Chris Mooney had an article for Mother
Jones this week entitled, “Your genes tell you how to vote.” Oh really?
Look I’m not a militant nature vs. nurture person. I think it is a combination
of genetics and environmental factors. I’m an identical twin for god’s sake. I’ve
heard it all, but we don’t share a mind, and we don’t agree politically…well any
more than we do with our older sister. So I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at
this article. Really, this is news now?
University of Nebraska-Lincoln political scientist John Hibbing,
co-author of the book Predisposed: Liberals,
Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences, says “The basic
idea of a heritable component to political beliefs has been around for at least
a quarter of a century. It’s shown up too many times, in too many different
places, with too many samples. So there’s something there.”
Of course, I’m not saying there isn’t. I’ve read the new study out taking
about heretical memory. The article notes some studies done on twins (identical
compared to fraternal) and as usual says nothing about other siblings.
Political tendencies is one of the traits that shows up as identical twins
having more in common than fraternal twins. I’m not getting into the studies. I
get tired of all things twin all the time. Mostly, I think these studies are
looking for the results they want. For every set of identical twins raised apart
that share values there are foster siblings raised together that have similar values.
Or people who don't know each other that share political ideals. Pass.
The article does note that most twins have a shared environment which
would account for similar views as well. The article also notes, “None of this
research, to be sure, says that genes determine everything. The ‘environment’ still matters a great deal.
Nonetheless, the percentage of total variation in our views attributed to genes
is quite substantial.”
The body of evidence suggests that genetics are responsible for between
30 and 40 percent of political views. However, science can’t determine which
genes are actually responsible, see my doubt again. One potential gene is DRD4,
which is a receptor for neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain. Dopamine also
influences schizophrenia and Parkinson’s. This gene isn’t a “political gene”,
but instead a gene with political implications in specific context.
The idea is that we inherit core dispositions of how we think the world
should be run and work thus how society should be structured. The assumption
then becomes people are social creatures; we form groups, and then form
society. All this behavior is group-orientated and “natural.” I’m not a huge
fan of the words normal and natural. Obviously, they serve a purpose
particularly when looking at human development. Regardless, an example and the
flaws as I see them, not scientific.
My family is blue collar democrat/liberal (though I’m much farther left
than the rest of them), we have been for generations on both sides hailing from
coal mines and factories. As mentioned I have an identical twin sister, we are
very different aside from appearance, though through the magic of hair dye. J
is far more moderate than I am (so is M our older sister). They both show more
support for military operations (I say this because I’m so pro-military I think
we should end the wars and bring them home), but there are notable differences
in the way we approach the military. M and I believe J believed it was
necessary to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. So what is different about us?
Education, location, spiritual beliefs (J and I are both atheists, but M is a
Christian leaning Catholic), personal environmental experiences. Now is anyone
in my immediate family a conservative? No, I don’t think my father would allow
that in the house so maybe someone is in the closet. I mention religion and education
above because studies have been done indicating atheists and people with more
formal education are more progressive and liberal than others. They also reside
in the Midwest, where moderately left is one step away from dirty hippy…I’m
pretty sure I’m a socialist by that metric, but here on the Eastish coast, I’m
a left, but there are far more variations among political leanings on the left.
Maybe it is genetic, but maybe genetics are influenced by environment,
people evolve and adapt to their conditions and then pass those adaptations to
their children. I just don’t see how they can control for the assumptions and
assertions they are making. Also, assertions like these can have long reaching
consequences for other things like religion, education, etc. Are men genetically
predisposed to being better at math and science? Or are they perceived as being
better at math and science because as a society we have decided they should be and invest more in their math development?
What about people of one race, ethnicity, or hailing from one location?
Finally, LGBTQ, particularly the T part: born or conditioned? Obviously, I’m not
comfortable with these assertions.
