Okay, I don’t want to run too long and I think Derb and I have entered the phase of diminishing returns in this argument. So I will try to address four points without repeating myself too much or engaging some of the new and, by my lights distracting thoughts Derb has offered (for example, Derb seems to call rights he doesn’t want to honor “theoretical” while he reifies rights he likes).

First, I will simply say up front: I do not believe the science Derb is referring to or purporting to refer to. Perhaps I’ll end up with apple cider in my ear, but if it means what Derb suggests it to mean then I just don’t believe it. It runs up against all of my life experience, both in terms of observations of others and my own life as lived (if my adolescant peers were determinative, I would work on Wall Street, love sports, care little for politics, be more observant religiously, and less conservative politically or I would be a drug addict). It conflicts with virtually all of the social science I’ve been reading for the last fifteen years. And it conflicts with my views of history. If the math says what you say it means Derb, my first response is “double check the numbers.”

Second, I think a lot depends on what you mean by “personality.” I have no problem with the idea that personality is heritable to a significant degree. I have my father’s temper. So if that’s what you mean by personality, fine. But your use of the word to “debunk” Rich’s column about the importance of fathers and marriage suggests that you think it means everything from character and values to faith and ideology. This strikes me as, again, nonsense on stilts. Parents are the first and most important transmitters of culture. They set priorities for children. They choose the paths they go on (including keeping them from falling-in with shabby peers). They teach them manners and values. Indeed, it seems obvious to me that we are hardwired to appreciate this fact. That blood is thicker than water is a truism hardly in need of further explication.

Since my first days writing for NRO, I’ve been pounding the table about how a good definition of conservatism would be the axiom that “human nature has no history.” Children born today are, genetically (for all intents and purposes), no different than they were 1,000 years ago. What makes a child today grow up to be an accountant rather than a Viking marauder is this thing called “civilization” and the chief incubators and transmitters of civilization are not peers and they are certainly not genes, they are parents. Our very conception of what civilization is we inherit from our parents. I don’t think it is an iron law (nor did I ever say that “parenting style” was everything). I have friends who are orphans or who ran away from home in order to be very much unlike their parents — and to be very much unlike their peers, too. But, it still seems crazy to me that a conservative would in effect argue there’s no real harm to a father teaching his kid bad ideas or habits.

Third: As I already stated, I’m not anti-science and I think scientists should study whatever they like. What bothers me about Derb’s use of science is that from time to time it seems to confirm morality he likes and stands irrelevant when it confirms morality he doesn’t like. We’ve discussed scientism around here before. But I think when Derb dismisses the importance of fathers, marriage and the values these institutions impart to children (based on science which smacks of implausibility to me), it simply feels like scientism to me.

Fourth: One last point about my not caring about science. One of my favorite bits of movie dialogue comes from Searching for Bobby Fisher. The details aren’t too relevant, but there’s a scene where Ben Kingsley — a chess coach — is explaining to the boy-prodigy’s mother that his continued playing in Washington Square Park just makes his job a lot harder. The mother responds matter-of-factly “Then your job’s harder.”

This is what I was getting at when I said I don’t care what the science says. If you could prove to me — with all the available science — that it would be better for society if my child was raised in some group home, I would say “I don’t care.” If you could prove to me that my daughter would score higher on SATs and make more money if I shipped her off somewhere to be cared for by others, I would say “I don’t care.” If, in rebuttal, the annointed representative of the planners of social progress said “You’re just making our job harder,” I would tell them “Then your job is harder.”

The entire “art” of parenting is making your kids do the hard thing when the easy thing is, well, easier. I have a similar view toward politics. For example, liberals want to make it easier to vote. I think it’s good when it’s hard to vote so only the people who really care will be motivated to do so.

Regardless, I retract calling a Derb a progressive because it’s now clear to me that whatever science says he doesn’t take it as a given that the state should act on it, at least not in any draconian way. I respect that. But, it should be noted that his argument works against those — including himself — who argue that marriage is an important social institution. If it has no serious effect on kids, why worry about it so much? Rich thinks it does (as do I) which is why I worry about it.

Fifth: I know: I ran too long.