Behavioral genetics is a science which seems to undermine the roots of many core leftist beliefs - so should conservatives pour their money and energy into supporting behavioral genetics research instead of politics? As Bryan Caplan summarizes:

So why are behavioral geneticists so eager to downplay the practical relevance of their field? The most plausible explanation is that these scientists already have enough trouble with political correctness. They don't want to amplify their public relations problem by pointing out that their science undermines a bunch of popular, feel-good policies.

Critics of behavioral genetics are prone to hyperbole, but they do have good reason to fear this science. It really does undermine a lot of their sacred cows. Example: If differences in talent - not differences in opportunities - explain the inter-generational income correlation, people with normal values will conclude that a lot of redistribution is unjustified. "Giving everyone a chance to realize his potential," isn't the only rationale for redistribution, but it is an important one. If people admitted that family environment has little effect on economic success in our society, there is every reason to expect a decline in support for redistributive policies.

Admittedly, the critics of behavioral genetics could reply, "We want our current level of redistribution (or more!) no matter what the science says." But they don't want to say that, because it makes them sound like dogmatic ideologues. The upshot: Behavioral genetics makes its politically-correct critics angry because the scientists are putting the politically correct in an awkward position: Deny the science, abandon some of their favorite policies, or sound like dogmatic ideologues. It's no wonder that they're angry - and no wonder that they deny the science. They're not just making the best of a bad situation; they're also getting a little revenge on the researchers responsible for their unpleasant predicament.

I don't think many open-minded progressives will change their mind about their goals just because their policies are completely incompatible with human nature. I do hope that they'll become a little more realistic in their justifications for it, though. In other words, "we want to redistribute income because it's the nice thing to do", not "we want to redistribute income because it's the fair thing to do". It might lead to less waste to even openly decide that we want to discriminate against white people by quotas or a race tax instead of constructing byzantine policies which attempt to effectively distriminate against white people in non-discriminatory ways while doing non-whites no good. That would be a small improvement.

This isn't just about politics, though. While I have little hope for the death of progressivism, I do hope that discoveries in behavioral genetics will gravely wound or even kill the stupider offshoots of modern art. What does one have to do with the other? In this passage from G.K. Chesterton's The Flying Inn the politician Lord Philip Ivywood explains his enjoyment of post-futurist painting to his poet cousin Dorian Wimpole.

And Philip Ivywood was interested also; his cold eyes even shone; for though his pleasure was almost purely intellectual, it was utterly sincere.

"And I do trust the untried; I do follow the inexperienced," he was saying quietly, with his fine inflections of voice. "You say this is changing the very nature of Art. I want to change the very nature of Art. Everything lives by turning into something else. Exaggeration is growth."

"But exaggeration of what?" demanded Dorian. "I cannot see a trace of exaggeration in these pictures; because I cannot find a hint of what it is they want to exaggerate. You can't exaggerate the feathers of a cow or the legs of a whale. You can draw a cow with feathers or a whale with legs for a joke--though I hardly think such jokes are in your line. But don't you see, my good Philip, that even then the joke depends on its looking like a cow and not only like a thing with feathers. Even then the joke depends on the whale as well as the legs. You can combine up to a certain point; you can distort up to a certain point; after that you lose the identity; and with that you lose everything. A Centaur is so much of a man with so much of a horse. The Centaur must not be hastily identified with the Horsy Man. And the Mermaid must be maidenly; even if there is something fishy about her social conduct."

"No," said Lord Ivywood, in the same quiet way, "I understand what you mean, and I don't agree. I should like the Centaur to turn into something else, that is neither man nor horse."

"But not something that has nothing of either?" asked the poet.

"Yes," answered Ivywood, with the same queer, quiet gleam in his colourless eyes, "something that has nothing of either."

"But what's the good?" argued Dorian. "A thing that has changed entirely has not changed at all. It has no bridge of crisis. It can remember no change. If you wake up tomorrow and you simply _are_ Mrs. Dope, an old woman who lets lodgings at Broadstairs --well, I don't doubt Mrs. Dope is a saner and happier person than you are. But in what way have _you_ progressed? What part of _you_ is better? Don't you see this prime fact of identity is the limit set on all living things?"

"No," said Philip, with suppressed but sudden violence, "I deny that any limit is set upon living things."

Modern art and progressive politics are different aspects of the exact same mentality, which also hasn't changed a damn bit since Chesterton wrote those words almost a century ago. Modern art, though, lacks the deep-seated emotional appeal of progressive politics which at least allow one to pretend to be a good person. Even those people who will violently deny reality in an attempt to remake the world according to their ideas aren't quite as willing to get violent for the sake of "truly serious music".