Your politics are determined genetically

[TownieDeac]

The issue here is that liberalism philosophically is wedded to nurture and not nature. (Perhaps you feel more comfortable with those words, rather than heredity and environment.) So, if these studies are going to prove reliable, then liberalism, as a philosophic point of view, will have taken a far greater hit than conservatism. I don't see how hereditary privilege fits into this discussion at all, save perhaps as just another aspect of the man-made social environment.

So this is where we are at loggerheads.

I would like some evidence of your first statement other than the fact that it was apparently some keystone of my diploma that is missing. Nature/nurture and heredity/environment, either way, I'm still suspect of your initial premise. From what I can tell, the only tenets of politics that fit into developmental psychology or genetics and heritability are that starting from the industrial revolution, the premises of liberalism and conservatism were based around how to deal with notions of privilege at birth. Conservatives strongly favored a notion that your station in life should be honored and that (in)herited wealth was a noble and unassailable concept. Liberals eschewed (in)herited privilege, as well as state religion, divine right, and absolutism.

So I don't see how developmental psychology or genetics fits in to that discussion at all, hence why we are at a contradiction of terms. I take umbrage both at your semantics and your logic.

 

[dmcheatw]

The hilarious irony of these studies - originating from Berkley no less! - is that if true, they would undermine one of the fundamental building blocks of modern liberalism; namely, that you are shaped by your environment more than by your heredity. Ha, ha! Well done.

On the other hand, anyone with half a functioning brain, who bothers to use it, will be "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others, indeed will emphasize different philosophies, liberal and conservative, during different phases of their life. Furthermore, an individual will often entertain, and give great significance to, all kinds of ideas that are not readily classifyable as being either liberal or conservative.


I'll leave the critique of the methodologies to the survey experts among us.

I did not read the linked article yet, but there are some problems with this post.

the idea that liberalism presupposes and is determinate on one's beliefs on nature vs. nurture does not logically follow. The humanities make it clear both are factors in any matter of consequence, but even if you believed wholly in one or the other, you could still advocate for progressive polices designed to improve the human condition and advance society. It's not an ideological tenet of liberalism to believe that environment has greater impact on behavior 'X' than genetics and biology.

Free will and determinism are sister concepts but they're going to muddy the water for the moment so I just stuck to exactly what was written, not what was implied by my reading beyond that.

 

[Lectro]

Conservatism is a birth defect.

Liberalism is mental illness. A loss of soul. A waking every day with "let me see what's wrong with the world today ...hmmm,what sort of gross injustice awaits me at breakfast. Oh my God, the fact that I am able to have breakfast whilst so many starve has me angst filled...Oh, let me grab my New York Times and find all the maladies "fit to print". Now I'll put my vaunted intellect to use by applying child-like solutions to a complex world...a world so complex that is pains me to explain it to the wooly headed and un-initiated alike."

-- excerpt from "a Day in the Life of R.J. Denisovich"

 

[sailordeac]

Classic confirmation bias here, which is funny considering you apparently doubt the veracity of the claims or the methodology of the study.

I could just as easily propose that conservatives are born thinking the same thing as their parents, which is to be unwavering and closed-minded (fundamental building blocks of the current GOP) whereas liberals are born open minded and more willing to consider alternative opinions. That too would be reaching.

Additionally, nothing about this experimental design suggests genetics to me. Sounds a lot like how these kids were raised. It claims to control for background, but how could it possibly control for parenting style?

I was intrerested in the philosophical aspects of the questions raised and not the emotionally overheated efforts to relate the studies, mistakenly or not, to modern American political parties. After all if we start getting into emotion laden political party issues, then any bum can ejaculate into the discussion whatever waste might pop out.

On the rest of your post, yes the study may be a case of confirmning bias, many studies are. That's why the results need, as you and I have several times noted, to be treated cautiously. I think, however, that the studies tried to correct for the environmental argument by including the identical and fraternal twins raised apart from birth.

I really don't understand your second paragraph, except maybe as an effort somehow to illustrate the first?

 

[Deacon923]

you guys are taking a study of personality traits that were predictive of political leanings and turning it into an existential argument over whether liberalism or conservatism has a firmer scientific foundation?

WTF, GTFO, and other phrases including an F.

 

[TownieDeac]

you guys are taking a study of personality traits that were predictive of political leanings and turning it into an existential argument over whether liberalism or conservatism has a firmer scientific foundation?

