In A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, Wade explains that human history has been substantially influenced by evolution and its effect cannot be reasonably discounted in the social sciences. He details evidence that differences between human groups play a significant role in explaining their differing outcomes and different socioeconomic arrangements, and that cultural institutions do not appear to be transferable between societies without adaptation to the differences of those people. Without likewise discounting the role culture plays, he explains concisely and with erudition that culture is ultimately built on innate, instinctual human behavior. I spoke with Nicholas Wade about Troublesome Inheritance (my review of that here) a week after its release.

How did you become interested in the science of human genetics and its relation to history?

In an earlier book “Before the Dawn,” I wrote about the last 50,000 years of human evolution; this book was an opportunity to follow the story up to the present day.

In writing Troublesome Inheritance, what response did you expect to receive? What has been your impression of reviews so far?

I feared the book would be condemned out of hand and have been delighted that the preponderance of reviews so far have been favorable.  The two main themes of the book – that race is biological, evolution continuous – are not so hard to accept, and I hope that I’m pushing on an open door.

In your book you write “The rise of the West is an event not just in history but also in human evolution.” How much do we miss in our understanding of the rise and fall of civilizations by not incorporating the role evolution plays in human populations?

A thesis of the book is that social institutions rest on human social behavior, which is shaped by evolution.  Institutions have a large cultural component, so it’s hard to know at present how important evolution has been.  But I think we should look out for it in all major social transitions, such as the foraging-settler transition, the escape from tribalism, and the Industrial Revolution, and if one accepts that the natural selection has been active here then all major societies probably have been shaped by evolution to some extent.

You also write “Intellectuals as a class are notoriously prone to fine-sounding theoretical schemes that lead to catastrophe.” Are you optimistic that the social science elite will accept genetic differences between groups as explaining the differing outcomes and socioeconomic arrangements we find between cultures? Why do you think that racial hypotheses in the social sciences are viewed not only with suspicion, but are effectively anathema? What are the consequences to banning this science?

Social science should be the most interesting of all the sciences. So why are sociology journals so unreadable? I suspect it’s because they make no use of the theory of evolution, which should be the central unifying theory of their subject.  In this sense at least, sociologists are like chemists who ignore Mendeleev’s periodic table.

Some reviewers have noted a distinction in the book: one part is focused on firmly-grounded science, while the latter half is more speculative with respect to how recent human evolution has shaped cultures. Do you regret including the speculative section?

I issued a clear warning to readers that the second half of the book was speculative.  I don’t regret including it.  The speculations may or may not be correct but they seem perfectly reasonable, based on the evidence presented, and readers can accept or reject them as they wish.

In one section, you note that while China, Japan, and Korea have higher average IQs, they are not obviously more successful or innovative. Aside from cultural institutions, have you investigated other explanations for the success gap, e.g. Kenya Kura’s two posited factors of low curiosity and high collectivism?

No, I haven’t.

What advice would you give to those who find your essential thesis persuasive and would like to pursue social science illuminated by developments in genetics?

Some one going into social science today should first, avoid the politicized branches of the subject, since it’s impossible to do good science under such conditions; second, they should learn the statistical tools of population genetics so as to be able to interpret genomic findings; third, they should master evolutionary biology and regard it as the informing theory of their discipline; and fourth, they should develop a thorough grounding in primate social behavior.