David Dobbs, “The Science of Success,” THE ATLANTIC, December 2009

As the likely recipient of many “bad” genes and having experienced/battled depression, anxiety and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, I found this article and the implications of the new “orchid hypothesis” theory intriguing.  Has my “heightened genetic sensitivity” borne out its upside?  (Anecdotally, I find that I resist taking my ADHD medication because I don’t like feeling tamed; I feel that my (albeit zany) creativity is hampered, and that I’m less funny, witty and sharp when I’m medicated.  But I do function much better in a corporate enviroment when medicated.)

I’m not certain that the article itself really makes the point that it’s trying to make, which is too complex to be distilled into pop science, even in The Atlantic.  Nor does it really acknowledge that the heightened susceptibility to the aforementioned (and other) disorders doesn’t go away just because a person “becomes” an orchid; that it’s part and parcel.  Nor does it give real-life examples of these “orchids,” (arguably any really great musician, writer or artist who committed suicide or OD-ed could be a candidate).  But worth the read nonetheless.  Bonus: monkeys!

(via schwartzy)

On a slightly different note:

“Highly leveraged evolutionary bets,” “high risks,” “high rewards,” “diversified-portfolio.”

I have to wonder, what are the limits of using the metaphors and language finance to describe human genetic code?  I mean, doesn’t it risk making it seem like “nature”/evolution is some kind of free market, run by some hyperintelligent financial engineer?

I suppose that that’s the theoretical justification of social Darwinism, but I find articles that use this kind of language quite frightening, especially because the my sense that it’s so easy to use these kinds of metaphors because of the neoliberal cultural principle that everything, essentially functions like some kind of market.  Even your body.