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.
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.)
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.
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.
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...
What is liberal? conservative ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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
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
Now you just leave a semen sample on the ballot, I for one look forward to voting now!
That's actually kind of offensive. The liberals in this country have done most of the freedom-damaging legislating in this country. Big government etc.
The conservative base is about all we have protecting our freedom at this point.
Medicalize...sounds like a bush word. They've already gotten to you!
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 disagree. Americans' freedom is best protected by deadlock between the purported liberals and the purported conservatives.
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.
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
Cool strawman, bro.
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.
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
so things like the Patriot Act [snip] were ... conservative freedom initiatives?
What can't you do now that you couldn't do in 2001, and how is it related to the PATRIOT Act?
the GOP's largest expansion of government in our history were ... conservative freedom initiatives?
Yeah, that's pretty (make that really) non-conservative.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The conservative base is about all we have protecting our freedom at this point.
Of course it's protecting them.
It can't sell them to corporations if they're damaged!
</sarcasm>
If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
The conservative base is about all we have protecting the freedom of corporations at this point.
Fixed. History has shown that when there is no government regulation, companies will do whatever they want, trampling anyone who ever gets in the way. Ever heard of the Gilded Era? Would you rather have the government be in control (which is at least supposed to keep the interests of the people in mind) or large corporations who care about only one thing: making the most money at any cost.
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, ...
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.
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.
Figures the for the liberal gene would be tied to something dopey!!! :D
Paying your taxes is one of your basic duties as a citizen. Other than jury duty, taxes are the only compulsory duty expected of U.S. citizens (we don't even have compulsory military service, much less any form of conscripted labor). In case you need to have this spelled out, taxes are what make it possible for us to have roads, public schools, a police department, an army and a navy, and so on.
Of course, there's plenty of room for debate about how much we should be taxed, and how the money can most wisely be spent. Liberals have a particular view on this question.
Don't confuse this question with the question of "freedom". You may not agree with the liberal view on taxation and government spending, but you're just plain mistaken if you think that liberals oppose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so on. Liberals strongly support those freedoms. There is nothing in the liberal view on taxation and government budgeting which contradicts those freedoms.
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.
No, we haven't. For the last two years we've had deadlock between liberal democrats and moderate democrats. With a super-minority, Republicans have had little to no influence on legislation. Hell, they can't even sit in on drafting sessions.
Yes. All rich people are rich because they worked hard and all poor people are poor because they did not. And yes, how much you earn is perfectly proportional to how much you contribute to society. This explains Wall Street, the best and brightest of your great nation, perfectly.
After all, it makes much more sense to let the country's infrastructure fall apart and the children of the working poor be left uneducated, than to pay taxes to invest in the country you live in. The tax money you save can be used to pay for a business class flight out of the country when it turns into shit. You can then retire and enjoy functioning infrastructure built with other people's tax money.
It really does make complete sense from an individual perspective. I guess progressivism fails because it assumes that people can actually care about anyone but themselves.
>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
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.
You are right to identify Obama as a conservative, he is moderate conservative, well to the right in many areas compared with, say, Richard Nixon. His health care reform plan is very similar to Mitt Romney's for example, and much more conservative than Nixon's plan (not enacted due to the collapse of his presidency). In the Eisenhower era he might well have been a Republican. (Which puts paid to the utterly-disconnected-from-reality ranting about him being a "socialist" much less a Marxist).
Bush was/is however far more right wing than Obama. Being right-wing is not the same thing as being conservative. The right wing radicalism of the "Tea Party" (seeking to remove constitutional amendments, or else suspend their effect?) is not conservative at all.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
First off, since when did politics enter the world of science? Yaayaya.. yadda yadda ..
Have you missed the whole "Global warming" scandal? O.o
First off, the Democratic party is, for the most part, not particularly liberal. They are a moderate party and there is really no prominaet liberal party in this country. So you really can't blame "liberals" for anything. I'm going to assume you mean the democrats.
PATRIOT act was pushed by conservatives, though of course both parties voted for it - in the political climate of the time, voting against it would have been political suicide. Of course, it was only political suicide because of the very conservative push to "make us safer".
There's also the wiretapping program initiated by the Bush administration, and the law (again started on the conservative side) that made it impossible to sue the telecoms who cooperated. I list this separately because it's outside the patriot act, but it's in a similar vein - the conservative push for "security" at all costs. Again, the conservative machine, including pundits on all the major news networks, made it impossible to vote against these things without ruining your political career, by spreading partial information and occasionally outright lies.
