Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene'
An anonymous reader writes "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."
Now "they" will be able to make a drug to counter-act the receptor and cure liberalness. Just what we need, a pharmacated electorate.
We're better off if we can encourage rationality rather than a predisposed propensity toward any specific political views.
Liberalism is a socially transmitted disease?
in the bat-sh*t crazy Glen Becks of the world?
That's got to be deserving of enough research to find a cure. (As best we can tell, about 25% of American people are afflicted.)
So all I have to do is have this gene ripped out of my DNA and I can think clearly like a proper conservative? I was getting tired of caring about human rights and freedom.
So conservatives don't have any friends?
Here is your liberal gene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel
What's wrong with calling it the 'Conservative Gene'? I'm sure it would have been if it had been discovered anywhere between 2 and 10 years ago.
...our New Political Overlords can "therapize" us into the correct ideology? Medicalize a differing viewpoint, and treat the opposition out of existence from kindergarten. Attention Deficit Republican Disorder, anyone? Or get vaccinated against Democratism.
As we know, there are only two political viewpoints: right and wrong or, depending on your genetics, left and wrong.
The reason that I'm going to call bullshit on this is that empirically "lefties" tend to become "righties" through age or experience. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Liberals have the gene and Conservatives don't? I knew they were missing something.
If its a genetic trait, shouldn't that make liberals as a group a race minority or something? Thus the same race protection Laws should apply, right? It makes that stomping incident a hate crime! And as long as there isn't a "conservative gene" as well, then it makes the Republicans a Supremacy group! See where this is going...?
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
CHANGE
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.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Or does it seem like the latest trend is to find a genetic cause for everything - the Nature vs Nurture pendulum is swinging back to Nature in the popular press?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
So researchers found that lacking a particular gene screws up brain chemistry causing unwillingness to learn about and evaluate political views other than those held by their local religious authority, which eventually leads to conservatism. Wouldn't be the first disease caused by this sort of thing, but this seems to be particularly harmful and widespread (at least in my country).
This suggests that a conservative gene exists. If so, how do we identify it and remove it entirely?
You may not have the liberal gene, but you sure have paranoid schizophrenia.
If we add this to the blood test that many states require for a marriage license maybe we could eliminate all those husband and wife pairs who cancel out each others' votes.
"Liberal" as in all men want to be free to choose their own path?
Or did you mean "Liberal" as in everyone else should pay for my well-being?
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
Man, they are just plain stupid.
I'm sorry, but if we were all going to stop caring about civil liberties and human rights the first time we ran into an asshole, we'd have stopped being liberals the first time we met a conservative. What I find far more likely from your "age or experience" qualification is that some liberals get a degree of success in life, or get old enough to have accumulated some wealth, and they begin covering their own asses. This is alternately called human nature or selling out, depending on whether you're the one doing it or not. Also add in the fact that older people tend to become less zealous about their ideology. Consider phrases like, "Not as young as I used to be," or "too old to fight."
Anyway, you and I both know this research is bullshit, so let's all get our jokes in. These pukes needed a splashy tag line so they could justify their funding, and they came up with "the liberal gene." This gene doesn't determine your political views any more than one gene determines whether or not you'll be smart. We're not even sure if there's a "gay" gene, and now these guys are so sure they've found a "supports gay marriage" gene? This stuff cheapens science.
--Obyron
This gene would be perfect to incorporate in my new retrovirus.
What's "Liberal"?
What about moderates? Do they only have a "Liberal" gene from one parent?
I mean come on, this "study" reeks.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
ABT-724 is a drug which acts as a dopamine agonist, and is selective for the D4 subtype. It was developed as a possible drug for the treatment of erectile dysfunction
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Now we know which defect causes liberalism. When will we discover the defect that causes conservatism? It'd be great to find a cure for both.
Now you just leave a semen sample on the ballot, I for one look forward to voting now!
I aim to misbehave.
Medicalize...sounds like a bush word. They've already gotten to you!
A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, and she never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?" She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA and never studied. She was very popular on campus and went to parties all the time. She often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and have 1.0 taken off her 4.0 and give it to her friend with the 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing."
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Conservativism is a mental illness.
Didn't RTFA, but based on summary it seems, that a specific allele of this gene predisposes people to liberal views. Thus also conservative "allele" has been found since lack of this liberal allele obviously predisposes people to non liberal ways. Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that political views "locus" has been found?
The SSRI:s also took away my fear and care for consequences (maybe they weren't a perfect fit for me?), so I'd often go into 7-11 to steal stacks of ready made meals that I distributed to homeless drug addicts.
The funny thing is that if those homeless were addicted to the same SSRI:s that made you steal it would create a positive-feedback system...
Seriously, maybe your "liberal" thoughts weren't too precise to begin with. Perhaps the solution to homelessness caused by drug addiction should be to cure the addiction instead of feeding the homeless.
