Reduction to Absurdity: Why Epigenetics Invalidates All Models Involving Genetic Reduction
Abstract
Embedding current research on epigenetics and development within a process-relational relational developmental systems (RDS) framework, we discuss the assertions of genetic reductionist models of human behavior and development. To better clarify the distinctions between process-relational RDS-based and Cartesian mechanistic genetic reductionist models, we recommend that the terms “interaction,” “mechanism,” and “trait” be replaced by terms such as “coaction,” “fusion,” “integration,” and “process” in depictions of process-relational RDS models. We argue that, in the context of epigenetics research, the propositions of genetic reductionist models lead to absurd claims about genetic causation, primarily because RDS-based, epigenetics research underscores the relative plasticity of the embodied coactions within the RDS. We discuss three ways in which genetic reductionist models survive in the face of egregious conceptual and methodological problems, and we make suggestions about the utility of epigenetics for applications aimed at enhancing the course of development for diverse individuals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Nomothetic-oriented developmental theories have helped explain general features of children's thinking and behavior, but they do not explain widely observed departures from consistency, nor do they present robust conceptions of between-person variation in intra-individual change.
“Although nomothetic-oriented developmental theories (e.g., stage conceptions proposed by Kohlberg, 1974 andPiaget, 1970) have helped to explain general (i.e., normative or average) features of children's thinking and behavior, they do not explain the widely observed departures from that consistency, nor do they present robust conceptions of between-person variation in intra-individual change”
From Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context<sup>1</sup> (2019) · cites this paper as Lerner, 2017
Cites
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 · Cited by 3,318 · see citing works
Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene×environment interactions
Meaney, M. J. (2010) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01381.x · Cited by 1,239 · see citing works
The Emerging Field of Human Social Genomics
Slavich, G. M., & Cole, S. W. (2013) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702613478594 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
The Development of Human Reproductive Strategies: Progress and Prospects
Belsky, J. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412453588 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context<sup>1</sup>
Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2019) · Applied Developmental Science · doi:10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
“…evolutionary change that see genes as the primary mover in human development; to trait theories that posit that temperament, intelligence, and personality are determined by genes; and to conceptions of development as a static, fixed-stepped ladder (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Lerner & Overton, 2017).”
Background
- Authors
- Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F.
- Affiliations
- Tufts University (US)
- Temple University (US)
- ORCID
- Lerner, Richard M.
- Venue
- Human Development
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 107-123
- ISSN
- 0018-716X (ISSN-L)
- 1423-0054
- OpenAlex
- W2756473382
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 48.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Development (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- John Templeton Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Psychology of Development and Education
- Keywords
- epigenetics, genetic reductionism, relational developmental systems, genetic causality, developmental plasticity, human behavior, development (biology), conceptual terminology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review