References & Notes
This website uses APA-style references compiled on this master reference page. Superscript numbers are used for readability and are placed after punctuation in accordance with our editorial guidelines.
Please note the following: In the context of the interplay of genes and environments–unless the article states otherwise–cultural, historical, political, economic, natural and biophysical factors are viewed as dynamic and interwoven environmental conditions and not as isolated variables.
In addition, the use of the word ‘interplay’ in the context of ‘gene-environment interplay’ and other similar sentences is defined according the following article: Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
“Quantitative genetic theory distinguishes two types of interplay between genetic and environmental effects, genotype-environment correlation (rGE) and genotype-environment interaction (GxE).”
1. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
“There is broad consensus that people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition result from the interplay between genetic propensities and environmental conditions. However, the mechanisms and processes that drive this interplay are not yet well understood.”
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
“…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Psychologist Sophie Von Stumm and Karina d’Apice write: “…we conceive here the environome, akin to the genome, that encompasses all environmental influences that give rise to people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition.”
2. Plomin, R., & Viding, E. (2022). Commentary: Will genomics revolutionise research on gene–environment interplay? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(10), 1214–1218.
3. Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
“Active rGE refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g. friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits.”
4. Wiley, R. H. (2021). Natural selection. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 5330–5341). Springer.
5. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
6. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202–220.
“Active gene-environment correlation occurs when individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
Other sources:
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
7. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
von Stumm S, Smith-Woolley E, Ayorech Z, et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925.
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
8. Ibid.
9. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.
“The conscious self-concept, and conscious awareness more generally, is created from moment to moment using a very limited subset of the information being processed by the brain unconsciously.”
10. von Stumm, S., Kandaswamy, R., & Maxwell, J. (2022). Gene–environment interplay in early life cognitive development. Intelligence, 98, 101748
“Children’s differences in early life cognitive development are driven by the interplay of genetic and environmental factors.”
“By the time they start formal education, children’s differences in cognitive ability are powerful predictors of their contemporaneous and future academic achievement.”
11. Ibid. (Refers to entry 10)
12. Ibid. (Refers to entry 10)
13. von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.
“…SES is often assumed to represent solely environmental advantages of wealth and privilege, but it is actually just as heritable as most other complex traits, with estimates from twin studies of about 50%. The main ingredients in most SES scores are parents’ educational attainment and occupational status, both of which are substantially heritable.”
14. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
“GxE is important because it recognizes that one size does not fit all and offers the possibility of personalized tailoring of children’s environments based on their genetic propensities. Moreover, weak environmental effects in the population could have strong effects on children with particular genetic proclivities. GxE is the genetic extension of phenotypic research on differential reactivity to the environment.”
“GxE is distinct conceptually from gene-environment correlation, which denotes experiences that are correlated with genetic propensities, that is, genetic exposure to environmental effects and genetic mediation of associations between environmental factors and psychopathology.”
Slavich, George M., Summer Mengelkoch, and Steven W. Cole. “Human social genomics: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for health. Lifestyle Medicine 4.2 (2023): e75.
Bann, D. (2021). The scope of health injustice. European Journal of Public health, 31(3), 458-459.
Bagot, R. C., Labonté, B., Peña, C. J., & Nestler, E. J. (2022). Epigenetic signaling in psychiatric disorders: stress and depression. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. “Environmental factors, such as stress, play a major role in… psychiatric disorders by inducing stable changes in gene expression, neural circuit function, and ultimately behavior. Insults at the developmental stage and in adulthood appear to induce distinct maladaptations. Increasing evidence indicates that these sustained abnormalities are maintained by epigenetic modifications in specific brain regions. Indeed, transcriptional dysregulation and associated aberrant epigenetic regulation is a unifying theme in psychiatric disorders.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “…the environment can also affect gene expression through epigenetic processes (i.e., biological changes that can affect gene expression without changes to the DNA sequence)…”
15. Hufer, A., Kornadt, A. E., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2020). Genetic and environmental variation in political orientation in adolescence and early adulthood: A Nuclear Twin Family analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 762–776.
16. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press.
17. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49–52.
Also see:
- Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
- Kweon, H., et al. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
18. Open.
19. Bartels, M., Nes, R. B., Armitage, J. M., van de Wijer, M. P., de Vries, L. P., & Haworth, C. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness.
“Another key finding is that the importance of genetic influences is not fixed from birth but can change throughout the lifespan and in response to current environmental conditions.”
20. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Reviews how both genes and environments interact to shape cognitive development and decision-making.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). The nature (and nurture?) of plasticity in early human development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 345–351.
Introduces the theory of differential susceptibility, explaining how some individuals are more responsive to both negative and positive environments due to their genetic makeup.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
Emphasizes that development results from the joint function of genetics and the nested layers of environmental context.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23.
Confirms that nearly all psychological traits show genetic influence, but these traits interact with environments in complex ways.
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene–environment interplay. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 26–47.
Argues that high heritability does not preclude the strong influence of environmental variation on behavior.
21. Martorana, P. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Rao, H. (2005). From system justification to system condemnation: Antecedents of attempts to change power hierarchies. In Status and Groups (Vol. 7, pp. 283–313). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
22. Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–16.
23. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45(6), 622–634.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
See notes 6 & 7.
24. Meaney, M. J. (2001). Nature, nurture, and the disunity of knowledge. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935(1), 50–61.
25. Meaney, M. J. (2001). Nature, nurture, and the disunity of knowledge. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935(1), 50–61.
26. Falk, A., Kosse, F., Pinger, P., Schildberg-Hörisch, H., & Deckers, T. (2021). Socioeconomic status and inequalities in children’s IQ and economic preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 129(9), 2504-2545. “This paper explores inequalities in IQ and economic preferences between children from high and low socio-economic status (SES) families. We document that children from high SES families are more intelligent, patient and altruistic, as well as less risk-seeking. To understand the underlying causes and mechanisms, we propose a framework of how parental investments as well as maternal IQ and economic preferences influence a child’s IQ and preferences. Within this framework, we allow SES to influence both the level of parental time and parenting style investments, as well as the productivity of the investment process. Our results indicate that disparities in the level of parental investments hold substantial importance for SES gaps in economic preferences and, to a lesser extent, IQ. In light of the importance of IQ and preferences for behaviors and outcomes, our findings offer an explanation for social immobility.”
Selzam, S., Ritchie, S. J., Pingault, J. B., Reynolds, C. A., O’Reilly, P. F., & Plomin, R. (2019). Comparing within-and between-family polygenic score prediction. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 105(2), 351-363. “Notably, cross-trait analyses have revealed that EA GPS is widely associated with traits other than educational achievement, including intelligence,2,6,7 socioeconomic status (SES),8–11 behavior problems,12 mental health,13 physical health,13 and personality,14,15 in some cases accounting for as much as or more than the variance in cross-trait associations explained by the target GPSs themselves.”
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological bulletin, 144(1), 26. “…intelligence seems to be quite malleable, and changes in the environment can, by interacting with genes, explain a great deal of differences in IQ across families, lifespan, socioeconomic status, and generations. Here we will provide evidence and rationale for the conclusion that environmental interactions and correlations with genes (rather than genes alone) are key determinants of an individual’s IQ.”
Grigorenko, E. L., Bundy, D. A. P., Silva, N. D., Horton, S., Jamison, D. T., & Patton, G. C. (2017). Evidence on Brain Development and Interventions. Disease Control Priorities, 8. “Two environments that contextualize brain development are particularly prominent: social-economic status (SES), especially poverty (Hanson and others 2013), and early life experience in general and parenting quality in particular (Kundakovic and Champagne 2015). There is a growing field of studies into socioeconomic neurogradients, defined as neural differences associated with differences in SES (Schibli and D’Angiul 2013). For example, it has been demonstrated that low SES environments in general and poverty in particular influence the rate of human brain development (Hanson and others 2013). Specifically, children from lower SES environments differ in their gray matter accumulation in the frontal and parietal lobes, such that differences widen throughout development as the exposure to impoverished environments continues (figure 3). Of note was that volumetric brain differences were associated with the emergence of disruptive behavioral problems (Hanson and others 2013).”
27. Redhead, D., & Power, E. A. (2022). Social hierarchies and social networks in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377, 20200440.
Peter, T., & Sergey, G. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evolution & History, 8(2), 167–198.
“…all human societies, even the simplest ones…are organized hierarchically.”
28. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Bates, T. C., Maher, B. S., Medland, S. E., McAloney, K., Wright, M. J., Hansell, N. K., … & Gillespie, N. A. (2018). The nature of nurture: Using a virtual-parent design to test parenting effects on children’s educational attainment in genotyped families. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 21(2), 73-83. “…environments too are heritable, either due to passive parental creation of the environment, or active evocation of the environment by offspring.” “…behavior present in parents…forms an environmental inheritance for children, operating in addition to their genetic inheritance and impacting their attainment.” “The results thus demonstrate that, in part, offspring cultural and cognitive development results from genes operating in parents.”
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on psychological science, 11(1), 3-23.
Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS genetics, 16(11), e1009153. “Our study investigates the complex interplay between genetic and environmental contributions underlying educational achievement (EA). Polygenic scores are becoming increasingly powerful predictors of EA. While emerging evidence indicates that polygenic scores are not pure measures of genetic predisposition, previous quantitative genetics findings indicate that measures of the environment are themselves heritable. In this regard it is unclear how such measures of individual predisposition jointly combine to predict EA. We investigate this question in a representative UK sample of 7,026 16-year-olds where we provide substantive results on gene-environment correlation and interaction underlying variation in EA. We show that polygenic score and environmental prediction models of EA overlap substantially. Polygenic scores effects on EA are partly accounted for by their correlation with environmental effects; similarly, environmental effects on EA are linked to polygenic scores effects. Nonetheless, jointly considering polygenic scores and measured environments significantly improves prediction of EA. We also find that, although correlation between polygenic scores and measured environments is substantial, interactions between them do not play a significant role in the prediction of EA.” “Our findings have relevance for genomic and environmental prediction models alike, as they show the way in which individuals’ genetic predispositions and environmental effects are intertwined. This suggests that both genetic and environmental effects must be taken into account in prediction models of complex behavioral traits such as EA.”
29. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49–52.
Hout, M. (2012). Social and economic returns to college education in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 379–400.
30. Kweon, H., et al. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.
31. Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42–60.
32. Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42–60.
33. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. p.3
34. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202–220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
35. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
36. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. p. 133
37. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. p. 133
38. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. Kindle edition, pp. 557–558
39. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. Kindle edition, p. 140
40. Peter, T., & Sergey, G. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evolution & History, 8(2), 167–198.
41. OPEN
42. Turchin, P., Whitehouse, H., Gavrilets, S., Hoyer, D., François, P., Bennett, J. S., … & Benam, M. (2022). Disentangling the evolutionary drivers of social complexity: A comprehensive test of hypotheses. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn3517.
43. Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2022). Innovation and inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies.
“Another source of top income inequality is entry barriers and lobbying: lobbying activities typically help incumbents prevent new entry and thereby preserve their rents. But precisely because they get in the way of new entry and creative destruction, lobbying activities reduce both productivity growth and social mobility.”
“In fact one can show, using cross US states panel data on lobbying, that: (i) like innovation, lobbying is positively correlated with the top 1% share of income; (ii) unlike innovation, lobbying is negatively correlated with social mobility and entrant innovation; (iii) unlike innovation, lobbying is positively and significantly correlated with the Gini coefficient (i.e., with broad inequality).”
“Should we worry that innovation increases top income inequality, now we know that, unlike lobbying, it also enhances social mobility, and consequently does not seem to affect global measures of inequality? In other words, should we worry about the rich? One reason to worry is that the wealthy, including those that have become rich by successfully innovating in the past, can use their wealth to lobby in order to protect their own markets, for example, by preventing new innovators from entering the market.”
44. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
45. Institute for Fiscal Studies. (n.d.). Our approach to inequality. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/about-the-review/our-approach/
46. von Stumm, S. (2022). Early childhood inequalities: The rocky path from observation to action. IFS Deaton Review on Inequality (Invited commentary on the chapter: Early childhood inequalities).
47. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
48. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G., & Wertz, J. (2022). Early childhood inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.
49. Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A., Lawrence, T. B., Hirsch, P., & McGahan, A. (2018). Inequality, institutions and organizations. Organization Studies, 39(9), 1131–1152.
50. Kriss, P. H., Weber, R. A., & Xiao, E. (2016). Turning a blind eye, but not the other cheek: On the robustness of costly punishment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 159–177.
51. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence (pp. 67–99). Routledge.
52. Slater, M., Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Haggard, P., Vinkers, C., Gregory-Clarke, R., Jelley, S., … & Silver, J. (2020). The ethics of realism in virtual and augmented reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1, 1.
53. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence (pp. 67–99). Routledge.
54. Murphy, J. G. (2018). Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence (pp. 67–99). Routledge.
Rauscher, F. (2022). Kant’s social and political philosophy. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition).
55. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
56. OPEN
57. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40
58. OPEN
59. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202–220.
60. Rai, Tage Shakti, Alan Page Fiske. 2011. “Moral Psychology Is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality.” Psychological Review, Vol 118, No 1, 57-75. Shaki and Fiske show the relational nature of moral judgment.
Haidt, Jonathan (2012-03-13). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Kindle Location 95). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Tabibnia, Golnaz, Matthew D. Lieberman. 2007. “Fairness and Cooperation are Rewarding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118: 90–101. Dominique De
Quervain et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004). Ernst Fehr, Urs Fischbacher and Michel Kosfeld. “Neuroeconomic Foundations of Trust and Social Preferences: Initial Evidence.” American Economic Review, 2005, 95(2), 346-351.
Sigmund, Karl. “Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans.” TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 22, No. 11.
Henrich, Joseph, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer, John Ziker. “Costly Punishment Across Human Societies.” 2006. Science, Vol 312, 23.
Hinde, Robert A, Jo Groebel, ed. 1991. Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour. Cambridge University Press. Introduction. Psychologists Robert Hinde and Jo Groebel explain that from a psychological perspective there are different motives behind prosocial behavior. “Prosocial activities may be based on mixed motives, some of them centered around positive outcomes for the individual, some however more related to survival or well-being of the group, society or nation.” “In an actual war situation…individual aggression may be absent and the primary psychological process may even be prosocial behavior and cooperation between soldiers of the same army who simply fulfill the task they are given…the relationship between antisocial and prosocial behavior is not as clear-cut as it might seem.”
Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gachter. 2002. “Altruistic Punishment in humans.” Nature 415, 137; De Quervain, Dominique J-F., et al. “The neural basis of altruistic punishment.” Science (2004)
Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2011-05-31). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Penner, Louis A., Johan F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, David A. Schroeder. 2005. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:14.1–14.28
Buckholtz, Joshua W., Rene Marois. 2012. “The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms…
Joseph Henrich, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer, John Ziker. “Costly Punishment Across Human Societies.” 2006. Science, Vol 312, 23
Samuel Bowles, Gintis, Herbert (2011-05-31). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Kindle). Princeton University Press; Kindle Edition.
Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Christopher Boehm, 2000. “Conflict and the Evolution of Social Control.” Journal of Consciousness Studies
Benedikt Herrman, Chistian Thoni, Simon Gachter. 2008. “Antisocial Punishment Across Societies.” Science, Vol. 319 No. 5868
Dominique Quervain, Urs Fischbacher, Valerie Treyer, Melanie Schellhammer, Ulrich Schnyder, Alfred Buck, Ernst Fehr. 2004. “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment.” Science Vol 305
Gachter, Simon, Elke Renner, Martin Sefton. 2008. “The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment.” Science, Vol 322. According to research by economist Simon Gachter and colleagues “punishment not only increases cooperation, it also makes groups and individuals better off in the long run because the costs of punishment become negligible and are outweighed by the increased gains from cooperation. These results support group selection models of cooperation and punishment, which require that punishment increases not only cooperation but also group average payoffs.”
However, Gachter’s research also shows the long-term effects of punishment based upon moral acceptance of the punishments as prosocial, which includes the duplicity of prosocial behavior when he notes “the widespread existence of antisocial punishment” aimed at individuals “who behave prosocially.”
61. Krasnow, M. M. (2016). Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e27.
62. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333–1347.
63. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333–1347
64. Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1333–1347.
65. OPEN
66. Snyder-Beattie, A. E., Ord, T., & Bonsall, M. B. (2019). An upper bound for the background rate of human extinction. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–9.
67. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
68. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
69. Flannery, K., & Marcus, J. (2012). The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire. Harvard University Press.
Turchin, P., et al. (2018). Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization. PNAS, 115(2), E144–E151.
70. Boix, C. (2019). Democratic Capitalism at the Crossroads: Technological Change and the Future of Politics. Princeton University Press.
Smith, E. A., Bowles, S., Hertz, T., et al. (2010). Intergenerational wealth transmission and inequality in premodern societies. Current Anthropology, 51(1), 119–128.
71. Pomeranz, K. (2015). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy.
Turchin, P. (2013). The puzzle of human ultrasociality. In Richerson & Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural Evolution.
72. Bartels, M., Nes, R. B., Armitage, J. M., van de Wijer, M. P., de Vries, L. P., & Haworth, C. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness.
“The importance of genetic influences is not fixed from birth but can change throughout the lifespan and in response to current environmental conditions.”
73. OPEN
74. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
75. Ibid.
76. Kandler, C., Richter, J., Zapko-Willmes, A. (2017). Genetic Basis of Traits. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham.
“Genetic factors can drive experiences and the development of traits through genetically driven preferences, choices, and behavioral patterns across time. People select and create their niches, they are attracted to or avoid environments, evoke social reactions, and thus construct their own experiences. In this way, the genetic basis influences the course of trait development. The genetic unfolding, however, depends on the access to or the limitation of opportunities afforded by the environment, and people are differently sensitive to same environments depending upon their partly heritable traits. Individual differences in personality traits result from the product of both the individual genetic makeup and experiences, which are individually filtered and constructed from the opportunities provided by the environment.”
77. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
78. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. Principles of neural science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. (Kindle version, p. 95 & 3756)
“Neurons are computational devices.”
79. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.
80. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.
81. Haworth, C. M., & Davis, O. S. (2014). From observational to dynamic genetics. Frontiers in Genetics, 5, 6.
82. Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version, pp. 100–101.
“We actively perceive, modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.”
“Children make their own environments regarding their parents… they select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.”
83. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2012). Intellectual interest mediates gene × socioeconomic status interaction on adolescent academic achievement. Child Development, 83(2), 743-757.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version.
84. Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880.“Given the methodological barriers to studying the relationship between social-relational exposures and human individual differences, the present study provides evidence that social support and work-family spillover are related to hedonic well-being through genetic and environmental pathways.”
85. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45(6), 622–634.
86. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
87. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
88. Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
“…active rGE…occurs when individuals choose their environment (e.g., friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits.”
89. Morris, T. T., von Hinke, S., Pike, L., Ingram, N. R., Davey Smith, G., Munafò, M. R., & Davies, N. M. (2022). Implications of the genomic revolution for education research and policy. British Educational Research Journal.
90. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., et al. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
91. Claessens, S., Chaudhuri, A., Sibley, C., & Atkinson, Q. (2022). The evolutionary basis of political ideology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 22–36). Cambridge University Press.
Belsky, D. W., & Israel, S. (2014). The Great Gapsby Curve: Genetic inequality and the intergenerational transmission of advantage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 3), 10830-10834.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
92. Milanovic, B. (2021, January 8). What happened to social mobility in America? A new aristocracy has a lock on capital and jobs. Foreign Affairs.
Torvik, F. A., Eilertsen, E. M., Hannigan, L. J., Cheesman, R., Howe, L. J., Magnus, P., et al. (2022). Modeling assortative mating and genetic similarities between partners, siblings, and in-laws. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1108.
93. Torvik, F. A., Eilertsen, E. M., Hannigan, L. J., Cheesman, R., Howe, L. J., Magnus, P., et al. (2022). Modeling assortative mating and genetic similarities between partners, siblings, and in-laws. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1108.
94. OPEN
95. OPEN
96. Oesch, D., & Vigna, N. (2022). A decline in the social status of the working class? Conflicting evidence for 8 Western countries, 1987–2017. Comparative Political Studies, 55(7), 1130–1157.
97. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
98. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
99. Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., et al. (2016). The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014. JAMA, 315(16), 1750–1766.
100. Deaton, A. (2016). Commentary on “The association between income and life expectancy…” JAMA.
Also see:
Deaton, A. (2006). Global patterns of income and health: Facts, interpretations, and policies. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12735.
Deaton, A. (2013). The Great Escape: Health, wealth, and the origins of inequality. Princeton University Press. (Kindle Edition)
101. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press, p. 259.
“The K–12 educational system is largely designed to prepare people to go to college, although only a third succeed in doing so, something that is wasteful and unjust.”
102. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health. “It is well-known that people with high SES also tend to live longer and healthier lives than those with lower SES.”
Acemoglu, D. (2010). Theory, general equilibrium, and political economy in development economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 17-32. “Typically, policymakers introduce or maintain such policies to remain in power, or to enrich themselves, or because politically powerful elites oppose the entry of rivals, the introduction of new technologies, or improvements in the property rights of their workers or competitors.”
103. Allen, R. C. (2011). Global economic history: A very short introduction (Vol. 282). Oxford University Press, pp. 85–89.
104. Allen, R. C. (2011). Global economic history: A very short introduction (Vol. 282). Oxford University Press, pp. 85–89.
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.
112. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., et al. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
113. MIT Technology Review. (2022). AI Colonialism: Supertopic.
• https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/ai-colonialism-supertopic/
• https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/20/1050392/ai-industry-appen-scale-data-labels/
114. MIT Technology Review. (2022). AI Colonialism: Supertopic.
• https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/ai-colonialism-supertopic/
• https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/20/1050392/ai-industry-appen-scale-data-labels/
115. OPEN
116. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
117. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
118. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1–11.
119. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
“…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
120. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220. “…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.” “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
“Active rGE (figure 2C) refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g., friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits. Environmentally mediated pleiotropy–whereby genetic influences on a specific trait predispose an individual to experience a specific environment, which in turn affects an additional trait–can be viewed as an extension of rGE: a gene-environment-trait correlation.”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Also see notes 10, 17, 171, 235.
121. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
von Stumm S., Smith-Woolley E., Ayorech Z., et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925.
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., …& Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
“…we propose that the social environment can also transform the genetic link between two traits.”
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
122. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior. Batson, C. D. (2008). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. Draft chapter for Herzliya Symposium on Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior, pp. 3–5.
123. Batson, C. Daniel. 2008. “Empathy-Induced Altruistic Motivation.” Draft of lecture/chapter for Inaugural Herzliya Symposium on “Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior. p 3-5.
“Given my definitions of altruism and egoism, helping another person even at great cost to self—may be altruistically motivated, egoistically motivated, or both (see chap. 5, this volume, for a conceptually similar typology of prosocial behavior).”
Reference is made to Batson’s idea altruistic and egoistic motivations can be selfish, moral, amoral or immoral based on the moral standard applied.
124. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
125. Gowdy, J., & Krall, L. (2016). Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.
Cutler, D., Deaton, A., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). The determinants of mortality. Journal of economic perspectives, 20(3), 97-120.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.“In America, money buys access to better healthcare” P133
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118. (The incomes of the less educated are also more likely to be at risk, exacerbating the income to mortality gradient.)
126. Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415), eaam5979.
127. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8993–8999.
128. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8993–8999.
129. OPEN
130. Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1–11.
Also see:
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
131. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
132. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30–40.
133. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1-43.
134. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1–43.
135. Jebb, A. T., Tay, L., Diener, E., et al. (2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 33–38
136. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.
137. Ibid. (Refers to entry 136)
138. Ibid.
139. Happiness Research Institute. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com
140. Happiness Research Institute. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com
141. Happiness Research Institute. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com
142. Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution. Princeton University Press, p. 7.
143. Milanovic, B. (2012). Global income inequality by the numbers: In history and now. Policy Research Working Paper 6259, The World Bank.
144. Kenworthy, L. (2022). Economic inequality and plutocracy. Policy Brief #55. [Publisher not specified – possibly from the Institute for Policy Studies or similar source.]
145. OPEN
146. Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic%2C_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
147. Ibid. (Refers to entry 146)
148. Ibid.
149. Bitarello, B. D., & Mathieson, I. (2020). Polygenic scores for height in admixed populations. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 10(11), 4027-4036.
Tailoring healthcare services based on people’s DNA differences relies on polygenic scores that are “limited by their lack of applicability to non-European ancestry populations.”
Sirugo, G., Williams, S. M., & Tishkoff, S. A. (2019). The missing diversity in human genetic studies. Cell, 177(1), 26-31. “It is clear that patterns of genetic variation among populations can affect both disease risk and treatment efficacy and safety. Yet, a majority of studies still occur in European ancestry populations and the results can have limited utility across populations. This bias effectively translates into poorer disease prediction and treatment for individuals of under-represented ancestries. Importantly, studying diverse populations increases our ability to broadly understand genetic disease architectures that will, ultimately, lead to increased precision in medical care.”
150. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
151. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
152. Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
153. Conway, C. C., & Slavich, G. M. (2017). Behavior genetics of prosocial behavior. Compassion, 151-170.
Schlag, F., Allegrini, A. G., Buitelaar, J., Verhoef, E., van Donkelaar, M., Plomin, R., … & St Pourcain, B. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular psychiatry, 27(3), 1588-1598.
154. Penner, Louis A., Johan F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, David A. Schroeder. 2005. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:14.1–14.28; Buckholtz, Joshua W., Rene Marois. 2012.
Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
Boxer, P., Tisak, M. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2004). Is it bad to be good? An exploration of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 91-100.
Hinde, Robert A, Jo Groebel, ed. 1991. Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour. Cambridge University Press. Introduction.
155. Alexander, Richard D. “How did humans evolve.” Reflections on the uniquely unique species. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 1 (1990): 1-38.
156. Ibid.
157. Open.
158. Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., … & Zefferman, M. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e30.
159. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
160. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
161. Bowles, Samuel and Arjun Jayadev. 2005. “Guard Labor.” Journal of Development Economics, Vol 79, Issue 2. p328-348; Also see: Bowles, Samuel and Arjun Jayadev. 2007. “Garrison America.” The Economists’ Voice 4:2, Article 3. In this article, Bowles and Jayadev estimate that America devotes about a quarter of its labor force to conflicts over dividing up the pie rather than producing it–far more than other nations.
162. Ibid.
163. Ibid.
164. Ibid.
165. Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version.
166. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
167. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
168. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
169. OPEN
170. See note 6.
171. Plomin, R., & Simpson, M. A. (2013). The future of genomics for developmentalists. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1263-1278.
172. See note 120 and notes 6,7,13,14,43.
173. Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Cai, T. (2008). The integration of genetic propensities into social-control models of delinquency and violence among male youths. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 543-568.
Liu, H., Li, Y. & Guo, G. (2015) Gene by social-environment interaction for youth delinquency and violence: thirty-nine agression-related genes. Social Forces, 93(3), 881-903.
174. Krasnow, M. M. (2016). Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely. Behav. Brain Sci, 39, 27-28.
175. von Stumm, S., Kandaswamy, R., & Maxwell, J. (2022). Gene-environment Interplay in Early Life Cognitive Development. Intelligence, 98, 101748
Also see:
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., Lyon, K., & Nancarrow, A. F. (2022). New methods, persistent issues, and one solution: Gene-environment interaction studies of childhood cognitive development. Intelligence, 101834
176. von Stumm, S., Smith‐Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., McMillan, A., Rimfeld, K., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental science, 23(3), e12925.
177. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
178. Gintis, H., & van Schaik, C. (2013). Zoon Politicon: The evolutionary roots of human sociopolitical systems. Cultural evolution, 25-44.
179. Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(supplement_2), 8993-8999.
180. Wrangham, R. W. (2019). Hypotheses for the evolution of reduced reactive aggression in the context of human self-domestication. Frontiers in Psychology, 1914.
181. Wrangham, R. W. (2019). Hypotheses for the evolution of reduced reactive aggression in the context of human self-domestication. Frontiers in Psychology, 1914.
182. Boehm, Christopher. 1993. “Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp 227-254. Also see: Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Kindle Location 908).
183. Boehm, Christopher (2012-05-01). Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame (p. 321). Basic Books. Kindle Edition
184. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle. L177.
185. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 178-179.
186. Boehm, Christopher (2012-05-01). Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame (p. 204). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.
187. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 573.
188. Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Kindle Location 926.
189. Tilly, C. (2011). Cities, states, and trust networks: chapter 1 of Cities and States in World History. In Contention and trust in cities and states (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
“No states existed anywhere in the world before 4000 BCE.”
“Cities, then, first appeared in the same periods and regions as states. Like cities, states can only exist in symbiosis with agriculture that produces enough to support significant non-agricultural populations. Cities differ from strictly agricultural settlements, furthermore, by virtue of substantial populations, differentiated and specialized activities, and location as nodes in far-reaching networks of trade and political coordination. Cities and states maintain ambivalent relations: urban merchants and intellectuals seek the protection that states can provide, but resist the extraction and control that states’ rulers impose on them. Rulers of states, on their side, commonly try to combat urbanites’ independence, but also seek to benefit from concentrations of resources in cities as well as from the relative defensibility of compact cities as compared with scattered rural populations.”
“What of the state? A state is a structure of power involving four distinctive elements: 1) major concentrated means of coercion, especially an army, 2) organization that is at least partly independent of kinship and religious relations, 3) a defined area of jurisdiction, and 4) priority in some regards over all other organizations operating within that area. Although the four elements had existed separately for some time, no one put all four of them together before the Middle East’s creation of both cities and states. No states existed anywhere in the world before 4000 BCE. By the era of Gilgamesh’s Uruk, however, full-fledged cities and states were flourishing across significant parts of the Middle East, and possibly forming in other parts of Eurasia as well.”