To cure the addiction, the "conservative" way would be to punish drug addicts enough that no one would dare to try to use drugs. The "scientific" way would be to find what happens inside the brain that causes some people to become addicted to drugs.
I will be willing to bet your next paycheck that the same folks who will now exclaim, "See! It's in their genes! I told you there was something wrong with liberals!" will be the same people who will deny there is a gay gene (or genes).
It's always funny to see people who deny that people are the way they are because of their genes, yet when it is shown that a person has a predisposition to something because of their genes, then it's suddenly science proving them right.
Flame away.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Or just you?
See, I'm not sure that posting narrow-minded, borderline-violent comments on a popular tech message board like Slashdot and providing a link to your employer's homepage is regarded as one of the "Marketing Best Practices" at Harvard Business School.
I could be wrong, though...
There's a lot of genes. What are the chances of finding a gene that happens to match the political views of those tested given a sample size?
So all I have to do is have this gene ripped out of my DNA and I can think clearly like a proper conservative?
Gene's don't get "ripped out" you would have to hope they are able to develop a gene therapy treatment. Also, I'm no biologist but I think that's only good for gene insertion not deletion and on top of that I believe they have to develop a specific way to do each gene if they can.
But, come on, this discovery could be used for bad by either crazy extreme. What if extremely liberal parents got samples during the first trimester from the embryo/fetus to check if it has the gene and abort it if it doesn't? What if they use gene therapy to have the gene added to their children via a virus vector? What if super crazy liberals created a virus that did this and tried to create a cold or flu epidemic that also left you a little less conservative?
I'm a moderate liberal in my views but I'm not ignorant to just how crazy either side can get. I think this gene research is interesting and I hope that ethical guidelines and standards are established so that in the future when genes related to Alzheimer's and schizophrenia are found, they can be classified as "okay" to treat while genes related to things like political affiliation or personality are protected and left intact.
My work here is dung.
First off, since when did politics enter the world of science? Yaayaya.. yadda yadda ..'Poly Sci 101' .. which revealed to be merely 'applied statistics and a how-to manipulate voting' .. Science? i think not!
Now, a meatier thing: just how did the manage the 'controls' in this pseudo-experiment? Off hand, i'd say its impossible to do so .
but then, statisticians have come up with wilder ideas ... Wasnt the 'bumblebee cant fly' one of their concoctions?
and where is the impetus for discovering the Conservative gene ??? Is it next to the Hitler telomere?
How about the 'Trickle-down Theory of Taxation'?? I'm sure the stats guys were part of THAT fiction! .. how about the 'economics of the Iraqi war???? The Pentagon surely had a company of gold-encrusted epulette-wearing upper echelon math-types who proved to Bush that 'it'll pay for itself'!!
Shall we continue??
I'm waiting for that first check written to the American people!
If you're asking for a cure, you already are leaning towards a particular view. Your statement of a "cure" is just you stating that you feel people of a particular persuasion need to be "fixed".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
At the fertility clinic:
Mom: Damn it!! thats the third democrat. Whatch your aiming!
The gene in question does not "make someone liberal". It is a gene that promotes novelty seeking, and leads to many wide ranging friendships in adolescence, resulting in exposure to many points of view, and this predisposes one to be liberal as an adult (this is all in the TA).
Without the 'wide ranging friendships in adolescence' there is no effect. It is the life experience of being open to other points of view, the additional knowledge gained, that makes you more likely to be liberal.
For the conservatives here crowing nonsense about "curing liberalism", perhaps the fact that absence of this gene promotes the opposite - fewer friends and ignorance of other points of view - should make one be less enthused with this finding. Unless, of course "closed mindedness" is considered a conservative virtue.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Not really, it could just mean that conservatives who had friends as adolescents are genetically defective ;-)
Invasion of the Policy Snatchers.
Or was it just a dream?
I'm sorry, but if we were all going to stop caring about civil liberties and human rights the first time we ran into an asshole, we'd have stopped being liberals the first time we met a conservative.
So how long did it take for the Liberals to convince you that only they care about civil liberties and human rights?
"His name was James Damore."
I find your premise that conservatives don't care about civil liberties or human rights -- that only liberals care about such things -- laughably pathetic and ill-informed.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I seem to recall hearing of a certain young republican who went to an Ivy League school and partied through his undergraduate on his father's dime (and reputation). He pulled pretty lackluster grades, really nothing to be proud of at all considering he wasn't working at the time and had nothing else that he needed to do beyond school. He then went to another Ivy League school afterwards for an MBA, also on his father's dime and reputation. He was known for using drugs and alcohol during those times as well, and didn't get particularly good grades as an MBA student either.
He then attempted to run a few businesses, with some assistance from his dad at getting in to those businesses. Most of those, he ran into the ground (including a petroleum company in a petroleum-rich state when petroleum was only continuing to gain in value).
So what ever happened to this young republican? He decided to follow his dad into politics. There he also couldn't get far without his dad's help; eventually being appointed president of the united states by some of his dad's close friends.