There is also the question of "how many rights should corporations have". I feel that since they are not really beings, but are created purely by a few legal points, they should have the minimum rights required to carry out their business, and should have no political power whatsoever. The trend towards giving them more rights and political power is taking away the rights and political power of individuals. This is especially true when you look at wealth distribution and how important money is in our political process.
Then of course there's Guantanamo bay, which while not directly harming any citizens, does show that the people in charge didn't really respect personal rights and freedoms.
I will give you the gun control point, though that is generally based on a different interpretation of the second ammendment. I have taken it to mean that freedom of arms was meant for militias, and that with the dissolution of the militia system and installation of a standing army, it is obsolete. The conservative "militias" are not the same sort of groups that would have existed 200 years ago.
I've never really understood the "freedom" argument on health care. There's no central government system, it's all funneled through the existing insurance companies. The mandate is fairly loose, and the government will pay for it if you can't. The big points "single-payer" and "death-panels" never existed and were outright lies spread by a few very popular pundits.
Both sides are equally guilty of porkish spending, and both sides have pork that they claim is important for some reason or other. Other points of contention, like whether government should be run "like a business" (whatever that means - It's starting to be a buzzterm) aren't really about freedom at all.
It's socially transmitted, yes, but nobody (nobody with credentials anyway) has ever classified it as a disease AFAIK. However, extreme conservativism is a mental disorder.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Liberal = generous. Conservative = selfish.
Free Martian Whores!
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
That's actually kind of offensive. The liberals in this country have done most of the freedom-damaging legislating in this country. Big government etc.
The conservative base is about all we have protecting our freedom at this point.
True, that. To quote TDS, this entire country was founded by the puritans for the freedom to practice the most restrictive form of religion in England at the time.
Oh the irony! It's like goldy and bronzey, except it's made of iron!
Also, it's usually the conservatives that ingrain us with a deep respect for authority. Besides, I thought "big government" was about employing bus drivers and postal workers so the poor people don't rob you property-rights-respecting folks blind. I try real hard not to get oppressed by those "big government" types.
What can't you do now that you couldn't do in 2001
I can't drink a bottle of water on a plane, you insensitive clod!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
So now it's "right-wing radicalism" to change the constitution? The very thing it was set up to allow for? Interesting point of view, I guess. Was it left-wing radicalism that added the amendments (in question) in the first place?
Huh.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
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?
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.
NOW vote to CHANGE the CHANGE back to the first CHANGE because that CHANGE was the good CHANGE. Until I CHANGE my mind.
Seriously, though, you're going to say liberals are "freedom-damaging", citing "Big government etc." as your *only* example?
I just read Richard Nixon's proposal for health care reform. It's not at all conservative and I don't see how you can use it as a marker for the division between conservative and liberal.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Really? Who started the War on Drug Users(Nixon), and who made it a cause celebre (Reagan)? How can government get any bigger than telling you what you can and can't put in your bloodstream?
Now I'm not about to say that liberals have done that much to protect our freedom either. But it's completely obvious that you cannot be for freedom and at the same time advocate the jailing of people who like to have fun in a way you disapprove of. Since Barney Frank (a liberal) is the only person to yet introduce legislation that would legalize marijuana at a national level I have to conclude that liberals care more about freedom than conservatives.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Am I the only one more worried about freedom-damaging corporate power than the government?
I want a big government to protect me from the corporations, who are bigger, less accountable, and more malevolent than any government. (I'm including religions in this as just another type of corporation.)
I guess that makes me a liberal. I don't even mind paying taxes, as long as I get good services back for my money -- and, amazingly, I almost always do. I can't build a road or a school or an army, but if I pool my money with others the government will do it for me. Governments are wonderful things when they work. But corporations have a vested interest in making the government misfunction, and lately they are getting their wish. In my view that means we need more liberalism, not less.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
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).
Don't confuse this question with the question of "freedom". You may not agree with the liberal view on taxation and government spending, but you're just plain mistaken if you think that liberals oppose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so on. Liberals strongly support those freedoms.
Liberals have a different idea of the balance of those freedoms. Look at Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's comments on the Koran burning plan.
Liberals champion causes like expanding the definition of sexual harassment (speech), protecting certain minority groups more than others (speech, association), creating free speech limitation zones at places like abortion clinics, and so on.
I wouldn't say liberals are against those freedoms, but they definitely give them less weight than their general humanist values.
