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

So... I guess this means

[ROMRIX]

Liberalism is a socially transmitted disease?

Yay!

[deathtopaulw]

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.

Re:Yay!

[Attila Dimedici]

We have had that now for the last 2 years or so. Are we more free? I don't think so, and one might argue that we're even less free than before.

You mean that one party controlling both Houses of Congress and the Presidency results in deadlock? The only time the U.S. has had deadlock in my lifetime was when the Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton was President. The result of that was an almost balanced budget (they claimed it was balanced, yet national debt increased every year).
We had the exact opposite of deadlock from January of 2009 throuh January of 2010 (when Scott Brown was elected to the Senate and broke the Democrat's filibuster proof majority). Even since then we are still a long way from a dead locked government. It just isn't that hard for the Democrats to break a Republican filifbuster, since the Republicans only have a single vote to spare.
I just don't understand how people can think that there is a deadlock when one Party overwhelmingly controls the two active branches of government.

Re:Yay!

[AltairDusk]

The conservative base is about all we have protecting our freedom at this point.

By ensuring the government is a Christian theocracy and that you should treat your neighbor as yourself? Unless, of course, your neighbor is gay, black, from another country, ...

You're displaying a complete ignorance of actual Christian values here, you should treat your neighbor as yourself. The exceptions you list afterwards are the failings of people, not the teachings of the Bible.

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

[tuxgeek]

There is an even easier way to do just that
Give two people a bag of candy, one a liberal & the other a conservative
put them both into a room full of children
the liberal will gladly give their candy away to the children & the conservative will take the candy away from the little ones and hoard as much as they can get

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

[Nutria]

intelligence correlates strongly with liberal tendencies

Based on the quality of (supporting) comments I've seen in liberal blogs, I'd say that it's a darned low correlation.

Those people are either world class Trolls or (no matter how much education they been through) have the analytical capacity of jello but the blind fervor of a Holy Roller.

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

[commodore64_love]

>>>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).

Re:And who gets to define "liberal?"

[operagost]

There is a direct correlation between welfare net and crime, the more effective the social welfare net the lower the crime rate.

You didn't provide any numbers, which hints at total bullshittery, but I'll bite. Because every nation has a different cultural makeup, comparisons can only be made within a nation and not between them. From when the "War on Poverty" was instituted by President Lyndon Johnson until 1991, total crime increased every year. It began to decrease in the 1990s, but then PLUMMETED after 1996 when welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton.

For the idiot right wingers who refuse to accept the blindingly obvious, for the numb nuts of the political spectrum simply compare Canada, to the US, to Mexico, of course right wingers will want to waffle on all kinds of bullshit rather than accept the obvious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Re:Oh, just great

[Coraon]

easy, he was fiction.

Re:Oh, just great

[phlinn]

1. Nationalism is may be more common with conservatives than liberals, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal nationalist. Nationalism is not a defining feature, but does have a weak correlation. Just as gun control is correlated the other way, but isn't a defining feature.
2. Godwin!
3. Feeding the troll: Given his general economic policy of control over business, a strong social safty net, etc. he was at least economically a left winger. Looking at the actual definitions of terms, liberal is not the opposite of conservatism or the same as left wing. Progressivism is. Since we have a fairly liberal country (lots of of liberty), progressives are slightly anti-liberal.

Re:Oh, just great

[Anonymous Coward]

Bible Jesus was most certainly a Socialist.

You couldn't be any more wrong. He did not promote government control. He promoted individual responsibility to do the right thing. This is what liberals do not understand. Liberals do not understand that Christianity is about the freedom to make choices and the individual responsibility to make good ones.

Re:Oh, just great

[bonch]

The thing is, I'd rather have rampant conservatism than liberalism, because liberalism entails a large government with expanded scope in order to push the agenda, and it's very difficult to fight against a government power once it's been established.