are you a good person? it could just be your genes

j.p. rushton of the university of western ontario has found that genetics play a major role in social responsibility. using identical and non-identical twins' responses to a social attitude scale, rushton calculated that genes account for 42% of socially responsible attitudes, with home environment only accounting for 23% of differences. the remaining 35% falls to outside environmental factors. i think the article is forthcoming from proceedings of the royal society b. rushton published similar results in the mid-eighties, where he attributed 50% of personality measures to genetics.

does this mean we get less credit for being "good" people?

(rushton's highly controversial book race, evolution, and behavior used demographic data to suggest that races have more differences than just skin color, including athletic ability and even brain size and intelligence.)

Labels: social