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.
What are you talking about? The President says the Republicans are blocking everything. Don't worry though-- he's asked the Latinos to "punish our enemies" so I expect the resistance will be eliminated soon.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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
Think more government and less government.
How about think "better government"? Oh but wait, that doesn't fit into your convenient little dichotomy, there...
It's probably just a gene that when mutated is embryonic lethal. (bad joke)
Heh interesting. When the big corporations are "raping" developing countries and abusing human rights and all that, they are enriching themselves and America on the backs of the poor. It's even called neo-colonialism and American imperialism.
But when they screw up, they are inept, bumbling fools who just lose money all the time and have never contributed anything.
I have to say, at least Wall Street is paying back their loans. More than can be said for some other bailout recipients.
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!
No, we'll have to buy health insurance soon too.
"Liberals" are the ones who prohibit young people from discussing religion in schools. "Liberals" are the ones who imprison people for "hate speech". "Liberals" are the ones who call those who wish to arm themselves criminals.
We have the self-evident rights of life, liberty, and property. Actually, one of the amendments to the constitution even puts them in writing. High taxation infringes on the last two, and sometimes even the first.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No one had to be a Puritan. The only irony here is that you're claiming that it's more free to prevent people from practicing their religion than to let them live a regimented life at their own will.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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?
I don't know about you but I don't consider the Republican Party to be very in touch with conservative values, they just happen to be less out of touch with them than the Democratic Party. The Patriot Act was horrible from a freedom and privacy standpoint, two things I consider to be conservative values.
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.
That's so far from the truth.
How comes that Sweden has way more governement than US and hosts the pirate bay? Nordic countries tax heavier, but spend wiser; they get what they pay for.
It's "better government" or "worse government", and I've found that it's got more to do on how educated is the population of the country.
Which for your (probably US) and my (Spain) case, has become borderline...
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.
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.
As an Objectivist, I disagree. I am completely selfish, but I share as much with the left as the right.
Learn about Photography Basics.
I'm impressed that you've pointed at that the Tea Party is not, at its base, conservative in nature. In my personal experience at the events and in my interactions with the local and regional level organizers in my area, the general political view is far more libertarian in nature than conservative.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
Learn about Photography Basics.
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.
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.
Whee... a not so subtle ad-hominem. So, you claim that conservatism embraces the disregard of the rights of others? Isn't it liberals who think it's just dandy to ignore Alice's right to not reward Bob for his stunning lack of work ethic? Just because some people use rights in ways you don't like doesn't give you the right to take those rights away...
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
That's actually kind of offensive. The liberals in this country have done most of the freedom-damaging legislating in this country. Big government etc.
The conservative base is about all we have protecting our freedom at this point.
How exactly is liberal legislation "freedom damaging"? Allowing homosexuals to marry? Giving people the right to smoke what they want? Giving individuals choices over their own bodies rather than making governmental decisions for the moral good of all? Those all sound like they are really limiting freedom... oh, sorry, I forgot, they support "big government", which somehow ambiguously takes away freedoms just by virtue of being "big government", even though it is demonstrably smaller financially than a conservative's so-called small government.
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
You missed the part about how is it related to the PATRIOT Act?.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
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 most of the time, and she seldom 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 so much time studying.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?" She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA and studied harder than her, but couldn't study as much because she had to work for money. Between working and studying 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 working to pay her tuition and books.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't help her friend out with her tuition and books, since her grandfather's inheritance had left her well off.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! It's MY money!
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Free Martian Whores!
The President says the Republicans are blocking everything.
The President says a lot.
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.
less government is 'better government'.
We live in a not-ideal world. granting the government more power will never lead to 'better government'.
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...
It's dangerous to equate "republican" and "conservative". The patriot act is not a "conservative" thing, it's a "republican" one (more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything).
One more thing... "the government will pay for it if you can't" means I will pay for it. And you. And every other taxpayer.
Big Government. More laws. These are the ONLY things that infringe upon our freedoms. Be it hate-crime legislation, sexual harassment, Gun control. All of these things limit our freedoms, and are a direct result of the government having too much power.
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 actually agree with you that marijuana legislation sucks. It should be legalized. However...
Look at mexico. Pretty much blank-slate legalization of most drugs. Cartels running amok.
It's not the potheads i worry about, it's the Cocaine and Heroin addicts, their motivations, and their associations that i don't want to live in the same country with.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
I'd argue that the economic policies of Obama and Bush II have much more in common with fascism (AKA corporatism) than any real sort of socialism.