190. Open
191. Chirot, D. 1994. Modern tyrants: The Power & Prevalence of Evil in our Age, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
192. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L1846
193. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P558 Kindle edition
194. Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press. P140 Kindle edition
195. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2021). Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2024777118.
196. Lucas, R. E. (2002). The industrial revolution: Past and future. Lectures on economic growth, 109, 188.
197. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. In Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press. P14 Kindle
198. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
199. Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M., & Reimchen, T. E. (2015). The unique ecology of human predators. Science, 349(6250), 858-860.
200. Wallach, A. D., Izhaki, I., Toms, J. D., Ripple, W. J., & Shanas, U. (2015). What is an apex predator? Oikos, 124(11), 1453–1461.
201. Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5(1), 325–383.
“When man developed his weapons, culture, and population sizes to levels that essentially erased the significance of predators of other species, he simultaneously created a new predator: groups and coalitions within his own species.”
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 191-234).
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387-15392.
Pietraszewski, D. (2016). How the mind sees coalitional and group conflict: The evolutionary invariances of n-person conflict dynamics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(6), 470-480.
202. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L11236
203. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version.
This citation is used to reinforce the point the first ‘true states’ and ‘civilizations’ emerged some 5000 years ago.
According to Pinker: “Archaeologists tell us that humans live in a state of anarchy until the emergence of civilization some five thousand years ago…” …location 1062
“It took around five thousand years after the origin of agriculture for true states to appear on the scene”26 …location 1206
The following are references from Pinker’s book concerning cities and states–Reference 26: First states: Diamond, 1977; Gat 2006; Kurthz, 2001; Otterbein, 2004.
204. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L242
205. Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19(1), 97–132.
206. Pybus, K., Power, M., Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. (2022). Income inequality, status consumption and status anxiety: An exploratory review of implications for sustainability and directions for future research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1), 100353.
“Income inequality has been associated with higher levels of status consumption with well-established harmful effects on health, wellbeing and economic stability. Research has suggested that status anxiety may be the mechanism that connects income inequality with status consumption, but the literature is disparate. In this interdisciplinary review, we draw together the evidence and explore the implications for climate change and sustainability, identifying that status anxiety may be a key driver of the higher levels of consumption in more unequal contexts. We find that status-anxiety fueled consumption is associated with household debt, spatial inequalities, cycles of unsustainable consumption and longer commuting times, ultimately contributing to higher carbon emissions.”
207. Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine, eds. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. OUP USA, 2010. P 147:154:149-150:An article in The Oxford handbook of the History of Eugenics makes this point:
“Worldwide, eugenic rhetoric and practices have been intertwined with political ideologies ranging across the entire political spectrum, from anarchism, social democracy, and feminism to conservatism and fascism.” “The strong connection between eugenics and nationalism is now a clear interpretative strand in the historiography. From strident British “race patriotism,” to “blood and homeland” arguments in central and southeast Europe, from anti-colonial nationalism in Latin America to nationalist race hygiene in Spain, eugenics was a key component of modern discourse on race and nations.” “Caution must therefore be exercised in assuming that the scale of eugenics in national settings can be judged from the presence or absence of eugenic legislation by the state. In other, more unusual cases, eugenicists never appealed for state intervention in the first place, as illustrated by the Spanish anarchist versions of eugenics. Eugenic practices thus occurred not only within, but also outside of and against the state.”
208. Stratford, B. (2020). The threat of rent extraction in a resource-constrained future. Ecological Economics, 169, 106524.
209. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future (Kindle ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Page 95
210. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future (Kindle ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Page 47
211. Witting, V. (2020, July 18). Opinion: We need rights protections on the supply chain. DW.com.
212. The references shown below provide support and evidence as currently available to the claims made. Based on the direction of current research it is expected that future research will further reinforce and confirm the broader implications of these claims.
Kern, A. D., & Hahn, M. W. (2018). The neutral theory in light of natural selection. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(6), 1366–1371.
“…genomes are shaped in prominent ways by the direct and indirect consequences of natural selection.”
Wainschtein, P., Jain, D. P., Yengo, L., Zheng, Z., Cupples, L. A., Shadyab, A. H., & Visscher, P. M. (2019). Recovery of trait heritability from whole genome sequence data. bioRxiv, 588020.
“Natural selection shapes the joint distribution of effect size and allele frequency of genetic variants for complex traits in populations…”
213. Ding, Y., Hou, K., Xu, Z., Pimplaskar, A., Petter, E., Boulier, K., … & Pasaniuc, B. (2023). Polygenic scoring accuracy varies across the genetic ancestry continuum. Nature, 1–8.
Polygenic scores are “estimates of an individual’s genetic predisposition for complex traits and diseases.”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49–52.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
214. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49–52.
215. Selzam, S., Ritchie, S. J., Pingault, J. B., Reynolds, C. A., O’Reilly, P. F., & Plomin, R. (2019). Comparing within-and between-family polygenic score prediction. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 105(2), 351–363.
“…EA GPS is widely associated with traits other than educational achievement, including intelligence, socioeconomic status (SES), behavior problems, mental health, physical health, and personality…”
216. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
217. Ruan, Y., Lin, Y. F., Feng, Y. C. A., Chen, C. Y., Lam, M., Guo, Z., … & Ge, T. (2022). Improving polygenic prediction in ancestrally diverse populations. Nature genetics, 54(5), 573-580
218. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
219. Koch, S., Schmidtke, J., Krawczak, M., & Caliebe, A. (2023). Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores: A critical 2023 appraisal. Journal of Community Genetics, 1–17.
220. Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
“People do not randomly select environments, but maneuver and position themselves into environments and milieus where they can thrive, as well as react to environments provided to them (e.g., by caregivers). That is, people select into certain environments (e.g., niches) to reinforce innate or learned abilities…”
Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880. “…individuals are not randomly assigned to social-relational environments. Rather, individuals select into and evoke responses from environments based on their heritable characteristics.”
Sophie von Stumm et al point out, research shows people “are systematically assorted to environments rather than randomly distributed across them”1 and that “children are assorted to environments in line with their genetic propensities”10 (See reference notes 1 and 10.)
221. Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing. P26
222. Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Edward Elgar Publishing. P41
223. Scheidel, W. (2017). The great leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century (Kindle ed.). Princeton University Press. Page 25 (Kindle Location – cite in-text)
224. Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103880.
225. Open
226. Wrangham, R. W. (2019). The goodness paradox: The strange relationship between virtue and violence in human evolution. Pantheon Books.
Shipman, P. (Ed.). (2010). The animal connection and human evolution. Current Anthropology, 51(4), 519-538.“The first and second stages of human evolution reveal a trajectory in behavior that is marked by an intensifying focus on the behavior and ecology of animals, accompanying a progressive broadening of the human predatory niche.” “An alternative scenario is that the hominin lineage, including modern humans, is characterized by an ability to be increasingly successful predators that shift to other resources when necessary.”
Vermeij, G. J. (2002). Evolution in the consumer age: predators and the history of life. The Paleontological Society Papers, 8, 375-394. “Three properties of predation make this form of consumption an important agency of evolution: universality (all species have predators), high frequency (encounters of prey with predators test both parties often), and imperfection (many predatory attacks fail, enabling antipredatory selection to take place). On long time scales, predators have two principal effects: they influence their victims’ phenotypes, and prey species that are highly vulnerable to all phases of predatory attacks are evolutionarily restricted to environments where predators are rarely encountered. Although predator and prey can affect each other’s behavior and morphology on timescales commensurate with individual lifespans, predators have the evolutionary upper hand over the long run, especially in the expression of sensory capacities, locomotor performance, and the application of force. Only in passive defenses (armor, toxicity, large body size) does escalation favor the prey.”
227. Hendrycks, D. (2023). Natural selection favors ais over humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16200.
228. Hendrycks, D. (2023). Natural selection favors ais over humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16200.
“We offer three practical suggestions. First, we suggest supporting research on AI safety. While no safety technique is a silver bullet, together they can help shape the composition of the evolving population of AI agents and cull unsafe AI agents. Second, looking to the farther future, we advocate avoiding giving AIs rights for the next several decades and avoid building AIs with the capacity to suffer or making them worthy of rights.”
229. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
“Quantitative genetic theory distinguishes two types of interplay between genetic and environmental effects…”
230. Soergel, B., Kriegler, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., & Popp, A. (2021). Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nature Communications, 12(1), 2342.
“With the adoption of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) an ambitious agenda for mitigating climate change, fostering human development and protecting the biosphere has been set by the international community.”
231. Eco-economic decoupling. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling
232. Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(10), e2208661120.
233. Powers, S. T., van Shaik, C. P., & Lehmann, L. (2012). Cooperation in large-scale human societies – What, if anything, makes it unique, and how did it evolve? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 30(4), 280-293. Powers et al write: “Broadly, individuals are assumed to express behavioral rules that serve, over their lifetime, their genetic interests. This is the standard model of human behavior of evolutionary biology, where individuals are expected to treat interaction partners according to their degree of genetic relationship towards them, and should thus appear to behave as if they strive to maximize a measure of inclusive fitness.”
Steven Pinker makes this point about inclusive fitness: “Critics who are determined to misunderstand this theory imagine that it requires that organisms consciously calculate their genetic overlap with their kin and anticipate the good it will do their DNA.” “As with all aspects of our psychology that have been illuminated by evolutionary theory, what matters is not actual genetic relatedness…but the perception of relatedness.”
Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. Kindle version. L7879
234. Ayorech, Z., Baldwin, J. R., Pingault, J. B., Rimfeld, K., & Plomin, R. (2023). Gene-environment correlations and genetic confounding underlying the association between media use and mental health. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1030.
“Genetic differences contribute to how young people create their online environments and support the widely demonstrated finding that many so-called “environments” are themselves under substantial genetic influence.”
Additional references:
Plomin, R. & Bergeman, C. S. The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. Behav. Brain Sci. 14, 373–386 (1991).
Plomin, R., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M. & Howe, G. W. Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Dev. Psychol. 30, 32 (1994).
235. Rimfeld, K., Ayorech, Z., Dale, P. S., Kovas, Y., Plomin, R. (2016). Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Scientific reports, 6(1), 26373. “The findings that DNA differences substantially affect differences in appetites as well as aptitudes suggest a genetic way of thinking about education in which individuals actively create their own educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities
236. Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
Mills, M. C., & Tropf, F. C. (2020). Sociology, genetics, and the coming of age of sociogenomics. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 553–581.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Domingue, B. W., Mullan Harris, K., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802–827.
Cheesman, R., Borgen, N. T., Lyngstad, T. H., et al. (2022). A population-wide gene–environment interaction study on how genes, schools, and residential areas shape achievement. npj Science of Learning, 7, Article 15.
237. Open
238. Open
239. The calculation is based on the first life forms appearing approximately 3.5 billion years ago.
Baumgartner, R. J., Van Kranendonk, M. J., Wacey, D., Fiorentini, M. L., Saunders, M., Caruso, S., Pages, A., Homann, M., & Guagliardo, P. (2019). Nano-porous pyrite and organic matter in 3.5-billion-year-old stromatolites record primordial life. Geology, 47(11), 1039–1043.
Schopf, J. W. (1993). Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science, 260(5108), 640–646.
Brasier, M. D., Green, O. R., Lindsay, J. F., & Steele, A. (2004). Earth’s oldest (~3.5 Ga) fossils and the ‘Early Eden hypothesis’: Questioning the evidence. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 34, 257–269.
Schopf, J. W. (2007). Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils. Precambrian Research, 158(3-4), 141–155.
240. Hussain, Waheed, “The Common Good”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Reference to the phrase: “There is something morally defective…”
241. Below is information about the ‘oldest Homo Sapiens remains yet found.’ There is also a reference to the use of hominin vs hominid.
Richter, D., Grün, R., Joannes-Boyau, R., Steele, T. E., Amani, F., Rué, M., Fernandes, P., Raynal, J.-P., Geraads, D., Ben-Ncer, A., Hublin, J.-J., & McPherron, S. P. (2017). The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age. Nature, 546(7657), 293–296.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/essential-timeline-understanding-evolution-homo-sapiens-180976807 An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens | Smithsonian “But fragments of 300,000-year-old skulls, jaws, teeth and other fossils found at Jebel Irhoud, a rich site also home to advanced stone tools, are the oldest Homo sapiens remains yet found.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution Timeline of human evolution – Wikipedia “Fossils attributed to H. sapiens, along with stone tools, dated to approximately 300,000 years ago, found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco yield the earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Modern human presence in East Africa , at 276 kya.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution
Human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts “Viewed zoologically, we humans are Homo sapiens, a culture-bearing upright-walking species that lives on the ground and very likely first evolved in Africa about 315,000 years ago.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco World’s oldest Homo sapiens fossils found in Morocco “Now, their quest has taken an unexpected detour west to Morocco: Researchers have redated a long-overlooked skull from a cave called Jebel Irhoud to a startling 300,000 years ago, and unearthed new fossils and stone tools. The result is the oldest well-dated evidence of Homo sapiens…”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science
These Early Humans Lived 300,000 Years Ago—But Had Modern Faces
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hominin
Apr 25, 2024…”Hominin, any member of the zoological ‘tribe’ Hominini (family Hominidae, order Primates), of which only one species exists today—Homo sapiens. The term is used most often to refer to extinct members of the human lineage, including Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus…”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/whats-in-a-name-hominid-versus-hominin-216054
What’s in a Name? Hominid Versus Hominin | Smithsonian “Here, the term hominin refers to the tribe Hominini. That’s why many of our extinct ancestors are now called hominins. But it’s not technically wrong to call them hominids—all members of …”
242. Dick, D. M., Riley, B., & Kendler, K. S. (2010). Nature and nurture in neuropsychiatric genetics: Where do we stand? Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(1), 7–23.
243. Perlstein, S., & Waller, R. (2022). Integrating the study of personality and psychopathology in the context of gene‐environment correlations across development. Journal of Personality, 90(1), 47–60.
244. Tel Aviv University. (2021, April 5). Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds. ScienceDaily.
245. Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Human. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
246. Milinski, M. (2022). Extortion—a voracious prosocial strategy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 196–201.
247. Schlag, F., et al. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(3), 1588–1598.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771–786.
Saudino, K. J., Ronald, A., & Plomin, R. (2005). The etiology of behavior problems in 7-year old twins: Substantial genetic influence and negligible shared environmental influence for parent ratings and ratings by same and different teachers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 113–130.
Scourfield, J., John, B., Martin, N., & McGuffin, P. (2004). The development of prosocial behaviour in children and adolescents: A twin study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 927–935.
