Did Scientists Find a 'Liberal Gene'?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to let this one speak for itself.

I don't know the controls the scientists used, but it sounds plausible--if you get away from political definitions and lean more toward empathy and things like that for the standards.

Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'

By ERIC S. PAGE

Oct 28, 2010

NBC San Diego

From the article:

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

"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,” according to the study.

. . .

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

This smells fishy, though. It's almost as if liberals need a biological justification. Isn't it also plausible that there might be common features among liberals, but ones that do not have anything to do with politics? I know I need to read more about it to be sure. How about the news people?

At any rate, if this were true in the manner reported here, I wonder if there is also a slave gene. And a master gene...

Michael

[DavidMcK]

Hopefully there is someone on here who knows more about this; I've noticed that when they study 'biological altruism' my sense is that they use the older definition of 'concern for others' rather than self-sacrifice (taking an action to the organisms own detriment and to the benefit of another organism of the same species). Thus child rearing is altruistic, chimpanzees sharing food is altruistic, almost everything is altruistic even if it is to the mutual self-interest of two creatures.

[Mikee]

Yeah, I'll bet there's a "stupid asshole" gene too.

[Reidy]

I can't judge the science, but "the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence" sounds like what Objectivist jargon calls "social metaphysics."

[Xray]

Hopefully there is someone on here who knows more about this; I've noticed that when they study 'biological altruism' my sense is that they use the older definition of 'concern for others' rather than self-sacrifice (taking an action to the organisms own detriment and to the benefit of another organism of the same species). Thus child rearing is altruistic, chimpanzees sharing food is altruistic, almost everything is altruistic even if it is to the mutual self-interest of two creatures.

'Concern for others because of mutual self-interest' describes it well. This concern is biologically hardwired in us humans since we are group animals depending on others for survival.

Wheres calling selfishness a 'virtue' and altruism a 'vice' (or vice versa) are ideological positions advocating a moral doctrine ('You must never serve others first' versus 'You must always serve others first').

Edited October 28, 2010 by Xray

[Mike11]

Generally, ground breaking research + mass media = unrelated sensationalized nonsense.

Except in this case. People like me are simply better

[william.scherk]

"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,” according to the study.

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

This smells fishy, though.

What do you find fishy now that you may have had a chance to look deeper into the research, Michael?

It's almost as if liberals need a biological justification. Isn't it also plausible that there might be common features among liberals, but ones that do not have anything to do with politics?

Yes, more than plausible -- in thirty years of psychological research into political/ideological disposition, there are varied plausible connections found between temperament/personality traits and social behaviour/attitude that aren't exactly 'political.'

If you are familiar with the Big Five factors of personality theory, you may not be surprised that research has apparently found strong correlations between high scores on the 'openness to experience' factor and liberal political attitudes. The line of inquiry pursued by the study featured in your link is informed by these interesting correlations, and by other findings that 'novelty seeking behaviour' could be correlated generally to the same factor. Not a big jump to testing genetic regions that were suspected to play a part in predisposing folks to that kind of behaviour.

The current research tries to tie together a few of the converging lines with the novel finding of an actual variation on the genome -- laid alongside plausible social/environmental variables suggested by prior research. That's what I find to be startling and interesting -- findings that at once support several explications of observed differences.

The general subject of this work has long fascinated me -- touching as it does a central psychological puzzle: "Why do people believe/act as they do in 'right/left' terms?" The related questions that I have always hoped might be answered are these:

-- is temperament/personality a reasonable predictor of 'political values' or 'political orientation'? (and if so, how strong are the presumed associations)

-- how exactly does research establish a 'conservative' versus 'liberal' personality?

-- do longitudinal studies of personality/temperament suggest that 'conservative' or 'liberal' political orientations are enduring?

-- does research on 'political personality account for a 'libertarian' orientation? for 'conversion' behaviour?

-- what kinds of milieus tend to reinforce or weaken the posited tendencies to one pole or the other?

Other OL readers who have the same interests as I might be aware of some earlier research by Jonathan Haidt. This research made a bit of a splash (search on "What Makes People Vote Republican?") since he appeared to chastize fellow liberals for a shrunken sense of morality. His particular angle is only one take on the more general variables, of course. I include a few links and abstracts at bottom to highlight some other angles taken.

What emerges from the multiple strands of research may be a set of basic, relatively reasonable premises built on straightforward, valid observations -- there are real personality differences between folks who can be most firmly attached to one 'pole' or the other -- and there are actual 'ingrained' temperament/behaviour variations that are directed in part by genetic endowment.

What this means, of course, what this portends, what this says about the morality of either pole . . . this is where the research conclusions can be used to buttress prejudices on either side.

In much of the commentary surrounding Haidt's splash, for example, and at other times when the orientation/personality research appeared above the media waterline, it seemed that the information was simply added to a toolkit of psychological disparagement. The 'left' simpletons were in effect seeking a datapoint to support 'conservatism' as birth defect, and the 'right' stupidos did exactly the same thing in reverse. It's the old kneejerk 'argument by evulness' crap, in my opinion.

