Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm calling bullshit on this find, & is one of the most blatant examples of phony science:


Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'
By ERIC S. PAGE

Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html?__source=Facebook

[timbaly]

I don't know what to think. I want to see the actual study, not an article summarizing it. These articles on scientific studies are often very misleading. You should post the study here if you find it. I would find it myself but it's about time I eat some lunch.

[brigadista]

science these days seems to have the opinion that everything is biologically determined...

[Tavarisch_Mike]

http://demokratbloggen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/neo_liberalism11.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know what to think. I want to see the actual study, not an article summarizing it. These articles on scientific studies are often very misleading. You should post the study here if you find it. I would find it myself but it's about time I eat some lunch.

Indeed.

People on this forum really do need to keep in mind the terrible state of science journalism these days; the idea that there is a "gene for everything" is something made up by science journalists with no formal scientific education, rather than scientists themselves.

It's a disgusting shame because instead of a competent retelling of the wonderous interplay between genes, environment and developmental factors, we get these asinine just-so stories that reduces people and nature to idiotic simplicity, which are concocted by the same media types that like to throw around words like "reductionist" as an insult.

[¿Que?]

Well when reductionism abounds, what else are you going to call it, Banana? But seriously, I am highly skeptical of this study because political ideologies are social constructions. The concept of liberal and conservative makes no sense to, say an aboriginal tribe in Australia, or even 100 years ago meant something completely different. The way the study is presented assumes something of a transcendent characteristic to the liberal/conservative paradigm, when in fact it is totally constructed from a particular social and cultural context. And that's why we need to see the actual study, because we need to see how these terms are defined.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well when reductionism abounds, what else are you going to call it, Banana?

I don't subscribe to the notion that reductionism is necessarily a bad thing.


But seriously, I am highly skeptical of this study because political ideologies are social constructions. The concept of liberal and conservative makes no sense to, say an aboriginal tribe in Australia, or even 100 years ago meant something completely different. The way the study is presented assumes something of a transcendent characteristic to the liberal/conservative paradigm, when in fact it is totally constructed from a particular social and cultural context. And that's why we need to see the actual study, because we need to see how these terms are defined.

The researchers appear to be suggesting that a specific variant of the DRD4 gene predisposes one towards political liberalism, at least in the context of contemporary American society. Further study would be needed in other societies in order to establish what exactly is going on here, if anything.

Of course, even we accept the findings at face value, there are still many more determining factors with regards to how people form their political stances. This gene on its own would be a contributing factor, not an ultimate decider. In other words, even if we do find a gene that has an effect on one's political idealogy greater than chance, that's far from the end of the story.

[¿Que?]

I don't subscribe to the notion that reductionism is necessarily a bad thing.
It is when we're talking about human behavior.

The researchers appear to be suggesting that a specific variant of the DRD4 gene predisposes one towards political liberalism, at least in the context of contemporary American society. Further study would be needed in other societies in order to establish what exactly is going on here, if anything.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. The gene/environment interaction could simply influence people to be more anti-authoritarian, less conformist, more individualist, and these, within the American context, generally translate to liberalism. But to use the American categories is sort of like skipping to the end when a whole lot of stuff is going on in between.

Of course, even we accept the findings at face value, there are still many more determining factors with regards to how people form their political stances. This gene on its own would be a contributing factor, not an ultimate decider. In other words, even if we do find a gene that has an effect on one's political idealogy greater than chance, that's far from the end of the story.
Pretty much agree here.

Something else that could be gleaned from the actual study is some concrete statistics. I know there are all sort of ways to fudge statistics to produce significant results. One of my favorites is the "twice as likely" strategy. This is when a study proclaims that certain effects are twice as likely to occur. When you look at the actual stats, actual percentages could be 50% and 100% (pretty significant) or 1% and 2% (not very significant). Also, keep in mind that either could produce "statistical" significance in the scientific sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is when we're talking about human behavior.

No it isn't. The reason reductionist approaches to human behaviour currently fail is because we don't have a theory of consciousness. The nuts-and-bolts work is difficult to do without a spanner.