St Pourcain B, Haworth CMA, Davis OSP, Wang K, Timpson NJ, Evans DM, et al. Heritability and genome-wide analyses of problematic peer relationships during childhood and adolescence. Hum Genet. 2015;134:539–51.
248. Stueber, K. (2019). Empathy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.).
249. Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets’ (mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 3791–3803.
250. Bartels, M., et al. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 105–126). Oxford University Press.
251. van de Weijer, M. P., et al. (2024). Capturing the well-being exposome in poly-environmental scores. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, 102208.
252. Virolainen, S. J., et al. (2023). Gene–environment interactions and their impact on human health. Genes & Immunity, 24(1), 1–11.
253. Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 633–645.
254. Kalmoe, N. P., & Johnson, M. (2022). Genes, ideology, and sophistication. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(2), 255–266.
255. Willingham, E. (2022, June 1). The genes of left and right. Scientific American.
256. Bartels, M., et al. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 105–126). Oxford University Press.
“Gene-environment correlation refers to the phenomenon that environmental effects are not randomly distributed.”
257. Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175.
258. Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
259. Aristotle’s Politics: A Symposium; Aristotle on human nature and political virtue p731-753 Vol. 49 No. 4 June 1996 in The Review of Metaphysics. Julia Annis; JSTOR
260. Aristotle’s Best Regime: A reading of Aristotle’s Politics, VII 1-10 Jeff Chuska. Interpretations of VII 8-10.
261. Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine, eds. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. OUP USA, 2010. P146…Veronique Mottier
262. Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Francis Galton. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
263. Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into human faculty and its development (2nd ed.). J. M. Dent & Co. (Original work published 1883). Edited by G. Tredoux (2004).
264. Leonard, T. C. (2003). “More merciful and not less effective”: Eugenics and American economics in the Progressive Era. History of Political Economy, 35(4), 687–712.
265. Wiley, R. H. (2020). Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer.
266. Brandon, Robert N. “The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 153-170.
Brandon writes: “This identifies an outcome – differential reproduction – but it has an explicitly causal component to it as well. Natural selection is not just any case of differential reproduction, but is those cases that are due to differential adaptedness (or fitness).”
Brandon makes this additional point: “Alternative ways of saying the same thing are (1) natural selection is nonrandom differential reproduction; and (2) natural selection is nonrandom differential reproduction that is in accord with expected reproductive success.”
267. Gächter, S., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2008). The long-run benefits of punishment. Science, 322(5907), 1510.
268. Guo, G., Lin, M. J., & Harris, K. M. (2022). Socioeconomic and genomic roots of verbal ability from current evidence. npj Science of Learning, 7, 22.
269. Trzaskowski, M., Shakeshaft, N. G., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children’s intelligence. Intelligence, 42, 83–88.
270. Ericsson, M., Västfjäll, D., & Plomin, R. (2024). Educational influences on late-life health: Genetic propensity and attained education. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 79(1), gbad153.
271. Cerutti, J., Lussier, A. A., Zhu, Y., et al. (2021). Associations between indicators of socioeconomic position and DNA methylation: A scoping review. Clinical Epigenetics, 13, 221.
272. Stringhini, S., Polidoro, S., Sacerdote, C., et al. (2015). Life-course socioeconomic status and DNA methylation of genes regulating inflammation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(4), 1320–1330.
273. Fancourt, D., & Steptoe, A. (2022). The contribution of adult experiences, multimorbidity and positive psychological well-being to social inequalities in health. IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities.
274. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/end-life
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf
275. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/
276. Kweon, H., Aydogan, G., Dagher, A., Bzdok, D., Ruff, C. C., Nave, G., Farah, M. J., & Koellinger, P. D. (2022). Human brain anatomy reflects separable genetic and environmental components of socioeconomic status. Science Advances, 8(20), eabm2923.
277. Ojalehto, E., Bozoyan, C., Freese, J., & Koellinger, P. D. (2023). Influences of genetically predicted and attained education on geographic mobility and their association with mortality. Social Science & Medicine, 324, 115882.
278. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Socioeconomic status and end-of-life care.
279. Kanherkar, R. R., Bhatia-Dey, N., & Csoka, A. B. (2014). Epigenetics across the human lifespan. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2, 49.
280. Plomin, R., & Simpson, M. A. (2013). The future of genomics for developmentalists. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1263–1278.
281. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/04/poverty-leaves-a-mark-on-our-genes/
McDade, Thomas W., et al. “Genome‐wide analysis of DNA methylation in relation to socioeconomic status during development and early adulthood.” American journal of physical anthropology 169.1 (2019): 3-11.
282. Raffington, Laurel, et al. “Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents.” Psychological Science 34.2 (2023): 170-185.
283. Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., … & Zefferman, M. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e30.
284. Strath, L. J., Weitzel, E. C., Alexander, D. D., & McCrory, M. A. (2024). Socioeconomic status, knee pain, and epigenetic aging in community-dwelling middle-to-older age adults. The Journal of Pain, 25(2), 293.
285. Abdellaoui, A., Hugh-Jones, D., Yengo, L., Kemper, K. E., Dennison, C. A., & tenesa, A., et al. (2019). Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1332–1342.
286. Nielsen, K. S., Nicholas, K. A., Creutzig, F., Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (2021). The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Energy, 6(11), 1011–1016.
287. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11, 3107.
288. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Gregg, J. W., Rockström, J., Newsome, T. M., Law, B. E., … & King, S. D. A. (2023). The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. BioScience, 73(12), 841–850.
289. Koller, W. N., Thompson, H., & Cannon, T. D. (2023). Conspiracy mentality, subclinical paranoia, and political conservatism are associated with perceived status threat. PLOS ONE, 18(11), e0293930.
290. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Gregg, J. W., Rockström, J., Newsome, T. M., Law, B. E., … & King, S. D. A. (2023). The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. BioScience, 73(12), 841–850..
291. Savelli, E., Mazzoleni, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Cloke, H., & Rusca, M. (2023). Urban water crises driven by elites’ unsustainable consumption. Nature Sustainability, 6(8), 929–940.
292. Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Meritocracy. In The concise Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford University Press.
Etymology tracing the term back to Latin meritum — “price, value, service rendered.”
293. Knell, M., & Stix, H. (2017). Perceptions of inequality (Working Paper No. 216). Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB).
294. Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2022). Innovation and inequalities. IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities.
295. History.com Editors. (2021, January 26). Slavery in America. History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
296. Seabright, P. (2004). The company of strangers: A natural history of economic life. Princeton University Press.
297. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 103–126). Psychology Press.
298. Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.
299. Brandon, Robert N. “The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 153-170.
“I have characterized natural selection as follows: natural selection is differential reproduction that is due to differential adaptedness (or fitness) to a common selective environment (see, e.g., Brandon 1990, chapters 1 and 2).”
300. Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44, 629–638
301. Trzaskowski, M., Harlaar, N., Arden, R., Krapohl, E., Rimfeld, K., McMillan, A., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children’s intelligence. Intelligence, 42, 83–88.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health [Preprint]. PsyArXiv.
Krapohl, E., Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., Trzaskowski, M., McMillan, A., Pingault, J. B., … Plomin, R. (2014). The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), 15273–15278.
Abdellaoui, A., Hugh-Jones, D., Yengo, L., Kemper, K. E., Nivard, M. G., Veul, L., … Visscher, P. M. (2019). Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1332–1342.
Schlag, F., Allegrini, A. G., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., McMillan, A., … Plomin, R. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(3), 1588–1598.
Silveira, P. P., & Meaney, M. J. (2023). Examining the biological mechanisms of human mental disorders resulting from gene–environment interdependence using novel functional genomic approaches. Neurobiology of Disease, 178, Article 106008.
302. Open.
303. Izuma, Keise, and Ralph Adolphs. “Social manipulation of preference in the human brain.” Neuron 78.3 (2013): 563-573.
“…consistent with the hypothesis that not only agreeing with liked others (Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010; Klucharev et al., 2009), but also disagreeing with disliked others may both be rewarding.”
304. Open.
305. National Human Genome Research Institute. (n.d.). Human genomic variation. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genomic-variation
“Any two people’s genomes are, on average, ~99.6% identical and ~0.4% different.”
306. Van der Weide, R., & Milanovic, B. (2018). Inequality is bad for growth of the poor (but not for that of the rich). The World Bank Economic Review, 32(3), 507–530.
307. Milanovic, B. (2016). Why might the rich be indifferent to income growth of their own countries? Economics Letters, 147, 108–111.
308. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (Kindle ed.). Harvard University Press.
309. Isakov, A., & Rand, D. G. (2012). The evolution of coercive institutional punishment. Dynamic Games and Applications, 2, 97–109.
310. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future (Kindle ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
311. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed., p. 117). Oxford University Press.
312. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Belsky, Jay. “The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives.” Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Rietveld, C. A. (2024). Heritability and Public Policy Reconsidered, Again. Tinbergen Institute.
Hyytinen, A., Ilmakunnas, P., Johansson, E., & Toivanen, O. (2019). Heritability of lifetime earnings. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 17, 319-335. “…it is useful to recall that heritability measures the extent to which genetic variation between individuals account for differences in a particular outcome, in a particular population, characterized by a particular mix of genetic and environmental influences that prevailed at the time of measurement (Plomin et al. 2014).”
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26. “…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.” “Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
Erola, Jani, et al. “Socioeconomic Background and Gene–Environment Interplay in Social Stratification across the Early Life Course.” European Sociological Review 1 (2021): 17.
Kendler, Kenneth S., and Jessica H. Baker. “Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review.” Psychological medicine 37.5 (2007): 615-626.
313. Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
“It is possible to test for the presence of gene-environment correlation, and one method to do this is using the twin design to estimate the heritability of environmental experiences. A systematic review of gene-environment correlation twin studies estimated that the average heritability of measures of the environment was as high as 27%.”
Belsky, Jay. “The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives.” Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Rietveld, C. A. (2024). Heritability and Public Policy Reconsidered, Again. Tinbergen Institute.
Kendler, Kenneth S., and Jessica H. Baker. “Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review.” Psychological medicine 37.5 (2007): 615-626.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability “According to Turkheimer, both genes and environment are heritable, genetic contribution varies by environment…”
Schlag, F., Allegrini, A. G., Buitelaar, J., Verhoef, E., van Donkelaar, M., Plomin, R., … & St Pourcain, B. (2022). Polygenic risk for mental disorder reveals distinct association profiles across social behaviour in the general population. Molecular psychiatry, 27(3), 1588-1598.
314. Belsky, J. (2024). The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives. Development and Psychopathology, 1(1), 1–10.
Mogstad, M., & Torsvik, G. (2023). Family background, neighborhoods, and intergenerational mobility. In Handbook of the Economics of the Family (Vol. 1, pp. 327–387). Elsevier.
315. von Stumm, S. (2022). Early childhood inequalities: The rocky path from observation to action. IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities.
316. International Labour Organization & UNICEF. (2023). More than a billion reasons: The urgent need to build universal social protection for children.
317. International Labour Organization, Walk Free, & International Organization for Migration. (2022). Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage.
318. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/history-cities/ It is important to note that cities came before states. “The first cities appeared thousands of years ago in areas where the land was fertile, such as the cities founded in the historic region known as Mesopotamia around 7500 B.C.E., which included Eridu, Uruk, and Ur.”
See Note 189 (Tilly) and Note 203 (Pinker) concerning the appearance of cities and states.
Tilly: “No states existed anywhere in the world before 4000 BCE.”
319. Smith, A. (2010). The theory of moral sentiments. Penguin Books.
320. Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: Behavior, institutions, and evolution (p. 7). Princeton University Press.
321. Ritchie, H. (2017). How much of the world’s land would we need in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country? Our World in Data.
Based on 2011 data from 161 countries.
322. Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26. “…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.”
“Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
323. Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
324. Rietveld, C. A. (2025). Heritability and public policy – a reappraisal. Journal of Economic Inequality, 23(2), 1-21.
325. The references shown below explain various aspects of the gene-environment interplay:
Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., et al. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40. “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220. “…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.” “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89. “Active rGE (figure 2C) refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g., friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits. Environmentally mediated pleiotropy–whereby genetic influences on a specific trait predispose an individual to experience a specific environment, which in turn affects an additional trait–can be viewed as an extension of rGE: a gene-environment-trait correlation.”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
von Stumm S., Smith-Woolley E., Ayorech Z., et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12925.
Browman, A. S., Svoboda, R. C., & Destin, M. (2022). A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth. Self and Identity, 21(1), 42-60.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., …& Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
“…we propose that the social environment can also transform the genetic link between two traits.”
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
Plomin, Robert. “Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA.” Behavior genetics 44 (2014): 629-638.
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26.
“…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.”
“Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
Gregory, T. Ryan. “Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions.” Evolution: Education and outreach 2 (2009): 156-175.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version, pp. 100–101.
“We actively perceive, modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.”
“Children make their own environments regarding their parents… they select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.”
326. Bunn, H. T., & Gurtov, A. N. (2014). Prey mortality profiles indicate that Early Pleistocene Homo at Olduvai was an ambush predator. Quaternary International, 322, 44–53.
327. Whiten, A., & Erdal, D. (2012). The human socio-cognitive niche and its evolutionary origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2119–2129.
328. Papanicolas, I., Woskie, L. R., & Jha, A. K. (2018). Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA, 319(10), 1024–1039.
329. Gottlieb, J. D., Polyakova, M., Rinz, K., Shiplett, H., & Udalova, V. (2023). Who values human capitalists’ human capital? The earnings and labor supply of US physicians (No. w31469). National Bureau of Economic Research.
330. Euronews. (2023, August 11). Doctors’ salaries: Which countries pay the most and least in Europe? https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/08/11/doctors-salaries-which-countries-pay-the-most-and-least-in-europe
331. OECD. (2019). Health at a glance 2019: United States – How does it compare? World Health Systems Facts. https://healthsystemsfacts.org/the-us-health-system/
332. Emanuel, E. J., et al. (2021). Comparing health outcomes of privileged US citizens with those of average residents of other developed countries. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(3), 339–344.
333. Bobrowicz, K., Gracia, P., Teuber, Z., & Greiff, S. (2025). The meritocracy trap: Early childhood education policies promote individual achievement far more than social cohesion. PLoS One, 20(7), e0326021.
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543–576.
Clavero García, M. (2023). The idea of merit: Delineation and challenges. Philosophia, 51(3), 1145–1160.
Moreira, D., & Pérez, S. (2021). Who benefits from meritocracy? UC Davis and NBER.
Olivos-Jara, P. (2023). The dark side of meritocratic beliefs: Is believing in meritocracy detrimental to individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds?. Social Justice Research, 36(4), 419-441.
Sachs-Cobbe, B. (2023). Recent work on meritocracy. Analysis, 83(1), 171–185.
Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
334. Gowdy, J. M. (2021). Hunter-gatherers and the crisis of civilization. Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, 55(1), 35–54.
335. Bowles, S., & Fochesato, M. (2024). The origins of enduring economic inequality. Journal of Economic Literature, 62(4), 1475–1537.
