Paige is a scientist and writer. She’s a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she directs the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and serves as Director of Clinical Training. She’s the author of The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality, and her new book is Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, The Problem of Blame, and The Future of Forgiveness. It’s about the eternal question of what sin is; and where it comes from; and whether our guilt is justified. We had a great chat.
An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the proclivity for violence in our genes, and even religion! — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: growing up in a conservative religious household outside Memphis; not knowing any non-evangelicals until college; original sin and Augustine; Aquinas; Calvinism; genetics as predestination; how humans evolved to be more cooperative and non-violent than apes; the genes of violent criminals; the overwhelming disparity of men versus women in prison; accountability vs punishment; free will; God in the gaps; the genetic predisposition for faith; Tourette’s at BAFTA; addiction; how drugs change your brain; AA as Christianity with the theology removed; mental illness; my bipolar and borderline mother; Pascal; philosopher Hanna Pickard; poet Carl Phillips; how genes affect horniness; testosterone and sex; the documentary Seven Up; how identical twins become more similar in middle age; and my initial reactions to the war in Iran.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Matt Goodwin on the political earthquake in the UK, Jeffrey Toobin on the pardon power, Derek Thompson on abundance, Jonah Goldberg on the state of conservatism, Tom Holland on the Christian roots of liberalism, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, and Adrian Wooldridge on “the lost genius of liberalism.” As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
From a fan of last week’s pod with Michael Pollan:
You and Pollan had a fascinating conversation about consciousness and not once —unless I disassociated, entirely possible — did you mention the unconscious. This fuels my view that you seem to have an aversion to psychoanalysis, which is so interesting to me given that you do not generally seem to hold a materialist view of life. Things like evolutionary biology — which you have discussed — are important, but as you and Pollan point out, rendering the mind to a materialist base consistently does not do it justice.
I’m looking forward to reading his book. And I have such a deep and long appreciation for your work, so thank you for that.
The book does cover unconsciousness, but we didn’t get around to it. As for psychoanalysis, I did it decades ago. And a fascinating, mind-opening experience it was. I admire Freud deeply — perhaps more for his writing style than his “science”.
Another fan writes:
Really enjoyed your conversation about consciousness — a topic that can be just excruciating or, as in this case, fascinating. Excited to read Michael’s book! And on the topic of the “hard problem” of consciousness and the 22 theories Michael slogged through, may I humbly offer your readers my own satirical take, “The Hard Problem of Breakfast”?
Here’s another clip:
Another writes, “I was struck by Pollan’s comment about Trump being like the country’s alcoholic father, and your response that having him as president brings back trauma from your childhood”:
It made me wonder whether you’ve read Mary Trump’s book Too Much and Never Enough. (She’s the daughter of Trump’s older brother, Freddy.) The book is flawed in a number of ways, IMHO, but at her best, Mary writes with real insight and compassion about what growing up with Fred Sr as a father must have been like for both Donald and Freddy. Fred Sr was a terrible father whose bullying drove Fred Jr — who had the misfortune of being a gentle soul — to the alcoholism that killed him.
I figure that Donald learned to be the way he is in order to survive his father, because he saw that his father was killing his brother. It seems that Donald built himself to be the opposite of his brother: pugnacious instead of gentle, and a teetotaler instead of an alcoholic (I’ve always found it striking that for a man of such strong appetites as Trump, he doesn't drink).
Donald carried on the cycle of abuse with his own children (e.g. his sexual objectification of his own daughter to Howard Stern), as victims of childhood trauma sometimes do. To me, Donald is a walking billboard for the importance of good parenting and for the value of seeing a therapist in your 20s to deal with the ways your parents fucked you up, so you don’t repeat their behaviors.
I think one of the most revealing things that Donald has ever said about himself is, “I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.” Surely the frantic quality of his behavior — what you once memorably described as “the manic energy of the mentally ill” — owes something to his desire to avoid confronting himself. This is someone who would do anything to avoid a silent meditation retreat, and that says a lot about him.
Here’s a listener on another pod:
Thanks for a great episode with Sally Quinn. I had never heard of her, but what an incredibly interesting life and perspective. Loved the convo. But I can’t believe you let her passing comment about Hitchens pass ... I would’ve loved some stories!
During the pod, you mentioned that one of the things that had changed as a result of your silent meditation retreat was the end of your marriage. I might have missed it, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard you talk or speak about this personal part of your life. As a longtime Dishhead (I remember reading the OG andrewsullivan.com back in 2004, as a high school senior, on the desktop in my room!), I have read you more or less constantly for more than two decades, and as someone who remembers you posting about your marriage, I realized that despite the millions of words, there is a lot to Andrew that I probably do not know.
