What do you think?
Rate this book
DNA Is Not Destiny: The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes
“[An] important book.… Heine’s vibrant writing makes it come alive with personal significance for every reader.”―Carol Dweck, author of Mindset Scientists expect one billion people to have their genomes sequenced by 2025. Yet cultural psychologist Steven J. Heine argues that, in trying to know who we are and where we come from, we’re likely to completely misinterpret what’s “in our DNA.” Heine’s fresh, surprising conclusions about the promise, and limits, of genetic engineering and DNA testing upend conventional thinking and reveal a simple, profound truth: your genes create life―but they do not control it.
352 pages, Paperback
First published April 18, 2017
38 people are currently reading
929 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
June 17, 2020
This is not another book in the nature/nurture wars; Heine, a cultural psychologist, takes the (non-controversial? mainstream?) position that genes, environments, and more importantly their numerous and varied interactions impact human behavior. Instead, the book is about how we process and talk about humans when we believe that genes impact behavior. The major argument of the book is:
1) Individual genes affect human traits, but any single gene has only a tiny, tiny, tiny influence on the trait (there are something like 200,000+ genetic variations that have been identified as impacting human height). So while somethign like height does have a strong genetic influence, this influence is filtered/problematized through a complex web of impacts of and relationships with environmental factors and other genes.
2) Commercial gene testing and reporting on genetic advances systematically overstates the impact of any single gene on human behavioral and physical characteristics, favoring a simple "gene causes X" or "gene for X" (the commercial gene testing companies get a beat down in this book).
3) Humans (on average) like simple stories and certain simple stories shape our thinking in predictable ways. For example, stories that make it seem like humans have immutable essences give rise to essentialist thinking which then makes human behavioral and physical differences seems more "natural."
4) The combination of 1, 2, and 3 makes us overestimate the impact of genes, think more of our physical and behavioral differences are "natural"/genetically caused, and makes it less likely we will support interventions to change the cultural/societal/environmental impacts that could shape those differences.
Even though it was not what I expected, I thought this book was important and (even better) well written. Heine has made an academic career out of demolishing simple assumptions behind big theories; it's nice to see him do the same in a work of pop-science.
1) Individual genes affect human traits, but any single gene has only a tiny, tiny, tiny influence on the trait (there are something like 200,000+ genetic variations that have been identified as impacting human height). So while somethign like height does have a strong genetic influence, this influence is filtered/problematized through a complex web of impacts of and relationships with environmental factors and other genes.
2) Commercial gene testing and reporting on genetic advances systematically overstates the impact of any single gene on human behavioral and physical characteristics, favoring a simple "gene causes X" or "gene for X" (the commercial gene testing companies get a beat down in this book).
3) Humans (on average) like simple stories and certain simple stories shape our thinking in predictable ways. For example, stories that make it seem like humans have immutable essences give rise to essentialist thinking which then makes human behavioral and physical differences seems more "natural."
4) The combination of 1, 2, and 3 makes us overestimate the impact of genes, think more of our physical and behavioral differences are "natural"/genetically caused, and makes it less likely we will support interventions to change the cultural/societal/environmental impacts that could shape those differences.
Even though it was not what I expected, I thought this book was important and (even better) well written. Heine has made an academic career out of demolishing simple assumptions behind big theories; it's nice to see him do the same in a work of pop-science.
July 19, 2019
This is what happens when a non-geneticist decides to write a book about genetics. I can see why this may be an eye-opening book for a person who is not well versed in genetics but I happen to have a degree in genetics and I wasn't impressed.
The book contains text book examples of genetics mashed up with psychology of essentialist bias. Genes blah blah blah essentialist bias blah blah. The essentialist bias is actually pretty interesting phenomenon and I was into the psychology part of this book, but even that got bit boring because everything was explained with essentialist bias. Essentialist bias this and essentialist bias that. Very repetitive.