Don't tell us republicans don't get hand-outs.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I have to wonder if the 'liberal gene' isn't also something along the lines of a 'empathy gene.' I don't mean this purely in the virtuous sense. Empathy can be paralyzing and, if taken to extremes, make for some pretty bad law. The caricatures of the effete liberal too afraid to hurt someone's creativity or wound someone's feelings are all tied to an excess of empathy. Conservatives seem to think that people who are bad off just deserved it. Well, unless it's *them,* in which case the liberals killed their inner John Galt.
"people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults, but only if they had an active social life in adolescence."
In other words, they had friends and fun times growing up which leads them to be adventurous and outgoing.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I would like to point out that this research didn`t find a causality. To do that one would have to get 2000 new borns, turn that gene on for half and off for the other half. Watch them for 50ish years and them come to that conclusion. So, what we have here is a correlation. It doesn`t exclude other types of root causes like: you will very likely have political views similar to your parent`s. Of course this is not the issue here, but unless a causality is determined the research didn`t rule the rest out.
So conservatives are just frightened bully victims? Maybe that explains a bit. The people who are liberal and have the gene had friends in adolescence which may have protected them from bullies.
Does that mean your DNA makeup changes if you manage to switch policical allegiance?
That ough to have interesting implications on using DNA to "identify" people.
The problem with the word "liberal" is that it can be used for any position in the political spectrum.
To some people, a "liberal" is someone who believes the government should take care of people who have been left behind someway in the economic process, the unemployed, the homeless, those who are at a disadvantage in some way. Under that point of view, Cuba should be considered one of the most "liberal" regimes in the world.
To other people, a "liberal" is someone who believes in liberty, in letting everyone do their own thing, in a minimalist government.
So you're saying there's a gene that makes people realize that it's better to try to solve problems before they occur, that makes you realize things can change, and that "look out for number one" isn't a policy that gets us very far as a species? So, basically it's the same as the gene for intelligence.
Figures the for the liberal gene would be tied to something dopey!!! :D
8 years.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
There are two variants of the DRD4 gene. If one variant correlates with liberalism and the other correlates with conservatism, why does TFA describe it as a "liberal" gene? The phrasing makes liberalism sound like the aberrant state. I suppose if they called it "a gene that influences political alignment," fewer of us would have clicked on the link. I wonder if what we're really witnessing is the superior fitness of the "liberal gene" meme relative to the "conservative gene" variant.
I just hope she pays attention to her new party. They actually support quite a few wealth-redistribution programs, such as social security, farm subsidies, medicare, the Retiree Drug Subsidy, etc. Compared to the Libertarians, the Republicans are basically socialists.
If there is a gene predisposing one toward a liberal view, then the lack of this gene leads one the other way? Seems like the headline should really have read:
Genetic Defect Found To Be The Cause of Conservative Politics
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Thatis amazing considering I used to be as conservative as you can be. Twenty years of being an adult and facing real world experience and becoming a Christian after growing up atheist has turned me into a social liberal though I am still as fiscally conservative as ever.
Somehow I am doubting it is as simple as a gene
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
A study a couple of years ago noted a tie between a strong startle response and conservatism.
Still waiting to see a 'Fearful by nature, conservative by choice' tee shirt.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
But how does Jesus fit into this?
>The reason that I'm going to call bullshit on this is that empirically "lefties" tend to become "righties" through age or experience. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
[citation needed]
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
The democrats and republicans have dominated the last century of US political history together. Neither has dominated completely; they have shared in the power more or less equally. Second, the US government today absolutely dwarfs the US government of 100 years ago, both in spending and power over the people. If one of the two parties was apt to protect freedom, or limit government spending, and the other was the opposite, then logically they would have more or less canceled each other's agenda out. But clearly, that is not the case, given that we are now living under the control of the most powerful, most expensive government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed.
In conclusion, neither the democrats (the "liberals") nor the rebublicans (the "conservatives") value individual liberty, given the fact that both have shared in the destruction of your individual liberty. Moreover, we can conclude that both the democrats and the republicans are primarily concerned with expanding the business of government, both in power and revenue, as proven by both parties' track records of doing basically nothing but.
Now that I'm older and more experienced, I find that I now have responsibilities. I married, and began to understand insurance. When I purchased a house, I began to learn about mortgages, and when I started raising my kids, values became relevant. I was a liberal until I began to understand it was my money at stake, and my money is what I use to provide for my family... and distribute to charities as I see fit.
The fact that there is a gene that can create a liberal also means that the lack of the gene creates is a genetic component to not be liberal as well.
There was a similar study of identical twins that were separated at birth and what party they identified with. Their conclusions that there was about a 1/3 genetic component, 1/3 upbringing and 1/3 free will.
The conclusion that we can draw from this is that neither the left nor the right will ever be able to create the Utopian worlds that they dream of.