I think people are loath to use the term "fascism" since it's pretty loaded and often overused, but it applies pretty well as far as our economic system is concerned.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
the GOP's largest expansion of government in our history
The Democrats (control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency) have managed to double the total federal debt in just two years? How exactly did the GOP do that?
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Look at mexico. Pretty much blank-slate legalization of most drugs. Cartels running amok.
Are you sure it's legal? I'm pretty sure the drug cartels and the Mexican army are always killing each other.
It's not the potheads i worry about, it's the Cocaine and Heroin addicts, their motivations, and their associations that i don't want to live in the same country with.
People are already cocaine and heroin addicts, and they will exist whether or not the drugs are legalized. Whether or not there would be more addicts if drugs were legalized is up for debate. In either case, it should be treated more as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Due to the war on drugs, the US has more people in prison than any other country on earth. Think of the worst, most oppressive police state on earth- per capita, the US has more prisoners than that country.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
There is a strong political movement of "Christianity" in American politics which uses bigotry and hatred to further their political goals.
It doesn't really matter whether or not they are "true" Christians. They're claiming the title, picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to enforce, and trying to push for that to be the law of the land.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
I've known this since the '68 campaign.
If you admit they are fake why acknowledge their use of the title? I can claim to be President but that doesn't make it so.
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
So now it's "right-wing radicalism" to change the constitution? The very thing it was set up to allow for? Interesting point of view, I guess. Was it left-wing radicalism that added the amendments (in question) in the first place?
Huh.
Yes. In the simplest terms, conservative means to seek to maintain the status quo, while liberal means to allow change. There are all sorts of nuances, but the root of conservative is "conserve" and the root of the word liberal, "libra", is related to "balance".
If you admit they are fake why acknowledge their use of the title? I can claim to be President but that doesn't make it so.
It's their interpretation of christian theology, that's how they self-identify, that's how other people identify them, etc.
The same way we call groups of people "liberals" or "conservatives." If I describe someone is described as a right-wing christian nutjob, you know exactly the kind of person I'm talking about; it doesn't necessitate a theological discussion. It's cultural shorthand.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
The Democrats (control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency) have managed to double the total federal debt in just two years? How exactly did the GOP do that?
They managed to start two wars, and then fuck up the economy, which necessitated an increased spending on unemployment insurance & Medicaid, and the huge bailouts, coupled with decreasing tax receipts (due to the tanking economy.)
I mean, the health care costs haven't started yet. There hasn't been a huge increase in government employment. There haven't really been any new social programs- just an increase in usage of the same old ones. The unpopular massive federal spending has largely been an attempt to clean up the GOP economic mess. Whether or not you think it was necessary, or helpful is another matter entirely.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
I disagree. Fascism is rooted in Corporatism, which has *nothing* to do with corporations - Corporatism is nothing more than collectivism; the viewing of society as a single body, and making decisions based upon the perceived wellbeing of that body without regard to individuals. Fascism, in essence, is authoritarian corporatism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is typically meant as an economic system rather than a political one. Under Socialism, the means of production are owned directly be the collective, typically via a government. The US federal government's purchase of interest in AIG, GM, and other major corporations is a step that increase government control over private industry - hence, a step towards Socialism.
In theory, you can have libertarian socialism, where individuals willingly give up the ownership of the means of production in favor of egalitarianism - likewise, you can have authoritarian capitalism, where the government control every aspect of the citizens' lives except how they dispose of their wealth.
Learn about Photography Basics.
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.
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?
"Liberals" are the ones who prohibit young people from discussing religion in schools.
You are sadly misinformed. No one wants to stop students from discussing religion, or forming religious groups. What the ACLU opposes is teacher-led prayer in state-funded schools. Is that really that controversial-keeping religion a private matter and keeping the state neutral on such issues?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Isn't it liberals who think it's just dandy to ignore Alice's right to not reward Bob for his stunning lack of work ethic?
Some people do indeed lack a work ethic, but most people aren't working because there's no work to be found. And believe me when I tell you that getting some sort of gov't assistance isn't such a grat life. Most of McDonald's employees are on food stamps; is it their lack of work ethic keeping them down?