This book also contains my pet peeve: the author talks about genes on several occasions when he clearly means alleles. They are not the same thing, and, frankly, I think it adds to the problem of why ordinary people think some genes are bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with genes! It's the different alleles that may be problematic in certain contexts. In my opinion, the distinction should have been made more clear. I wished many times that this book had been co-authored by an actual geneticist.
Other thing that irked me was that in the last chapter he writes how people are eager to trust genetic research results even though they may explain very little about the condition or fail to replicate or are not even replicated. Well, as a scientist and researcher he should have also mentioned the publication bias. Trust me, geneticists and biologists in general know the phenomenon all too well. There are probably tons of studies which have failed to show something new or to replicate old results that will never make it to the publication because the results aren't "interesting".
All in all, this book has an important message on why we shouldn't be completely enticed by the genomics era and I appreciated some parts of the book, but I don't think I was its target audience. My rating is somewhere between it was okay and I liked it.
The narrator of the audiobook did a decent job but I wish someone had told him that SNPs are pronounced "snips".
The book contains text book examples of genetics mashed up with psychology of essentialist bias. Genes blah blah blah essentialist bias blah blah. The essentialist bias is actually pretty interesting phenomenon and I was into the psychology part of this book, but even that got bit boring because everything was explained with essentialist bias. Essentialist bias this and essentialist bias that. Very repetitive.
This book also contains my pet peeve: the author talks about genes on several occasions when he clearly means alleles. They are not the same thing, and, frankly, I think it adds to the problem of why ordinary people think some genes are bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with genes! It's the different alleles that may be problematic in certain contexts. In my opinion, the distinction should have been made more clear. I wished many times that this book had been co-authored by an actual geneticist.
Other thing that irked me was that in the last chapter he writes how people are eager to trust genetic research results even though they may explain very little about the condition or fail to replicate or are not even replicated. Well, as a scientist and researcher he should have also mentioned the publication bias. Trust me, geneticists and biologists in general know the phenomenon all too well. There are probably tons of studies which have failed to show something new or to replicate old results that will never make it to the publication because the results aren't "interesting".
All in all, this book has an important message on why we shouldn't be completely enticed by the genomics era and I appreciated some parts of the book, but I don't think I was its target audience. My rating is somewhere between it was okay and I liked it.
The narrator of the audiobook did a decent job but I wish someone had told him that SNPs are pronounced "snips".
August 13, 2017
This nonfiction book is the one to read if you're thinking about becoming a customer of 23AndMe or one of their genome sequencing competitors.
What Heine points out is that there are some genes that have very strong to strong associations with a condition/disease, such as the genetic variants for blood type, cystic fibrosis, the Huntington gene, hemophilia gene variants, BRCA, APOE, etc. However, outside of that relatively small number, the association between gene variants and a condition, disease, or trait (think Parkinson's, intelligence, obesity, diabetes, etc. is really very small. Prior to being able to sequence the human genome, we called these conditions "multifactorial." And guess what, they still are. Heine provides the information to how that the hype of what our genes can tell us about ourselves is ahead of what we can prove that genes can really tell us. Simply stated, there are too many other influences (e.g., environment, diet/lifestyle, other genes, epigenetics, etc.) which may have an influence on gene expression.
Heine actually compares the current state of genomics to astrology in that we know just enough about genes and gene expression to give very general descriptions of the association between certain genes and certain characteristics. But, when you try to get to the level of specific characteristics, most of the time genomic information is woefully lacking.
As you read the book, it shows that Heine is a psychologist writing about genetics instead of a geneticist writing about genetics. I believe that he has a valuable insight into the current knowledge state. I am glad that I read this book.
What Heine points out is that there are some genes that have very strong to strong associations with a condition/disease, such as the genetic variants for blood type, cystic fibrosis, the Huntington gene, hemophilia gene variants, BRCA, APOE, etc. However, outside of that relatively small number, the association between gene variants and a condition, disease, or trait (think Parkinson's, intelligence, obesity, diabetes, etc. is really very small. Prior to being able to sequence the human genome, we called these conditions "multifactorial." And guess what, they still are. Heine provides the information to how that the hype of what our genes can tell us about ourselves is ahead of what we can prove that genes can really tell us. Simply stated, there are too many other influences (e.g., environment, diet/lifestyle, other genes, epigenetics, etc.) which may have an influence on gene expression.
