Basis of conservatism and liberalism is BIOLOGICAL!

[affa]

i'd say neural plasticity is definitely part of the story, and given your scenario, could easily be conflated with genetic inheritance in the separated twin portion of the study. future research would need to figure out a way to tease apart gestational environment, post-birth environment, and brute genetic inheritance to get a clearer idea on that issue. overall though, i'm suspicious of any explanation that puts too much of an emphasis on either genetic or developmental factors. more often that not, i'd wager the truth lies in some incredibly convoluted interaction between the two. it gets even more crazy when you factor in stuff like epigenesis, where developmentally derived changes can be passed on to offspring, without an underlying change in the genetic code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

[Iskendar]

Check this out: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... _to_party/

"There is a seeming disjuncture between the popular belief that conservatives are strong and rational, and liberals are more touchy-feely - and increasing physiological evidence that the reverse may actually be true," said Rose McDermott, a Stanford University political scientist."

Never understood where that "conservative=rational" thing came from anyway, since some of the typical conservative hangups like group identity (patriotism) and conformism (family values, religion) are so obviously deeply emotional it's not funny anymore. All humans are emotional beings trying to bring some rationality into their lives (or trying to rationalize their emotions), that goes for both sides (both??? Like there's only two sides...pfff...American politics...) So I guess it's a matter of who has the better propaganda machine.

That said, I don't buy the "it's all biology" angle.

[Interloper]

"Conservative-rational"? Like, Fox News is rational?

[zenshiite]

I'd say that conservative talk radio puts the lie to the whole "conservatives=rational" thing. No need for a genetic study. I wouldn't say liberals are rational either.

Then again, I'm more of a middle path kind of person myself.

[Steve James]

I think that the article begins from the premise that "conservatives" have traditionally considered "liberals" to be "touchy-feely" emotional types in that they are generally more inclined to support programs for the "have nots." The association of liberalism with "do gooders" who 'want to give away hard earned money to lazy people who don't want to work or contribute to society' is fairly widespread among those who consider themselves "conservative" or "libertarian." Now, whether this tendency is biologically influenced in what is questioned.

I don't buy that political views are biologically determined. Otoh, I do believe that people often make decisions based on their "gut-feelings." I'd also argue that some political perspectives are obviously driven by the perception of a threat. What those threats are perceived to be, however, are sociologically determined. For ex., the ecology is typically, ime, considered something that liberals worry about, but conservatives tend to dismiss. Otoh, liberals and conservatives both have fears about the economy. I don't see how "people" in general could be biologically programmed to fear economic conditions. What they fear is starvation.

Well, I think that many people will disagree with the article because it uses political terms to describe the subject groups. I don't, for example, think the author argues that liberal thinking is better than conservative thinking, or that conservatives are brutes. Obviously, they can both be considered successful survival strategies. If anything, it seems to argue that our perceptions about "liberal" and "conservative" thinking is misguided. I.e., liberals aren't touchy feely; and conservatives are not rational practical.

Imo, the only way to analyze the question is to take a specific issue --and lose the terms liberal and conservative.

[shawnsegler]

Imo, the only way to analyze the question is to take a specific issue --and lose the terms liberal and conservative.

What a reasonable suggestion.

S- gives the golf clap

[C-Hopkins]

"Conservative=Rational"="Liberal=Irrational"

That line of thinking = projection on both ends.

[Steve James]

Well, liberals didn't invent the phrase "bleeding heart liberal."

Everyone usually likes to think that he's being rational, and most people like to feel that they have hearts; so, linking those qualities to particular political positions becomes a problem. We aren't just talking about a person's ultimate political decision/s; we're talking about the motivations for those decisions.

Example: So, if there are "logical" and "emotional" positions for certain hot button issues, such as: 1) gun control, 2) abortion, 3) welfare, which side is being logical; which, emotional? In a way, doesn't that depend on how we describe the individual's motivation? Even then, is anyone motivated purely by reason or by emotion? Aren't decisions always a combination of the two anyway?

[edededed]

Yeah - I see very emotional people on both sides, really.

Don't get on the wrong side of anti-abortionists, NRA members, PETA members, whatever - especially if they are in groups.

[kenneth delves]

Some comments from Boston Globe readers

SORT: Chrono Order | Latest First
Could it be that that the conservative subject knew that the shots/noise etc could be a reason for fear which would stimulate the fight/flight reaction while the liberal subject is just unaware of what the noises could be and remains a "Deer in the Headlights" to possible danger.

Another way to look at is that they know a conservative arround and are unconcerned because the conservative will protect them. All of this means as much as this supposed research. Could it be that that the conservative subject knew that the shots/noise etc could be a reason for fear which would stimulate the fight/flight reaction while the liberal subject is just unaware of what the noises could be and remains a "Deer in the Headlights" to possible danger.