I bet that as we each here ponder the predictions of this kind of research, we could test the presumptions and premises basic to the research against our own life experiences and against our own score on the five factors of personality.

Do the predictions hold or not? Can one see oneself in the varied findings?

Of course, the predictions of the research noted above are quite specific, and we would need to be tested for the gene variant to make a proper test of those particular findings . . . a striking aspect of this research is that it can be done again with different cohorts -- if the correlations hold on subsequent study, then fishy or not, we have some reliable information to further ponder.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes

Geneticists who study behavior and personality have known for 30 years that genes play a large role in people's instinctive emotional responses to certain issues, their social temperament.

It is not that opinions on specific issues are written into a person's DNA. Rather, genes prime people to respond cautiously or openly to the mores of a social group.

Only recently have researchers begun to examine how these predispositions, in combination with childhood and later life experiences, shape political behavior.

Thinking styles and the big five personality traits revisited

The big five personality traits Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are known as the big five personality traits in psychology. The five-factor personality traits model (FFM) resulted from several decades of factor analytic research focusing on trait personality (see Antonioni, 1998).

Neuroticism (N] is the opposite of emotional stability. People high on the N scale tend to experience such negative feelings as emotional instability, embarrassment, guilt, pessimism, and low self-esteem. People scoring high on the extraversion (E]

scale tend to be sociable and assertive, and they prefer to work with other people. Openness to experience (O] is characterized by such attributes as open-mindedness, active imagination, preference for variety, and independence of judgment. People high on the agreeableness (A] scale tend to be tolerant, trusting, accepting, and they value and respect other people’s beliefs and conventions. Finally, people high on the conscientiousness (C] scale tend to distinguish themselves for their trustworthiness and their sense of purposefulness and of responsibility. They tend to be strong-willed, task-focused, and achievement-oriented.

Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later

Preschool children who 20 years later were relatively liberal were characterized as: developing close relationships, self-reliant, energetic, somewhat dominating, relatively under-controlled, and resilient. Preschool children subsequently relatively conservative at age 23 were described as: feeling easily victimized, easily oVended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and relatively over-controlled and vulnerable.

Examining the Differences in the Moral Foundations of Liberals and Conservatives

Liberals and conservatives have different moral foundations, according to research published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009.

The moral foundation theory developed by Graham and his colleagues consists of five main moral foundations: Harm - caring for and not hurting others, Fairness - equality and reciprocity, Ingroup - loyalty to one’s group, Authority - respect for leadership, and Purity - the sanctity of social norms and customs.

“Liberals generally justify moral rules in terms of their consequences for individuals; they are quite accustomed to balancing competing interests and to fine-tuning social institutions to maximize their social utility. Conservatives, in contrast, are more likely to respect rules handed down by God (for religious conservatives) or from earlier generations.”

Unlike studies one and two, this third study also included libertarians as a potential political affiliation, who were more likely to violate the five moral foundations for money than either liberals or conservatives.

Interestingly, although libertarians are often viewed as being similar to conservatives, the difference between libertarians and conservatives was greater than the difference between liberals and conservatives.

“Libertarians may support the Republican Party for economic reasons, but in their moral foundations profile we found that they more closely resembled liberals than conservatives,” as Graham and his colleagues explain.

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Researchers Find 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.

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.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What do you find fishy now that you may have had a chance to look deeper into the research, Michael?

William,

I should have said the whole thing as presented sounds fishy, not the last sentence you excerpted. But I see where this could have been understood in the way you presented it. I am not as clear as I could be when I am in a hurry.

As to what I smell, it's a result of my adherence to Evans' law of inadequate paranoia in the present culture.

I see too many potential nefarious political uses of a biological justification for being a leftie for my own good.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'

By ERIC S. PAGE

Oct 28, 2010

NBC San Diego

From the article:

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

The whole dang thing is posted at Fowler's website, "Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology."

[BaalChatzaf]

Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'

By ERIC S. PAGE

Oct 28, 2010

NBC San Diego

From the article:

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

The whole dang thing is posted at Fowler's website, "Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology."

Is this paper a spoof, like the one by Alan Sokal? Whenever I see an attempt to quantify political ideology, my alarm bells go off.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike11]

What are you so concerned about Baal?

The genetic basis of politics is as obvious as the transgendered hermeneutic of meson particles.

[william.scherk]

Is this paper a spoof, like the one by Alan Sokal?

It doesn't seem so. It's not like the paper is hard to follow. Why don't you look it over and see if it hold true to your model of a spoof?

Whenever I see an attempt to quantify political ideology, my alarm bells go off.

So the alarm bells go off. So you check for smoke, fire, combustibles, intruders or shorts. What do you find when you look?

The idea of quantifying political ideology is a non-starter, it seems, which obviates any further discussion of research on political ideology. I don't suggest that all of the research is without defect . . . I just wonder what might trigger your alarm, and what you do to test your initial conclusions.

[BaalChatzaf]

What are you so concerned about Baal?

The genetic basis of politics is as obvious as the transgendered hermeneutic of meson particles.

Exactly!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Is this paper a spoof, like the one by Alan Sokal?

It doesn't seem so. It's not like the paper is hard to follow. Why don't you look it over and see if it hold true to your model of a spoof?

One of the hall marks off a good spoof is that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Which is why I invoked the Sokal example.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Is this paper a spoof, like the one by Alan Sokal?

It doesn't seem so. It's not like the paper is hard to follow. Why don't you look it over and see if it hold true to your model of a spoof?

One of the hall marks off a good spoof is that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.

Indistinguishable if one skims, perhaps . . . as did the editors of the journal, Social Text, when Sokal's paper arrived.

Which is why I invoked the Sokal example.

The fun part of the Sokal spoof was its garbled synthesis of quantum hooey with postmodernist critical theory hooey.

In his commentaries explaining the genesis and process of his paper in Social Text, Sokal was surprised that no one in the editorial process took the elementary step of submitting the paper to peers for review. Peers with some basic knowledge of physics could have and would have exposed the howlers and tipped off the editors that this was a shonky, hilarious mix of jargon and fluff and demented linkages.

So, it seems to me that a knowledgeable person such as yourself could have picked out the bullshit in "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" by paragraph two.

Can you do the same with the Fowler paper? or with the six other references I cited above? How shall we distinguish between hooey and non-hooey?

+++++++++++++++++++

Sokal followed the appearance of his paper in Social Text with an explanation of his 'experiment' that appeared in Lingua Franca. Here is an excerpt from that piece, "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies":

'For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities. But I'm a mere physicist: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of jouissance and différance, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.

So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a] it sounded good and (B] it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes.'

Edited October 29, 2010 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

How does one quantify the ideological contents of a political judgment.

One can collect statistics on how many agree with the judgment, but that does not address the judgment itself.

I just don't see how to do the quantification.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

How does one quantify the ideological contents of a political judgment.

I don't think the measures cited in the Fowler paper attempt to 'quantify the ideological contents of a political judgments.'

Rather, the paper assesses liberal/conservative attitudes, adolescent social milieux and the prevalance of a particular allele implicated in 'novelty seeking' behaviour.

A number of instruments have been used over the years to measure individual political attitudes, and longitudinal research has found that the stances are relatively enduring. Not only are the stances relatively enduring, certain aspects of personality can predict the left/right stance of individuals.

It's not rocket science, Bob. If you read the paper you will find the answers to your questions therein -- no need to rely on my paraphrase nor the six slim paragraphs from MSK's introduction.

Here again is the link to the full text, and here is the abstract:

Scholars in many fields have long noted the importance of social

context in the development of political ideology. Recent work

suggests that political ideology also has a heritable component,

but no specific gene variant or combination of variants

associated with political ideology have so far been identified.

Here, we hypothesize that individuals with a genetic

predisposition toward seeking out new experiences will tend to

be more liberal, but only if they are embedded in a social

context that provides them with multiple points of view. Using

data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,

we test this hypothesis by investigating an association between

self-reported political ideology and the 7R variant of the

dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4), which has previously been

associated with novelty seeking. Among those with DRD4-7R, we

find that the number of friendships a person has in adolescence

is significantly associated with liberal political ideology.

Among those without the gene variant, there is no association.

This is the first study to elaborate a specific gene-environment

interaction that contributes to ideological self-identification,

and it highlights the importance of incorporating both nature

and nurture into the study of political preferences.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here again is the link to the full text, and here is the abstract:

Scholars in many fields have long noted the importance of social

context in the development of political ideology. Recent work

suggests that political ideology also has a heritable component,

but no specific gene variant or combination of variants

associated with political ideology have so far been identified.

Here, we hypothesize that individuals with a genetic

predisposition toward seeking out new experiences will tend to

be more liberal, but only if they are embedded in a social

context that provides them with multiple points of view. Using

data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,

we test this hypothesis by investigating an association between

self-reported political ideology and the 7R variant of the

dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4), which has previously been

associated with novelty seeking. Among those with DRD4-7R, we

find that the number of friendships a person has in adolescence

is significantly associated with liberal political ideology.

Among those without the gene variant, there is no association.

This is the first study to elaborate a specific gene-environment

interaction that contributes to ideological self-identification,

and it highlights the importance of incorporating both nature

and nurture into the study of political preferences.

What guarantees the truth of something "self reported".

I smell bad methodology.

In -real- science one does not rely on self reported states. one verifies, observes or measures the states directly.

The only real science is physics. Everything else is either tiddly winks or a descriptive exercise like geology.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 30, 2010 by BaalChatzaf