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."

Comments

Whew... So there is hope for a cure?

[Palestrina]

We're better off if we can encourage rationality rather than a predisposed propensity toward any specific political views.

Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure?

[Third Position]

Who says that rationality isn't the trait that the gene expresses, and the political view is simply an inevitable consequence of that?

I don't know who says it isn't. But I do know only a liberal would say that it is.

Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure?

[mayberry42]

Who gets to define "intelligence?"

The (liberal), scientists, of course.

Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure?

[commodore64_love]

>>>elect a lot of it and wait a few years for the electorate to "cure" themselves.

If you listen to people like Alex Jones, that's exactly what the "liberals" want - to setup the system for collapse so they can abolish the Constitution and create a new one (modeled after the EU's Lisbon Treaty). Is that the cure you were talking about? I'm a bit confused about your point, so a clarification would be appreciated. Thanks :-)

Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure?

[commodore64_love]

"Conservatives more liberal givers"
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposal
>>>>>

A similar study in 2000 reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately if science studies had slashdot moderation, it and the scientists that generated the report would probably be modded (-1 Troll). Or else have their funds removed by the government. Science only works if people are willing to accept the results of the studies, and most do not. They have preconceived notions and experience cognitive dissonance in their brains, so they lash out.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

there is a cure for it

[FudRucker]

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."

Re:Where's the gene that makes people believe

[ShakaUVM]

>>If 65% of the American Public believed Glen Beck, they'd have started a civil war by now.

Because he called for a civil war? Or are you just repeating what you think he said? I'm curious why you believe that, other than typical DRD4 soft-headedness.

He's pretty much opposed to violent overthrows of anything (except the British Empire, I guess). Beck that that if Broden's comments were in context, he'd "campaign against him", even though he knew the guy.

This is why it's important to read both left-wing and right-wing news, case in point.

Re:And who gets to define "liberal?"

[pagedout]

To equate a Liberal Brainwashing with being Liberal is a stretch. There are many of us who are able to weather the experience with some level of grace.

To equate increased welfare with decreased crime is as far as I can tell just not a realistic assertion. This is especially if you are talking about clasic no strings attached welfare.

Forcing Welfare Receipients To Work Decreases Crime - Danish
http://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1236.html

Welfare Promotes Single Parent Families Which Promots Crime - USA
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-effects-of-welfare-reform
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Previous studies have pointed to the gene being related to impulsivity, a lack of thinking though the consequence of your actions. I think you have a much better chance of finding the roots of modern liberalism there...

Re:And who gets to define "liberal?"

[daem0n1x]

Quoting the Heritage Foundation on social issues is like quoting Mein Kampf on Anthropology.

Welfare Promotes Single Parent Families Which Promots Crime - USA

If bullshit like this was true, Europe would have massive crime rates and the US would be a crime-free paradise.

Re:Oh, just great

[CAIMLAS]

Hitler was a liberal? Yeah, he did confiscate guns, but nothing characterizes Nazism better than extreme nationalism, a conservative trait.

Uh, what? Nationalism isn't a conservative trait. It's a German predisposition, sure. But if you typify nationalism as the marker for conservativism, then many of the world's decidedly Marxist regimes are conservative: Communist China, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and so on.

That's just stupid, and quite intellectually dishonest on your part: there is no fucking way the Nazi party was 'conservative':

* It took corporations from those who did not agree, politically
* It was a new party which foisted new ideals upon the German people
* They came to power promising liberal social change and were called the National Socialists. Hello!
* It instigated many, many social change programs - not just gun control. Familiar with their eugenics programs?
* "The people" were a central focus. Everything was done "for the people". Volk, proletariat -whatever you want to call it: that's Marxist.

The nationalism of Nazi Germany was, at best, an outcrop of pure totalitarianism. But nationalism is, historically, something associated with liberalism, not conservativism. (America's expansionist wars have been quite liberal due to the overlying scope - progress. Again, see Nazi Germany for a point of reference here.)