As someone who has strong libertarian tendencies, I am offended when the left tells me that they are protecting my freedoms. What if I don't want to participate in their (semi) socialized medicine scheme or the fully socialized one they tried to pass? If I don't play, I'll go to jail. (If I refuse to pay the "penalty" for not participating as well.) Of course, the Republicans have their own set of problems as well so both parties sit there protecting the rights that they care about and tromping on the rights that they don't. With approximately 1/2 of the country left and right, power will vacillate back and forth and no Utopian dream can ever be implemented or participated in fully.
Personally, I would be perfectly happy to see the focus be on true freedom. This is the only way _both_ parties can create their own Utopian vision. Then the people who want to participate in one vision or another can. For example, there is nothing stopping those on the left from creating their own socialized medicine program. People could then join it on their own volition. It could be enforced by contract rather than by law. If a socialized medicine system can not work with voluntary participation, it will never work with forced participation. Those who don't want to participate (such as myself) will always find creative ways to sabotage things.
So don't tell me that ever time the left or the right implements a program that I am forced to participate in they are protecting my freedoms. When you see a program coming down the pipeline, just ask yourself: "What about the freedoms of those who don't share your world view and choose to not participate?" True freedom is allowing people with whom you disagree to do things you disagree with. If you don't honor that, you have no right to expect those with whom you disagree to be concerned with the freedoms you care about.
There are 3 perfectly reasonable explanations for why older people tend to be more conservative and younger people tend to be more liberal that have nothing to do with acquiring knowledge and experience.
The first is economic. Conservatism generally benefits people who have high wealth and income (with lower taxes and strong police protection of wealth). Liberalism generally benefits people who have low wealth and income (with social welfare programs and regulatory protection from unfair contracts). Over the course of a middle-class person's adult life, they tend to start out rather poor in their 20's, and by their 50's have accumulated some wealth and command a pretty high salary. Slowly but surely the policies that were benefiting them in their 20's become a burden in their 50's.
The second is an effect of aging. Conservatism usually presents fantasies of a glorious past, while liberalism presents fantasies of a glorious future. If the prime of your life (when you were earning a good wage, sleeping with beautiful partners, physically capable, etc) was in 1955, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 1955. If the prime of your life will be in 2025, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 2025.
The third is cultural. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1950's, for instance, spent their formative years in an environment where the KKK was a fairly normal part of life. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1990's spent their formative years wanting to be like Mike. It's no surprise that people growing up in those different environments would have very different attitudes regarding race relations. Racism or lack thereof leads to dramatically different conclusions about what should be done about urban poverty (e.g. "welfare queens").
I am officially gone from
The reason that I'm going to call bullshit on this is that empirically "lefties" tend to become "righties" through age or experience. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
My experience is just the opposite. I was a libertarian through my 20's, when I (like most immature guys) thought I was John Galt and Zarathustra all rolled into one. And I *have* been mugged, as have many lefties. We're just aware of the seemingly obvious fact that voting Republican won't prevent you from getting mugged again. Like the myth that Republicans are better at national security, this is just so much self-congratulatory BS on the part of right-wingers.
By matching genetic information with maps of the subjects' social networks, the researchers were able to show that people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults, but only if they had an active social life in adolescence.
So... people with this variant are more likely to enjoy drugs, and of those who do ("active social life"... I'm including alcohol) tend to be liberal?
Only collective social action can insure against unemployment, so that everyone (not just x%) can continue feeding their family, regardless of what happens on Wall Street or in China...
Of course I realize this doesn't work. If you cannot threaten to starve a man's children, you cannot force him to husk corn. And a nation that cannot force anyone to husk corn cannot compete against China. I fully realize this.
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
That's funny, I thought a "liberal" was whoever the Republicans didn't like at the moment. Sort of how after 8 years of being conservative Bush suddenly became "liberal" because it was politically expedient for the Republicans to get away from him. Did Bush go and get un-mugged somehow?
The problem is that basically none of the Republican party is conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Remember that "elite base," all those executives vying for a piece of the government pie? Big Business is nothing without the power of government to keep competitors down and to save them from their own mistakes. Or the God Vote, all of whom are very very disappointed in people who use their freedoms in ways they don't like, like smoking porn or looking at drugs in the privacy of their own home.
Don't worry though, the God Vote will do it's damnedest to remove Clarence Thomas from the court so Obama can appoint another justice in time to save his health care bill. The liberals will win every time, because everyone is a liberal.
If it's not a recessive gene, then my conservative parents may have a difficult conversation ahead of them.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
after reading the title, that is exactly what i was hoping for.
Awesome, let's make everyone exactly the same! I, for one, welcome our new heterosexual, uniform-skin-toned, drugs-and-alcohol-hating, women-should-be-in the-home-not-working, lets-pretend-the-world-never-changes population! </sarcasm>
Actually, it seems you should've read the article:
people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average
So, according to the hypothesis, liberals seek out novelty and challenges, have more friends, and gain more life experience. Those are generally acknowledged as positive traits - maybe the true genetic flaw is in those who lack a copy of this specific gene variant? Anyway, interesting to see this follow on from similar news in 2008.
