Genetics of Politics: Again

[James Brody]

Alford, Funk, & Hibbings (2005), Pinker (2002, 2004), and Sowell (2002) have already told us that biology underwrites political belief. And AF& H already mentioned the gene-word in their review of political choices and heritability. I don't know, however, that anyone but me has laid out the case for genomic imprinting and political bias. Further, the real point of political debate is not to convince the opposing believers but to sway the middle third that tends to ape (sic!) what the neighbors do.

As for the issue of "slave to biology," if you are not aware of biological contribution to differences, then you accept your own views, memories, and plans as "true" and your version of truth does not make you free but one more critter that makes worlds to match its nature. Thus, each of us is apt to make his own cell...

JimB

References

Alford JR, Funk CL, & Hibbing JR (2005) Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review. 99(2): 153–167.
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. NY: Viking.
Pinker S (2004) Why nature & nurture won't go away. Daedelus. 133, Fall, 5-17.
Sowell, T. (2002) A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. NY: Basic Books.


"Are you a born conservative (or liberal)?

"A new study suggests that your political attitudes are wired in from the beginning.

"By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
"September 19, 2008

"Die-hard liberals and conservatives aren't made; they're born. It's literally in their DNA. That's the implication of a study by a group of researchers who wanted to see if there was a biological basis for people's political attitudes.

"They found to their surprise that opinions on such contentious subjects as gun control, pacifism and capital punishment are strongly associated with physiological traits that are probably present at birth.

"The key is the differing levels of fear that people naturally feel.

(Maybe! "Arousability" or "reactivity" extend beyond "fear" and very likely contribute to differences imprinted genomically. jb)

"What is revolutionary about this paper is that it shows the path from genes to physiology to behavior," said James H. Fowler, a political science professor at UC San Diego who was not involved in the research.

"The researchers, whose findings were published today in the journal Science, looked at 46 people who fell into two camps -- liberals who supported foreign aid, immigration, pacifism and gun control; and conservatives who advocated defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq war.

"In an initial experiment, subjects were shown a series of images that included a bloody face, maggots in a wound and a spider on a frightened face. A device measured the electrical conductance of their skin, a physiological reaction that indicates fear.

"In a second experiment, researchers measured eye blinks -- another indicator of fear -- as subjects responded to sudden blasts of noise.

"People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals after the effects of gender, age, income and education were factored out.

"Fowler said the study added to the growing research suggesting that over millions of years, humans have developed two cognitive styles -- conservative and liberal. Cautious conservatives prevented societies from taking undue risks, while more flexible liberals fostered cooperation.

"For the species to survive, you need both," he said.

"The study is the latest to challenge the long-standing dogma that upbringing and environmental factors determine political attitudes....Last year, researchers reported that the brains of conservatives and liberals process information differently.

"None of this, however, suggests that people are slaves to their biology, researchers agree."

More at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...0,514047.story