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."
Who gets to define "intelligence?"
No dice. Most political differences are a result of disagreement of premises, not conclusions. No amount of formal logic is going to help that.
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
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
Maybe they'll use it to create a gene therapy to cure conservatism instead?
Seriously, it's good to have both sides of the coin, because BOTH sides have made a lot of mistakes. Liberals move us forward to try new things, and keep us from falling into some of the traps conservatives seem to favor, and have a flexible/adaptable position. Conservatives keep us from moving to fast, or doing too much of the leap-before-you look, and drop-old-start-new plan before the old plan is done, senselessness that you can see with liberals.
Hmm... Criticism of both. I think that I shall be well flamed now.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I disagree. Americans' freedom is best protected by deadlock between the purported liberals and the purported conservatives.
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
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.
And all the Patriot Act sunsets removed by who? OH! Right! Obama.
George Bush was no more conservative than Obama is. Stop thinking in terms of Donkeys and Elephants. Think more government and less government.
Expand your political spectrum a bit to actually include liberty. Nothing that George Bush did, with the exception of striking back at the people that attacked us on 9/11, had anything to do with liberty and less government.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
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.
HEY! I'm an old man with a boner, you insensitive clod!
Viagra's dirty little secrets are 1) it's a performance enhancing drug. It gives you control over the whole damned experience, and 2) old guys need it because old women are fugly. If I'm with Amy or someone her age, I don't need it at all. I do with a woman my own age.
BTW, sex is like everything else -- the more you do it the better you get.
However, viagra's not exactly on topic; it doesn't affect dopamine levels, although orgasm does. I wonder if the researchers took into account how much sex the test subjects got? I suspect that liberals get more than conservatives, because liberals are more social than conservatives.
Free Martian Whores!
Well first, to take your example of Amtrak, whether it worked and why it worked or didn't work is still open to interpretation. I notice you limited your "results" to Amtrak's overall balance sheet. You haven't taken into account the benefit Amtrak brought to the people who do take trains, nor the alleviation of car traffic brought to congested cities. There's also the fact that some routes are more heavily trafficked than others, and Amtrak could be said to be very successful if you only looked at those routes. So in some ways, I'd say that Amtrak is a successful program.
But also your criticism of "not enough customers" doesn't begin to address the question of "why weren't there enough customers?" There are tons of socioeconomic issues involving culture, infrastructure development, and civic design that lead to a situation where taking a train is undesirable or infeasible-- but most of those things can be changed.
In reality, most people decide first whether they like/dislike public transportation on emotional grounds, and then find arguments that support their position.
>>>Most political differences are a result of disagreement of premises, not conclusions.
What do you mean? It seems like logic would work. You create a program (say Amtrak), look at the results (near-bankruptcy), and then decide whether or not it worked (it didn't unfortunately - not enough customers).
Case in point: Your premise is that the purpose of Amtrak was to make a profit. In fact, the purpose of Amtrak was to preserve valuable infrastructure that the private sector was no longer able to maintain due to heavily-subsidized air and road competition. In that regard it was mildly successful, in spite of funding problems, and has proven its worth many times (including the post-9/11 grounding and the Katrina evacuation, to name a few).
It's a nice idea to think that conservatives and liberals are flip sides of the coin, and we need both. Yadda yadda. But it just doesn't work out that way. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history. Consider Afghanistan for instance. There are liberals there, and there are conservatives there. Do they really need those conservatives holding them back? What good does it do them? From our modern perspective we can see just how wrong-headed they are. But left and right over there is the same thing as left and right over here, just centered around a different origin. There's no reason to believe our conservatives are any better than theirs, and in the future we'll look back and see just how wrong-headed they are today. The people calling for the persecution of homosexuals and drug users and mexicans today are no different from the people calling for the persecution of women, blacks, and catholics 100 years ago.
Now of course liberals aren't perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. But at least liberals make new mistakes, instead of glorifying the same old mistakes. At least liberals look to a future where everyone is better off instead of conservatives who simply try to maintain a power structure that is favorable to them alone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Conservatives keep us from moving to fast, or doing too much of the leap-before-you look
Yeah, the Iraq war is a good example of that.
Hrm. Since "conservatives" in the U.S. rung up 80% of the National Debt, and it was the "liberal" President in the 90's that balanced the budget and is the only President in recent memory to actually try and pay the Debt down... your claim doesn't seem to have much basis in fact. I mean, Reagan tripled the debt, Bush Sr nearly doubled it, and Bush Jr doubled it again.
I am liberal and have been debt free for over ten years. I am very responsible with money, as are my liberal parents, and virtually every liberal friend and relative I know. I know anecdotal evidecne isn't proof, but it sure seems to discount your blanekt characterization of liberals.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Give a logical reasoning test to subjects and correlate with political affiliation.
Here's an interesting one. Alcohol ranks higher than cannabis on all measures of harm to both oneself and society at large. Logically, if the aim of drugs policy is as stated - to minimise the harm that drugs cause - then either both drugs should be treated the same (legal/illegal) or cannabis should be legal and alcohol illegal. That is the only logical result given the stated premise for drug control (a premise that appears to be accepted by the population at large). Conservatives are generally opposed to legalising cannabis. Liberals are generally supportive of legalising cannabis. Which is the more logical in this case?
I used to think that I was introverted myself. I am also very liberal. I have noticed however that I am attracted to social interactions. I just want to be with people that are like me and that I'm comfortable with. As for conservatives going to church and the like, that is just so they can feel better about themselves. It's not the community they seek, it's the feeling better than the liberal nut jobs like me.
"don't spend more than you have" isn't a conservative only view. I'm so sick of the stereotypes. Nearly everyday here in MN we are reminded of how false that is when we hear more about Denny Hecker, a conservative, and his bankruptcy and fraud issues. Liberals are just as likely to live within their means as anyone else. And conservatives are just as likely to do the opposite.
Conservatives by definition "conserve", they try to keep things the same. That is why "conservatives" in Afghanistan are so different from "conservatives" in America, the status quo in the two places is different, so "keeping things the same" or "going back to the old ways" means very different things, so conservative Afghans are very different from conservative Americans.
You are right that throughout history "conservatives" have usually opposed positive change - they oppose change by definition. By that same definition, "conservatives" almost always oppose negative change as well. Conservatives opposed communism, Nazism, eugenics, and a lot of other things that they were right to oppose.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Conservatives opposed communism
In favor of Tsarism. Great principled stand there guys.
Nazism
Hitler was a liberal? Yeah, he did confiscate guns, but nothing characterizes Nazism better than extreme nationalism, a conservative trait.
eugenics
Eugenics was supported by both sides. Progressives who thought they could make humanity better, and conservatives who wanted to use genetics to enforce the class structure. Notice how it was always the lower classes who got sterilized.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm not so sure about that. There's still plenty of time for us to end up back in caves.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, I presume that we learn things by trying, and it's better to know than not know. If we make a mistake, the liberals will be the first to suggest change, while the conservatives will want things to stay the same.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That just means that Obama sucks. He rode a wave of hope and change into the white house and then sold us out and pandered to the republicans. He is a failure. If it wasn't for Reagan and Bush II, Obama would be the worst president of my lifetime.
he was probably several men at the same time. Where later they were compiled into a single man by borrowing from Osiris some qualities. But at the end this is all speculations, as long as there is no evidence suggesting he did exist, objectively speaking he did not. If we want to think what might have been, that's different and not supported by evidence.
I disagree. Stimulus spending is considered by economists to be essential in pulling out of recessions. Putting the war spending IN the budget, instead of dishonestly pushing through money during the year is far better than the previous administrations policy. Healthcare is something that needs to be addressed, and while I think the bill sucks, at least it does SOMETHING.
Frankly, I can't think of anything more fiscally irresponsible than going to war without raising taxes (indeed, while LOWERING taxes).
While I wish that both sides were more fiscally conservative, I cannot support the idea that Obama is worse than Bush as far as spending goes.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I boil down to only this: Amtrak is a company. It should survive or fail without help from the government. I didn't say anything about the countries entire train system.
And the reason you disagree is because you start with different premises. Your argument is:
P1.) Amtrack's purpose is to make a profit
P2.) Amtrack did not make a profit
C.) Amtrack failed.
His argument is:
P1.) Amtrack's purpose is to provide public transportation.
P2.) Amtrack has provided public transportation.
C.) Amtrack succeeded
I'm a libertarian but I have to say, there's a fair argument to be made that Amtrack is having to compete against a heavily subsidized road program. It's definitely not a level playing field but when the government is involved, what is?
Conservatives opposed Communism? In general, yes, although that also meant supporting some pretty unsavory regimes. One could argue that supporting the Tsarist regime or the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek radicalized the opposition, so they were forced to the extreme.
Conservatives certainly did support National Socialism. Hitler was given power (as Chancellor) by right-wing politicians who thought they could control him. One reason for his rise to power was Goering's association with the industrialists, who tend to be conservative. Outside Germany, many conservatives supported Hitler's rule, even if they deplored some aspects.
Eugenics? Both ways. Conservatives opposed eugenics movements, and opposed the move away from eugenics.
On the whole, the world has been becoming a better place for a long time. The role of conservatives in this has been to generally slow down change, which on the good side has often meant restricting changes to ones people were confident would be good.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you actually buy into what you're saying?
Of course. I never argue a position I don't believe is valid.
Do you actually think anybody with a liberal ideology actually is smarter, better, and less likely to repeat their mistakes?
Oh, no not at all. I didn't mean to say that all liberals are smarter than all conservatives, or that any specific liberal is smarter than any specific conservative. These are admittedly generalizations, frequently wrong but with an element of truth.
Consider the debate between science and religion. Both claim to be ways of finding truth. Now I've met some pretty stupid scientists and some really smart priests. But science on the whole has a much better track record for finding facts and improving the lives of people than religion does.
And yet here we are with arguably the most liberal president and congress ever.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Consider the two biggest things this president has done, passed health care reform, and stimulus spending. His health care plan is more conservative than Nixons, so he's certainly no liberal there. His stimulus policies were just a continuation of Bush's, so that doesn't sound too liberal either.
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.
And all these things are happening because of insufficient liberalism on the part of our government. Conservatives created the fiction that Guantanamo was outside of US jurisdiction. Conservatives lied their way into the Iraq war. Conservatives wrote the Patriot act (though the Democrats (none of them liberals) who voted for it are not without blame). And the gap between the rich and poor has gotten ever wider in the last 30 years of Conservative rule.
These policies continue because our government can in no way be described as liberal.
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.
War on Drugs? Don't Ask Don't Tell? The War in Iraq? Border fences? Abstinence only education?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!