Genes responsible for up to 60% of our politics

[Nakidana]

Political colour is half genetic
November 11, 2013 - 06:19

New study provides definitive evidence that heritability plays a significant role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the time period or population sampled.
By: Thomas Hoffmann (http://sciencenordic.com/content/thomas-hoffmann)

Imagine if scientists could identify the ‘liberal’ genes and genetically modify babies so that they all voted liberal when they grow up? Brave new world?

Worry not; you still have free will, and no, not everything is predetermined by the DNA baggage you were born with.
Nevertheless, a new international study shows that our genes can explain up to 60 percent of our political actions: our political commitment, who we vote for and what ideology we support.
The findings come from a gigantic study of 12,000 pairs of twins. The study (http://ussc.edu.au/ussc/assets/media/docs/publications/45_Hatemi_BehaviorGenetics.pdf) turns upside down the prevalent scientific understanding of what influences our voting behaviour, according to one of the Danish researchers behind the study:
“If it turns out to be correct in a deep philosophical sense – i.e. true – then it means that the social sciences have so far overlooked an important variable in the explanation of human behaviour: biology,” says Professor Robert Klemmensen of the Department of Political Science and Public Management at the University of Southern Denmark.
”This is obviously very exciting, because it means we’ll slowly be moving towards a paradigm shift where we need to calibrate our models to also include biological factors.”

Results shocked researchers
Klemmensen and his international research colleagues used data from a combined sample of over 12,000 twin pairs, pooled from nine different studies conducted in five western democracies (Australia, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, and the US), and sampled over the course of four decades.
The study shows that identical twins – i.e. twins with 100 percent identical genes – agree far more on questions about e.g. redistribution, political participation, freedom and equality than fraternal twins – i.e. those with fewer identical genes.

The researchers hypothesised that since twin pairs tend to grow up in the same environment, any differences must be attributable to genes. This assumption was further reinforced when they observed generally identical tendencies in different population groups.
“We were shocked to see how similar the results were across ages and national borders,” says Klemmensen.
“The Danish twins in the study were aged between 20 and 40, while those from Minnesota, US, were in their 50s. Still, the estimates we got regarding political ideology and political participation are virtually identical – in fact so similar that we could hardly believe it.”

Proof that genes influence our vote
The new study confirms previous studies and the researchers believe their conclusion is solid:
“We provide definitive evidence that heritability plays a role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the time period or population sampled,” they write in the journal article.
Klemmensen adds:
”We believe that there is now sufficient evidence that in terms of ideology at least there is a biological component that says something about our attitudes, and that’s something we need to start taking seriously.”

Genes affect us – they do not define us
Some would probably find it a bit depressing to hear that political thoughts and actions can basically be reduced to some specific genes that we ended up with.
Does that mean that we have no free will at all?
Of course we do, says the Danish professor.
”Our study shows that there are biological factors that have an effect on how our lives turn out in certain areas. That’s not the same as saying we are deterministic creatures and cannot choose otherwise. But these factors do have an effect on the choices we make.”
Link (http://sciencenordic.com/political-colour-half-genetic)

Full study link (http://ussc.edu.au/ussc/assets/media/docs/publications/45_Hatemi_BehaviorGenetics.pdf)
So according to the study, which has been accepted for publication in Behavior Genetics (http://www.springer.com/psychology/journal/10519), 30-60% of our political choices are determined by genes. Thoughts?

EDIT: Apparently debate is ongoing in academia. This summer ph.d. Doron Shultziner offered an alternative explanation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/183731069/Genes-and-Politics-A-New-Explanation-and-Evaluation-of-Twin-Study-Results-and-Association-Studies-in-Political-Science) in Political Analysis (http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/), was replied to (http://www.scribd.com/doc/183731197/Gene-Environment-Interplay-in-Twin-Models) by Hatemi and Verhulst and then wrote another response (http://www.scribd.com/doc/183731145/Fatal-Flaws-in-the-Twin-Study-Paradigm-A-Reply-to-Hatemi-and-Verhulst). I haven't read his criticism yet though.

[Rafiq]

Sounds like a bunch of dribble. Identical twins are more likely to have been raised in more similar social settings, closer to each other than fraternal twins.

[adipocere]

Sounds like a bunch of dribble. Identical twins are more likely to have been raised in more similar social settings, closer to each other than fraternal twins.
I agree. And not to mention that the sampled groups are coming from "western democracies" meaning that everyone studied comes from similar political culture, as if western democracy is a biological standard. Proof of nothing but ongoing a west-centric pseudoscience.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is akin to saying that there is a relationship between genetics and favourite hockey team: it's on the surface pseudo-scientific garbage.

