Michael Shermer responds to a remarkable letter from a group of eighth graders at a Christian school in Texas who say they’ve been praying for him and want to talk about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible.

For decades, developmental psychologist Jay Belsky has focused on one of the biggest questions in human development: how do early experiences shape the lives we go on to live?

In this conversation with Michael Shermer, he explains why childhood adversity can leave deep marks, why some children are far more affected by experience than others, and why averages often hide the most important part of the story.

Belsky revisits the old nature-versus-nurture debate, but pushes past the usual framing. His argument is not that childhood determines everything in some simple, uniform way. It’s that children differ in how developmentally “plastic” they are. The same divorce, the same stress, the same family conflict, or the same support can have very different effects depending on the child.

The discussion moves through attachment theory, father absence, family conflict, puberty, epigenetics, and the evolutionary logic of development.

Belsky also returns to one of his central ideas: the children who are most vulnerable under harsh conditions may also be the ones most likely to flourish when conditions improve. That insight has major implications for how we think about parenting, intervention, and social policy.

Jay Belsky is a developmental psychologist and one of the field’s most influential and highly cited researchers. Over a four-decade career at Penn State, the University of London, and UC Davis, he studied how early-life experience shapes attachment, family relationships, and child development. His new book is The Nature of Nurture: Rethinking How Childhood Adversity Shapes Development.

Publishing likes to imagine itself as a marketplace of ideas with a strong immune system: good arguments win, bad ones fade, and editors act as principled gatekeepers. In practice, it’s also an industry with thin margins, status anxiety, and a constant fear of reputational damage.

Adam Szetela argues that a lot of what gets called “cancel culture” in books is better understood as risk management under social media conditions. Outrage compresses timelines, collapses context, and turns interpretation into a moral referendum. A handful of motivated actors can create the impression of a mass consensus—and once that perception takes hold, institutions often move first and ask questions later.

We talk about how “sensitivity reading” functions in this environment: sometimes as thoughtful critique, sometimes as a liability shield, and sometimes as a tool that quietly shifts a book’s meaning toward whatever ideology currently feels safest. The result is a distributed system of incentives that nudges publishers toward caution, self-censorship, and blandness … while occasionally rewarding controversy because conflict drives attention.

This conversation doesn’t treat every public criticism as illegitimate, or every publisher decision as cowardice. The point is to map the machinery: how reputations get threatened, how moral language expands, why apologies can backfire, and why the incentives often select for the loudest framing over the most accurate one.

Adam Szetela earned his PhD in English from the Department of Literatures at Cornell University. Before Cornell, he was a visiting fellow in the Program on the Study of Capitalism at Harvard University. He writes for The Washington Post, The Guardian, Newsweek, and other publications. Among other places, his writing has been honored by the Society for Features Journalism. His new book is That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing.