fields of behavioral genetics and my own field of psychiatry for questioning…. 1/
“but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.”
We?
We?
November 22, 2025 at 1:56 AM
“but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.”
We?
We?
Trump made the Dems in Congress look quite foolish.
November 21, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Trump made the Dems in Congress look quite foolish.
Well, it was made up when Trump was running, so his supporters could pretend they were concerned about high prices instead of xenophobic posturing. Now they don’t care about high prices.
November 21, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Well, it was made up when Trump was running, so his supporters could pretend they were concerned about high prices instead of xenophobic posturing. Now they don’t care about high prices.
Why anyone still reads this silly newspaper is a mystery to me. Cancel your subscription, for goodness sake.
November 21, 2025 at 3:05 PM
Why anyone still reads this silly newspaper is a mystery to me. Cancel your subscription, for goodness sake.
I suspect a scandal will come into play. I enjoy his trolling, though.
November 20, 2025 at 11:45 PM
I suspect a scandal will come into play. I enjoy his trolling, though.
Maybe we should look at it as people deliberately compromising themselves to gain power, provided to them by power brokers who prefer compromised people to do their bidding.
November 20, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Maybe we should look at it as people deliberately compromising themselves to gain power, provided to them by power brokers who prefer compromised people to do their bidding.
I have a feeling he will flame out.
November 20, 2025 at 6:41 PM
I have a feeling he will flame out.
Primary prevention would be not having wars.
November 20, 2025 at 6:31 PM
Primary prevention would be not having wars.