[Yazman]

While I don't like the implications of this, genetics is really a bit outside my area. I don't think we should simply say "oh it's bullshit" unless we really have the knowledge & background necessary to say so, however I do think it's also worth pointing out that this study does not appear to have been accepted yet and certainly seems to ignore some critical factors pointed out by Shultziner. I personally don't think such a link is really demonstrable but it's not really for me to say so.

[Kenco Smooth]

Sounds like a bunch of dribble. Identical twins are more likely to have been raised in more similar social settings, closer to each other than fraternal twins.

The assumption of identical environments in twin studies has shown to be extremely robust with recent molecular genetic work confirming the heritability estimates produced via twin studies.


I agree. And not to mention that the sampled groups are coming from "western democracies" meaning that everyone studied comes from similar political culture, as if western democracy is a biological standard. Proof of nothing but ongoing a west-centric pseudoscience.

That the sample is limited to Western individuals really isn't the clincher you think it is. It in no way implies that western standards are a 'biological standard', it is simply that differences within the sample in political ideology can be explained by genetic differences. The sample in no way affects that conclusion.

One point that does relate to this is that, due to a wider range of environmental factors, heritability estimates tend to drop drastically in non-western nations, and even lower social classes.


This is akin to saying that there is a relationship between genetics and favourite hockey team: it's on the surface pseudo-scientific garbage.

Except that political ideology is predicted by a number of more basic psychological traits such as personality and moral concerns. Both of these demonstrate moderate to high heritability so it follows that political beliefs would also.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There may some genetic influence, but I think this study may be overstating things. I mean, how many of us here had communist parents?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Except that political ideology is predicted by a number of more basic psychological traits such as personality and moral concerns.

What about experiences? I'm speaking on complete anecdotes here so this sounds more like a plea than anything, but as someone who's great grandparents and great great grandparents etc. were nobles and slavetraders, my family was pretty right-wing before the 21st century when they migrated and lost all their money. Abuse while I was growing up most certainly changed the way I viewed people and strongly forced my views leftward - previously I had all these ideas of exclusion and romanticisms of kings and queens. After childhood, these ideas were completely demolished when I faced some lifechanging events regarding my peers and I. Wouldn't that classify as an environmental effect?

Also, I used to be fairly backwards in my view on a lot of social topics e.g. being against Feminism, drug legalisation (both for the dumbest reasons ever), being obsessed with tax measures, "I'm not ----! All my ---- are ----!" etc. These all changed after either debates (sometimes heated) with people on the topic, self-education and (one of the strongest in my book) breaking the zone of isolation and ending up meeting people I had held prejudices about. This is still all anecdotal but I find it highly unlikely that these changes in political attitude were pre-predicted by deoxyribonucleic acid.


Both of these demonstrate moderate to high heritability so it follows that political beliefs would also.


These psychological traits do not necessarily tailor towards specific political ideals or ideologies though, do they? Surely moral concerns are quite flexible in terms of political groups that are open (or push image) to accommodation?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...if this is the case, which I highly doubt, mine must be in the 30% or lower category (my dad is very a-political and my mum just thinks politicians are idiots and has the odd UKIP 'the trouble with foreigners' moment)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

There may some genetic influence, but I think this study may be overstating things. I mean, how many of us here had communist parents?

my dad comes from an extremely long line of Liberal voters (going back as far afaik as when common men got the franchise) but there are many socialists of various colours on my mum's side. No revolutionaries afaik, but I know that my Grandad Jack was on the far left of Labour in the fifties and sixties until he washed his hands of local politics, and my mum was involved in a few leftist organisations before she became a teacher.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

my dad comes from an extremely long line of Liberal voters (going back as far afaik as when common men got the franchise) but there are many socialists of various colours on my mum's side. No revolutionaries afaik, but I know that my Grandad Jack was on the far left of Labour in the fifties and sixties until he washed his hands of local politics, and my mum was involved in a few leftist organisations before she became a teacher.
Interesting. My father is apolitical, and my mother is a moderate. Most of the other people in my family range from moderate to conservative.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

My family up until my parents' generation (i.e baby boomers) all had pretty traditional working class jobs, tho my mum's side being Irish her parents were from families only a few generations away from subsistence farming (although my Grandad Jack was an engineer.) Although my dad's paternal line were generally Liberal voters (most of them had more professional jobs although my grandad was a bus driver) on my Grandma's side pretty much every male member of the family worked down the coal mines. Generally speaking, i guess my family has always been on the left of the political spectrum in Britain (that is, until the shift of the lib-dems and labour towards neoliberalism)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

At least one of these types of studies is released every year. Last year there was one that said there was some empathy gene in liberals that was missing in conservatives, as if liberals were known for their great empathy. Its all pseudo science bullshit

[Futility Personified]

It doesn't seem far fetched that identical twins will be more similar as individuals, if they are raised in the same environment, what things are there to radically differentiate them? I'd take note that it's UP TO 60%, which would be overreaching anyway in my opinion. Aside from the fact that it's culturally biased, for we can assume that it is excluding different methods of child rearing (unless i have read everything upside down and this migraine is going to kill me). Of course genetics play some part in the formation of our personalities, and hence our politics. But over half? I really, really doubt that.

[Celtic_0ne]

Sounds kinda like epigenetics

[Nakidana]

this study does not appear to have been accepted yet

As stated in the OP, it has been accepted by Behavior Genetics, a peer-reviewed journal, and apparently many of the authors are big shots within the field of behavioral genetics.

I am very critical of the findings, but I think just labeling it pseudoscience is too easy.

[goalkeeper]

God, this sort of science is the worst. Trying to read relatively modern social categories and divisions (i.e. political ideologies) from enduring biological features and distinctions between humans - sounds like the same sort of mistake behind racial science.

[Art Vandelay]

As stated in the OP, it has been accepted by Behavior Genetics, a peer-reviewed journal, and apparently many of the authors are big shots within the field of behavioral genetics.

I really don't think this claim is anything new, I remember coming across a book which had this exact same premise, a number of years ago in a bookshop.


I am very critical of the findings, but I think just labeling it pseudoscience is too easy.

Flippantly dismissing it is definitely short sighted, especially when most here don't have a background in the field. But I certainly don't find their cynicism and skepticism misplaced.

[Slavic]

Pseudoscience: A claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

This article adheres to a scientific method, has supporting evidence, and can be reliably tested. I know new scientific studies are scary and frightening, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss them as fake or "pseudoscience". Just because something doesn't fit into your little narrative about the world doesn't mean it isn't real. Sounds just as rediculous as a Left Communist calling a M-L a Fascist.

Now back to the article; there isn't any gaping holes or ambiguity in the original article. They used a rather robust pool of samples which I found pretty impressive considering they were limiting themselves to identical and fraternal twins. To me the results are pretty convincing that certain genetic makeups can make a sizable determination in the construction of our political ideology. Also to all the naysayers, the article specifically states that there is no "liberal" or "conservative" gene, and that the responsibility is not 60% but a %30-%60 range.

[adipocere]

Flippantly dismissing it is definitely short sighted, especially when most here don't have a background in the field. But I certainly don't find their cynicism and skepticism misplaced.
I was being flippant, but I do have a background in anthropology/biology and this is the type of thing I knee-jerkingly dismiss because the paradigm is so obvious. There are a lot of problematic things with this study and it's conclusion.

One cannot make observations on genetic heritability based on blind internet surveys (and a few brain scans) of the political attitudes of genetically identical people already narrowly defined on a political chart. (And then not to mention the obvious self-reinforcing bias of the politics of the PI creating the parameters.)

It doesn't matter how many twins you survey, all you can safely determine is that people growing up in similar cultures tend to view the world similarly, and (newsflash) identical twins with net access a little bit more so. Tacking on politics is disingenuous, as though politics are not the byproduct of mass culture, but a natural law that can be measured and predicted by "western democracies". It would be far more interesting had twins raised in different cultures been compared, but in an extreme case, the relativity of politics breaks down. Would a child raised in a Swiss chalet have similar political views as his twin raised with a Papua New Guinea tribe? What the heck does politics even mean here?

You can barely study genetics with social science, and you certainly can't study social science without deconstructing the world view behind it. Further more, you cannot determine anything meaningful about cultural (political) attitudes by looking at identical twins raised in essentially the same cultures with similar political culture. Attitudes are not like heart disease pathologies where Fox News can be controlled for. The whole premise is absurd.

It's pseudo-science because it is trying to cram soft science into a hard science framework, not because it is necessarily wrong - it's just pounding square pegs into round holes.

Ever so slightly off topic, it turns out that bullshit is given free reign in the world of "peer-reviewed" journals. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full)Not that it necessarily applies in this instance, but it's worth reading - it goes a long way in explaining the sharp rise in bad science that seems to be all the rage recently.

[Art Vandelay]

I was being flippant, but I do have a background in anthropology/biology and this is the type of thing I knee-jerkingly dismiss because the paradigm is so obvious. There are a lot of problematic things with this study and it's conclusion.

Oh I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular, was more just making a general comment. I'll take a look at the link.

[Kenco Smooth]

It doesn't matter how many twins you survey, all you can safely determine is that people growing up in similar cultures tend to view the world similarly, and (newsflash) identical twins with net access a little bit more so. Tacking on politics is disingenuous, as though politics are not the byproduct of mass culture, but a natural law that can be measured and predicted by "western democracies". It would be far more interesting had twins raised in different cultures been compared, but in an extreme case, the relativity of politics breaks down. Would a child raised in a Swiss chalet have similar political views as his twin raised with a Papua New Guinea tribe? What the heck does politics even mean here?

This is dancing around the point. The simple fact is that people within a culture, however defined, differ in their political views. How to measure political ideology is a legitimate issue but one that is perfectly amenable to statistical measurement work. Given that differences exist they can then be portioned out into relative contributions, crudely into genes and environment, but typically into shared and non-shared environment for siblings, and almost always into additive and non-additive genetic contribution.


You can barely study genetics with social science, and you certainly can't study social science without deconstructing the world view behind it. Further more, you cannot determine anything meaningful about cultural (political) attitudes by looking at identical twins raised in essentially the same cultures with similar political culture. Attitudes are not like heart disease pathologies where Fox News can be controlled for. The whole premise is absurd.


This isn't studying genetics with social science. It's studying genetics with the methods of genetics. There's no clear dividing barrier between psychological and biological traits and the same assumptions and methods apply. You can't simply hand wave away the very strong associations found, if there is no genetic role why on earth are reliable methods for finding heritability providing such high estimates? Short of substantive criticisms of their methodology the reasonable response is to accept the findings or declare yourself unable to comment (no shame in this, few people in the world have sufficient knowledge to comment on a portion of the scientific work coming out daily).

And I'm not sure you're familiar with the methods under discussion. Twin studies rely heavily on the assumption of shared environments. If twins were placed in extremely different cultures then no heritability estimate could be drawn up as this assumption would be wildly broken. That they share cultures is not a weakness, the methods measure how close twins are above and beyond that of other relations (or non-relations even with modern approaches).

[Devrim]

There may some genetic influence, but I think this study may be overstating things. I mean, how many of us here had communist parents?

I did, and grandparents too.

Most people I know consider me to be a bit of a genetic determinist, but even I think this whole thing is complete nonsense.

Devrim

[Anti-Traditional]

I did, and grandparents too.

Most people I know consider me to be a bit of a genetic determinist, but even I think this whole thing is complete nonsense.

Devrim

Socialism in One Family. :laugh:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Except that political ideology is predicted by a number of more basic psychological traits such as personality and moral concerns. Both of these demonstrate moderate to high heritability so it follows that political beliefs would also.

Except that ideology isn't "personal" or "moral" - it's social. The political character of either a communist or a dyed-in-the-wool-Republican isn't reflective of moral values, but social conditions.

The initial work is clearly based on a fundamentally liberal-enlightenment understanding of the individual, and of politics. The resulting conclusions say more about the liberal assumptions of the scientists than they do about genetics.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Seems likely that it does affect our politics somehow but the group of test subjects is hardly representative of the population this study claims to represent. While I don't think ONE study serves to prove anything I do agree with adipocere, studies can indeed be interesting for other reasons than originally intended.

[Kenco Smooth]

Except that ideology isn't "personal" or "moral" - it's social. The political character of either a communist or a dyed-in-the-wool-Republican isn't reflective of moral values, but social conditions.

The initial work is clearly based on a fundamentally liberal-enlightenment understanding of the individual, and of politics. The resulting conclusions say more about the liberal assumptions of the scientists than they do about genetics.

Putting personal beliefs to the side, empirical evidence shows the clear association between personality, moral concerns and political beliefs.

http://garylewis.yolasite.com/resources/Lewis%20Bates%202011%20-%20From%20left%20to%20right%20-%20How%20the%20personality%20system%20allows%20bas ic%20traits%20to%20influence%20politics%20via%20ch aracteristic%20moral%20adaptations.pdf

[Sea]

God, this sort of science is the worst. Trying to read relatively modern social categories and divisions (i.e. political ideologies) from enduring biological features and distinctions between humans - sounds like the same sort of mistake behind racial science.It's not science, d00d.