Another way to look at is that they know a conservative arround and are unconcerned because the conservative will protect them. All of this means as much as this supposed research.
by redsox1 November 01, 9:30 AM 484656 Report Abuse

I agree redsox1, there are many potential holes in this study. I have doubts about how the researchers framed the most fundamental parameter of this study: the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

This article suggests that they used the very cliche litmus tests that Foxnews, msnbc and other popular media use to judge the political system. This framework is constantly changing, and is, in my opinion a moral value system that politicians are consistently morphing to suit their constituents. I just don't see how these random political signposts aren't social. I agree redsox1, there are many potential holes in this study. I have doubts about how the researchers framed the most fundamental parameter of this study: the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

This article suggests that they used the very cliche litmus tests that Foxnews, msnbc and other popular media use to judge the political system. This framework is constantly changing, and is, in my opinion a moral value system that politicians are consistently morphing to suit their constituents. I just don't see how these random political signposts aren't social.
by hendrixharlow November 01, 9:48 AM 452512 Report Abuse

This is just so much outstanding research! This can spawn a whole new field of work. Shopping habits for example, are also decided at birth. The corollary follows that certain brains are wired differently to the level of satisfaction derived from spending money in Department stores. In fact so many things can now be shown to be decided at birth using these outstanding methods that the concept of free will also vanishes right before our eyes. The genes made me do it. This is just so much outstanding research! This can spawn a whole new field of work. Shopping habits for example, are also decided at birth. The corollary follows that certain brains are wired differently to the level of satisfaction derived from spending money in Department stores. In fact so many things can now be shown to be decided at birth using these outstanding methods that the concept of free will also vanishes right before our eyes. The genes made me do it.
by okarim November 01, 9:48 AM 531224 Report Abuse

This study also doesn't seem to take into account that in general younger people are more liberal and the older generation is more conservative. How does that work into this study? This study also doesn't seem to take into account that in general younger people are more liberal and the older generation is more conservative. How does that work into this study?
by sd3335 November 01, 10:11 AM 8922521444216434690 Report Abuse

okarim, I don't think the purpose of these studies are to suggest that free will is dead; People do change political ideologies, amongst other viewpoints and opinions. We know this because, well, chances are we've changed someone's mind about something -- anything at some point in our lives.

I think the greater point is, that we may be more predisposed to one way of thinking towards birth. Maybe not as specific as conservative/liberal, but as something bigger than that that manifests itself as conservative/liberal? Who knows. okarim, I don't think the purpose of these studies are to suggest that free will is dead; People do change political ideologies, amongst other viewpoints and opinions. We know this because, well, chances are we've changed someone's mind about something -- anything at some point in our lives.

I think the greater point is, that we may be more predisposed to one way of thinking towards birth. Maybe not as specific as conservative/liberal, but as something bigger than that that manifests itself as conservative/liberal? Who knows.
by agtsprk November 01, 10:11 AM 7278810986807829455 Report Abuse

In his book “Conservatives without Conscience”, John Dean (you know, Watergate) touches on other studies done on this topic. In the studies he cites, the conservatives are attracted to the GOP because of their wiring to accept security from authority and the dominant types who do so become ruthless leaders. Any generalization of human psychological response will have flaws, but also a grain of truth. In his book “Conservatives without Conscience”, John Dean (you know, Watergate) touches on other studies done on this topic. In the studies he cites, the conservatives are attracted to the GOP because of their wiring to accept security from authority and the dominant types who do so become ruthless leaders. Any generalization of human psychological response will have flaws, but also a grain of truth.
by Dogs4Pals-1 November 01, 10:11 AM 6534636621255881877 Report Abuse

"What does this mean for our democracy?" It mean democrats should stop having kids! "What does this mean for our democracy?" It mean democrats should stop having kids!
by No-Fool November 01, 10:17 AM 5282322784547578736 Report Abuse

Has anyone seen someone they know improve funtion after a stroke? The damaged brain cells do not all somehow recover but other nerve pathways are developed to do necessary or desired activities. This shows that the human brain changes(which the current neuro scanning tech confirms). We all may have beginning orientations but, happily, we all grow and can change. Simple pronouncements by experts relying on limited studies without including references to complimentary, expanded and verifiable work in the same field are more than unhelpful, they indicate arrogance, poor science and, often, private motives. Has anyone seen someone they know improve funtion after a stroke? The damaged brain cells do not all somehow recover but other nerve pathways are developed to do necessary or desired activities. This shows that the human brain changes(which the current neuro scanning tech confirms). We all may have beginning orientations but, happily, we all grow and can change. Simple pronouncements by experts relying on limited studies without including references to complimentary, expanded and verifiable work in the same field are more than unhelpful, they indicate arrogance, poor science and, often, private motives.
by SherrieAnne November 01, 10:47 AM 7956993302917418897 Report Abuse

Boston Glooobe!!! Why do you publish this bullcrap?!?