Only collective social action can insure against unemployment, so that everyone (not just x%) can continue feeding their family, regardless of what happens on Wall Street or in China...
Of course I realize this doesn't work. If you cannot threaten to starve a man's children, you cannot force him to husk corn. And a nation that cannot force anyone to husk corn cannot compete against China. I fully realize this.
Presumably neocons have their own gene too.
Collective social action is not the purpose of a government. That's a function of neighbors, family and friends in a community.
I find your ideology internally inconsistent. You and it will be destroyed.
People, people, hear me out. The article about liberals and atheists states that : intelligent people on average exhibit trends in their characters which are not evolutionary determined and/or enhanced.
Anything here about US congress? About Obama? Big/small government? NO. Read below, I hope I can make my point clear:
Grossly exaggerated support example: Conservative cares about himself and his family. Very normal and understandable attitude, in line with evolution. Attention: in line with evolution so far - tribal life and early civilization! Conditions have changed - mature, technologically advanced, immensely powerful civilization is something quite different. If there is any meaningful criteria for "success" in Nature it is the ability to react accordingly to changing environment.
Liberal can think for the whole species, the whole community of life, sometimes disregarding personal and family gain. It's pretty abstract to care about billions people to whom you have no genetic connection whatsoever (extra point: studies also show that it is usually childless people who overly care for others - they do not have to conform with the status quo to get their genes procreated since they have elected not to procreate .Thus they are freer of constrains to put their lives in danger or inconvenience, which is always what you get for being truly forward-thinking or trying to change the status quo.)
OK, so liberals are dead-end in evolution, right? Less children, no moral support via some belief in some god, caring for everyone.....No again.
I would argue that at this stage of the development of civilization our biggest problems are problems for all of us. Not for capitalists/liberals/communist/blablabla only. Not for black/white/red/yellow people only. Everyone. The conditions have changed and absolutely logically the MINORITY of the people are in line with the new trends and feel the change of the wind. It is always like that. A new evolutionary trend both in physiology and behavior always starts from somewhere, thus it's abnormality.
Thus, if we keep on thinking only about ourselves (meaning me and my tribe) we will decline/die as a species because collectively we are doing absolutely stupid things with our life support system - the Earth. But on a family level things are OK, aren't they. The car is full with gasoline, there are wages, the kids will go to college. Perfect, right?
The intelligent people (on average) know/feel this and suddenly the evolutionary profitable behavior is to care for something bigger than yourself, because everything and everybody on this planet affects you directly in our age. It is just a fact. And thus, liberals are the next evolutionary step, not an evolutionary dead-end. The death will come if the majority of the people remain selfish conservatives and act like we are still living in tribes....the problem is that when this happens (I am a pessimist) there won't be any liberals around (they would have been killed already) to say "I told you so..."
In the long run either most of us will become "liberals", or we will die. Or there is a stable proportion liberals/conservatives....Evolution - the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth!
Disclaimer: I don't care which organization or person calls themselves liberal. I am not supporting any party/person with this post. Any ideology/program at all. I am not saying that conservatives do not care at all for the rest of society.
I am not saying anything at all apart from: intelligent people exhibit trends in their characters which are not evolutionary determined and/or enhanced (TFA) and my addendum (the conditions are changed in such way that this "abnormal" behavior will be likely rewarded with survival, whereas the old tribal conservatism will be punished with extinction).
Is it only me or is this the most Pendora's box like news I've read in a long while?
What's the names of all those movies out there about society where genes became a day to day factor for choices in live?
We were already afraid of those who would be tempted to choose a son' eyes color... even better now, a son's allegeance!
Happy halloween...
It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single opinion. See, it's the progress of society that moves, it's not people flipflopping. If you thought gays should be able to serve in the military 10 years ago, you were a flaming liberal. In 10 years from now that same flaming liberal position will be the standard position of the establishment, i.e. a conservative position.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And, likewise, 'righties' tend to become 'lefties' through age or experience. A conservative is just a liberal who has not been financially raped, sued, bamboozled, fired, sick, pregnant, poisoned, run over by a rich sucker with a more expensive lawyer than they can afford yet.
--frank[at]unternet.org
In the final analysis, liberals always win. If we didn't, we'd still be living in caves. Always remember that.
I was curious as to what this gene actually did.
This article says it's the 7R variant, which is tends to cause a "novelty seeking" personality type.
Here's the wikipedia article on DRD4
It's probably just a gene that when mutated is embryonic lethal. (bad joke)
it's call the BS gene, and it's going wild right now.
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
HAHAHAHAHA
I've been mugged and have had plenty of contact with with violent street thugs, but I haven't turned conservative. Maybe it's because I got over it and didn't let it scar me for life like a big baby.