That's pretty much what I'm saying. The gene/environment interaction could simply influence people to be more anti-authoritarian, less conformist, more individualist, and these, within the American context, generally translate to liberalism. But to use the American categories is sort of like skipping to the end when a whole lot of stuff is going on in between.

I suspect that funding limitations were the reason they could not do a fuller study, rather than any menadacity on the part of the researchers. They had to work with what they could get, which in this case was people they could pull in from around the UCSD campus, it seems.

[¿Que?]

No it isn't. The reason reductionist approaches to human behaviour currently fail is because we don't have a theory of consciousness. The nuts-and-bolts work is difficult to do without a spanner.
And why don't we have a theory of consciousness? Because the current framework from which science operates, that is the reductionist framework, is incapable of explaining it. If reductionism is a tool for explaining things, it is the wrong tool for explaining consciousness.

I suspect that funding limitations were the reason they could not do a fuller study, rather than any menadacity on the part of the researchers. They had to work with what they could get, which in this case was people they could pull in from around the UCSD campus, it seems.
What I said has nothing to do with the scope of the study. I am arguing that their conclusions are based on cultural bias. I would have to see how they operationalized the liberalism variable, though. Did they straight up ask them if they were liberal or conservative or did they use some sort of index based on other variables, such as those I described in my previous post. here's an analogy: there is no English language gene, there may be a language gene, but how it manifests itself in concrete reality depends entirely on context. To use liberalism in the way they are using it, is like saying there's an English language gene. But again, I need to read the article.

[gorillafuck]

I suppose that if there's a gene that makes people lean to the left, it is apparently much more prominent in certain parts of the world than others, for not very much reason.

This sounds like horseshit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And why don't we have a theory of consciousness? Because the current framework from which science operates, that is the reductionist framework, is incapable of explaining it. If reductionism is a tool for explaining things, it is the wrong tool for explaining consciousness.

The same could have been said for the origin of species. Evolution is a reductionist concept (in that it reduces organisms to subjects of natural selection), yet in nature produces intense variety. This was vindicated by the even more reductionist theory of genetics and the discovery of DNA.

Reductionism has demonstrated itself to be an excellent tool for understanding the natural world, and since consciousness is part of that it follows that reductionism, on some level, will be an essential element to solving the puzzle. It's not part of some scientistic plot to sap the world of colour and meaning, it's a vital part of scientific endeavour; when explaining how a steam engine works, one reduces it to components that interact on their own level, such as pistons, boiler, furnace and so on. It would be needlessly complicated to describe it in terms of atoms and molecules interacting, and downright obscurantist to describe it in terms of fundamental quarks and their interactions. Hence why nobody, not even scientists, attempt to do so in that way.

Reductionism is the necessary task of breaking a big problem into a bunch of smaller and simpler problems.

[ckaihatsu]

Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'


Well, then, I guess I'm going to have to change my views on genetic engineering -- !!!


x D





The concept of liberal and conservative makes no sense to, say an aboriginal tribe in Australia,


Yes, but were they socially active in high school?


x D


Okay, just so I don't get deleted here, can we note that 'medicalizing' something is the typical bourgeois way to grant it social and political "legitimacy" -- ??? -- ! (*Thank* you...!!!)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Okay, just so I don't get deleted here, can we note that 'medicalizing' something is the typical bourgeois way to grant it social and political "legitimacy" -- ??? -- ! (*Thank* you...!!!)

I don't see anyone proposing treatement of people with this so-called "liberal gene", nor treatment for those without it.

Jumping the gun much?

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see anyone proposing treatement of people with this so-called "liberal gene"


Well, I'm *not* proposing it, but I'm also not *not* proposing it...(!)


x D


Jesus, it was a joke -- take a chill....

[L.A.P.]

Liberalism is a very specific ideology out of the hundreds of different ideologies such as socialism, capitalism, communism, imperialism, anarchism, fascism, etc. So out of all these different ideologies (which do know they mean Social Liberalism which is what the average American's idea of Liberalism in general) there is a specific gene for Liberalism? It's either this is complete bullshit or this just goes to show that the average American is too stupid to know there is more to politics than liberalism vs. conservatism, most likely both. I would be more likely to buy this if it was a left-wing gene and a right-wing gene but even that would be most likely bullshit.