I’m skeptical about this kind of stuff, as readers know. And I can already think of a host of objections. But it looks like an interesting read (I’m printing it out now). And it certainly sounds like Derb-bait. From the press release:
Researchers liberate a ‘liberal gene’
Liberals may owe their political outlook partly to their genetic make-up, according to new research from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University. Ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4. The study’s authors say this is the first research to identify a specific gene that predisposes people to certain political views.
Appearing in the latest edition of The Journal of Politics published by Cambridge University Press, the research focused on 2,000 subjects from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. By matching genetic information with maps of the subjects’ social networks, the researchers were able to show that people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults, but only if they had an active social life in adolescence.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter affecting brain processes that control movement, emotional response, and ability to experience pleasure and pain. Previous research has identified a connection between a variant of this gene and novelty-seeking behavior, and this behavior has previously been associated with personality traits related to political liberalism.
Lead Researcher James H. Fowler of UC San Diego and his colleagues hypothesized that people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average. They reported that “it is the crucial interaction of two factors—the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence—that is associated with being more liberal.” The research team also showed that this held true independent of ethnicity, culture, sex, or age.
Professor Fowler concludes that the social and institutional environment cannot entirely explain a person’s political attitudes and beliefs and that the role of genes must be taken into account: “These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience.”
Does this mean it may be curable?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiberals are "more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view"? Not in my experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, can we start looking for a cure?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is consistent with what I've long believed: leftwing ideology is largely a conformity with non-conformity. In other words, impressionable people (who seek out novelty) fall prey to the silly and novel notions of their peers, thereby becoming leftists. Thereafter, these same folks surround themselves with more like-minded people through academia, activism, and their self-selected media.
Hey, but at least they're "washed."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHorse Hockey! Col. Potter, 4077th MASH, Korea
That is all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, no sale.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse..." people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view. "
It's my experience that liberals are assuredly NOT "interested in learning" about points of view other then their own. I mean come on. Is there a more conventional, conformist, hive-minded bunch then the modern progressive?
What about the young liberals who turn conservative as the get older, i.e. when they are mugged by reality?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this thinly-veiled propaganda intended to convince conservatives that the practice of genetic counseling and abortion might not be all bad? After all, if we could literally nip liberalism in the bud...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorrelation does not imply causation (sigh).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd think that people with a "novelty-seeking gene" would be more into joy buzzers and Groucho Marx glasses....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTreatment covered under Obamacare?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo wait, is this guy actually suggesting that Michael Moore and Al Gore had a lot of friends in their youth? How about Olbermann? Really?
Ed Shultz too?
Really?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah. This would really explain the left's reflexive cultural hostility to the "popular kids" in high school, fraternities, sororities, jocks and various other archetypes. Or, how progressives so desperately try to cultivate an alternate reality by clustering together after college.
Every time I'm in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, for instance, it's hard not to notice that in this vast sea of cocooned hipsters lies precious little other than conformist oddballs redoing high school with the manufactured illusion that they're now the popular kids.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre people actually paid to do this sort of thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince the issue is dopamine and dopamine receptors does that mean liberals just drink their own kool-aid? That liberals are literally dop(amin)es?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNovelty seeking? That would explain the constant yearning for radical change; the inability to enjoy the way things are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would be interested to see how this dopamine gene correlates to religious belief, rather than how many friends you had in high school, because contemporary liberalism is more a religion of the state than anything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, this isn't the first study to try to scientifically define what it is that makes conservatism and what makes liberalism, and you can always tell that the 'scientists' who do this are liberals by the self-congratulatory terms they use to define the liberal side, and the villainous characteristics they pick to represent conservative.
Wittgenstein said "in psychology there is scientific method, and conceptual confusion." This is a perfect example of why scientists are so clueless when studying human behavior.
They must have strict definitions, so they can quantify their results. But they are amazingly blind when constructing those defnitions; almost always ignoring the question of whether what they have come up with correlates to anything in the real world. At best, this results in either trivial results, or tautologies. At worst (as here), this means that they are investigating chimaeras.
This problem will be solved only if the philosophers become scientists, or the scientists become philosophers. Fat chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the question of curability, I quote the great political philosopher and research clinician, Blue Collar Comedian Ron White:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You can't fix stupid."
So "“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience.” I wonder, is any of political affiliation based on not pleasure neurotransmitters, not hormones, not social environment, but reason? Thinking? Observing and experiencing and reasoning?
There's a subject psychologists apparently believe is not even worth considering. They assert instead that beliefs and conclusions are formed not by any process of reason or logic, but by biochemical processes, either genetic, chemical and sometimes influenced by external stimuli on genetics or chemical processes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse