Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Genetic propensity to liberal leaning
Share:
by YankeeJim | October 31, 2010 at 04:48 am
405 views | 4 Recommendations | 18 comments
Photos
You may have little control over your political orientation as it may be genetic based on new research findings. DRD4 gene defines you political leaning. I have leaned this way from birth and I knew it all along.
Edmund Jenks, Rory Cripps, ThirtyAughtSix, and the like at NowPublic are the other way. Karen Hatter and YankeeJim share a common gene, I think. We won’t blame you for doing what comes naturally.
“Reading the Guardian? It could be down to your 'liberal genes'
US researchers have identified a gene variant they say can lead to a liberal political outlook – with the help of a few friends
Did they have the DRD4 gene? Researchers say those with the gene, linked to novelty-seeking, may have a more liberal outlook on life. Photograph: Rex Features
Ever wondered why you have a hankering to drive a Prius and drink lattes? Or why you read the Guardian and scrupulously put it in the recycling? There might be a gene for that – with a little help from your friends.
Researchers at the University of California and Harvard University have identified a specific gene variant that they say predisposes those carrying it to liberal political ideology – with the findings quickly seized on by the US media as uncovering "the liberal gene".
Simply having the gene – a variant of a dopamine receptor known as DRD4, linked to novelty-seeking – is not enough by itself to make someone a liberal, according to the article in the latest issue of the Journal of Politics, published by Cambridge University Press. The study found that adults with the gene were more liberal depending on how wide their circle of friends was while they were growing up.
"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 researchers state. They found that the correlation held true independently of gender, age or ethnic and cultural background.
According to the study: "Ten friends can move a person with two copies of [the gene variant] 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal."
The research, led by James Fowler of the University of California's San Diego campus, suggested that those with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' views, exposing them to a wider variety of lifestyles and beliefs and making them more liberal as a result.
"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience," said Fowler, a professor of political science and medical genetics best known for his work on social networks with Nicholas Christakis of Harvard, who worked on this study.
The authors, however, say their findings should be "treated cautiously" and that more research is needed before hailing a liberal gene. "The expectation in genetics is that only repeated efforts to replicate associations on independent samples by several research teams will verify initial findings like these," they wrote. "Perhaps the most valuable contribution of this study is not to declare that 'a gene was found' for anything, but rather, to provide the first evidence for a possible gene-environment interaction for political ideology."”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (4)
nanute
New York, United StatesKaren Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (18)
at 06:21 on October 31st, 2010
And it is a great propensity we share indeed, Jim!
at 06:26 on October 31st, 2010
Homosapiens overwhelmed Neanderthals and their extra large brains.
at 09:22 on October 31st, 2010
Yankeejim. You are incorrect to label me conservative. I'm just not a unthinking partisan who knee-jerks to the text book liberal agenda, and I have no problem shining a light on the hypocrisy of those who identify themselves as liberals, nor do I have any intention of ever supporting it. If you are going to label me, I suggest you familiarize yourself with classic liberalism. Also I believe one ought to clean up his own political house before dictating to his political neighbors. Quite unlike some who constantly rant and rave, demonizing everything and everyone from the conservative side of the political spectrum.
at 11:42 on October 31st, 2010
It would seem, tas (not verified), you're unaware of or don't read any of your rants and raves, which would be of the precise character of which you have attempted to label comments offered by those said to be liberal, well, truly, most definitely, if they do NOT appear to be conservative in their thinking or beliefs.
at 15:16 on October 31st, 2010
Guilty conscience. KH. I don't rant and rave, I show with examples that the ideology of exceptionalism which you and others preach in regards to your partisanship is a fallacy. A true liberal has an open mind. One capable of, and willing to see the others point of view. I don't belittle and ridicule Republicans in a pretentious attempt at self-glorification. I dispute policy. I don't care if it was Bush policy, is Obama policy, or the next politician in line. I do go after hypocrites, and the self-appointed progressives who are anything but progressive, when they attempt to paint the whole by the actions of a minority. Then again, I don't view the Tea Party as any kind of a threat, or think the Tea Party needs to be expunged from social-political participation as you and others write. For every Sarah Palin on that side there is a character of mirror image among the liberals. I don't run from that fact or omit it from the discussion. I point it out to refute the divisiveness you and others create with your partisan driven rancor. Conservatism is a necessary for Liberalism to flourish and vice versa. It's the political ying and yang. Gemini. The twins. Versatility. Thus ends my rant. :-) Trick or treat?
at 11:14 on November 1st, 2010
tas (not verified), I view the TEA Party for exactly what it is, the most extreme Right Wing expression of the Republican Party, whose origins may have began as an attempt to articulate disaffection with a system which, those first inclined or attracted to the TEA Party, did not believe represented their interests.
Once the Republican Party recognized the energy being generated BY this element of its party, those best suited to 'organize' the sentiment and co-opt its energy for their own purposes, that being the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and all the others seeking to repel any government influence that would stifle their desire for making money at the expense of safety or any form of regulation, they began throwing their money at the movement that THEY created, coordinating the astro turf movement, which is not a real movement when it represents the EXTREME RIGHT WING EXPRESSION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Think about it. The main selling point for the TEA Party was 'we're not organized', period. Who helped organize the TEA Party? Its parent organization's functionaries, those affiliated with the Republican Party.
I have never stated the TEA Party needed to be expunged. Evidently, those are YOUR thoughts.
I stated that as long as the TEA Party attracts some of the xenophobic, hate based elements it does, it will never grow into a viable entity which it truly will not do anyway as it IS the most extreme Right Wing expression of the Republican Party.
It will, as YankeeJim, predicts, be re-absorbed into the Republican Party.
As far as some reverse mirror image with a so called Liberal speaker to be a sort of antithetical image of Sarah Palin, I know of no liberal female that relishes being ignorant of facts, while doing very bad linguistic gymnastics, seemingly, in the hopes no one will notice what she doesn't know.
No matter how charismatic she may appear to be, she seems to believe she doesn't need to know things, like Africa is a continent, what the Bush doctrine is etc., which is way too scary to think of as a criterion for someone who it is speculated may be running for President of the United States.
So, we go from a continuing criticism of President Obama for being too professorial to actually discussing the possibility of someone who writes cheat sheet notes on her hand as a viable candidate.
No, using a teleprompter for reading a prepared speech is not the same as reading crib notes meant to answer and address questions during an interview.
at 17:05 on October 31st, 2010
Only you know what you are. Generalizing and classifying people can be very dangerous and inaccurate, can't it?
at 21:54 on October 31st, 2010
Do you know what you are? I'm the guy standing between identical twins. The children of politics, Left meet Right. I'm the guy holding a mirror. Each time I face one of the children, the children point to the image in the mirror and angrily shout, "That's not us. That's them." Each hoping that their singular interpretation will dominate the lives of the other.
at 06:14 on November 1st, 2010
When you look at the picture with this story, do you see an angel or a rubber chicken?
at 16:38 on November 1st, 2010
When I look at the picture with this story I see the stylized interpretation of what an angel might look like according to the artist. I don't actually see an angel. Now if it was a picture of a rubber chicken, having seen rubber chickens, I could the say yes, that's a picture of a rubber chicken.
at 08:59 on November 1st, 2010
Your inability to distinguish the succinct distinctions and differences regarding 'images' you perceive to see, tas (not verified), could be due to a reflective distortion caused by the alleged 'mirror' you are using or a previously undiagnosed eye problem.
at 16:02 on November 1st, 2010
Spoken like a true partisan KH. I would expect nothing more from you. You represent one of the extremes. When I show that the behavior of the extreme left is no different than the behavior of the extreme right, you knee-jerk out some lame defensive argument of exceptionalism. Just like the extreme right, you hold that it must be a fault in perception that keeps the majority from joining your righteous cause. It is never a fault in perception that lies at the root of the extremes.
at 20:49 on November 1st, 2010
Strenuous denials of failing vision are what I'd expect from you, tas (not verified).
You stated:
"For every Sarah Palin on that side there is a character of mirror image among the liberals."
Who might that be among liberals?
The extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party, the TEA Party and its organizers, have been harboring neo Nazis and nativist/supremacists groups within their ranks, allowing them to speak at rallies, as they all seek to reclaim 'their' America.
Source: alternet.org
It's likely there might be nativist/supremacists to found on the liberal side of the equation but, they are not front and center, fomenting their racially charged and bigoted rhetoric at rallies.
What neo Nazis or nativist/supremacists groups are found among liberals openly organizing?
There are distinct differences among the opposing sides at this point in time.
There is not a proportional equivalence between the two positions.
In this case of left versus right, as you put it, there's only one Sarah Palin, thank heavens and she's found on the Right. The hate mongers are found, openly advocating, on one side only.
As I've said before, tas (not verified), the warped reverse logic that attempts to label reactionary or racist those pointing out reactionary racists is bizarre.
You have not succeeded in showing anything.
at 22:51 on November 1st, 2010
"For every Sarah Palin on that side there is a character of mirror image among the liberals." Who might that be among liberals? JOE BIDEN. The V.P. of the U.S.A. Speaker of the United States House of Representatives NANCY PELOSI. Just to name two. Both have a list of comments equal to Sarah Palin. The key difference being Biden and Pelosi have high positions with in government. Sarah Palin does not have their position or responsibility to the people. The hate-mongers are found on both extremes. You just support, justify and perpetuate the hate coming from the left. You're not pointing out anything, you're casting labels onto individuals in order to brand everyone involved as such. You obviously don't know what the word nativist means or you wouldn't be lumping it in with NAZI and supremacist groups. A great many liberals are nativists. Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers are two supremacy/ hate groups on the Southern Poverty Laws list, actively involved in liberal politics. I'm sure you have an excuse for these examples and are quite willing to justify the behavior.
at 08:44 on November 2nd, 2010
None of the individuals you've named, tas (not verified), are as uninformed as Sarah Palin, which was the criterion I set for comparison.
No one among the liberal crowd who acts as spokespersons for their party, namely the Democratic Party, on the NATIONAL scene, is as clueless as Sarah Palin.
It would seem you're ability to logically assess information is the most challenging factor that prevents you, tas (not verified), from understanding comments and positions when you engage with others.
To that point, the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers, whom you identify as being involved in liberal politics, a point I would dispute by the way, but, putting that aside, those groups you've named have NEVER been a part of organized Democratic Party functions, which was the criterion I set regarding the involvement of neo Nazis and nativist/supremacists.
TEA Party events, made up of folks said to be Sarah Palin's people, have had neo Nazis and nativist/supremacists organize for TEA Party events and speak at their events.
Equivalence of involvement, like taking the platform and speaking at Democratic Party events AS representatives or as part OF the Democratic Party machine, is NOT found, with neither the New Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam hosting Democratic Party events or any of its membership giving keynote addresses at Democratic Party events.
The individuals and groups that you have named here are not viable examples given the track record of the Republican Party's offspring, the TEA Party, and its embrace of the bigoted individuals and groups that have been documented to be among their ranks, also acting as AS MAJOR PARTICIPANTS in TEA Party events, with the TEA Party being the most extreme Right Wing representation/manifestation of the Republican Party.
at 11:00 on November 2nd, 2010
[ "None of the individuals you've named, tas (not verified), are as uninformed as Sarah Palin, which was the criterion I set for comparison." ] That is a positional argument not a factual argument. Though I wouldn't expect Palin to be as informed as Biden or Pelosi. She doesn't hold their office nor have the briefing advantages that come with such high office. You're ability to logically assess information is the most challenging factor that prevents you, KH, from understanding comments and positions when you engage with others. You constantly hold Republicans to a standard that Democrats themselves have proven they can not successfully uphold. Then circularly argue that, whomever is your target de jour, is more worth demonizing or belittling. The left don't need a Tea Party. They have the millions of labor union dollars and associated advocacy groups represented inside the Democratic Party. They have that wealth and political means to influence government directly. And they do. Especially the SEIU and UFW. Who use the union "collective dollar" and "collective voting" to elect Democratic representation. The Tea Party is in no way as influential in regards to Republican influence as is the trade and labor unions power over the Democratic agenda and policy making. Tomorrow we will see just how successful those demon Tea Party'ers are in electing those evil Republicans. And how effective the union "collective dollar" and "collective vote" is in electing the, um, morally and ethically superior Democratic representative.
at 11:20 on November 2nd, 2010
Utter nonsense.
As usual, tas (not verified), you have lost focus of the discussion points.
at 01:29 on November 2nd, 2010
"A man sees what he wants to see, and he disregards the rest..." The Boxer.
I once knew a man who suffered from a case of opticalrectalitis: He had a shitty outlook on life.