A few comments about genetics

Many traits examined in genetics, such as athletic ability or psychiatric symptoms, exist along a smooth continuum rather than in clear categories. Athletic performance varies gradually across people, and mental health symptoms differ in both number and intensity. Earlier genetic studies often divided people into two groups, those with and without a condition, and compared these groups at the population level instead of analyzing each person’s individual genetic makeup. This approach had major weaknesses: it ignored the continuous nature of most traits, depended on simplifying assumptions that later proved unreliable, and drew artificial boundaries between normal and abnormal. Because of these limitations, many researchers now view the results of those older studies with skepticism.

Modern research relies on genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which measure genetic differences directly. GWAS has shown that complex traits, like athletic ability or psychiatric disorders, arise from the combined influence of many genetic variants, each contributing only a small amount. Since GWAS and other genetic studies have revealed only modest genetic effects for traits like intelligence and mental health, they leave open the possibility that much greater capacities exist.

Furthermore, genetic studies only measure the differences between people. They say nothing about anyone's maximum potential.

Thus, my claims about restoring full human potential do not contradict mainstream genetic research. Rather, they propose that much of what we consider genetic limitation may actually be the result of persistent, modifiable environmental effects.