Today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Francis Galton, a man who is largely responsible for the birth of eugenics, and whose broader intellectual legacy is colossal. A thread.
Galton has been part of my life since I joined the now-defunct Galton Laboratory in 1993, and I am still a member of the former Galton Institute - now the Adelphi Genetics Forum. I’ll be giving the Galton Lecture for them in the Autumn. bit.ly/3JyrjLW
He’s fascinating, and awful, but his legacy is part of our present. Here are some bits of Galtonia (from Control, my new book on the history of eugenics).
Born in Birmingham into a wealthy family of Quaker gunsmiths, he lived in Joseph Priestly’s house, and attended King Edwards. An extract from his school diary:
Galton was Darwin’s half-cousin. This was his comment on the publication of The Origin of Species:
Galton invented many things, including the dog whistle. Ironic that this has become associated with racist signalling given what a robust racist he was.
And a new way to cut round cakes, published in @Nature, no less.
His attempts to quantify female beauty are grim. In order to not be detected, he designed a glove with 3 needles in the fingers so he could score whilst hand in pocket. His ‘pricker’:
An obsessive ranker of people, his 1st major scientific book was Hereditary Genius (1869), in which he attempts to quantify men of hereditary eminence. It is an explicitly white supremacist work, and pseudoscientific to its core.
It’s a weird book, and fatally flawed: the status of greatness is assessed via reputation and obituaries. His data is literally opinion, and the stats are suspiciously precise.
He coins the word ‘eugenics’ in 1873, and it becomes the enduring passion of his life.
(This definition from 1907, with his primary disciple Karl Pearson).
Near the end of his life, Galton did something that scientists should be very wary of: he wrote a novel.
Kantsaywhere is a eugenic utopia, where couples are assessed and matched. It was mostly destroyed by his sister. What remains is in the UCL archives.
He died in 1911. Ironically given his obsession with heredity, he had no children, despite his marriage to Louisa (née Butler), and his genes and genius would not be passed down the generations. Look how sad she looks.
Galton's fingerprints are in the work of Marie Stopes, Churchill, Balfour, RA Fisher, and explicitly in the emergence of eugenics policies in the USA and Nazi Germany. (He was also instrumental in the development of fingerprinting for forensics.
Idolised by men of science: Charles Davenport was inspired by Galton to start the eugenics movement in the US - he founded the Eugenics Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor. Karl Pearson (the 1st Galton Professor) wrote an almost unreadable fawning hagiography.
The 1st International Eugenics Conference in 1912, co-chaired by Churchill, keynote by Balfour, was in held in his honour, a year after his death.
Anyway, there you go. We do not judge people by our standards, but assess them by theirs. So, happy birthday to you, Francis Galton, a genius and an utter bastard in any age.
What this man is saying is absolute bollocks, and why someone so utterly ignorant should be gifted this platform is a mystery to me. Yours sincerely, Geneticists.
Monoamine oxidase is a neurotransmitter. In the 90s a variant in its promoter was found in a family of Dutch iterant criminals.
Since then, it became a variant that became the poster boy of the bullshit genetic determinism fallacy, associated in all sort of behaviours, including risk taking in city traders and gang membership.
Following the publication of #Control, my new book on the history and present of eugenics, here is a thread, using only quotations from some of the key players.
It’s available everywhere, but here’s a link to multiple booksellers 1/n bit.ly/3qnUvPf
The idea of population control via infanticide and selective breeding is ancient. Plato talks about it in theory in Republic, and Seneca describes its practice in Rome.
But it is of course Francis Galton who sciencified eugenics in the 19th C, and spent much of his life advocating for eugenics, with the perpetual analogy of agriculture at its base.
#Control is my new book, out today. It’s the story of an eternal human desire, to rule over unruly biology, to control reproduction, and craft people and populations to be fitter, happier, more productive. smarturl.it/RutherfordCont…
#Control is the story of eugenics, and how a pseudoscientific idea was wedded to a political ideology, a fear by the powerful of losing their ill-gotten gains, who latched onto a neonate science, genetics, and bastardised, misrepresented and cheated it to justify their beliefs.
Just like with the invention of race, eugenics was a science in service of politics. An esoteric idea born in the salons and universities of London, Berlin and the USA, but in just a few decades grew to become one of the defining ideas of the 20th Century.
Oh man, I know I bang on about him, but this is just so moronic it's fruity batshit. Peterson has no idea what he's saying. His brain is blancmange. Not the slightest clue about what he's preaching about.
Have I got this all wrong? I'm doubting my sanity here. This is bizarro world stuff. . He speaks and it's just jibber jabber, words have no meaning anymore. AND PEOPLE LISTEN.
Unchallenged too. Not even a whisper of ‘are you totally sure about this? Models are based on real world data, absolutely metric shittonnes of it, processed through billions of permutations, and they make predictions that match real world observations. That’s just all wrong?’
I can save thoughts and replay them in my head already. That is the definition of memory. Whatever this science fiction purports to be is nothing more than a fantasist’s nighttime emission.
You can make the valid argument that the ultra-rich philanthro-technojisms could spent their money fixing real problems instead of low orbit phalussing or this jibber jabber. But also these projects suck attention and funding from real progress.
I have signed this short essay written by evolutionary biologist Armand Leroi criticising Imperial College London’s decision to remove Thomas Huxley from their campuses. Long version republished here; A short 🧵
The content of the letter adequately explains why, and I need not supply further details here. However, here is some broader personal context. I support the removal of Galton and Pearson from UCL’s campus, and indeed was involved in the decision to remove RA Fisher.
I’ve written about this and other historical reassessments of our intellectual forebears in an academic paper, in the mainstream press, and in my new book (link in bio) bit.ly/3pQWacz