WTF, GTFO, and other phrases including an F.

to be fair, i think sailor was the only one doing that. i shouldn't have engaged on his terms to begin with, i guess, but that's exactly what i was disagreeing with him about.

though if we did want to get into which school of ideology has a firmer scientific foundation...

 

[sailordeac]

I did not read the linked article yet, but there are some problems with this post.

the idea that liberalism presupposes and is determinate on one's beliefs on nature vs. nurture does not logically follow. The humanities make it clear both are factors in any matter of consequence, but even if you believed wholly in one or the other, you could still advocate for progressive polices designed to improve the human condition and advance society. It's not an ideological tenet of liberalism to believe that environment has greater impact on behavior 'X' than genetics and biology.

Free will and determinism are sister concepts but they're going to muddy the water for the moment so I just stuck to exactly what was written, not what was implied by my reading beyond that.

You should, it's not a bad article.

Let's not confuse the humanities with liberalism. And yes, liberalism has traditionally emphasized the role of nurture over nature (if you want to use that terminology). Consequently, the notion of changing the surroundings in order to promote potential progress and improvement. I really don't understand why this is still a question for some.

I suppose ultimately and carried to logical extremes the issue may become one of free will and determinism. It isn't now. I personally think that the impact of both nature and nurture are significant, and we often lack the necessary information to determine which is decisive in any particular situation.

 

[TownieDeac]

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support your repeated claims that liberals support nature over nurture?

 

[sailordeac]

you guys are taking a study of personality traits that were predictive of political leanings and turning it into an existential argument over whether liberalism or conservatism has a firmer scientific foundation?

WTF, GTFO, and other phrases including an F.

First, its not one study but several. Second, this discussion is existential? Where do you get that? Who said anything about scientific? The question raised was philosophical. Well, after you miss on everything, some abbreviated expletives are appropriately all you have left.

 

[dmcheatw]

You should, it's not a bad article.

Let's not confuse the humanities with liberalism. And yes, liberalism has traditionally emphasized the role of nurture over nature (if you want to use that terminology). Consequently, the notion of changing the surroundings in order to promote potential progress and improvement. I really don't understand why this is still a question for some.

I suppose ultimately and carried to logical extremes the issue may become one of free will and determinism. It isn't now. I personally think that the impact of both nature and nurture are significant, and we often lack the necessary information to determine which is decisive in any particular situation.

i can assure you a belief in the primacy of nurture (envrionment) over nature (heredity) is not a pre-req to liberalism. I personally don't see how it has anything to do with it. You're changing the argument from:

one of the fundamental building blocks of modern liberalism..that you are shaped by your environment more than by your heredity.

to:

liberalism has traditionally emphasized the role of nurture over nature

that's not the same argument. first is false second is true. the second quote is the essence of the liberal arts in a way. genetics and biology fall under the hard sciences, naturally. So i agree with the second argument not the first.

Everything i've ever read in the humanities (which i didn't confuse with liberalism), usually attributes equal weights to both effects (nature/biology v. nurture/environment) and the fact that this study concluded 40-60% of our overall political ideology is due to each effect is unremarkable for that reason.

 

[sailordeac]

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support your repeated claims that liberals support nature over nurture?

Actually I said the opposite: namely, that liberalism as a philosophy emphasizes the impact of nurture over nature (to use the words you prefer). So, to avoid further confusion and in order to answer your question, I would think that you might start with John Locke and John Stuart Mill and proceed from there. Their ideas are pretty important, I hope you'll agree, for providing a philosophical basis for liberalism.

Townie, I'm leaving for a weekend of late season sailing and some work in the country, and so I don't know when I'll be able to rejoin the discussion again, in a couple of hours or in a couple of days. But, as they say, I'll be back.

 

[KickballDeac]

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support your repeated claims that liberals support nature over nurture?

Yeah, I'm confused by this claim, and why it should ultimately matter. Whether behavior or life outcomes are determined by genes or environment + experience is irrelevant to "the notion of changing the surroundings in order to promote potential progress and improvement," for the simple reason that that's all that can be changed by human policy, and the environment incontrovertibly affects genetic expression.

 

[PhDeac]

Long time listener, long time caller.

sailor, can you provide apply your claim on conservative and liberal stances on nature vs. nurture to conservative and liberal stances on homosexuality, particularly gay adoption?