But maybe it would be different for someone who grew up in a bubble of privileged, blissful ignorance and had it burst suddenly by a mugger's knife. It would be a much more jarring experience, more like "Dodeedoo mmm Starbucks tastes great HOLY SHIT I'M GETTING MUGGED OHGODOHGODOHGOD HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN TO ME" and less like "Aw fuck I stepped right into this, better keep a level head and get through this in one piece."
Having no proper understanding of why you got mugged and facing the business end of a deadly weapon for the first time probably doesn't help...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The reason that I'm going to call bullshit on this is that empirically "lefties" tend to become "righties" through age or experience. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Until I saw the "mugged" part I thought you were referring to the famous quote that I disagree vehemently with: "If you're conservative when you're young, you have no heart. If you're liberal when you're old, you have no brain".
But, empirically? Has there been research? My seventy nine year old dad was a staunch Republican all his life until about ten or fifteen years ago, when he woke up to the fact that all the benefits he's ever recieved in his life, from the five day work week, the eight hour work day, paid vacations, social security, medicaid, ad infinitim were liberal concepts that were all fought tooth and nail by Republicans.
If you're a conservative who works for a paycheck, in my opinion you're an idiot.
Free Martian Whores!
Oh sure conservatives care about civil liberties and human rights...for law-abiding (whatever the law may be) people of their own country who can afford to secure their own human rights (whatever the cost may be).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
More likely the research itself was valid, but the news articles about it were ignorant bullshit.
Free Martian Whores!
I find your ignoring of the grand-parent's similar statements in a rush to get in a dig, pathetic and telling.
I was a liberal until I began to understand it was my money at stake, and my money is what I use to provide for my family
Jebus, you just made the OPs point for him. An accurate translation of your statement would be "I got mine jack".
Sure is nice to take advantage of all that a functioning society and government has provided you through tax dollars, so that you can become successful and then bitch about taxes, isn't it?
That's wonderful you're supporting gay marriage. Thank you!!
What I find interesting is the social / historical implications of ideology being genetic. Consider this.
People of Belief X are more likely to mate with other people of Belief X (how many people start families with people of radically different ideology?)
People of opposing belief Y reproduce with other Belief Ys.
Over time, this leads to a concentration of genes/ beliefs that drives the two groups further away from one another ideologically.
Likely result? War!
Could this genetic factor have some place in the cycles of war that the human race seems to be stuck in? Could the answer to war lie in cross-breeding? Maybe those feudal kings, tribal leaders and emperors in times gone by weren't so stupid after all, using arranged marriages as a tool for building peace.
Where can I contribute funds for getting Karl Rove some gene therapy?
If you're going to troll with your offtopic rants, you should save your karma and put it in your journal where all eight of your fans can read it and the rest of us won't have to endure it.
Free Martian Whores!
It's a fallacy. Follow that path long enough and you'll consider the conservatives to be extinct.
And it's NOT "more government" vs. "less government", it honestly does matter WHAT the government does. We could get a very small government of ol' boys who control all of the economy with a whim and flick of their pen, or we could get a large bureaucratic government of endless paper-pushers that can't get anything done. Which is "more" and which is "less"? And regardless of of that, I'd call both a very bad idea.
And don't forget the vacuum. You take away or lessen government and you're only creating a void that something else will fill. True anarchy has an extremely short shelf-life. But usually it's some corporation that would take over. The perfect example being the deregulation of the power industry, and the rise and fall of Enron.
Did the researchers avoid making the mistake of the "chopstick gene"?
There's a gene that determines how good you are with chopsticks. It's otherwise known as the blue-eye gene...
Found: gene that causes belief in genetic determinism.
I'm sorry, but if we were all going to stop caring about civil liberties and human rights the first time we ran into an asshole, we'd have stopped being liberals the first time we met a conservative.
I am so sick of the ridiculous associations that get thrown around by all sides when politics come up. Yes, clearly all conservatives want no rights so that we can enslave and torture everyone. If that last statement doesn't sound ridiculous to you then god help our country because there's no hope left. We don't even have a clear definition of conservative and liberal, going with the most commonly used definitions neither party in power really fits nicely into being conservative or being liberal yet people throw around overblown stereotypes based on the Republican party for conservatives and equally overblown stereotypes based on the Democratic party for liberals.
Go ahead and flame me now, I'm sure I pissed off someone.
Who gets to define "intelligence?"
You work your ass off, paying exorbitant taxes.
I sit on my ass all day long, either feigning some kind of disability or underprivileged status so I can collect lots of checks from the government.
I have satellite big screen TV, iPhones for myself, my live-in girlfriend, and all 7 of our kids. I have both a brand new Escalade and a Navigator in the driveway, equipped with 26" spinners.
I don't have to work a lick for all this, thanks to your hard work.
Now who gots the intelligence?
I can believe there might be a gene that makes people more accepting of change. I do not believe there is a gene that makes people want big, nanny government.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Let's read that again, so that it's more clear.