NO serious scientists are involeved with this field. This field has been heavily criticzed for making wild, overstated claims. These political scientists are 2 degrees north of crazy. The fact is we have neither the technology or knowledge base to definitivey decide if our political attitudes are "rooted in biology" or in our genes. And anyone who knew anything about molecular genetics would know it flies in the face of shear common sense. But, "studies show", "studies show", "the Boston Globe reported". You are doing a disservice to everyone by writing up an article like this. No discretion or temperance. Print and endorse any claim. This is a foolish field, arrogant about what it actually knows.

This is not serious science. And these people are not serious scientists. Boston Glooobe!!! Why do you publish this bullcrap?!?

NO serious scientists are involeved with this field. This field has been heavily criticzed for making wild, overstated claims. These political scientists are 2 degrees north of crazy. The fact is we have neither the technology or knowledge base to definitivey decide if our political attitudes are "rooted in biology" or in our genes. And anyone who knew anything about molecular genetics would know it flies in the face of shear common sense. But, "studies show", "studies show", "the Boston Globe reported". You are doing a disservice to everyone by writing up an article like this. No discretion or temperance. Print and endorse any claim. This is a foolish field, arrogant about what it actually knows.

This is not serious science. And these people are not serious scientists.
by JC-21 November 01, 10:47 AM 4987452544394690812 Report Abuse

My 3 sisters are left of Cindy Sheehan Moonbats. My 2 brothers I are gun owning, Bush supporting conservatives. So how does genetics figure into that?
And as someone else noted, young people are generally more liberal. I even voted for Jimmy Carter once before I smartened up. Sounds like nonsense to me. My 3 sisters are left of Cindy Sheehan Moonbats. My 2 brothers I are gun owning, Bush supporting conservatives. So how does genetics figure into that?
And as someone else noted, young people are generally more liberal. I even voted for Jimmy Carter once before I smartened up. Sounds like nonsense to me.
by Sean2006 November 01, 10:52 AM 7082217664286775264 Report Abuse

This is the dumbest thing I think I've ever read. Comic books are more believable. How much tax money was wasted on this so called research ? Anybody who believes this load of crap should be committed as a danger to society and the people who were involved in this phallacy should be arrested and tried for fraud. This is the dumbest thing I think I've ever read. Comic books are more believable. How much tax money was wasted on this so called research ? Anybody who believes this load of crap should be committed as a danger to society and the people who were involved in this phallacy should be arrested and tried for fraud.
by ricko87 November 01, 10:58 AM 485785 Report Abuse

I was unable to locate the raw version of this research elsewhere online. This point may have been covered in the research, but if not it seems a glaring oversight.

What of the clear disparity in terms of how different states in the US vote? Geography seems to play as important a role in determining political outlook as does this research. An interesting followup experiment might include controls on geography, such as having participants be lifelong residents of a rural area versus an urban area. Urban voters are usually more liberal than rural voters, so a possibility the above-referenced study seemingly does not rule out is whether city-dwellers exposed to more stimuli in their natural environment become better able to cope with gunshots, etc. because of that.

For those reasons, one should take the above findings with a grain of salt. I was unable to locate the raw version of this research elsewhere online. This point may have been covered in the research, but if not it seems a glaring oversight.

What of the clear disparity in terms of how different states in the US vote? Geography seems to play as important a role in determining political outlook as does this research. An interesting followup experiment might include controls on geography, such as having participants be lifelong residents of a rural area versus an urban area. Urban voters are usually more liberal than rural voters, so a possibility the above-referenced study seemingly does not rule out is whether city-dwellers exposed to more stimuli in their natural environment become better able to cope with gunshots, etc. because of that.

For those reasons, one should take the above findings with a grain of salt.
by Silence_Domoregood November 01, 10:58 AM 5084198664732411173 Report Abuse

I see no indication that these "scientists" controlled for behavior rooted in genetics as opposed to behavior that is learned. This seems more like an exercise in pop psychology than good science. I see no indication that these "scientists" controlled for behavior rooted in genetics as opposed to behavior that is learned. This seems more like an exercise in pop psychology than good science.
by bikes2work November 01, 11:05 AM 428389 Report Abuse

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this article was B.S. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this article was B.S.
by hendrixharlow November 01, 11:05 AM 452512 Report Abuse

Wow, like minds have similar brain patters when triggered for emotional response. Deep.

I suppose this would qualify as something above a middle school science fair hypotheses if it would explain the following...

1) Why many people change there political philosophies many times over the course of there lifetime. (Republican to Democrat, etc.)

2) This "science" requires a suspension of disbelief that there exist only two political systems in the world, therefor two sets of like minds. Granted, both Democratic and Republican parties have sacrificed money and morality to make the American population believe there are only two options.