Heine actually compares the current state of genomics to astrology in that we know just enough about genes and gene expression to give very general descriptions of the association between certain genes and certain characteristics. But, when you try to get to the level of specific characteristics, most of the time genomic information is woefully lacking.
As you read the book, it shows that Heine is a psychologist writing about genetics instead of a geneticist writing about genetics. I believe that he has a valuable insight into the current knowledge state. I am glad that I read this book.
August 24, 2017
If you read the first 2 chapters you get the point
January 5, 2019
The author is concerned about the information from DNA testing sites. He explains why companies differ in their results -- usually because their samples are selected differently. His disparages the results as being somewhat like horoscopes and warns readers not to trust them. This is especially true of confidence levels and other percentage reports. It is one matter to identify the gene and another to predict how that will affect one's life.
I have done four sources and the results are as the author says -- different. His warning about percentages is important. The percentages vary greatly from site to site. The sites have also changed some of their methods so current reports differ from earlier reports from the same site. The science is rapidly changing in interesting ways. Now sites will give timelines that tell where the genes came from. I have doubts about the reliability of this information even though it is the most similar among the sites. Health reports, in my mind, are only useful as a suggestion. If a problematic gene is reported it is a warning to get more information. A bigger problem may be when one is told that one is not likely to develop a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinson's and one does not seek help when symptoms develop. My first report said I was somewhat likely to develop Parkinson's while my husband was told he was unlikely to develop the disease. He had the disease at the time of the testing and it contributed to his death. My reports from two companies now say I am unlikely to develop the disease.
I have done four sources and the results are as the author says -- different. His warning about percentages is important. The percentages vary greatly from site to site. The sites have also changed some of their methods so current reports differ from earlier reports from the same site. The science is rapidly changing in interesting ways. Now sites will give timelines that tell where the genes came from. I have doubts about the reliability of this information even though it is the most similar among the sites. Health reports, in my mind, are only useful as a suggestion. If a problematic gene is reported it is a warning to get more information. A bigger problem may be when one is told that one is not likely to develop a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinson's and one does not seek help when symptoms develop. My first report said I was somewhat likely to develop Parkinson's while my husband was told he was unlikely to develop the disease. He had the disease at the time of the testing and it contributed to his death. My reports from two companies now say I am unlikely to develop the disease.
January 16, 2020
As a geneticist this book taught me a lot about the way we view Genetics and how it can shape our inherent biases about people. It's a fantastic read for everyone and makes understanding Genetics clear while also reiterating how little we know about Genetics.
March 10, 2018
What an enjoyable and stimulating read! Mainly, this book is about consuming genetic information. Because humans have been proven to be terrible at self-insight and poor at keeping their own biases at bay, Heine devotes his work to proving that they are equally bad at consuming information that pertains to their own genes. Heine's point is a timely one and of crucial significance to individuals' medical decision-making process, which has been shifting from away medical professionals to individuals themselves. His review of flaws that can influence this process and the potential negative outcomes that can emerge from trying to predict one’s own future using their genetic mark-up is fascinating, making his book a must-read for anybody thinking that seeking direct-to-consumer genetic reports will make them well-informed about their medical situation.
However, besides the clearly intended purpose of this book to educate the public on drawbacks of relying on such information too much, I think that this book will also appeal to many different audiences, including those who are interested in most contemporary takes on questions of determinism from moral philosophy point of view (even professors of ethics). Highly recommend.
However, besides the clearly intended purpose of this book to educate the public on drawbacks of relying on such information too much, I think that this book will also appeal to many different audiences, including those who are interested in most contemporary takes on questions of determinism from moral philosophy point of view (even professors of ethics). Highly recommend.
November 3, 2017
Serious Eye Opening Fun.
