Rebecca Sear
rebeccasear.bsky.social
Rebecca Sear
@rebeccasear.bsky.social
Director of the Centre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University London @brunelcce.bsky.social. President of the European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association @ehbea.bsky.social

https://www.rebeccasear.org/
This is an excellent piece 👇 its discussion of the “tyranny of the quantifiable” reminded me of the recent article about the tech guys whose miserable vision is for dating to be determined entirely by algorithm
February 1, 2026 at 4:30 PM
If you need any more reason to be anti-eugenics, read this unbearably bleak vision of dating agencies set up by eugenicists (spoiler: they do not result in love)
January 7, 2026 at 9:35 AM
Ron Lee's analysis of economic contributions & consumption across the life cycle suggests that wealth flows are in fact from older to younger generations in lower income populations but switch to going up generations in higher income pops, where older generations have relatively high consumption
December 13, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Since claims that Europe is in danger of “civilisational erasure” are in the news, recommend checking out this book on great replacement ideologies. Covers their long history and how they are currently being mainstreamed

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
December 10, 2025 at 8:36 AM
Question: if the main take-away of your book is “It is women’s behaviour and preferences that will need to change”, are you really a “well-meaning man”?

www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v4...
December 7, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Many congratulations to the newly-minted Dr Baafi @josephineabaafi.bsky.social 🎉🥳 who passed her PhD viva yesterday! A very positive experience thanks to examiners Monica Magadi and @joestrong.bsky.social, and Chair @1verofilippi.bsky.social 🙏
November 28, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Historian Quinn Slobodian in the Financial Times today describing how eugenics is now firmly back on the political agenda

www.ft.com/content/23e9...
November 15, 2025 at 3:29 PM
When I point out the psychological approach to life history assumes fast & slow LH strategies are largely under genetic, not environmental, control and represent evolved strategies, researchers are sometimes skeptical. Here are the paradigm originators confirming, in 2025, that it's all about genes
November 14, 2025 at 1:58 PM
The paper was accepted just a week after submission and claims no data were analysed, despite data clearly being analysed in the paper. The author gives his affiliation as Richard Lynn’s Ulster Institute for Social Research. Wouldn’t be happy if I were on the editorial board of this journal
November 12, 2025 at 5:29 PM
The influence of race science is spreading in the evolutionary behavioural sciences. This new paper means members of a race science network have now been published in Evolutionary Psychological Science, Evolutionary Behavioral Science, Evolutionary Psychology & Adaptive Human Behavior & Physiology
November 12, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Really quite striking how blatantly hereditarian research violates scientific norms. One of the papers under critique was accepted the same day it was submitted
November 12, 2025 at 4:22 PM
Embarrassingly, evolutionary biology is dragged into the debate to justify beliefs about women about their incompetencies. “Scientific sexism” seems to be having a moment alongside scientific racism
November 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Grokipedia’s entry for r/K selection theory curiously links human behavioural ecology to Rushton’s false claim that r/K explains evolved behavioural differences between races. This - wholly imaginary - link has recently appeared a few times in the ev psych journals which publish hereditarians
November 3, 2025 at 8:43 PM
An interesting fact about the 2019 version of Richard Lynn's "national IQ" database is that, for the first time, "Muslim" is considered a race, and an average IQ calculated for Muslims (76.89)
November 3, 2025 at 10:01 AM
These samples had little weight in the final calculation of US "national IQ", as several countries, including the US, had data "adjusted for ethnic composition".

Note the assumption - built into the database - that different ethnicities had different IQs.
November 3, 2025 at 9:27 AM
Three samples of Native American children were used to calculate Native American IQ, all of which were very obviously unsuitable for representing the population of interest
November 3, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Richard Lynn was criticised for using a sample of children with intellectual impairment to calculate the "national IQ" of Equatorial Guinea in 2002. In 2019, he calculated the IQs of Native Americans from children referred for psychoeducational evaluations, including those with learning difficulties
November 3, 2025 at 9:05 AM
Children as agents (rather than just the outcome variable) rarely appear in low fertility discussions, but they do still contribute to the household in low fertility societies eg by helping care for siblings (help which increased during COVID lockdowns)

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
November 2, 2025 at 10:53 AM
This graph never fails to be shocking: "The US has experienced the earliest and greatest slowdown in life expectancy improvements among higher-income countries, reported Eileen Crimmins. “We have horrible life expectancy—and it’s getting worse and worse”"

www.prb.org/resources/se...
October 31, 2025 at 7:08 PM
The tendency for psychologists to focus on student samples developed in the post-WWII period, likely as a strategy to appear politically neutral, as the US government targeted communism. This shift in sampling was accompanied by more "neutral" language, and has been described as “context stripping”
October 31, 2025 at 12:59 PM
The is/ought distinction (Hume’s Law,” the position that statements of “ought” cannot be derived from statements of “is”) and the naturalistic fallacy (Moore’s 1903 idea that “goodness” could not be defined in naturalistic terms & so ethics could not be derived from facts) are not the same thing
October 31, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Last year they published a race science article that was so bad it caused critics to despair for the future of academic publishing. This year they've published an article claiming women are destroying academia, because men, unlike women, can have reproductive success without their children surviving
October 27, 2025 at 10:23 PM
The Journal of Controversial Ideas is a cautionary tale of what happens when academic freedom is conflated with free speech. Most journals would be too embarrassed to publish the exceptionally poor scholarship the JCI repeatedly platforms, but at the JCI “controversy” matters, not scientific merit
October 27, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Started a talk this week by asking how many in the audience had read Merchants of Doubt. No one had. So here's lead author Naomi Oreskes summarising the book.

One take-away: science and unregulated markets are not compatible because science points out market failures

youtu.be/GXRuxuTyrxo?...
October 25, 2025 at 9:17 AM
The second and third most read papers in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences are about pseudoscientific racism and the pseudoscientific sexism of the manosphere. Good to see these critical perspectives about the misuse of science being widely read
October 23, 2025 at 4:58 PM