The bar I drink in has all classes of people; there are Caddillacs and Mercedes and beat up old bicycles in the parking lot, and I speak with all of them, and I'm a good listener. You have no idea what it's like to be brought up in foster homes, or by drug addicted parents. Those people don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and they lead hellish lives. I was going to say that your lack of empathy is appalling, but it probably isn't lack of empathy, but pure ignorance. I encourage you to visit a tavern in the ghetto and talk to its denizens before you judge them so harshly.
And yes, conservatives DO embrace the disragard of my God-given right to smoke the marijuana he's put on this earth, a woman's right to an abortion, everybody's right to clean air (it was the conservatives who fought environmental legislation), the right to a safe workplace, and what should be a person's right to good health care.
Your railing against taxes is ironic, considering that YOU are the one recieving most of the benefits of taxation -- police, roads, courtrooms, firefighters. The police do nothing at all for the poor, save harrassing and jailing them, but they protect a rich man's property. The roads aren't much use to someone who can't afford transportation; you don't need a road if you're on foot. The only time the poor are in a courtroom is when they're in trouble, but the rich use the legal system to legally steal. If a poor man's home burns down he's out his meager possession, if a rich man's castle burns down he has far more to lose.
Free Martian Whores!
The "economic mess" was the direct result of the housing bubble, which was directly caused by Barney Frank and friends fighting any attempt to reform Fannie and Freddie because they wanted the "less fortunate" to be able to buy houses that they couldn't afford. Who was fighting to reform them? Oh yeah, the GOP.
"There hasn't been a huge increase in government employment. "
Wow, what have you been not reading? The only state/district to increase employment since Obama took office? Washington D.C.
Learn of what you speak before spouting off nonsense.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Really? Your complaints about "big government" are hate-crime legislation, sexual harassment laws, and gun control?
This just gets sillier and sillier.
less government is 'better government'.
Fail.
The world has enough people with unshakeable black-and-white views. It doesn't need anymore. Learn yourself a little moderation, it'll be good for you.
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.
And then she shot back, "these two things aren't even remotely comparable, you nitwit." The father's smile quickly vanished from his face.
She never spoke to her father again, due to his poorly reasoned attempts to control her.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You mean GM? What other bailout recipients were there? Could you clarify a bit, rather than give vague innuendo?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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
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
A parable about how a girl succeeds more because she has the advantage of inherited money? Please tell me this isn't meant to make Republicans look good, because it doesn't...
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.)
Since no one would actually say this, it doesn't even work as a joke: "The daughter angrily fired back, 'That wouldn't be fair! It's MY money!'"
(Plus 5 informative? Why do I even bother with this site any more?)
I originally heard a slightly different version of this story:
I recently asked my friends’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?
She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people. Her parents beamed with pride. ‘Wowwhat a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?
I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’ Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.
The sociologist in me finds the subtle change fascinating.
And you snipped the part about the largest expansion of government as if DoHS and the TSA didn't matter.
As for the Patriot Act, why don't you ask Brandon Mayfield why he couldn't be secure in his own home?
I couldn't stop and help someone on the side of the road without possibly committing a crime: what if I was providing aid to a terrorist?
Then there were the NSLs, people who receive them couldn't consult an attorney. But even if they broke the law and did, since there was no judicial oversight, there was no way to contest it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It was a more real life parody of the comment (scored flamebait, so you may not have seen it) that I was responding to.
Free Martian Whores!
Read the comment I was responding to and you'll get it.
Free Martian Whores!
If she were a little bit smarter sh'd have said "why don't you offer the homeless guy the $50 to do the work?"
Free Martian Whores!
It's kind of sad what you assume about my life and upbringing, and actual feelings about people in bad situations. If you had called me on a 'tu quoque' fallacy, i would have had at least a little respect for you. But no, you had to double down on your claim that conservativism is equivalent to antisocial personality disorder. There are certain things which conservatives usually do not consider rights, but that does not make it a definining characteristic as the same damn thing happens with progressives as well. Conservatives at least recognize some rights which the left in this country doesn't recognize as rights at all.
From my personal experience, all of the individuals in poor families who remain poor that I personally know made different choices than those who got out. Choices with predictably bad outcomes if they thought ahead sufficiently far. Making those choices is not just a matter of chance.
All rights are illusions, but positive rights are incompatible with equal rights. They rely on force. Force is inherently inequitable. Any system of rights that is inequitable is not worth supporting.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Does this mean liberals are politically pre-disposed to common sense :-O
GM, Fannie, Freddie. I'm not sure how AIG is doing, I think they're pretty far in the hole still. But the investment banks have really been paying up.