336. Smith, E. A., Bowles, S., Hertz, T., Mulder, M. B., Shenk, M. K., & Gurven, M. (2010). Intergenerational wealth transmission and inequality in premodern societies. Current Anthropology, 51(1), 119–128.
337. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919. This article reviews empirical evidence supporting system justification theory and discusses its implications for understanding social and political attitudes
338. Turchin, P. (2013). The puzzle of human ultrasociality: How did large-scale complex societies evolve? In P. J. Richerson & M. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion (pp. 61–73). MIT Press.
339. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
340. Wilkie, R. Z., Choi, E. Y., Farina, M. P., Lee, J., & Ailshire, J. A. (2024). Cross-national patterns in educational inequalities in functional limitations among middle-aged and older adults at two time points. SSM – Population Health, 22, 101535.
341. Pereira, R. D., Biroli, P., Galama, T., & von Hinke, S. (2022). Gene–environment interplay in the social sciences (arXiv:2203.02198). arXiv.
342. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.
Steptoe, A., & Fancourt, D. (2019). Leading a meaningful life at older ages and its relationship with social engagement, prosperity, health, biology, and time use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(4), 1207-1212.
Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., … & Cutler, D. (2016). The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014. JAMA, 315(16), 1750-1766.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2015). Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15078-15083.
Raffington, L., Tanksley, P. T., Sabhlok, A., Vinnik, L., Mallard, T., King, L. S., … & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2023). Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents. Psychological Science, 34(1), 117-130.
343. Aristotle. (1995). Politics (E. Barker, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work written ca. 350 BCE)
344. Mulgan, R. (1977). Aristotle’s political theory. Clarendon Press.
345. Taylor, C. C. W. (1995). Politics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle (pp. [insert page range]). Cambridge University Press.
346. Platt, M. (2013). Aristotle and the biopolitics of the polis. Political Theory, 41(4), 494–519.
Nussbaum, M. (1999). Aristotle, politics, and human capabilities: A response to O’Neill. Ethics, 111(1), 102–140.
347. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press.
348. Gillett, N. P., Kirchmeier-Young, M. C., Ribes, A., Shiogama, H., & Hegerl, G. C. (2013). Attribution of climate change: A new perspective on the role of human influence. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 925–930. The findings align with the consensus that approximately 70–75% of global warming has occurred since the end of World War II.
349. Tooze, A. (2014). The deluge: The Great War, America and the remaking of the global order, 1916-1931. Viking Press.
Beckert, S. (2014). Empire of cotton: A global history. Alfred A. Knopf.
Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso Books.
350. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
351. Martin, C. L., Ghastine, L., & Lodge, E. K. (2022). Understanding health inequalities through the lens of social epigenetics. Annual Review of Public Health, 43, 139–158.
Schellhas, L., Luo, M., Felix, J. F., Page, C. M., Bekkhus, M., Munafò, M. R., … & Sharp, G. C. (2025). The development of childhood internalising problems: A meta-analysis of epigenome-wide-association-studies. medRxiv, 2025-06.
Rijlaarsdam, J., Cosin-Tomas, M., Schellhas, L., Abrishamcar, S., Malmberg, A., Neumann, A., … Cecil, C. A. M. (2023). DNA methylation and general psychopathology in childhood: An epigenome-wide meta-analysis from the PACE consortium. Molecular Psychiatry, 28(3), 1128-1136.
Willems, Y. E., Rezaki, A. D., Aikins, M., Bahl, A., Wu, Q., Belsky, D. W., & Raffington, L. (2025). Social determinants of health and epigenetic clocks: Meta-analysis of 140 studies. medRxiv.
McDade, T. W., Ryan, C. P., Jones, M. J., et al. (2024). Social and physical environments early in development predict DNA methylation of inflammatory genes in young adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(7), e2305325121.
Aristizabal, M. J., Anreiter, I., Halldorsdottir, T., et al. (2020). Biological embedding of experience: A primer on epigenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23261-23269.
Schmitz, L. L., et al. (2021). The Socioeconomic Gradient in Epigenetic Aging Clocks: Evidence from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and the Health and Retirement Study. Epigenetics, 16(7), 658-668.
Notterman, D. A., & Mitchell, C. (2015). Epigenetics and Understanding the Impact of Social Determinants of Health. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 62(5), 1227-1240.
Non, A. L., Román, J. C., Gross, C. L., et al. (2016). Early childhood social disadvantage is associated with poor health behaviours in adulthood. Annals of Human Biology, 43(2), 144-153.
Nusslock, R., & Miller, G. E. (2016). Early-Life Adversity and Physical and Emotional Health Across the Lifespan: A Neuroimmune Network Hypothesis. Biological Psychiatry, 80(1), 23-32.
352. OPEN.
353. Erola, J., Lehti, H., & Baier, T. (2022). Socioeconomic background and gene–environment interplay in social stratification across the early life course. European Sociological Review, 38(1), 1–15.
Raffington, L., Tanksley, P. T., Sabhlok, A., et al. (2023). Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents. Psychological Science, 34(1), 117–130.
Castagné, R., Ménard, S., & Delpierre, C. (2023).
The epigenome as a biological candidate to incorporate the social environment over the life course and generations. Epigenomics, 15(1), 7–10.
Schmitz, C., H. T., et al. (2021). The Socioeconomic Gradient in Epigenetic Aging Clocks: Evidence from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and the Health and Retirement Study. Epigenetics, 16(7), 658-668.
Cerutti, R. et al. (2021). Associations between indicators of socioeconomic position and DNA methylation: a scoping review. Clinical Epigenetics, 13, 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-021-01189-0
Petrović, R., et al. (2022). Life-course socioeconomic factors are associated with markers of epigenetic aging in a population-based study. Frontiers in Aging, 3.
354. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424–435.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23.
Reinforces that sociability and many other behavioral traits are heritable and influence environmental selection.
355. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23.
Genotype–Environment Correlation (rGE) is a central concept in their work. They outline the three types—passive, evocative, and active—where individuals’ genetically influenced traits affect the environments they experience.
Environmental factors such as parenting and peer relationships are not purely external influences—they are often shaped by the child’s own genetically influenced traits. This is especially emphasized in their explanation of evocative and active rGE.
356. Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. Allen Lane.
357. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
358. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(2), 137–148
Uchiyama, R., Spicer, R., & Muthukrishna, M. (2022). The cultural evolution of genetic heritability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Kendler, K. S., & Baker, J. H. (2007). Genetic influences on measures of the environment: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 37(5), 615–626.
359. Bush, N. R., Edgar, R. D., Park, M., et al. (2018). The biological embedding of early-life socioeconomic status and family adversity in children’s genome-wide DNA methylation. Epigenomics, 10(11), 1445–1461.
Neumann, A., Sammallahti, S., Cosin-Tomas, M., Reese, S. E., Suderman, M., Alemany, S., … & Cecil, C. (2025). Epigenetic timing effects on child developmental outcomes: a longitudinal meta-regression of findings from the Pregnancy And Childhood Epigenetics Consortium. Genome medicine, 17(1), 39.
Sumner, J. A., Gambazza, S., Gao, X., & Baccarelli, A. A. (2022). Epigenetics of early-life adversity in youth: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Clinical Epigenetics, 14(1), 80.
Stringhini, S., Polidoro, S., Sacerdote, C., Kelly, R. S., Van Veldhoven, K., Agnoli, C., … & Vineis, P. (2015). Life-course socioeconomic status and DNA methylation of genes regulating inflammation across two European cohorts. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(4), 1320-1330.
McDade, T. W., Ryan, C. P., Jones, M. J., Hoke, M. K., Borja, J., Miller, G. E., Kuzawa, C. W., & Kobor, M. S. (2019). Genome-wide analysis of DNA methylation in relation to socioeconomic status during development and early adulthood. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 169(1), 3-11.
Martin, C. L., Jima, D., Sharp, G. C., McCullough, L. E., Park, S. S., Gowdy, K. M., … & Fry, R. C. (2019). Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity, offspring cord blood DNA methylation, and offspring cardiometabolic health in early childhood: An epigenome-wide association study. Epigenetics, 14(4), 325-340.
Cecil, C. A. M., Zhang, Y., & Nolte, T. (2020). Childhood maltreatment and DNA methylation: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 392-409.
360. Kuzawa, C. W., & Sweet, E. (2009). Epigenetics and the embodiment of race: Developmental origins of US racial disparities in cardiovascular health. American Journal of Human Biology, 21(1), 2-15.
Rijlaarsdam, J., Cosin-Tomas, M., Schellhas, L., Abrishamcar, S., Malmberg, A., Neumann, A., … Cecil, C. A. M. (2023). DNA methylation and general psychopathology in childhood: An epigenome-wide meta-analysis from the PACE consortium. Molecular Psychiatry, 28(3), 1128-1136.
Gkiouleka, M., Karalexi, M., Sergentanis, T. N., Nouvakis, D., Proikaki, S., Kornarou, E., & Vassilakou, T. (2025). The Epigenetic Role of Nutrition Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review. Children, 12(2), 143.
Zhao, X., Katrinli, S., McCormick, B. M., Miller, M. W., Nugent, N. R., Wani, A. H., … & Wolf, E. J. (2025). PTSD and epigenetic aging: a longitudinal meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 55, e142.
Willems, Y. E., Rezaki, A. D., Aikins, M., Bahl, A., Wu, Q., Belsky, D. W., & Raffington, L. (2025). Social determinants of health and epigenetic clocks: Meta-analysis of 140 studies. medRxiv.
Scorza, P., et al. (2019). Research Review: Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: epigenetics and parents’ childhoods as the first exposure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(2), 119-132.
Bowers, M. E., & Yehuda, R. (2016). Intergenerational transmission of stress in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(1), 232-244.
Aristizabal, M. J., et al. (2020). Biological embedding of experience: A primer on epigenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23261-23269.
Holuka, C., Grova, N., Charalambous, E. G., Le Cléac’H, J., Turner, J. D., & Mposhi, A. (2024). Transgenerational impacts of early life adversity: from health determinants, implications to epigenetic consequences. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 164, 105785.
Zhou, A., & Ryan, J. (2023). Biological embedding of early-life adversity and a scoping review of the evidence for intergenerational epigenetic transmission of stress and trauma in humans. Genes, 14(8), 1639.
Conching, A. K. S., & Thayer, Z. (2019). Biological pathways for historical trauma to affect health: A conceptual model focusing on epigenetic modifications. Social Science & Medicine, 230, 74-82.
Chervova, O., Panteleeva, K., Chernysheva, E., Widayati, T. A., Baronik, Ž. F., Hrbková, N., … & Voloshin, V. (2024). Breaking new ground on human health and well-being with epigenetic clocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epigenetic age acceleration associations. Ageing Research Reviews, 102, 102552.
DiMarzio, K., Rojo-Wissar, D. M., Hernandez Valencia, E., Ver Pault, M., Denherder, S., Lopez, A., … & Parent, J. (2025). Childhood adversity and adolescent epigenetic age acceleration: the role of adolescent sleep health. Sleep Advances, 6(1), zpaf003.
Mozhui, K., Starlard-Davenport, A., Sun, Y., Shadyab, A. H., Casanova, R., Thomas, F., … & Johnson, K. C. (2025). Epigenetic entropy, social disparity, and health and lifespan in the Women’s Health Initiative. medRxiv.
Hamlat, E. J., Mayer, S. E., Laraia, B., Moffitt, T. E., Surachman, A., Dutcher, E. G., … & Epel, E. S. (2025). Maternal childhood adversity accelerates epigenetic aging of children. Health Psychology, 44(5), 479.
Dieckmann, L., & Czamara, D. (2024). Epigenetics of prenatal stress in humans: the current research landscape. Clinical Epigenetics, 16(1), 20.
361. Open.
362. Fiorito, G., Polidoro, S., Dugué, P. A., Kivimaki, M., Ponzi, E., Matullo, G., … & Vineis, P. (2017). Social adversity and epigenetic aging: a multi-cohort study on socioeconomic differences in peripheral blood DNA methylation. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-12.
363. Open
364. See the article Predatory Well-Being: A Global Problem
365. Slavich, G. M., Mengelkoch, S., & Cole, S. W. (2023). Human social genomics: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for health. Lifestyle Medicine, 4(2), e75.
Rijlaarsdam, J., Cosin-Tomas, M., Schellhas, L., Abrishamcar, S., Malmberg, A., Neumann, A., … Cecil, C. A. M. (2023). DNA methylation and general psychopathology in childhood: An epigenome-wide meta-analysis from the PACE consortium. Molecular Psychiatry, 28(3), 1128-1136.
Schellhas, L., Luo, M., Felix, J. F., Page, C. M., Bekkhus, M., Munafò, M. R., … & Sharp, G. C. (2025). The development of childhood internalising problems: A meta-analysis of epigenome-wide-association-studies. medRxiv, 2025-06.
Neumann, A., Sammallahti, S., Cosin-Tomas, M., Reese, S. E., Suderman, M., Alemany, S., … & Cecil, C. (2025). Epigenetic timing effects on child developmental outcomes: a longitudinal meta-regression of findings from the Pregnancy And Childhood Epigenetics Consortium. Genome medicine, 17(1), 39.
366. Cavalli, G., & Heard, E. (2019). Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease. Nature, 571(7766), 489-499.
Belsky, D. W., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Baccarelli, A. A., Corcoran, D. L., Gao, X., … & Moffitt, T. E. (2020). Quantification of the pace of biological aging in humans through a blood test, the DunedinPoAm DNA methylation algorithm. eLife, 9, e54870.
Dunn, E. C., Soare, T. W., Zhu, Y., Simpkin, A. J., Suderman, M. J., Klengel, T., … & Relton, C. L. (2019). Sensitive periods for the effect of childhood adversity on DNA methylation: results from a prospective, longitudinal study. Biological Psychiatry, 85(10), 838-849.
Swartz, J. R., Hariri, A. R., & Williamson, D. E. (2017). An epigenetic mechanism links socioeconomic status to changes in depression-related brain function in high-risk adolescents. Molecular Psychiatry, 22(2), 209-214.
Keller, M., Vogel, M., Garten, A., Svensson, S. I. A., Rossi, E., Kovacs, P., … & Kiess, W. (2025). Epigenetics of childhood obesity. Hormone Research in Paediatrics
Harden, K. P., & Koellinger, P. D. (2020). Using genetics for social science. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 567-576.
Schuurmans, I. K., Smajlagic, D., Baltramonaityte, V., Malmberg, A. L., Neumann, A., Creasey, N., … & Cecil, C. A. (2025). Genetic susceptibility to neurodevelopmental conditions associates with neonatal DNA methylation patterns in the general population: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry.
Dolcini, J., Chiavarini, M., Firmani, G., Brennan, K. J., Cardenas, A., Baccarelli, A. A., & Barbadoro, P. (2025). Methylation biomarkers of lung Cancer risk: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 17(4), 690.