Researchers have found a gene which, when lacking in humans, leads them to be far more likely to fall into conservatism.
People without the novelty-seeking gene variant would be less interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition may be more conservative than average.
You do know that is was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?
So how long did it take for the Liberals to convince you that only they care about civil liberties and human rights?
Actually, it was the conservatives that convinced me of that.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
And I just spent all my mod points. *sigh*
First, the whole political spectrum of liberal vs conservative is ridiculous. Very few thinking, rational people fit solely in to one end of the spectrum or the other, most people have a variety of points that they feel describe their political beliefs that come from both sides. When I voted for the first time in a Presidential election, it was for Reagan. At that time I was probably very conservative. And I deeply regret that. I would like less government, a more fiscally conservative government, but at the same time I think there needs to be a safety belt for people who are having problems. There are elements of both liberal and conservative points that I care for, but because of the actions of both major political parties here in the United States, I refuse to be affiliated with either of them.
I freely admit I have not yet read TFA. I suspect the study doesn't account for a person maturing and revising their political opinions as they mature and learn more things and more about life.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Once again the article concludes the opposite of the summary. Ah well.
Pass the popcorn. The flood of ideological self righteousness by those who feel their political views are the One True Path Of Humanity should be entertaining. Let's tune in, shall we?
In the final analysis, liberals always win. If we didn't, we'd still be living in caves. Always remember that.
Bravo, sir! Well played. Took it all the way back to caveman days! (Ford: They're not cavemen. Arthur: They look like cavemen.)
Not every conservative is a close-minded, uneducated religious fanatic.
For shame, sir! You are subverting the philosophical purity of Slashdot with your double-minus ungood think. You are to report to a re-education camp and have your precious bodily fluids cleansed. Questioning the power and benevolence of government and the political classes is a sign of subversion, n'er-do'well leaning and hooliganism.
Look at the development models and you will see some early levels with strong correlation to conservative thinking (everything is black and white, conformist, emphasizing rules and structure), some later levels correlating with liberal thinking (pluralism, concern for minorities, importance of art). At higher levels there is the ability to simultaneously consider multiple perspectives which doesn't make for good partisan thinking. But is great for good decision making.
>Seeing how liberals tend to marry liberals and conservatives tend to marry conservatives; I could see how it might affect the gene pool. Does this mean that the next war between the two sides will be considered a race war?
Here's an idea: bifurcate the United States. Liberals get the west coast except San Diego, conservatives the interior plus the south, and the east coast to liberals.
Run Conservatopia as a hard-core clean, cut, conformist, no hand-outs, no compassion for the down on your luck, no regulation, prayer in schools, etc.
Run Liberaltopia as a hard-core prenatal to old-age social assistance, Keynesian economics, full-on quotas, unicameral government, no states, no God-talk, etc.
Would that solve the perennial liberal-conservative fights? And who would come out ahead?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Do you actually buy into what you're saying?
Do you actually think anybody with a liberal ideology actually is smarter, better, and less likely to repeat their mistakes?
And yet here we are with arguably the most liberal president and congress ever. They are perfectly willing to push more troops into Afghanistan, more money into welfare and health care systems that have pretty much bankrupted every US State that has ever tried them (we Americans are way too unhealthy for it), and do their best to push for laws that give more power to the government and less liberty to the individual, many of which have been discussed right here on slashdot. Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
A quick look around the nation also reveals that the most 'conservative' states also typically have the best economies, standards of living, and no less personal freedoms.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people. At least they look to a future where a person who works harder and smarter can reap the rewards instead of toiling away so those less motivated or capable can live a slightly less mediocre life at their expense.
Having said that, be sure to vote Libertarian. Republicans don't represent the conservative nature of most of America.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
You were born that way.
This. The researchers did not, in fact, call it the liberal gene. They called it the "dopamine receptor D4 gene". The paper is titled "Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology".
But that's excuse enough for the media to turn it into a "liberal gene". It's been transformed by the Science News Cycle.
Oh, and if we're being picky, it's an allele, a particular form of a gene. You could equally call the other alleles of a gene (which predispose you to have fewer friends as a teenager) "Conservative alleles". But that's stupid too.
from the let-the-flame-war-begin dept.
science
politics
Scrameustache writes "Conservatives may owe their political outlook 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. Lead researcher James H. Fowler and his colleagues hypothesized that people with the novelty-avoiding gene variant would be less interested in learning about other points of view."
You can't take the sky from me...
Misleading title based on misguided assumptions just to stir up emotional banter. It succeeded.
This article is yet another example of the media getting science wrong.
And it's great to see that eugenics appeared in the /. comment thread nearly immediately.
I've known this since the '68 campaign.
