Reader request: What are "good genes" anyway?
And why some smart people think the eugenics movement wrecked a century of science for us
Why most people secretly believe in “good genes” and why anyone with two working brain cells won’t say the word eugenics out loud today
Why one redditor’s throwaway comment explains more about the backlash than the thinkpieces ever will
How a 1980 Dartmouth psychology experiment with fake scars can help you see the underlying projection effect in real time
Plus: the summer refer-a-thon continues. Top referrer still gets a pack of Neuro Gum, hand-blessed by the founders on our upcoming podcast
A few weeks ago we spent our shared three minutes over these Substack posts huddled around the Sydney Sweeney controversy.
We landed on a more-nuanced perspective on the evolutionary biology parts of the issue, and if you want to sip the whole cup of tea, the piece is here.
I tend to avoid riding hot-button news cycles for the same reason most people move on from them, they burn too hot and too fast to leave much of actual substance to examine. But this one left a useful ember that one of our readers kindly pointed to, the “good genes” part.
Because once you say those words out loud, you’re dragging behind you one of the ugliest intellectual histories in modern science, which is exactly why it’s worth our time to talk about it here, just you and whatever voice you're imagining for me in your head as you read this.
A redditor’s spot-on take about the state of the world
Let it be known that Truethrowawaychest1, 17 days ago, was onto something when they said:
“Jesus, people are really looking for stuff to get upset at huh?”
B+ work in one sentence, and entirely spot-on about the way the internet rewards outrage over nuance, and how many people will gladly take the least generous interpretation if it gives them a virtue-signaling opportunity. What would make it an A+ is folding in the other half of the equation:
i) for corporations, perception often is reality
ii) avoiding “third-rail” associations is its own survival skill
iii) deciding whether to defend intent when the public insists on reading malice into it
iv) asking whether “good genes” is even worth being upset about in the first place
The jeans/genes pun is obvious. The jump from there to Nazi-era racial purity is the least charitable reading possible. And that’s where projection takes over.
A lot of “AH YOU [INSERT HORRIBLE NOUN]” moments start with the interpreter, not the thing being interpreted. My favourite example is a Dartmouth study from 1980: participants were told they had a visible scar on their face (applied by makeup), then sent to interact with strangers. Secretly, the scar was removed and people still came back reporting that people stared, treated them differently, judged them. All of this was projection, and we’re all at risk of holding a burning lump of coal in our hands while blaming others for the pain.
If someone instantly assumes AE was sending a eugenics dog whistle, they reveal more about your own mental filters than about the ad team’s intent. Perhaps some of these filters are there for a reason, a history of abuse will make even a dog flinch at the sight of a caressing hand, and who could blame them. But when it comes to seeing the world for what it is, or how it was intended, we have to take responsibility for our own filters just like we need to carry our own baggage through customs at the airport even if we inherited the suitcase.
What we saw in the commentary our courageous redditor was reacting to was this lens-effect bias in action where we bring our own overlays to every image and line of copy we see.
But the second you mention eugenics, you’re in nuclear-bomb territory where there are no winning moves. Just ask the closest PR rep to respond to these beauties:
“Not what we meant” means nothing if someone insists on hearing it that way
“We’re sorry” validates a nothing-burger
“We’re sorry you feel that way” gets you booted off the building
Which brings us to the core question: what even is eugenics if it such an intellectual nuclear bomb, and what does it cost us that anything that touches it burns?
What eugenics could me mean is something different than what we take it as today.
The Greek roots are almost offensively tame: eu (good) + genēs (birth). On its face, the idea is: healthy births are better than unhealthy ones.
Evolution hardcodes the same mission into us. Wedekind’s sweaty-T-shirt study found women preferred the scent of men with immune-system genes different from their own, suggesting that we are subconsciously finding ways to boost offspring resilience by giving them better genes. In the modern lab, gene therapy and CRISPR are targeting cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, certain cancers. No one stands in front of a grieving parent at St. Jude’s and argues against that kind of “good-genefying.”
If it had stopped there, the term would be uncontroversial.
The “enshittification” of the concept started long before Galton coined the term in the late 1800s. Plato floated his gold-silver-bronze hierarchy of people thousands of years earlier, justifying societal staples of the time like slavery. Galton only kickstarted the process towards the toxic blend of race “purity” politics, xenophobia, and forced sterilisation which Nazi Germany adopted by turning the idea of “good genes” into state policy and genocide.
By the mid-20th century, “eugenics” was radioactive for reason, and the half-life is long. it still is. Even a pun like “good jeans” can send a brand scrambling, because once the accusation is out there, you’re fighting shadows that punch with centuries worth of grudges.