3) Clusters of genetically unrelated people that share the same beliefs (Red States vs Blue States) must be assumed to be a factor of environment, not genetics.

When I was in middle school I won 4th place (technically last place) for my science project on breeding aquarium fish, and I think my scie... Click here to see full comment Wow, like minds have similar brain patters when triggered for emotional response. Deep.

I suppose this would qualify as something above a middle school science fair hypotheses if it would explain the following...

1) Why many people change there political philosophies many times over the course of there lifetime. (Republican to Democrat, etc.)

2) This "science" requires a suspension of disbelief that there exist only two political systems in the world, therefor two sets of like minds. Granted, both Democratic and Republican parties have sacrificed money and morality to make the American population believe there are only two options.

3) Clusters of genetically unrelated people that share the same beliefs (Red States vs Blue States) must be assumed to be a factor of environment, not genetics.

When I was in middle school I won 4th place (technically last place) for my science project on breeding aquarium fish, and I think my scientific analysis was on par with this one. Mine probably cost less, too.
by fuzzy1 November 01, 11:14 AM 448517 Report Abuse

I think this article is interesting. As stated, it's still PRELIMINARY research, and done at a University, which is why it's probably not published on the web - but at any rate, the article doesn't say that our biology pre-determines our political affiliation, it just says that maybe our inherent response mechanisms can explain why we feel certain ways about certain political topics. Why does everyone have to be so closed minded - it's just a newspaper article reporting on an experiment, from an objective point of view. Then again, people had the same reactions to plenty of preliminary scientific experiments that we now accept at truth... I think this article is interesting. As stated, it's still PRELIMINARY research, and done at a University, which is why it's probably not published on the web - but at any rate, the article doesn't say that our biology pre-determines our political affiliation, it just says that maybe our inherent response mechanisms can explain why we feel certain ways about certain political topics. Why does everyone have to be so closed minded - it's just a newspaper article reporting on an experiment, from an objective point of view. Then again, people had the same reactions to plenty of preliminary scientific experiments that we now accept at truth...
by katelina November 01, 11:14 AM 461978 Report Abuse

Wow, who is the Science Editor of this newspaper? Can the Globe go any lower in its pursuid of pseudo science? Wow, who is the Science Editor of this newspaper? Can the Globe go any lower in its pursuid of pseudo science?
by Edgarthearmenian November 01, 11:35 AM 534619 Report Abuse

Katelina, you are absolutely correct. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Healthy skepticism is, however, also an integral part of scientific pursuit. I must insist though that the humble, mysterious and helpful fruit fly (hmpf!) be further researched thoroughly in preference to funding the work discussed here. Katelina, you are absolutely correct. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Healthy skepticism is, however, also an integral part of scientific pursuit. I must insist though that the humble, mysterious and helpful fruit fly (hmpf!) be further researched thoroughly in preference to funding the work discussed here.
by okarim November 01, 11:48 AM 531224 Report Abuse

What's the big deal about teaching Creationism in the schools if this is what passes for science? What's the big deal about teaching Creationism in the schools if this is what passes for science?
by folgers November 01, 11:51 AM 447541 Report Abuse

Ridiculous article. How do you explain young voters who are liberal at 20 then ultimately become conservative at 40 ? Or, why there are more conservatives or liberals born in some parts of the country versus another. It's DNA to some small, very small degree, (but we didn't need a study to tell us that!) but it's mostly education and environment. Ridiculous article. How do you explain young voters who are liberal at 20 then ultimately become conservative at 40 ? Or, why there are more conservatives or liberals born in some parts of the country versus another. It's DNA to some small, very small degree, (but we didn't need a study to tell us that!) but it's mostly education and environment.
by CJ_Boston November 01, 12:01 PM 8516770453167881834 Report Abuse

[Walter Joyce]

Ken:

Could you have possibly posted these comments with a bit of editing to remove the redundancy?

WTJ

[Walter Joyce]

And for all:

I don't agree with all the studies conclusions, I just wanted to stimulate conversation and debate.

WTJ

[klonk]

I too have big reservations about the science here, it smack of the old days of Soviet psychiatry, but what I really want to point out is the stereotypical figure of the liberal as socially very sensitive and uber-caring is indeed misplaced. Liberals frequently disregard Klonk's Law: What you subsidize you get more of; what you tax you get less of.

So then the liberal, in subsidizing urban poverty and taxing success would seem to have it just backwards--from the compassionate and caring point of view.

[I-mon]

subsidizing public health and education should be great then, according to Klonk's Law!

[klonk]

You have to be precise in your terms. If you further subsidize public education, in its present form, you will, indeed, get more of the same. That is not very good. Subsidized public health, well, ask the Canadians how that works out. You gotta be careful what you subsidize! (Hint: A lot of what the Canadians subsidize is bureaucracy and delay.)

But Klonk's Law holds true. If you subsidize something...