This was a fun and quick read. It makes me want to read a more complex book on genetics. The book even goes into a subjects I had not expected like GMO’s (genetically modified organisms). Well written, clear and myth busting. My favorite quote that was quoted by the author is from Jack Riordan, and original researcher into the CFTR gene, “The disease [cystic fibrosis] has contributed much more to science than science has contributed to the disease.” Unfortunately there is a vast financial imbalance between that paid into genetics research (far beyond the hype that always suggests we understand so much more than we do) and environmental influences that we know much more about.
This was a fun and quick read. It makes me want to read a more complex book on genetics. The book even goes into a subjects I had not expected like GMO’s (genetically modified organisms). Well written, clear and myth busting. My favorite quote that was quoted by the author is from Jack Riordan, and original researcher into the CFTR gene, “The disease [cystic fibrosis] has contributed much more to science than science has contributed to the disease.” Unfortunately there is a vast financial imbalance between that paid into genetics research (far beyond the hype that always suggests we understand so much more than we do) and environmental influences that we know much more about.
February 23, 2018
Extremely well written and very informative! I really like the height factor as it is not dependant on DNA but on generations and generations of Dairy consumption and availability of same. Wealthy nations can afford dairy hence, good height and when in the era of depression, healthy eating is first thing that is compromised.
January 27, 2021
The author does a good job of explaining how people's biases affect their interpretations, though he could do a little better at recognizing his own. But still an important lesson/reminder for everyone. The parts about how many human attributes and diseases actually involve the interaction of many different genes as well as environmental factors is a particularly important point.
The book makes the very valid argument that misconstruing the significance of genetics as many do encourages supremacist views. People use flawed genetics arguments to claim that one race or sex is in somehow superior to another (even though both are discrete categories imposed on Nature by certain elements of human society). It also mentions several times the inaccuracies and guesswork behind many commercial DNA tests, which are not at all surprising.
The book gets things wrong when discussing trans* people. The book asserts that trans* people's identity is at odds with their biology, but it is in fact the gender and sex label assigned to them at birth that is often at odds with both their identity and biology. The book points to the fact that what is commonly called "biological sex" is not a simple light-switch binary, but a complex collection of biological factors that, while for most people are all congruent, for some people are not. Furthermore, it is considered bigoted to call someone by a name that they are not, which the book does at least twice.
In addition, the book largely ignores the wide array of intersex variations that occur among humans to the point of being factually wrong, giving only the most cursory mention of some of the more well-known ones.
I must also deduct points for uncritically referencing Ray Blanchard, a notorious quack.
The book explains well how the concept of race has very little basis in genetics. It demonstrates how race is a social construct, but fails to do the same for gender and sex, which also are. It also debunks the idea sometimes seen in racist arguments that human races are different subspecies.
Later on, the book discusses problematic issues surrounding relating genetics to intelligence, the concept of IQ, and eugenics.
Another issue with the book is that it often assume that everyone thinks/believes in mostly the same way, which obviously is not true, especially across different cultures. There a few points where such differences are noted, but the assumptions then continue unabated elsewhere after that. For example, the author claims at one point "we prefer simple stories" as if this is some fundamental truth about the human species, when in fact a not insignificant number of us (self included) generally do not prefer simple stories! Why would complex mystery, fantasy, and adventure stories/movies/games be loved by many people if everyone preferred simple stories? Despite doing a great job of calling out essentialist thinking, the author sadly falls victim to it himself a number of times.
The book includes a section on genetic engineering and potential issues and considerations around it, especially if applied to humans, but there is also a not insignificant amount of GMO apologism.
In any case, the key message of the book -- that DNA is not some all-powerful unchangeable computer code-like essence -- is certainly sound.
The book makes the very valid argument that misconstruing the significance of genetics as many do encourages supremacist views. People use flawed genetics arguments to claim that one race or sex is in somehow superior to another (even though both are discrete categories imposed on Nature by certain elements of human society). It also mentions several times the inaccuracies and guesswork behind many commercial DNA tests, which are not at all surprising.
The book gets things wrong when discussing trans* people. The book asserts that trans* people's identity is at odds with their biology, but it is in fact the gender and sex label assigned to them at birth that is often at odds with both their identity and biology. The book points to the fact that what is commonly called "biological sex" is not a simple light-switch binary, but a complex collection of biological factors that, while for most people are all congruent, for some people are not. Furthermore, it is considered bigoted to call someone by a name that they are not, which the book does at least twice.
In addition, the book largely ignores the wide array of intersex variations that occur among humans to the point of being factually wrong, giving only the most cursory mention of some of the more well-known ones.
I must also deduct points for uncritically referencing Ray Blanchard, a notorious quack.
The book explains well how the concept of race has very little basis in genetics. It demonstrates how race is a social construct, but fails to do the same for gender and sex, which also are. It also debunks the idea sometimes seen in racist arguments that human races are different subspecies.
Later on, the book discusses problematic issues surrounding relating genetics to intelligence, the concept of IQ, and eugenics.
Another issue with the book is that it often assume that everyone thinks/believes in mostly the same way, which obviously is not true, especially across different cultures. There a few points where such differences are noted, but the assumptions then continue unabated elsewhere after that. For example, the author claims at one point "we prefer simple stories" as if this is some fundamental truth about the human species, when in fact a not insignificant number of us (self included) generally do not prefer simple stories! Why would complex mystery, fantasy, and adventure stories/movies/games be loved by many people if everyone preferred simple stories? Despite doing a great job of calling out essentialist thinking, the author sadly falls victim to it himself a number of times.
The book includes a section on genetic engineering and potential issues and considerations around it, especially if applied to humans, but there is also a not insignificant amount of GMO apologism.
In any case, the key message of the book -- that DNA is not some all-powerful unchangeable computer code-like essence -- is certainly sound.
May 15, 2019
“DNA Is Not Destiny” has a hilarious final paragraph, which I’m going to spoil in its entirety. For most of this book, Steven Heine pushes you away from what he calls “genetic essentialism,” or thinking that our genes are simple on-off switches for everything from violence to IQ. Environment matters, too! Then, on the final page, he suddenly and unexpectedly runs directly towards it.
Great ending aside, “DNA Is Not Destiny” is also a great book. I didn’t know that I wanted a single theme to tie together so many things that I think are bad. Transphobia, pseudoscientific racism, eugenics, and the anti-GMO movement are all indicted as related to genetic essentialism. You can just say “essentialism is bad” and you’re ultimately saying that all those things are bad too! It’s very convenient.
Heine takes a gonzo approach to his reporting, making “DNA Is Not Destiny” unusually personable for a serious book on a scientific topic. Not only are many of the experiments his own published studies, but many of them are experiments on himself. He takes the 23andMe test, and he finds his haplotypes. He shares his fears and frustrations. If you want to understand more about genetics from an expert in the field, this would be a great place to start.
I feel no need to correct my desirable essentialist reactions, and, in fact, I’m quite happy to embrace them… I say to myself "I have the endurance gene. It’s my genetic destiny to finish this race." And sure enough, those thoughts help to power me through to the finish line. Essentialist thinking is a powerful force indeed.I think the book ending would be better with a few more lines:
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He lovedCan you think of any other nonfiction book with this kind of surprise twist ending? On the last page of “The Sixth Extinction,” does Elizabeth Kolbert suddenly express her love for the Koch brothers? In the Bible, does Jesus come back from the dead? Ok, bad example.Big Brothergenetic essentialism.
Great ending aside, “DNA Is Not Destiny” is also a great book. I didn’t know that I wanted a single theme to tie together so many things that I think are bad. Transphobia, pseudoscientific racism, eugenics, and the anti-GMO movement are all indicted as related to genetic essentialism. You can just say “essentialism is bad” and you’re ultimately saying that all those things are bad too! It’s very convenient.
Heine takes a gonzo approach to his reporting, making “DNA Is Not Destiny” unusually personable for a serious book on a scientific topic. Not only are many of the experiments his own published studies, but many of them are experiments on himself. He takes the 23andMe test, and he finds his haplotypes. He shares his fears and frustrations. If you want to understand more about genetics from an expert in the field, this would be a great place to start.