So, who will control the breeding? I suppose we will continue as we already do, but every time I read a story like this, I want the good guys to be in charge.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
This study is flawed from the start. They make the assumption that liberals are open minded and seek others' opinions. Liberals are every bit as close minded as any other group, and in my experience often more so. The only opinions they seem to seek or care about are opinions that mesh with their world outlook. How much would anyone like to bet that the authors are hardcore liberals and have therefore allowed their bias for like-minded people to taint there conclusions?
The whole reason this article was written is so that people can excuse their political leanings as being caused by something that is out of their control, instead of being formed by education and experience. The end result is that they cover their ears and eyes so that they don't have to participate in thoughtful, thought provoking discussion and debate with the other side. If you do a google on the gene number and the word gene you will see that before this week, the gene was believed responsible for ADHD. Next week they will probably say it is linked to some other behavior. This is just everyday news media rubbish - a waste of time to even read, much less contemplate.
When Jesus comes back he's not coming to take sides, he's coming to take over.
The direct reading of Matthew, chapter ten says that Jesus is coming to take sides.
I notice you don't have any Biblical (or any other) references to cite your position.
Background article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
In Matthew 10:15, Jesus is reported to have said that "in the day of judgment" those places who do not receive him will experience worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is reported to have said, in the same context, that he comes not to bring peace, but a sword, and to split families apart and asunder.
That's if you believe religious works of fiction. I for one am content that I don't.
A more accurate translation would be "I got mine jack... and I will watch your back when I can"
Taxes, as you point out, are necessary to provide a functioning society. We may disagree on which roles the government plays in that. Does education or health care in the US need to be federated? I don't believe so, and I understand the arguments for both sides. The Center for Disease Control is highly relevant in the US, but I recently discovered they are involved in traffic safety studies. I don't mind my money being used by government--it's annoying when it is not being used wisely or for it's intended purpose.
exactly what I was thinking. I wish we were both "misguided" conspiracy nuts..
Wondering why it wasn't "Researchers find a 'conservative gene'" - it's exactly as accurate (they've found genetic dispositions towards your political outlook). Maybe because they know that liberals will say "gee, that's interesting", while conservatives would have torched the lab?
That is the direct reading? Cool, I didn't know you could read Koine Greek and Aramaic.
Yep, I can. You'll note that I didn't refer to a specific translation, opting not to use specific quotes, and "day of judgment" which I did quote, is " " (for some reason slashdot's preview isn't showing the Greek text, but I'll try anyways), which is an uncontroversial translation.
After reading many of the comments on this thread, I have one suggestion to make:
Do not confuse "conservative" with "Conservative", nor "liberal" with "Liberal".
Thank you.
What I'm waiting for is the discovery of the gene for the belief that genes encode characteristics or behaviors, rather than proteins. ;-)
(This has gotta be one of the most egregious of media distortions of scientific results. I wonder why scientists aren't more vocal about the repeated publishing of this sort of idiocy.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Well I postulate it's been found by a Conservative. A Liberal would have highlighted the other variant as a conservative gene.
We already knew that liberals were more highly evolved. This "discovery" highlights a minor detail.
What we really need to discover are the mechanisms this gene uses to express itself.
It clearly boosts intelligence, improves higher-cognitive functions, and grants a person the ability to think rationally.
Why, a drug that mimics the effects of this gene could change the world for the better!
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'm certain the Liberal gene is the same gene that makes you intelligent
A broken dopamine receptor D4 (the same gene TFA is about) also has a tendency to make one less vulnerable to addiction, and especially stress addiction. For an example of how painful a runaway stress-driven dopamine feedback loop can be, look no further than Dilbert.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
You do know that was Southern Democrats who couldn't run as Republicans because they still hated the party of Lincoln almost a century later, right?
Strange how it was that particular thing got most of the south over the one mindset, while still sticking with the other.
we'd have stopped being liberals the first time we met a conservative
I've seen precisely that happen many times. Your point being?
FWIW, I'm a "liberal" (a moderate leftie even, and not on the insane US political scale).
I find your thinking that was my premise to show a marked lack of reading comprehension. It was a dig at conservatives, the same way 90 percent of this thread's comments are a dig at liberals. See the end of my post: let's all get our jokes in, because this article (and the study findings) are garbage.
--Obyron
Troll and Flamebait moderations? Seriously? Editors don't read the articles, and mods don't read the comments...
--Obyron
... the "too-retarded-to-understand-that-correlation-doesn't-imply-causation" gene?
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
If you're actually interested in this subject, I suggest reading the original publication: Friendships Moderate an Association Between the DRD4 Gene and Political Ideology
This is much clearer than the junk news article slashdot is pointing at.
In general, I think it takes some thought to evaluate what the researchers have done here, which means that pretty much every single person who is rushing to talk about it have skipped that annoying process. You can use comments on this topic to screen out people who aren't worth taking seriously.
(Slashdot commenters possess the R2D2 gene, and can't resist making annoying squeaky noises.)
I wonder if this will change their views on abortion.
Does this mean liberals are politically pre-disposed to common sense :-O