I'll take my question off the air.

 

[sailordeac]

Long time listener, long time caller.

sailor, can you provide apply your claim on conservative and liberal stances on nature vs. nurture to conservative and liberal stances on homosexuality, particularly gay adoption?

I'll take my question off the air.

Ph, I really have to run now, everybody is waiting, and so a short answer is all I can give at the moment. Obviously, on the issues you mentioned the stances of neither side are in harmony with the philosophical foundations of their political ideology. I think, and I hope that you will agree, it is a little bit too much to ask of a mass political movement to have all of its positions be in perfect logical agreement with its philosophical underpinings. Back during the 19th century, liberalism did constitute a reasonably coherent world view. But that's no longer true, especially in the US. Conservatism never constituted an entirely coherent world view completely in keeping with any one set of coherent philosophical principles. Gotta run. Will get back when I can.

 

[TownieDeac]

Yeah, I'm confused by this claim, and why it should ultimately matter. Whether behavior or life outcomes are determined by genes or environment + experience is irrelevant to "the notion of changing the surroundings in order to promote potential progress and improvement," for the simple reason that that's all that can be changed by human policy, and the environment incontrovertibly affects genetic expression.

he really has yet to address this point. i accidentally wrote "nature over nurture" instead of the opposite in my last post, though, so i definitely misspoke, but i still have yet to see him address the how or why. i am fairly well versed in locke (brought him up earlier) and mill, as well...

 

[Deacon923]

Ph, I really have to run now, everybody is waiting, and so a short answer is all I can give at the moment. Obviously, on the issues you mentioned the stances of neither side are in harmony with the philosophical foundations of their political ideology. I think, and I hope that you will agree, it is a little bit too much to ask of a mass political movement to have all of its positions be in perfect logical agreement with its philosophical underpinings. Back during the 19th century, liberalism did constitute a reasonably coherent world view. But that's no longer true, especially in the US. Conservatism never constituted an entirely coherent world view completely in keeping with any one set of coherent philosophical principles. Gotta run. Will get back when I can.

The first line of this post immediately brought to mind:

 

[pourdeac]

I would think that you might start with John Locke and John Stuart Mill and proceed from there. Their ideas are pretty important, I hope you'll agree, for providing a philosophical basis for liberalism.

Long time reader, rare caller...but this discussion is interesting. One thought. The problem I see with trying to couple these genetic link studies with those fundamentals is that what we define as "liberalism" has changed. Most US conservatives today believe in Locke's liberalism, isn't that the case? It looks to me like the differences being measured in at least the original study are more between Locke's liberalism and socialism. The interesting question then would be...if the same studies were done 200 years ago would they pick up a genetic variance in political views between Locke's liberalism and traditional conservatism as defined then...and would the traits 200 years ago aligning with Locke liberalism be the traits that aligned with socialism today (and not Locke liberalism).

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

There are a staggering amount of life factors, forces, and choices that develop an adults political beliefs. Ignorantly trying to chalk up political leanings to nature or nurture based on this study is stupid and short-sighted at best. The Berkeley longitudinal politics study has been around for ages and i'm pretty sure it's covered in Psych 101. The summation of the study is that children with certain personality traits are likely to have corresponding political beliefs as adults. The study is very limited in how it controlled for life factors and circumstances between the original personality measure and adulthood. It's basically a simple interpretation of the idea that early personality has an effect on future life choices. There is a very similar study that predicts which children will become criminals based on a very early personality assessment, but no country to my knowledge has put a "Minority Report" type crime predicting system in place based on that. There is a reason that Psychology is a "soft" science, and I say that with a Psych degree.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

The shit is not hereditary. What utter nonsense. If it was, we'd still be arguing over sticks, stones, and slaves. We evolve, quite simply, and it has nothing to do with our genes. It has a ton to do with our environment.

 

[pourdeac]

The shit is not hereditary. What utter nonsense. If it was, we'd still be arguing over sticks, stones, and slaves. We evolve, quite simply, and it has nothing to do with our genes. It has a ton to do with our environment.

I don't think the views themselves are hereditary but I can believe that there is a genetic predisposition for picking one side or the other when presented with two choices at a given point in someone's life. The way we make decisions is hereditary and those differences could drive how two opposing political views form in the first place (at any one time in history).