November 13, 2020
It is an interesting book. People who are inclined to get the DNA tested especially may learn a few things if they read this book. The author is a psychologist and has put in as much psychology as genetics in the book. This makes it an interesting book. Having said that, the middle half of the book is very repetitive. The author has an idea in his head and tries to prove that throughout the book. He has shared some interesting experiments his team has carried out, but those experiments are also very repetitive with the same conclusion.
He also talked about some other research studies which he could have elaborated more. At times he has drawn strong conclusions from confounding results. At times he has used anecdotal evidence to make his point. He didn't need to do that because that neither made the book interesting nor enhanced his point. He was able to make the point nevertheless.
I enjoyed the first and the penultimate chapters the most. There were a few more bright spots elsewhere.
Since this book was written only recently, I think this book could have easily added a chapter on epigenomics. I am hoping that someone will soon write a book on this topic.
He also talked about some other research studies which he could have elaborated more. At times he has drawn strong conclusions from confounding results. At times he has used anecdotal evidence to make his point. He didn't need to do that because that neither made the book interesting nor enhanced his point. He was able to make the point nevertheless.
I enjoyed the first and the penultimate chapters the most. There were a few more bright spots elsewhere.
Since this book was written only recently, I think this book could have easily added a chapter on epigenomics. I am hoping that someone will soon write a book on this topic.
February 11, 2019
I have swung back and forth in the “nature vs nurture” debate to be firmly in one camp at various times. The idea that someone could learn calculus at age 9 and that having nothing to do with unusual genetic gifts just didn’t, and still doesn’t, sit right with me.
But we have collectively swung too far into the “nature” camp. The idea that genes are predictive of our potential in particular areas generally struck me as illogical. This book does an excellent job of explaining why our psychological biases have latched onto the notion that our genes are responsible for so much.
Ultimately I have come to the messy conclusion that some aspects of our life are controlled by genetics but that as we grow older and have more experiences and interactions with our environment it is the choices we make and the things to which we are exposed that interplay with our genes that dictate issues like our health and continuing potential. These environmental concepts are probably more important than the original genetic variability we all possess.
But we have collectively swung too far into the “nature” camp. The idea that genes are predictive of our potential in particular areas generally struck me as illogical. This book does an excellent job of explaining why our psychological biases have latched onto the notion that our genes are responsible for so much.
Ultimately I have come to the messy conclusion that some aspects of our life are controlled by genetics but that as we grow older and have more experiences and interactions with our environment it is the choices we make and the things to which we are exposed that interplay with our genes that dictate issues like our health and continuing potential. These environmental concepts are probably more important than the original genetic variability we all possess.
September 2, 2017
This book goes nicely along with 'The Gene' and 'A crack in creation', makes them an epic trilogy in Biology-101. The main focus of this book is on the psychological aspects of genetics. It deals with how our brains respond to information about genetics, about how we often misinterpret probabilities about genetic causes of diseases and how we should be thinking about the whole subject. Most of the diseases have genetic pathways that are very difficult to understand, and do inference upon. More over, understanding how such complex genome interacts with environment is something that we haven't understood well enough.
A cautionary book on how we should think about genome sequencing, and how to interpret the results. Recommended to the ones who is really interested in this topic or thinking about getting their genome sequenced!
A cautionary book on how we should think about genome sequencing, and how to interpret the results. Recommended to the ones who is really interested in this topic or thinking about getting their genome sequenced!
August 15, 2017
I found this so informative. The genome was mapped after I left the education world. It was a vague something I thought I knew about, but after reading this, clearly I didn't. It was an easy read; meaning, considering how complicated the science is, this book was not complicated. It was engaging and read more like a conversation with a friend, than a science book.
The key is 'Our genes are part of a complex INTERACTIVE biological system that code for particular proteins, and express those proteins in response to any signals they receive from our experiences or other biological events.' Very rarely does one gene decide what will happen to us.