What we’ve lost
You can guarantee that in quiet, closed-door conversations, more than one scientist or CEO has lamented how the Western allergy to the term has walled off entire areas of inquiry. I've heard my share of these arguments from incredibly smart people myself. Some look at China’s aggressive gene-editing programmes where they are eradicating certain heritable diseases, trialling embryo screening, and see possibilities we’re too paralysed to discuss without triggering cultural trauma. Others point to how this is already happening, but only for the wealthy who are now screening embryos in search of geniuses.
These are bottomless cans of ethical worms to open, and my own thinking is less sharp than it should be because the conversations around the limits we want to establish for what is already happening can’t take place in public because of how we’ve let the baggage dictate the boundaries of inquiry.
So maybe the best thing about the Sydney Sweeney ad is that it accidentally reopens the file. Perhaps some will use this conversation as a jumping-off point to ask better questions to the idea of what are good genes to begin with.
Because the real tragedy is that the work of racists and pseudoscientists a century ago has made “good genes” a third rail, and when you can’t talk about something, you can’t think clearly about it either.
A book to read
Hereditary Genius by Francis Galton
The original 1869 text that set the stage for the eugenics debate. Reading it today is like peering into the operating system of Victorian science that is as biased as it can, but essential for understanding how the idea of “good genes” began, long before its political weaponization.
A thing to do
Start noticing other people’s projections
When someone reacts to something you said or did in a way that feels oddly personal, ask yourself: is this about me, or about the lens they’re looking through? You don’t have to call it out aloud, but internally clocking it will change how you engage.
A thought to have
We really do want better genes
Fewer cancers. No more Type 1 diabetes. A genetic immune system that shrugs off inherited diseases. Don’t let the term’s toxic history make you reflexively reject the idea of improving the human blueprint for good.
A product to love
Peas
Gregor Mendel’s humble study subject, the green and yellow seeds that helped him uncover the basic laws of heredity. Without them, we might still be fumbling in the dark about how traits are passed down.
Recent writings on Forbes and beyond
Latest: Born Smart or Built Smart? The Truth About Intelligence and Effort (Psychology Today)
We Have Six Months Until AI Breaks Reality, This Tool May Buy Us Time (Forbes)
Branding Is Leadership: What Modern CEOs Must Understand About Global Brands (Forbes)
Luxury Real Estate Isn’t Slowing Down, It’s Scaling Up (Forbes)
Why Your Neighbor’s New Car Feels Like a Personal Attack (Psychology Today)
Why This AI Entrepreneur Paid Six Figures For A Lunch With Benioff (Forbes)
The Power of "No": How Rejection Builds a Life Worth Having (Psychology Today)
What’s Holding Back Sustainable Business? The Challenges That Matter Most (Forbes)
What’s Next For Beverages In 2025? CEOs Predict The Path Forward (Forbes)
Why This Nasdaq Listed CEO Changed His Mind About AI, And What It Took (Forbes)
From Serendipity To Startup: Meeting Venus Williams And Other Lucky Strikes (Forbes)
What’s Next In Philanthropy? Decentralized Models And Smarter Giving (Forbes)
Declining Birthrates Are Breaking The Economy. Can We Fix It In Time? (Forbes)
In Defense of Intuition: Why Gut Feelings Deserve Respect (Psychology Today)
Your Brain Hates Your Cubicle—Here’s How to Thrive Anyway (Psychology Today)
Arvind Jain: The Humble Builder Behind Glean And The Future Of Agentic AI (Forbes)
The Outsider Advantage: How Naïveté Fuels Billion-Dollar Startups (Forbes)
Never Make a Bad Choice Again by Embracing Self-Nudging (Psychology Today)
The Psychology Of Better Choices: How Startups Are Rewiring Our Habits (Forbes)
Staying Curious Is the Most Dangerous Thing You Can Do (Psychology Today)
Ryan Gellert on Building a Future Where Sustainability Is Not Optional (Forbes)
Why Struggling (the Right Way) Helps You Learn (Psychology Today)
Want to Make Better Decisions? Copy the Slime Mold (Psychology Today)
Your Brain Was Built to Forget—Make It Work For You (Psychology Today)
Where and how to get involved this August
AI for MBAs is official in review now. I’m looking for bold research subjects who are willing to read a chapter, like The MBA’s History of AI and the AI Family Tree, or the Ironclad Business Model. 6000-8000 words for you, a few comments and thoughts for me. Email to get involved!
I am currently conducting a study on range and how it impacts people’s career trajectories. Ten questions and a name will get you on the hall of fame as we pump up the n on the study. Link below - thanks for considering it!
You’ve reached the end - thanks for scrolling all the way down.
Curiosity is best when enjoyed in great company.
Refer this issue and grab a chance to get a tester package of Neuro blessed by the founders themselves (randomly selected from all referrals made). I’m connecting with the duo for a longer chat, recorded for the upcoming Curiosity Code podcast, and will be grilling them on their curious path to setting up the company. If you want your question included in the mix, hit me up via the Substack chat or email.