Also thanks for the article OP. I had no idea that our genes changed so much every 25 years or so.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Putting personal beliefs to the side, empirical evidence shows the clear association between personality, moral concerns and political beliefs.

http://garylewis.yolasite.com/resources/Lewis%20Bates%202011%20-%20From%20left%20to%20right%20-%20How%20the%20personality%20system%20allows%20bas ic%20traits%20to%20influence%20politics%20via%20ch aracteristic%20moral%20adaptations.pdf

Ah, yes, since psychologists discovered the five objective and not-at-all-ideological categories underlying all personality, and the objective not-at-all-ideological means to quantify ideology, our understanding of the political situation has improved greatly. Thank-you, comrade, for sharing this important link.

[Kenco Smooth]

Ah, yes, since psychologists discovered the five objective and not-at-all-ideological categories underlying all personality, and the objective not-at-all-ideological means to quantify ideology, our understanding of the political situation has improved greatly. Thank-you, comrade, for sharing this important link.

There's a huge amount of work establishing the validity of the five-factor model of personality and the left-right distinction is hardly breaking new ground. Not to mention that even if they were just junk the correlation structure would still require explaining.

But who ever let empirical research get in the way of their own biases?

[Yazman]

As stated in the OP, it has been accepted by Behavior Genetics, a peer-reviewed journal, and apparently many of the authors are big shots within the field of behavioral genetics.

I am very critical of the findings, but I think just labeling it pseudoscience is too easy.

Indeed, I was wrong on that point. It still highlights, though, the fact that we really can't afford to just dismiss it off hand given that it has undergone peer review and been accepted - however, as with the published responses, there do appear to be valid critiques and alternative interpretations of the data. This type of stuff is outside of my area really but I am somewhat skeptical, personally. The responses highlight some real issues with the study.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There's a huge amount of work establishing the validity of the five-factor model of personality and the left-right distinction is hardly breaking new ground. Not to mention that even if they were just junk the correlation structure would still require explaining.

But who ever let empirical research get in the way of their own biases?

Buddy, empirical research "proved" Jews were prone to crime because of the shape of their skulls. Turn on your critical thinking skills, and seriously look at the assumptions that underwrite this shit.

That you can speak about "left-right distinction" in this context, as though it weren't in-and-of-itself a product of liberal ideological hegemony, says volumes.

[Kenco Smooth]

Buddy, empirical research "proved" Jews were prone to crime because of the shape of their skulls. Turn on your critical thinking skills, and seriously look at the assumptions that underwrite this shit.

That you can speak about "left-right distinction" in this context, as though it weren't in-and-of-itself a product of liberal ideological hegemony, says volumes.

So I take it you've no substantial criticism rather than handwaving 'assumptions'?

It doesn't matter in this context why it exists or what the left-right divide is, it simply matters that it is something people differ in. Given this it's no more difficult to analyse statistically than height or weight. And such analysis shows a clear link to personal factors which are themselves highly heritable.

For all the paper that's been wasted on blind guesses and 'theoretical' claims as to why people hold their political beliefs I'd put money on this one replicating (as it already has) much better than the thoughts of armchair theorists.

[newdayrising]

I have an ex-"communist" mother and my grandfather was a "communist" his whole life, but my communism doesn't consider theirs to be really communist, does it count then?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Buddy, empirical research "proved" Jews were prone to crime because of the shape of their skulls.

Except that it didn't.

[argeiphontes]

The researchers hypothesised that since twin pairs tend to grow up in the same environment, any differences must be attributable to genes.


Why should this assumption be accepted? Don't the force of arguments or the content of the ideologies themselves have any influence over people?

Furthermore, people with identical genetics and environment do experience differences in experiences and treatment. The world is not a lab. Why wouldn't you have to control for those things? Is it because it's too complex so you can't?

I just skimmed it looking for numbers, and the Hungarian data only seemed to show a .39 correlation attributable to genetics, and the first table at the end (the combined std deviation plot in the blue ink) seems to say something like .4 overall. If I'm reading that right (which I might not be) that means that 60% of the variance in opinion is *not* genetically determined. In their introduction, they say 30-60% genetically determined, which means that 40-70% is not genetically determined, and that's the bigger quantity. So how can you conclude that it's genetic, when the majority of it isn't?

The majority of studies in the meta analysis didn't even show a genetic correlation as great as .4, and there was a big variation among them.