Personality + Eugenics = The New Molded Man

Editor’s Note:  This is part two in a three part series.  To read Part 1, click here.  To read Part 2, click here.

“…there is a major debate regarding genetics and the role of the nervous system in the development and change of personality. By starting with the construction and general functions of the nervous system, it will provide a foundation to dive deeper into the controversy surrounding the nervous system, specifically the brain and its role in personality and behavior.” (Source: )

Neural Research is being developed relating the vast and complex connections between the nervous system and human personality perfecting the “perfect” human capital for the global economy. The nervous system, the brain, directs behavior.

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

Eugenics is defined as the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There is major exploratory research in the links between social science, genetics, and the economy. The leadership in this research are two Principal Investigators, James Heckman, University of Chicago and Angela Duckworth, University of Pennsylvania, known for the Character and Grit Lab.

Their research group is called The Research Network On The Determinants Of Life Course Capabilities And Outcomes. (Source: ) Heckman won a Nobel Prize in Economics and is also well known for his empirical research in labor economics, particularly regarding the efficacy of early childhood education programs. Duckworth is the creator of the grit scale and non-cognitive measurements and co-author of Economics and The Psychology Of Personality Traits. (Source: )


Heckman states specifically that,Early Childhood has a high rate of return,” and  “the earlier the investment, the greater return in economics,” known as the “Heckman Curve.” His own research suggests “childhood interventions can be helpful, and that conscientiousness is more malleable than IQ. Openness — a broad trait that includes curiosity — is also connected to test scores and grades. IQ still matters, of course. Someone with an IQ of 70 isn’t going to be able to do things that are easy for a person with an IQ of 190.” (Heckman’s idea of starting EARLY, means that children will be conditioned pre-kindergarten to age 21, to accept their position in the labor force as a monetary piece of human capital.  Source: , Pay For Success, ) 

Heckman’s research statement follows:

“The network focuses on developing an integration of social science and genetics, with psychological, economic, and social traits and outcomes. Specifically, we wish to combine biologically-appropriate models of genes into the formal models of individual choices and outcomes. Using these models, we will reexamine long-standing questions on the relationship between nature and nurture.” (Emp. Noted.)




“the evidence presented here suggests that the systematic empirical and theoretical study of personality is likely to be very fruitful for economics. Personality traits are predictive of socioeconomic success. They can be influenced by interventions and investment more readily than IQ, at least after the early years. A deeper understanding of personality traits promises to enrich economic theory and to understand the sources of, and solutions for human inequality.(Emp. noted.)

The research in the concept of “nature vs. nurture” substantially found that personality traits are mostly inherited. The Heckman/Duckworth formal research has focused on how interventions at school can determine genetic change. The trend of inequality and genetics will be tied to interventions within education.

In December, 2018, a conference was held by the Research Network On The Determinants Of Life Course Capabilities And Outcomes  to address “Genes, Schools, and Interventions That Address Educational Inequality: Can the Science Of Treatment-Effective Heterogeneity Unite Diverse Perspectives?” The conference brought together experts in genetics, economists, sociologists, psychologists, and education. (Source: Genes, Schools, Interventions: )

The following questions should raise eyebrows as to exactly what this type of research will be used for. And, is Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Learning the prototype to collect personality traits for genetic research to find which interventions will definitely change the DNA structure of a child:

  • What, if anything, do results from genetic research and sociological research imply about the effectiveness of educational interventions?
  • How can intervention designs be used to test hypotheses about the mechanisms linking genotypes with complex human phenotypes, including gene-by-environment interaction hypotheses?
  • How can intervention designs be used to test hypotheses about who is advantaged or disadvantaged by school structures?
  • How can discoveries about mechanisms of genetic effects be used to identify intervention targets in diverse school settings?
  • How can integrating genetic data (e.g., measured genotypes, genetically-related samples) into intervention studies improve estimates of overall effects and advance understanding of heterogeneity of treatment effects?

“The goal of the conference will be to develop a White Paper with methodological recommendations for how intervention research could integrate genetic and sociological data, and how genetic or population-based studies could integrate light-touch experimental interventions.”