Bartels, M., van de Weijer, M. P., Azcona Granada, N., Baselmans, B. M., Suderman, M., Soerensen, M., … & van Dongen, J. (2025). Epigenome-wide association study meta-analysis of wellbeing. bioRxiv, 2025-09.
Richardson, T. G., Zheng, J., Davey Smith, G., Timpson, N. J., Gaunt, T. R., Relton, C. L., & Hemani, G. (2017). Mendelian randomization analysis identifies CpG sites as putative mediators for genetic influences on cardiovascular disease risk. American Journal of Human Genetics, 101(4), 590-602.
Hannon, E., Dempster, E., Viana, J., Burrage, J., Smith, A. R., Macdonald, R., … & Mill, J. (2016). An integrated genetic-epigenetic analysis of schizophrenia: Evidence for co-localization of genetic associations and differential DNA methylation. Genome Biology, 17(1), 1-16.
Wawrzczak‐Bargieła, A., Bilecki, W., & Maćkowiak, M. (2023). Epigenetic targets in schizophrenia development and therapy. Brain Sciences, 13(3), 426.
367. Heijmans, B., Tobi, E., Stein, A., Putter, H., Blauw, G., Susser, E., … & Lumey, L. (2008). Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(44), 17046-17049.
Eichenauer, H. and Ehlert, U. (2023). The association between prenatal famine, dna methylation and mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Epigenetics, 15(1).
Dolcini, J., Chiavarini, M., Firmani, G., Brennan, K. J., Cardenas, A., Baccarelli, A. A., & Barbadoro, P. (2025). Methylation biomarkers of lung Cancer risk: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 17(4), 690.
Bind, M. A., Lepeule, J., Zanobetti, A., Gasparrini, A., Baccarelli, A. A., Coull, B. A., … & Schwartz, J. (2014). Air pollution and gene-specific methylation in the Normative Aging Study: Association, effect modification, and mediation analysis. Epigenetics, 9(3), 448-458.
Cosin-Tomas, M., Hoang, T., Qi, C., Monasso, G. S., Langdon, R., Merid, S. K., … & Bustamante, M. (2025). Association of exposure to second-hand smoke during childhood with blood DNA methylation. Environment international, 195, 109204.
Newell, M. E., Aravindan, A., Babbrah, A., & Halden, R. U. (2025). Epigenetic Biomarkers Driven by Environmental Toxins Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the United States: A Systematic Review. Toxics, 13(2), 114.
Plusquin, M., Guida, F., Polidoro, S., Vermeulen, R., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Campanella, G., … & Chadeau-Hyam, M. (2017). DNA methylation and exposure to ambient air pollution in two prospective cohorts. Environment International, 108, 127-136.
Rider, C. F., & Carlsten, C. (2019). Air pollution and DNA methylation: Effects of exposure in humans. Clinical Epigenetics, 11(1), 131.
Vineis, P., Robinson, O., Chadeau-Hyam, M., Dehghan, A., Mudway, I., & Dagnino, S. (2020). What is new in the exposome? Environment International, 143, 105887.
Tobi, E. W., Slieker, R. C., Luijk, R., Dekkers, K. F., Stein, A. D., Xu, K. M., … & Heijmans, B. T. (2018). DNA methylation as a mediator of the association between prenatal adversity and risk factors for metabolic disease in adulthood. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao4364.
Gallego-Fabrega, C., Cullell, N., & Fernández-Cadenas, I. (2025). How epigenetics impacts stroke risk and outcomes through DNA methylation: A systematic review. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 0271678X251322032.
368. Open
369. Open
370. Baccarelli, A., & Ghosh, S. (2012). Environmental exposures, epigenetics and cardiovascular disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(11), 759–770.
Vineis, P. (2017). Health Without Borders: Epidemics in the Era of Globalization. Springer.
371. Open.
372. Conching, A. K. S., & Thayer, Z. (2019). Biological pathways for historical trauma to affect health: A conceptual model focusing on epigenetic modifications. Social Science & Medicine, 230, 74-82.
Dolcini, J., Chiavarini, M., Firmani, G., Brennan, K. J., Cardenas, A., Baccarelli, A. A., & Barbadoro, P. (2025). Methylation biomarkers of lung Cancer risk: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 17(4), 690.
Newell, M. E., Aravindan, A., Babbrah, A., & Halden, R. U. (2025). Epigenetic Biomarkers Driven by Environmental Toxins Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the United States: A Systematic Review. Toxics, 13(2), 114.
Cosin-Tomas, M., Hoang, T., Qi, C., Monasso, G. S., Langdon, R., Merid, S. K., … & Bustamante, M. (2025). Association of exposure to second-hand smoke during childhood with blood DNA methylation. Environment international, 195, 109204.
Juster, R., McEwen, B., & Lupien, S. (2010). Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1), 2-16.
Gallego-Fabrega, C., Cullell, N., & Fernández-Cadenas, I. (2025). How epigenetics impacts stroke risk and outcomes through DNA methylation: A systematic review. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 0271678X251322032.
Chambers, J., Roscoe, C. M., Chidley, C., Wisniewska, A., & Duggirala, A. (2025). Molecular Effects of Physical Activity and Body Composition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 637.
Prisco, S. Z., Umar, S., Potus, F., & Agrawal, V. (2025). Exploring the role of epigenetic modifications in pulmonary vascular disease pathogenesis. Frontiers in Medicine, 12, 1618278.
Willems, Y. E., Rezaki, A. D., Aikins, M., Bahl, A., Wu, Q., Belsky, D. W., & Raffington, L. (2025). Social determinants of health and epigenetic clocks: Meta-analysis of 140 studies. medRxiv.
373. Jadotte, Y. T. (2018). Epigenetics: The process of inheriting health disparities. In Social Pathways to Health Vulnerability. Springer.
Wallack, L., & Thornburg, K. (2016). Developmental origins, epigenetics, and equity: Moving upstream. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(5), 937–947.
Sritharan, E. S. (2025) Climate change and air pollution: The twin threats to children’s health and well-being. Medicine, Law & Society, 18(1), 45–63.
374. Deaton, A. (2013). The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton University Press.
375. Gowdy, J. M. (2021). Ultrasocial: The Evolution of Human Nature and the Quest for a Sustainable Future (p. 132). Cambridge University Press.
376. World Bank. (2023). Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2022–2023. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity
377. Roser, M. (2023). Our World in Data – Global Population History. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
378. McGowan, P. O., et al. (2018). Childhood adversity and DNA methylation of stress regulatory genes: A systematic review. Epigenomics, 10(5), 545–560.
379. Caldwell, L., & Smith, K. (2020). A meta-analysis of the 5-HTTLPR-environment interaction in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 265, 112–120.
380. Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science*, 27(2), 138–149.
381. Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Daigle, L. E., Swatt, M. L., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Gene-environment interactions and criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 201–210.
382. Willems, Y. E., Rezaki, A. D., Aikins, M., Bahl, A., Wu, Q., Belsky, D. W., & Raffington, L. (2025). Social determinants of health and epigenetic clocks: Meta-analysis of 140 studies. medRxiv
383. Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts identity, cognition, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291. [ref:40]
Hughes, B. T., Costello, C. K., Pearman, J., Razavi, P., Bedford-Petersen, C., Ludwig, R. M., & Srivastava, S. (2024). Occupational prestige: The status component of occupational class predicts intent for political participation. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), 92882.
Erola, J., Jalonen, S., & Lehti, H. (2016). Parental education, class and income over early life course and children’s achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 33-43.
384. Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). Inequality and economic growth. Political Quarterly, 86(S1), 134-155.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). The inheritance of inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 3-30.
Hornborg, A. (2024). Beyond the veil of market prices: The implications of ecologically unequal exchange for conceptualizations of technological development. Contributions to Political Economy, 43(1).
Beckert, J. (2009) The social order of markets. Theory and Society, 38(3), 245–269.
Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2014). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344(6186), 838–843.
385. Diesendorf, M., Davies, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2024). Sustainability scientists’ critique of neoclassical economics. Global Sustainability, Cambridge University Press.
Cook, E. (2020). Naturalizing Inequality: The Problem of Economic Fatalism in the Age of Piketty. Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics, 1(2), 305–332.
Spash, C. L. (2020). A Tale of Three Paradigms: Realising the Revolutionary Potential of Ecological Economics. Ecological Economics, 169.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Walrasian economics in retrospect. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1411-1439.
386. Amis, J., Munir, K., & Mair, J. (2017). Institutions and economic inequality. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 50, 3–34.
387. Cannadine, D. (1999). The rise and fall of class in Britain. Columbia University Press.
388. Our World in Data. (2023). Daily calorie supply per person. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-supply-kcal
Our World in Data. (2023). Life expectancy. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
World Bank. (2023). Population data by income group. Retrieved via Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-country
389. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2012). Inequality and regime change: Democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 495–516.
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
390. Rogers, K. (2025). Abiogenesis. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
Schopf, J. W. (2006). Fossil evidence of Archaean life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1470), 869–885.
Dodd, M. S., et al. (2017). Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates. Nature, 543(7643), 60–64.
Lepot, K. (2020). Signatures of early microbial life from the Archean (~3.5 Ga). Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(3), 198–213.
391. Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene × environment interactions. Child Development, 81(1), 41–79.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Garner, A. S. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246.
Boyce, W. T., & Kobor, M. S. (2015). Development and the epigenome: The “synapse” of gene–environment interplay. Developmental Science, 18(1), 1–23.
Landecker, H., & Panofsky, A. (2013). From social structure to gene regulation, and back: A critical introduction to environmental epigenetics for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 333–357.
Heijmans, B. T., Tobi, E. W., Stein, A. D., Putter, H., Blauw, G. J., Susser, E. S., Slagboom, P. E., & Lumey, L. H. (2008). Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(44), 17046–17049.
McEwen, B. S. (2000). The neurobiology of stress: From serendipity to clinical relevance. Brain Research, 886(1–2), 172–189.
Szyf, M. (2009). The early life social environment and DNA methylation: DNA methylation mediating the long-term impact of social environments early in life. Epigenetics, 4(8), 415–418.
Hertzman, C. (1999). The biological embedding of early experience and its effects on health in adulthood. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 85–95
392. Chancel, L. (2022). Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nature Sustainability, 5(11), 931–938.
Diffenbaugh, N. S., & Burke, M. (2019). Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9808-9813.
393. Knight, K. W., Schor, J. B., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2017). Wealth inequality and carbon emissions in high-income countries. Social Currents, 4(5), 403-412.
394. Kenner, D. (2019). Carbon inequality: The role of the richest in climate change. Routledge.
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3107.
Otto, I. M., Kim, K. M., Dubrovsky, N., & Lucht, W. (2019). Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 82-84.
Oxfam. (2023). Climate equality: A planet for the 99%. Oxfam International.
395. Whenever social hierarchy is referred to, the reader should note there is a difference between ‘top-down hierarchy’ and ‘reverse dominance hierarchy’ and their evolutionary context.
Cultural anthropologist Christopher Boehm introduced the theory of ‘reverse dominance hierarchy.’182
According to Boehm, “Egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy”185 that “can stay in place only with the vigilant and active suppression of bullies, who as free riders could otherwise openly take what they wanted from others who were less selfish or less powerful.”186
Boehm writes, “Humans naturally form hierarchies when they live in groups.”187 “In despotic social dominance hierarchies the pyramid of power is pointed upward with one or a few individuals…at the top. In egalitarian hierarchies, the pyramid of power is turned upside down, with a politically united rank and file dominating…”188
Also, one should consider there is a difference between ‘social hierarchy’ and ‘organizational hierarchy.’
Social hierarchy refers to a relatively stable, ordered stratification of individuals or groups within a social structure that determines the distribution of income, wealth, power, prestige and well-being.
Organizational hierarchy refers to the structured ordering of roles within a specific organization. Whereas social hierarchy stratifies people or groups as described above, organizational hierarchy ranks roles within a bounded institution to coordinate complex activities important to the purpose and survival of the organization.
Boehm, C. (2012). Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. Soft Skull Press.
Von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223-2232.
396. Cavalli, G., & Heard, E. (2019). Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease. Nature, 571(7766), 489-499.
Aristizabal, M. J., Anreiter, I., Halldorsdottir, T., Odgers, C. L., McDade, T. W., Goldenberg, A., … & O’Donnell, K. J. (2020). Biological embedding of experience: A primer on epigenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23261-23269.
Heijmans, B. T., Tobi, E. W., Stein, A. D., Putter, H., Blauw, G. J., Susser, E. S., Lumey, L. H., & Slagboom, P. E. (2008). Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(44), 17046–17049.
397. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour
398. Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-486.
Lamb, W. F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J. G., … & Minx, J. C. (2021). A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 073005.
Clark, B. & York, R. (2005). Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift. Theory and Society, 34(4), 391-428.
399. Diffenbaugh, N. S., & Burke, M. (2019). Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9808-9813.
Islam, N., & Winkel, J. (2017). Climate change and social inequality. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Working Paper No. 152.
Jorgenson, A. K., Schor, J. B., & Huang, X. (2017). Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: A panel cointegration analysis. Sociological Forum, 32(4), 715-735.
400. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Belsky, Jay. “The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives.” Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., Pingault, JB, Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26.
“…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.” “Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
Erola, Jani, et al. “Socioeconomic Background and Gene–Environment Interplay in Social Stratification across the Early Life Course.” European Sociological Review 1 (2021): 17.
“It is possible to test for the presence of gene-environment correlation, and one method to do this is using the twin design to estimate the heritability of environmental experiences. A systematic review of gene-environment correlation twin studies estimated that the average heritability of measures of the environment was as high as 27%.”
Kendler, Kenneth S., and Jessica H. Baker. “Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review.” Psychological medicine 37.5 (2007): 615-626.
Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
401. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., Pingault, JB, Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.” “…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Kong, Augustine, et al. “The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes.” Science 359.6374 (2018): 424-428.
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.” “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
“Active rGE (figure 2C) refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g., friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits. Environmentally mediated pleiotropy–whereby genetic influences on a specific trait predispose an individual to experience a specific environment, which in turn affects an additional trait–can be viewed as an extension of rGE: a gene-environment-trait correlation.”
“…the environment can also affect gene expression through epigenetic processes (e.g. biological changes that can affect gene expression without changes to the DNA sequence)…”
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.
Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., …& Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
“…we propose that the social environment can also transform the genetic link between two traits.”
Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
Bartels, Meike, et al. “Exploring the biological basis for happiness.” (2022): 105-126.
Plomin, Robert. “Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA.” Behavior genetics 44 (2014): 629-638.
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26.
“…because intelligence is demonstrably heritable, independent environmental effects cannot possibly run the show. This leads us to the conclusion that gene– environment interplay is the ring master.”
“Even though the heritability of intelligence is high (at least in some populations), evidence from multiple lines of research suggests that variation in intelligence is greatly affected by normal environmental variation. In other words, one can say that IQ has a high heritability and a high malleability.”
Mann, F. D., DeYoung, C. G., Tiberius, V., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of research in personality, 83, 103880.