Have you considered a Dishcast where the tables are turned, and someone opens with, “Tell me about how you grew up, who were your parents?” I’ve picked up many pieces along the way, but a thorough biographical interrogation would be great!
We ran an episode last August of Johann Hari grilling me about my life; and in 2021, we aired a two-parter of Johann prodding my early influences. I am very open about my personal life, perhaps more than I should be. But I’m also very dedicated to protecting the privacy of my friends, my ex-husband, and my living family. Hence some of the gaps, I guess. I’ve been far more candid about my mum and dad since they died.
Another listener looks to religion:
In your podcast with Sally Quinn, you expressed a bit of a problem with the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you have them do on to you”), which Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount. Nassim Taleb has an alternative: The Silver Rule (“Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you”). He traces its evolution back to Hammurabi’s Code (1750 BCE) — “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” — which he sees as the basis for his concept of Skin in the Game, where decision-makers face direct, equivalent consequences for harms they cause.
Taleb sees the Golden Rule as problematic because it invites people to impose their own preferences, values, or ideas of “good” on others. Think of utopian busybodies deciding what’s best for someone else.
In contrast, the Silver Rule achieves a better outcome via negativa by focusing on avoiding harm, like the Hippocratic Oath (“First, do no harm”). It also promotes symmetry where one should not expose others to risks or harms they are unwilling to accept themselves. In social, political or ethical contexts, it reduces false expertise, utopian overreach, and situations where decision-makers bear no consequences — something the elites of this country have gotten away with for too long.
My point is that Jesus urged us to be far more radical: to love those who hate us, to turn the cheek a thousand times.
Another listener calls the episode with Charlie Sykes “a typically delightful mix of biography and insight”:
While your hostility toward Bill Clinton has moderated over time, I think you remain unreasonably negative. I’d hate for my daughter to marry him, but I thought he was an excellent president, turning the economy around in a difficult time by taking politically-dangerous fiscal measures that lost the House, which in turn led to Gingrich’s disgraceful impeachment effort.
Many still hate Clinton, but I’ve never understood why. It seems to me that progressive Democrats hate him for being too conservative, Republicans hate him for magically dodging their grasp, and class-conscious admirers of the elite hate him for being so palpably sleazy and low-class. He is brilliant, combining political genius with a real understanding of policy. If every president since had followed in his footsteps, we would be in a very different place today.
I think he was a good president and a bad man. But he did a lot of good in office.
Here’s a guest rec from a “long-time subscriber, from way back when the Dish first started”:
The person I suggest you interview is Father Paul Morrissey, an Augustinian priest in Philadelphia. He has published four books, the latest of which has the title, Why I Remain a Gay Catholic. He has gotten some national attention in book readings and discussions, but mainly in an interview on a podcast called The God Show, hosted by Pat McMahon. In his book, Father Morrissey explains the integration of his sexuality into his vocational calling, and he has some very important things to say about gay priests and religion in general.
Another rec:
I highly recommend Haviv Rettig Gur (whom I started following before his hire at The Free Press). He is a great communicator of both what Israel as a government gets wrong, but also what actual Israelis think — which is so often missing in this conversation. His podcast Ask Haviv Anything is a font of information that adds complexity and clarity to this age-old conflict without ideological rigidity. (If you need a sampling, I found his history of the Muslim Brotherhood enlightening.) I believe he would bring a needed perspective to the Dish.
Thanks for the tip. From a new paid subscriber:
I admire your courage and your principled stand on Israel knowing that every time you tell the truth on that subject, you get accused of being antisemitic and get some cancellations. After a long time being a free subscriber, I have decided that the Dish is very much worth supporting and applauding.
Thanks. We have experienced a wave of cancellations over Israel. It happens if you ever criticize the country. I accept that as part of the deal here. I speak my mind, and in a free country, you can walk away. But we’re always careful to include dissent. This week’s big column, for example, is instantly followed by a stinging dissent that Chris selects to keep me from any temptation to rig it. If you refuse to support a place with that policy, then I really don’t know what else to do. I’m not going to tailor my writing for commercial reasons.
Speaking of stern dissents, many are below. The first:
I believe your latest column, “The Last War For Israel?,” missed the mark in just about every way. I write this dissent to briefly summarize the moral case for attacking Iran. I know that the attack began after your column published, but I don’t think much of what I have to say below depends on how the matter has unfolded so far (Monday afternoon).