Every school in America is instituting the benign-seeming strategies called social and emotional learning which is perfectly aligned with the use of eugenic intervention models developed by Heckman Economics and Duckworth’s Character Lab. This concept of investing in human capital according to the demands of labor markets is perfectly aligned with the use of the Heckman/Duckworth eugenic models in education. Social and emotional learning has new meaning. Grit has new meaning associated with genetic research. Assessment of human capital will now have dollars signs on every resume detailing the worth of that individual to the economy.

Heckman and Duckworth have gone steps further to address Eugenics in the womb. Yes, babies. (Source: )

“This workshop will explore the complex role of the mother’s body, and her lineage/history, as a moderating influence on interventions that seek to improve fetal development and long-term health/human capital outcomes. It will cover a range of themes, from evolutionary biology to epidemiology to the history of science, aimed at illuminating the challenges and opportunities for interventions targeting this earliest stage of development with the theoretically greatest potential for returns.” ( Emp. Noted.)

Repeat...and for the greatest potential for returns!

A controversial post on an education blog In Ed Week entitled Grit, Galton, and Eugenics, Lauren Anderson, professor at Connecticut College questioned and criticized Duckworth’s research statement in her opening paragraph, in which only one scholar is quoted, Galton, which Ms. Anderson queries:

… as Galton (1892) suggested, the inclination to pursue especially challenging aims over months, years, and even decades is distinct from the capacity to resist ‘the hourly temptations,’ pursuits which bring momentary pleasure but are immediately regretted.”[6]  

“This quote may seem fairly innocuous to those who don’t know from where it comes: the second edition of Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences. For a sense of the text in question consider this synopsis provided by its author, famed scientist and eugenicist Sir Francis Galton:

The natural ability of which this book mainly treats, is such as a modern European possesses in a much greater average share than men of the lower races. There is nothing either in the history of domestic animals or in that of evolution to make us doubt that a race of sane men may be formed, who shall be as much superior mentally and morally to the modern European, as the modern European is to the lowest of the Negro races.” (Source: )

This gives you the intent of the direction this experimentation appears to be going with questionable goals…“your place in the caste” through Eugenics.

Big Brother Can Filter Any GENETIC Data As Raw Material 

Consider the population group of the mischievous behavior of boys. Young boys can definitely be a target in these experimental trials at any age, even babies. Check out the Functional Assessment Observation Tools that are used to collect data:(Source: Why Is Baby Boy, Albert experiments included in these behavioral observations? See last page: John Watson Experiments, Pavlovian Conditioning; )

Collected behavioral traits and “boys will be boys” observations can be identified, tallied, and conditioning interventions implemented. Changing toxic masculinity (competitive, aggressive, strong) can be a prime goal for interventions in young males. Of course, PBIS and RTI will do the job at school by changing the instinctive masculine qualities of men. The #MeToo Movement has upped the ante. This is a new chapter for the human species…males will no longer be the lovers, protectors, warriors, or fighters. They will have been neutered mentally and genetically. (Source: Traditional Masculinity Harmful: ) Gillette joins the #MeToo movement to emasculate men starting early.

Remember, that the data collection by the government in the expanded state longitudinal data systems are regarded “Womb to Workplace.”  The Data Systems have already been expanded, merged, and standardized for identification, research, and retrieval. Your children have a unique national ID. FERPA allows DNA strands to be accessed WITHOUT parental consent. Grants are being showered onto schools to implement PBIS and RTI to train teachers how to do the manipulative behavioral techniques and conditioning through social and emotional learning and data collection for the federal government. Data is shared whole-heartedly. This is a huge federal-feeding frenzy. (I released the first documentation about data mining personality profiles and psychological interventions in Pennsylvania creating Psychometric Dossiers collected by school personnel in 2014. Source: Moratorium On Data, 2014: ) 

It’s the data. They MUST have the data FIRST to implement the PERSONALITY experiments. Data mining is surging. Parents are asleep, yet, the data will affect every child in America. The data mining and conditioning continues today.

Disgust will not change the forward motion of this train. Your action is required. Please share this information to every parent and friend you know.

Please read this letter that requests a meeting with President Trump. Link:

And then sign here:

It is worth the time for every American to read the links that I have embedded in this article …if you want America to continue being America in the very near future. Sign now and pray.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Big Brother or Eugenics? Both!
Next The Democratic Party: A History of Anarchy - Part 2

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.