Trump believes in Racehorse Theory

SciAm published this essay:

Eugenics was debunked as both biologically unsound and morally repugnant decades ago, but Donald Trump has repackaged its key lies to appeal to 21st-century American anxieties. In his worldview, there are hereditary haves and have-nots. Biology is used, not to draw attention to what all humans have in common, but instead to manufacture artificial divisions. It is a tool of dehumanization, meant to reinforce the notion that some people are inherently broken, inherently evil, inherently other.

There are hereditary haves and have-nots. Not everyone has the same inborn strengths and talents.

Sure, biology, like every other science, explores differences. For example, everything you eat is based on scientists having studied differences between animals, plants, feed, etc.

Appreciating human differences is what humanity is all about.

A rising tide of anti-eugenic scientists took issue with the biological myths undergirding his [Harry Laughlin's] vision. Genetic research on plants, fruit flies, livestock and humans revealed more and more about how chromosomes and genes worked. The human genome was found to be far more complex than eugenicists anticipated. There simply were no genes for crime or poverty, let alone leadership or honesty.

This is from a science magazine, so there ought to be scientific references to back up such assertions. Nope.

Crime and poverty are known to be correlated with IQ and other heritable personality traits. Hundreds of genes for these traits have been found. There is even a company that offers genetic screening of embryos.

He has been spouting this nonsense for decades. In 2007 Larry King was a recipient of Trump’s hereditary lesson. In touting his work for the how-to company the Learning Annex on King’s show, Trump said about talent and business success: “But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes. And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”

Yes, some horses have the genes to be better racehorses. I never heard it called racehorse theory, but it makes sense.

I have to assume that SciAm would provide some evidence to refute the theory, if it could.