“…individuals are not randomly assigned to social-relational environments. Rather, individuals select into and evoke responses from environments based on their heritable characteristics.”
von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.
“…SES is often assumed to represent solely environmental advantages of wealth and privilege, but it is actually just as heritable as most other complex traits, with estimates from twin studies of about 50%. The main ingredients in most SES scores are parents’ educational attainment and occupational status, both of which are substantially heritable.”
Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
“GxE is important because it recognizes that one size does not fit all and offers the possibility of personalized tailoring of children’s environments based on their genetic propensities. Moreover, weak environmental effects in the population could have strong effects on children with particular genetic proclivities. GxE is the genetic extension of phenotypic research on differential reactivity to the environment.”
“GxE is distinct conceptually from gene-environment correlation, which denotes experiences that are correlated with genetic propensities, that is, genetic exposure to environmental effects and genetic mediation of associations between environmental factors and psychopathology.”
Slavich, George M., Summer Mengelkoch, and Steven W. Cole. “Human social genomics: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for health. Lifestyle Medicine 4.2 (2023): e75.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science*, 27(2), 138–149.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 531-538.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version, pp. 100–101.
“We actively perceive, modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.”
“Children make their own environments regarding their parents… they select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.”
402. Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, & Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232-e246.
Hertzman, C. (2012). Putting the concept of biological embedding in a historical perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(Supplement 2), 17160-17167.
Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398-406.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623.
Blanden, J., Doepke, M., & Stuhler, J. (2022). Educational inequality. In Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics (pp. 1-40). Springer.
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181-209.
Harris, J., & Nisbett, N. (2020). The basic determinants of malnutrition: Resources, structures, ideas and power. In Handbook of Food and Nutrition Security (pp. 123-145). Academic Press.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546-572.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611-634.
Delisle, H. (2008). Poverty: The double burden of malnutrition in mothers and the intergenerational impact. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1), 172-184.
Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 48-60.
403. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., Pingault, JB, Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
“…quantitative genetics findings indicate that measures of the environment are themselves heritable.” They continue: “Our findings have relevance for genomic and environmental prediction models alike, as they show the way in which individuals’ genetic predispositions and environmental effects are intertwined.”
404. Aristizabal, M. J., Anreiter, I., Halldorsdottir, T., Odgers, C. L., McDade, T. W., Goldenberg, A., … & O’Donnell, K. J. (2020). Biological embedding of experience: A primer on epigenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23261-23269.
Heijmans, B. T., Tobi, E. W., Stein, A. D., Putter, H., Blauw, G. J., Susser, E. S., Lumey, L. H., & Slagboom, P. E. (2008). Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(44), 17046–17049.
Cecil, C. A., Zhang, Y., & Nolte, T. (2020). Childhood maltreatment and DNA methylation: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 392-409.
405. von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., Pingault, JB, Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. “The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay.” Psychological bulletin 144.1 (2018): 26.
Thayer, Z. M., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Biological memories of past environments: Epigenetic pathways to health disparities. Epigenetics, 6(7), 798–803.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568.
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavioral genetics and what they mean. Current directions in psychological science, 9(5), 160-164.
Erola, J., et al. (2022). Socioeconomic Background and Gene–Environment Interplay in Social Stratification across the Early Life Course. European Sociological Review 1 (2021): 17.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
Plomin, R., Gidziela, A., Malanchini, M., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
“GxE is important because it recognizes that one size does not fit all and offers the possibility of personalized tailoring of children’s environments based on their genetic propensities. Moreover, weak environmental effects in the population could have strong effects on children with particular genetic proclivities. GxE is the genetic extension of phenotypic research on differential reactivity to the environment.”
“GxE is distinct conceptually from gene-environment correlation, which denotes experiences that are correlated with genetic propensities, that is, genetic exposure to environmental effects and genetic mediation of associations between environmental factors and psychopathology.”
Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Belsky, J. (2024). The nature of nurture: Darwinian and mendelian perspectives. Development and Psychopathology (2024): 1-10.
Wedow, R., et al. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
Scorza, P., et al. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Epigenetics and parents’ childhoods as the first exposure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 120–125.
Bartels, M., et al. (2022). Exploring the biological basis for happiness.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.
Laland, K. N. (2017). Darwin’s unfinished symphony: How culture made the human mind. University Press.
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Princeton Genetics, 11(2), 137–148.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago press.
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press.
Levy, D. J., & Glimcher, P. W. (2012). The root of all value: A neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 1027–1038.
Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7), 545–556.
Schultz, W. (2015). Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiological Reviews, 95(3), 853–951.
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., Spinath, F. M., Borkenau, P., & Penke, L. (2016). The nature of creativity: The roles of genetic factors, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental sources. Journal of personality and social psychology, 111(2), 230.
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. Principles of neural science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. (Kindle version, p. 95 & 3756)
“Neurons are computational devices.”
EDITOR’S NOTE:
It all begins here: DNA provides instructions for making proteins, but what is built depends on how those instructions develop in any particular person or environment.
Across development, experiences and exposures—from prenatal nutrition and stress to education, relationships, culture, and institutions—influence gene expression regulating and shaping how neurons form, connect, and change with learning.
Without DNA there are no proteins, and without proteins there are no neurons or neural circuits. However, without environmental inputs, those circuits would not be organized, calibrated, or updated in the specific ways that support perception, language, art, science, and the wide range of political and economic beliefs.
DNA is the foundation but does not determine outcomes. DNA supplies capacities, constraints and bounded limits with environments shaping how these limits unfold.
406. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Erola, J., Lehti, H., Baier, T., & Karhula, A. (2022). Socioeconomic background and gene–environment interplay in social stratification across the early life course. European Sociological Review, 38(1), 1-17.
Thayer, Z. M., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Biological memories of past environments: Epigenetic pathways to health disparities. Epigenetics, 6(7), 798–803.
Meloni, M. (2015). Epigenetics for the social sciences: Justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 34(4), 439–461.
Scorza, P., et al. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Epigenetics and parents’ childhoods as the first exposure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 120–125.
Rothstein, M. A., et al. (2017). Transgenerational epigenetics and environmental justice. Environmental Epigenetics, 3(3), dvx011.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
Chiao, J. Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture-gene coevolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1681), 529–537.
McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2011). Stress-and allostasis-induced brain plasticity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1220(1), 1–4.
Hertzman, C. (2012). Putting the concept of biological embedding in a historical perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 102(10), 1843-1844.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (Eds.). (2011). Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology, and politics. University of Chicago Press.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. Penguin Press.
407. von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.
Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Barcellos, S. H., Carvalho, L. S., & Turley, P. (2021). Education can reduce health differences related to genetic risk of obesity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), e2013226118.
Demange, P. A., Hottenga, J. J., Abdellaoui, A., et al. (2022). Estimating effects of parents’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills on offspring education using polygenic scores. Nature Communications, 13(1), 4801.
Kweon, H., Aydogan, G., Dagher, A., et al. (2024). Human brain anatomy reflects separable genetic and environmental components of socioeconomic status. Science Advances, 10(18), eadj2606.
Belsky, D. W., et al. (2018). Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 115(31), E7275-E7284.
Marioni, R. E., et al. (2016). Molecular genetic contributions to socioeconomic status and intelligence. Intelligence, 44, 26-32.
Selzam, S., et al. (2017). Predicting educational achievement from DNA. Molecular Psychiatry, 22(2), 267-272.
Rietveld, C. A., et al. (2013). GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science, 340(6139), 1467-1471.
Harden, K. P., & Koellinger, P. D. (2020). Using genetics for social science. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 567-576.
Trejo, S., et al. (2018). Schools as moderators of genetic associations with life course attainments: Evidence from the WLS. Sociological Science, 5, 513-540.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Kweon, H., Burik, C., Karlsson Linnér, R., De Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., … & Koellinger, P. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health.
408. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424–435.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81–89.
409. Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). The developmental and genetic architecture of prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 60-64.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … & Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures. A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100-1104
410. Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Wedow, R., Arseneault, L., Boardman, J. D., Caspi, A., Conley, D., Fletcher, J. M., Freese, J., Herd, P., Moffitt, T. E., Poulton, R., Sicinski, K., Wertz, J., & Harris, K. M. (2018). Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(31), E7275–E7284.
Papageorge, N. W., & Thom, K. (2020). Genes, education, and labor market outcomes: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(3), 1351–1399.
Kweon, H., Aydogan, G., Dagher, A., et al. (2024). Human brain anatomy reflects separable genetic and environmental components of socioeconomic status. Science Advances, 10(18), eadj2606.
Hill, W. D., et al. (2019). Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5741.
Branigan, A. R., McCallum, K. J., & Freese, J. (2013). Variation in the heritability of educational attainment: An international meta-analysis. Social Forces, 92(1), 109-140.
Rimfeld, K., et al. (2018). Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 14069.
Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Demange, P. A., Hottenga, J. J., Abdellaoui, A., et al. (2022). Estimating effects of parents’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills on offspring education using polygenic scores. Nature Communications, 13(1), 4801.
Trejo, S., et al. (2018). Schools as moderators of genetic associations with life course attainments: Evidence from the WLS. Sociological Science, 5, 513-540.
Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-Environment Correlation in the Era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44(6), 629-638.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Raffington, L., Tanksley, P. T., Sabhlok, A., et al. (2023). Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents. Psychological Science, 34(2), 170–185.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.
411. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 864–876.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Wedow, R., Arseneault, L., Boardman, J. D., Caspi, A., … & Harris, K. M. (2018). Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(31), E7275-E7284.
Barcellos, S. H., Carvalho, L. S., & Turley, P. (2018). Education can reduce health differences related to genetic risk of obesity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(42), E9765-E9772
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
Kweon, H., Burik, C. A. P., Linnér, R. K., de Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Martschenko, D., Harden, K. P., DiPrete, T. A., & Koellinger, P. D. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health
Meloni, M. (2014). Epigenetics for the social sciences: Justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 33(2), 125–151.
Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44(6), 629–638.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19, 148–159.
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 26.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., Mullan Harris, K., Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
Wells, J. C. K., & Marphatia, A. A. (2018). An inter-generational perspective on social inequality in health and life opportunities: The maternal capital model. In The Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society.
412. Allegrini, A. G., Karhunen, V., Coleman, J. R., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., Von Stumm, S., … & Plomin, R. (2020). Multivariable GE interplay in the prediction of educational achievement. PLoS Genetics, 16(11), e1009153.
Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 864–876.
Belsky, D. W., & Israel, S. (2014). Integrating genetics and social science: Genetic risk scores. Biodemography and Social Biology, 60(2), 137–155.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525-533.
Hoke, M. K., & McDade, T. (2014). Biosocial inheritance: A framework for the study of the intergenerational transmission of health disparities. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 38(2), 187-213.
Kweon, H., Burik, C. A. P., Linnér, R. K., et al. (2020). Genetic fortune: Winning or losing education, income, and health (TI 2020-053/V).
Meloni, M. (2014). Epigenetics for the social sciences: justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 33(2), 125–151.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Huibregtse, B. M., et al. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change: Forwarding a multidimensional theory of the environmental moderation of genetic effects. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
413. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44, 629-638.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 5(1), 325-383.
“When man developed his weapons, culture, and population sizes to levels that essentially erased the significance of predators of other species, he simultaneously created a new predator: groups and coalitions within his own species.”
414. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Mann, F. D., et al. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being: Using multivariate twin data to rule-out heritable and shared environmental confounds. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103880.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525-533.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.
Abdellaoui, A., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 864–876.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
415. ‘System-justified harms–harms that function as social and moral goods’–is an original concept introduced in the article “Predatory Well-Being: A Global Problem.”
416. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44, 629-638.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: Gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from genome-wide association studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568-586.
Beam, C. R., et al. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press
417. Briley, D. A., et al. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Mann, F. D., et al. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103880.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525-533.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
Kleppestø, T. H., et al. (2019). Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings. PNAS, 116(36), 17741-17746.
Bell, E., et al. (2009). The origins of political attitudes and behaviours: An analysis using twins. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 855-879.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Hiraishi, K., et al. (2015). Heritability of decisions and outcomes of public goods games. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 18(3), 293-301.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
418. Briley, D. A., et al. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
Mann, F. D., et al. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103880.
Plomin, R. (2014). Genotype-environment correlation in the era of DNA. Behavior Genetics, 44, 629-638.
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
Kleppestø, T. H., et al. (2019). Social dominance orientation and political attitudes. PNAS, 116(36), 17741-17746.
Abdellaoui, A., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 864–876.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
419. Zakharin, M., & Bates, T. C. (2023). Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations. European Journal of Personality, 37(4), 485-497.
Israel, S., et al. (2015). The genetics of morality and prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 55-59.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 26.
Plomin, R., et al. (2022). Gene–environment interaction using polygenic scores: Do polygenic scores for psychopathology moderate predictions from environmental risk to behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 1-11.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavioral genetics and what they mean. Current directions in psychological science, 9(5), 160-164.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
420. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
“…most of people’s differences in affect, behavior and cognition are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors…”
Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., Dickens, W. T., & Davis, D. W. (2015). Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: The Louisville Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 45, 622-634.
“People do not randomly select environments, but maneuver and position themselves into environments and milieus where they can thrive, as well as react to environments provided to them (e.g., by caregivers). That is, people select into certain environments (e.g., niches) to reinforce innate or learned abilities…”
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Mann, F. D., et al. (2019). Social-relational exposures and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103880.
“…individuals are not randomly assigned to social-relational environments. Rather, individuals select into and evoke responses from environments based on their heritable characteristics.”
Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 5(1), 325-383.
“When man developed his weapons, culture, and population sizes to levels that essentially erased the significance of predators of other species, he simultaneously created a new predator: groups and coalitions within his own species.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
Kong, A., et al. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428.
Kleppestø, T. H., et al. (2019). Social dominance orientation and political attitudes. PNAS, 116(36), 17741-17746.
Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282-294.
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153-167.
Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 233-248.
Bell, E., et al. (2015). The origins of party identification and its relationship to political orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 136-141.
Wedow, R., et al. (2018). Education, smoking, and cohort change. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 802-832.
421. Abdellaoui, A., Martin, H. C., Kolk, M., et al. (2025). Socio-economic status is a social construct with heritable components and genetic consequences. Nature Human Behaviour.
Erola, J., Lehti, H., Baier, T., & Karhula, A. (2022). Socioeconomic background and gene–environment interplay in social stratification across the early life course. European Sociological Review, 38(1), 1-17.
Thayer, Z. M., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Biological memories of past environments: Epigenetic pathways to health disparities. Epigenetics, 6(7), 798–803.
Meloni, M. (2015). Epigenetics for the social sciences: Justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 34(4), 439–461.
Scorza, P., et al. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Epigenetics and parents’ childhoods as the first exposure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 120–125.
Rothstein, M. A., et al. (2017). Transgenerational epigenetics and environmental justice. Environmental Epigenetics, 3(3), dvx011.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138–149.
McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2011). Stress-and allostasis-induced brain plasticity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1220(1), 1–4.
Hertzman, C. (2012). Putting the concept of biological embedding in a historical perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 102(10), 1843-1844.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (Eds.). (2011). Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology, and politics. University of Chicago Press.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. Penguin Press.
Raffington, L., Tanksley, P. T., Sabhlok, A., et al. (2023). Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents. Psychological Science, 34(2), 170–185.
422. Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.” “People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Avinun, R. (2020). The E is in the G: gene–environment–trait correlations and findings from Genome-Wide Association Studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 81-89.
“Active rGE refers to instances in which individuals choose their environment (e.g. friends, activities) based on genetically influenced traits.”
Rimfeld, K., Ayorech, Z., Dale, P. S., Kovas, Y., Plomin, R. (2016). Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Scientific reports, 6(1), 26373.
“The findings that DNA differences substantially affect differences in appetites as well as aptitudes suggest a genetic way of thinking about education in which individuals actively create their own educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities.
Plomin, R. (2019). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press. Kindle version, pp. 100–101.
“We actively perceive, modify and even create environments correlated with our genetic propensities.”
423. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Feldman, M. W. (2000). Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 131–146.
Saltz, J. B., & Nuzhdin, S. V. (2014). Genetic variation in niche construction: Implications for development and evolutionary genetics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(1), 8–14.
Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1813), 20151019.
Odling-Smee, J., Erwin, D. H., Palkovacs, E. P., Feldman, M. W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Niche construction theory: A practical guide for ecologists. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 88(1), 3–28.
424. Turchin, P., & Nefedov, S. A. (2009). Secular cycles. Princeton University Press.
Turchin, P. (2023). End times: Elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration. Penguin Press.
425. The ‘Jack-in-the-Box’ Pattern: Development and Influences
The ‘Jack-in-the-Box’ pattern is an original concept. The following sources provide a range of historical, structural, and socio-genetic context for the concept…demonstrating the many dimensions of Jack.
I. Core Historical & Cyclical Influences
These works establish the recurring nature of hierarchical reset through violent “leveling” events and elite-driven disintegration cycles.
Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press.
Turchin, P., & Nefedov, S. A. (2009). Secular cycles. Princeton University Press.
Turchin, P. (2023). End times: Elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration. Penguin Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1974-1989). The Modern World-System (Vols. 1-3). Academic Press.
II. Structural Mechanisms of Systemic Failure
These sources identify the mechanical “tension” and specific vulnerabilities that lead to a failure or a reset of the hierarchy.
Scheidel, W. (2024). Beyond technology and wages: Power and the history of inequality. Oxford Open Economics, 3 (Supplement_1), 1212–1216.
Turchin, P., Currie, T. E., Whitehouse, H., François, P., Feeney, K., Mullins, D., … & Spencer, C. (2018). Quantitative analysis of civilizational collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(2), E144–E151.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Tainter, J. A. (1988). The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. Random House.
III. The “Jack-in-the-Box” Replacement Dynamics
Khaldun, I. (2015). The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (N. J. Dawood, Ed.; F. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton University Press.
Describes Asabiyyah (social cohesion) as the biological and social force that allows a new group to replace a failing elite.
IV. Socio-Genetic & Genomic Evidence
These references provide empirical data on how population resets, hereditary status, and gene-environment interplay support the “Jack” pattern.
Theory & Mechanism:
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Polderman, Tinca JC, et al. “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.” Nature genetics 47.7 (2015): 702-709.
Causadias, J. M., & Korous, K. M. (2017). How are genes related to culture? An introduction to the field of cultural genomics. The handbook of culture and biology, 151-177.
Boyce, W. T., Sokolowski, M. B., & Robinson, G. E. (2020). Genes and environments, development and time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 117(38), 23235–23241.
Genomic Record of Population Reset:
Žegarac, A., Winkelbach, L., Blöcher, J., Diekmann, Y., Krečković Gavrilović, M., Porčić, M., … & Burger, J. (2021). Ancient genomes provide insights into family structure and the heredity of social status in the early Bronze Age of southeastern Europe. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10072.
Allentoft, M. E., et al. (2022). Population genomics of Stone Age Eurasia. Nature, 605, 713–719.
Gretzinger, J., et al. (2022). The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool. Nature, 610, 112–119.
Biological Embedding:
Zhou, A., & Ryan, J. (2023). Biological embedding of early-life adversity and a scoping review of the evidence for intergenerational epigenetic transmission of stress and trauma in humans. Genes, 14(8), 1639.
Racism and Discrimination:
Ruiz-Narváez, E. A., Cozier, Y., Zirpoli, G., Rosenberg, L., & Palmer, J. R. (2024). Perceived experiences of racism in relation to genome-wide DNA methylation and epigenetic aging in the Black Women’s Health Study. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 12(2), 754–763.
Fani, N., Okeke, O., Elbasheir, A., Carter, S., Powers, A., Mekawi, Y., Gillespie, C. F., Schwartz, A., Bradley, B., & Stevens, J. S. (2022). Racial discrimination and white matter microstructure in trauma-exposed Black women. Biological Psychiatry, 91(3), 254–261.
Spann, M. N., Alleyne, K., Holland, C. M., Davids, A., Pierre-Louis, A., Bang, C., Oyeneye, V., Kiflom, R., Shea, E., Cheng, B., Peterson, B. S., Monk, C., & Scheinost, D. (2024). The effects of experience of discrimination and acculturation during pregnancy on the developing offspring brain. Neuropsychopharmacology, 49(4), 686–694.
Socioeconomic Inequality:
McDade, T. W., Ryan, C. P., Jones, M. J., Hoke, M. K., Borja, J., Miller, G. E., Kuzawa, C. W., & Kobor, M. S. (2019). Genome-wide analysis of DNA methylation in relation to socioeconomic status during development and early adulthood. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 169(1), 3–11.
Elbasheir, A., Katrinli, S., Kearney, M., Lanius, R. A., Harnett, N. G., Ely, T. D., Gillespie, C. F., Stevens, J. S., Lori, A., van Rooij, S. J. H., Powers, A., Bradley, B., Jovanovic, T., Smith, A. K., & Fani, N. (2024). Racial discrimination, neural connectivity, and epigenetic aging among Black women. JAMA Network Open, 7(6), e2416588.
War, Conflict, and Political Violence:
Mulligan, C. J., Quinn, E. B., Hamadmad, D., Dutton, C. L., Nevell, L., Binder, A. M., Panter-Brick, C., & Dajani, R. (2025). Epigenetic signatures of intergenerational exposure to violence in three generations of Syrian refugees. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 5945.
Holocaust Survivors (Intergenerational Trauma):
Yehuda, R., Daskalakis, N. P., Bierer, L. M., Bader, H. N., Klengel, T., Holsboer, F., & Binder, E. B. (2016). Holocaust exposure induced intergenerational effects on FKBP5 methylation. Biological Psychiatry, 80(5), 372–380.
Bierer, L. M., et al. (2020). Intergenerational effects of maternal Holocaust exposure on FKBP5 methylation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(8), 744–753.
426. Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Wedow, R., Arseneault, L., Boardman, J. D., Caspi, A., … Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Genetic analysis of social‑class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(31), E7275–E7284.
Conley, D., & Fletcher, J. (2017). The genome factor: What the social genomics revolution reveals about ourselves, our history, and the future. Princeton University Press.
427. Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Biroli, P., Havari, E., McGarry, K., & Ronda, V. (2025). Economics and econometrics of gene–environment interplay. Review of Economic Studies.
428. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2022). The great divide: Education, despair, and death. Annual Review of Economics, 14, 1-21.
429. References for “The Paradox of the Right and the Good”
Gene-Environment Foundations, Evidence, and Neural Mechanisms
Foundations and the Gene-Environment Interplay
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Behavioral genetics (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Mills, M. C., & Tropf, F. C. (2020). Sociology, genetics, and the coming of age of sociogenomics. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 553-581.
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202-220.
“…individuals actively create or select environmental experiences aligned with their genetically influenced preferences and desires.”
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785.
von Stumm, S., & d’Apice, K. (2022). From genome-wide to environment-wide: Capturing the environome. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 30-40.
“People select themselves into, adapt to, and shape the environments that correspond to their genotypes.”
“There is broad consensus that people’s differences in affect, behavior, and cognition result from the interplay between genetic propensities and environmental conditions.”
Measuring the Mechanism: Polygenic Scores
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.
Belsky, D. W., & Harden, K. P. (2019). Phenotypic Annotation: Using Polygenic Scores to Translate Discoveries from Genome-Wide Association Studies from the Laboratory to the Population. Developmental Psychopathology, 31(4), 1309–1319.
Specific Examples of Gene-Environment Interaction
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138-149.
Beaver, K. M., & Belsky, J. (2012). Gene–environment interaction and the intergenerational transmission of parenting: Testing the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 83(1), 29–40.
Shewark, E. A., Burt, S. A., Klump, K. L., & Hyde, L. W. (2024). Neighborhood features moderate genetic and environmental influences on aggressive expectations. Developmental Psychology, 60(3), 498–511.
Domingue, B. W., & Boardman, J. D. (2014). Genetic and educational assortative mating among US adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(22), 7996-8000.
The Neural Architecture of “The Right and The Good”
Hsu, M., Anen, C., & Quartz, S. R. (2008). The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320(5879), 1092-1095.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385.
Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
Li, Y., Zhang, T., Li, W., et al. (2020). Linking brain structure and activation in anterior insula cortex to explain the trait empathy for pain. Human Brain Mapping, 41, 1030–1042.
Costa, C., Scarpazza, C., & Filippini, N. (2025). The anterior insula engages in feature- and context-level predictive coding processes for recognition judgments. The Journal of Neuroscience, 45(5).
Moral Pluralism—Why People Disagree About Right and Good:
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55-130.
Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69.
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119-169). Routledge.
Twin and Genetic Studies of Morality and Prosociality
Zakharin, M., & Bates, T. C. (2023). Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations. European Journal of Personality, 37(4), 485-497.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 771–786.
Limone, P., & Toto, G. A. (2022). Origin and development of moral sense: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 887537.
Israel, S., Hasenfratz, L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). The genetics of morality and prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 55-59.
Tielbeek, J. J., et al. (2022). Uncovering the genetic architecture of broad antisocial behavior through a genome-wide association study meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 1711–1721.
Political Attitudes and Behavior: Genetics and Neuroscience
Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., Verhulst, B., McDermott, R., Nørgaard, A. S., Klofstad, C., Christensen, K., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Price, E. A., Langan, E., Pettersson, E., & Cesarini, D. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Political Psychology, 35(3), 530-560.
Oskarsson, S., Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., & Teorell, J. (2014). Linking genes and political orientations: Testing the cognitive ability as mediator hypothesis. Political Psychology, 35(3), 353–369.
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297-307.
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.
Genetic Foundations of Risk and Decision-Making
Karlsson Linnér, R., Biroli, P., Kong, E., et al. (2021). Genome-wide association analyses of risk tolerance and risky behaviors in over 1 million individuals identify hundreds of loci and shared genetic influences. Nature Genetics, 53(4), 481-493.
Economic Preferences and Altruism
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 809-842.
The Pervasiveness of Genetic Influence: From Tastes to Temperament
Dick, D. M., & Kendler, K. S. (2012). The impact of gene–environment interaction on alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 34(3), 318-324.
Lane, J. M., Vlasac, I., Anderson, S. G., Kyle, S. D., Dixon, W. G., Bechtold, D. A., Gill, S., Little, M. A., Luik, A., Loudon, A., Emsley, R., Scheer, F. A. J. L., Lawlor, D. A., Redline, S., Ray, D. W., Rutter, M. K., & Saxena, R. (2016). Genome-wide association analysis identifies novel loci for chronotype in 100,420 individuals from the UK Biobank. Nature Communications, 7, 10889.
Huppertz, C., Bartels, M., Jansen, I. E., Boomsma, D. I., Willemsen, G., de Moor, M. H., & de Geus, E. J. (2014). A twin-sibling study on the relationship between exercise attitudes and exercise behavior. Behavior Genetics, 44(1), 45-55.
Fildes, A., van Jaarsveld, C. H., Llewellyn, C. H., Fisher, A., Cooke, L., & Wardle, J. (2014). Nature and nurture in children’s food preferences. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(4), 911-917.
Mosing, M. A., Verweij, K. J., Madison, G., Pedersen, N. L., Zietsch, B. P., & Ullén, F. (2015). Did sexual selection shape human music? Testing predictions from the sexual selection hypothesis of music evolution using a large genetically informative sample of over 10,000 twins. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 359-366.
430. Kleppestø, T. H., et al. (2019). Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17741-17746.
Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 5(1), 325-383.
“When man developed his weapons, culture, and population sizes to levels that essentially erased the significance of predators of other species, he simultaneously created a new predator: groups and coalitions within his own species.”
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. Routledge.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
431. Hsu, M., Anen, C., & Quartz, S. R. (2008). The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320(5879), 1092-1095.
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 809-842.
Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., Verhulst, B., McDermott, R., Nørgaard, A. S., Klofstad, C., Christensen, K., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Price, E. A., Langan, E., Pettersson, E., & Cesarini, D. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Political Psychology, 35(3), 530-560.
Dawes, C. T., Loewen, P. J., Schreiber, D., et al. (2012). Neural basis of egalitarian behavior. PNAS, 109(17), 6479–6483.
Engelmann, J. B., & Hein, G. (2013). Contextual and social influences on valuation and choice. Progress in Brain Research, 202, 215–237.
432. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives, 191-234.
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. Routledge.
433. World Bank. (2022, December 8). Half of the global population lives on less than US$6.85 per person per day. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/half-global-population-lives-less-us685-person-day
434. Ritchie, H., et al. (2023). Population Growth. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
435. Our World in Data. (2023). Daily calorie supply per person. Retrieved from ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-supply-kcal
Note on Caloric Data: We adjusted the low-income range to 2,150–2,330. While 2,330 is often cited as a “target” or “benchmark” for a healthy adult, actual FAO data for the world’s poorest regions in 2011 often fell closer to 2,100–2,150 kcal.
436. Our World in Data. (2023). Life expectancy. Retrieved from ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
437. World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators: Population total. Data.worldbank.org
438. Tropf, F. C., Lee, S. H., Verweij, R. M., Stulp, G., Van Der Most, P. J., De Vlaming, R., … & Mills, M. C. (2017). Hidden heritability due to heterogeneity across seven populations. Nature human behaviour, 1(10), 757-765.
439. Conley, D., & Fletcher, J. (2017). The genome factor: What the social genomics revolution reveals about ourselves, our history, and the future. Princeton University Press.
440. Akimova, E. T., Wolfram, T., Ding, X., Tropf, F. C., & Mills, M. C. (2025). Polygenic prediction of occupational status GWAS elucidates genetic and environmental interplay in intergenerational transmission, careers and health in UK Biobank. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(2), 391-405.