The key is 'Our genes are part of a complex INTERACTIVE biological system that code for particular proteins, and express those proteins in response to any signals they receive from our experiences or other biological events.' Very rarely does one gene decide what will happen to us.
December 29, 2017
very good book overall. it gets into some details at a technical level, but most of it is kept at a level that a casual reader can not only understand, but really appreciate. This an up to date real world very informative book about DNA, genetics, epigenetics, genome testing and how it fits in and may matter to any everyday person.. i would recommend this to any casual reader with even a slight interest in the topic or is looking to understand gene's, gene testing, how it works, what's important and anything else related.
February 13, 2018
When I started to read it it felt like a superficial book about how consumer genome typing companies were fraudulent.
But the build up is great in the book and the author touches on all thing connected to genes. How we can misunderstand the information about genes, how the genes affect different races, the difference in genes for each race, criminality of genes etc. Wonderful overview of the topic. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
But the build up is great in the book and the author touches on all thing connected to genes. How we can misunderstand the information about genes, how the genes affect different races, the difference in genes for each race, criminality of genes etc. Wonderful overview of the topic. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
April 17, 2021
Much better than expected.
I had never been exposed to essentialist bias in the context of genes, and the most rattling thing was the comparison of oversimplified gene conclusions to horoscopes and other bullshit like that.
Steven also discusses the danger and history of eugenics and the many fallacies in gene conclusions and how that is related to our psychological view of ourselves and the ego.
I had never been exposed to essentialist bias in the context of genes, and the most rattling thing was the comparison of oversimplified gene conclusions to horoscopes and other bullshit like that.
Steven also discusses the danger and history of eugenics and the many fallacies in gene conclusions and how that is related to our psychological view of ourselves and the ego.
September 20, 2021
Great read! Deepened my liberal arts level understanding of DNA and genetics, but more importantly heightened my awareness and understanding of “essential” and “switch” thinking. The book addresses race, gender, sexuality, health, disease, GMO food (helped me refine my concerns), evolution, eugenics, ethics, and the interplay of genes and environment—the nature/nurture topic I’ve always found fascinating. Heine also offers valuable insight into direct-to-consumer genome testing.
June 26, 2017
I thought this book was excellent. It covered many current hot topics related to genetics, and also our psychological responses to these. It also looked at genetic issues surely to come to the forefront as technology progresses. It made me examine my own thinking. Some of it solidified thoughts I've already had, while other parts made me reconsider some of my thinking.
October 25, 2019
A book that is incredibly well written. He makes some very interesting and valid points. What is most interesting about this book is rather than being entirely about genetics itself, he focuses on mainstream assumptions around genetics that cause a huge impact on racism, sexism and other big issues.
August 27, 2017
A really eye opening read. It's amazing how complex our genetic make-up is and how it's not always as simple as blaming our genes. This book definitely brings into question the age old argument of nature vs. nurture. I highly recommend.
*I received a copy of this book in a Goodreads giveaway.
*I received a copy of this book in a Goodreads giveaway.
June 18, 2019
Interesting read. Could relate to the idea of people being cognitive misers and our face value interpretations of what we see and hear. Good explanations of how genes play out in our lives and how complex the interactions between Gene's and environment.
December 28, 2019
Well thought out. Well presented. A good read. The penmanship is not the best. The lessons learned (it is all in the title) reasonable, and worthy of due consideration. It is a book easy to read, and easy to agree with.
February 25, 2018
very informative. first nonfiction book I actually completed!!
July 19, 2018
A behavioral economics/psychological safety manual for end-users and interpreters of genetic tests.
August 29, 2018
I learnt a lot from the book. Must read!
February 5, 2020
Dispels our false assumptions about our genes & DNA. Provides a good foundation of the complexities if you've had your DNA 'tested'. Fascinating!
January 16, 2024
Heine has an easy-to-follow book and provides great explanations for genes and common misconceptions regarding them. I really enjoyed this book and found the information helpful!
January 21, 2024
Very interesting book with some good points about genetics, and some common misconceptions!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews