Physiological Basis for Politics

No matter your country, you are probably discouraged by the lack of civility about political matters. This message treads on this lack of civility, and is being sent out with the hope it will foster useful discussion and better understanding.

Some research indicates that our political persuasion is frequently predictable from a very early age. For example, one study tracked children from kindergarten and years after until their political flavor was established. The eventual liberal or conservative orientation of the children could be predicted based on such things as how the children responded to new stimuli and much more.

Of course, there were many exceptions. But, if true, if there is a deeply ingrained "bent" toward being of liberal or conservative philosophy, I think we at least need to be open to discussion.

I am not suggesting, and the research I have read did not in any way suggest a positive or negative, or right or wrong slant to either being liberal or conservative, by the way.

That behavioral research of children came to mind because of an article I just read studying eye movements, and other physiological responses of liberals and conservatives when shown pleasant and unpleasant images. Liberals were much more attuned to pleasant images, while conservatives focused more on negative images. Here's the article...

The Biology Of Politics: Liberals Roll With The Good, Conservatives Confront The Bad

Again, the researchers truly don't seem to cast their work in terms of right and wrong, or better or worse.

For example, before World War II, wouldn't a conservative Winston Churchill be better equipped to deal with Nazi German than a liberal Neville Chamberlain? On the other hand, would you rather have a conservative Joseph McCarthy or a liberal politician responding to the supposed Communist threat in Hollywood?

Please don't react to my example, for it truly limps. Hopefully, though, you understand my point. Some people are born with characteristics that match the times they live, and some people are brilliant and capable, but seem out of step with the needs of their time. True?

Well, if you agreed to my statement above about "some people being born..." with characteristics that well equips them for their historical times, haven't you in essence given your assent to the research that tentatively points toward a deep biological input into our politics? And, if so, speaking to myself, and speaking to everyone (and preaching, admittedly), shouldn't we quit looking at the "other side" as negatively as we do?

I believe all talents and viewpoints are valuable and required for the well being of society. And, whether I agree or not, it is good for me and us to respectfully consider all sides.

Finally, please, if someone responds angrily here, just ignore it!

There may be a small measure of political slant that you are born with, but personally I feel that you gain your views and politics more from the environment you grow up in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

There may be a small measure of political slant that you are born with, but personally I feel that you gain your views and politics more from the environment you grow up in.

---

I think the researchers I've read would agree. But, the "small measure" might be a significant factor. And, that is what the increasing amount of research in this area is studying. How much of our politics is biologically influenced.

I read one researcher say apologetically, (since it could not be based on more than intuition), that it was 1/3 biology, and 1/3 experience and 1/3 XYZ. And, I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember the last 1/3! The point though, was that someone who studied this question much more than me thought about 1/3 of our eventual political orientation came from genetics.

That is significant! It might be a "small measure", but something to consider.

I sincerely doubt any study can show a biological predisposition toward one side of politics or another. Putting aside the fact that definitions of the political spectrum are very subjective, from my reading of this study they only showed that people who were dichotomously predefined into very broad political categories had an eye movement response to variously subjectively chosen images. In no way can this be construed as proof, in any shape or form, of a biological link between political persuasion (whatever that means...) and physiology. It just means that people's eyes moved in certain ways on a particular day under a particular set of circumstances.

No mention was made of whether the researchers controlled for confounding factors. This is probably more an omission of the web report than a problem with the research: even the "soft" sciences know enough statistics and experimental design to not make that mistake.

However, I would be very interested to read the actual article, as I myself have a research interest in the statistical effect of the "treatment" order in studies such as these. Often randomising the order of treatments is not enough to ensure a lack of an order effect on the subject, particularly when the treatments are a relatively long series of similar objects - in this case, pictures. I'm quite curious to see how, or if, the researchers dealt with this. I am also interested to see how the researchers analysed their data, as it sounds to me as if it was repeated measures with a potentially non-normal response distribution - there are well-known statistical effects with bias leading to misleading conclusions if this type of data is incorrectly analysed. Further, even if the data are analysed appropriately, the particular algorithm used by the software can have a non-trivial effect on conclusions as well.

Finally, I really do think, from a moral perspective, that trying to link political persuasion to biology (and, by logical conclusion, genetics) is a very very slippery slope indeed. Imagine the potential outcomes if that kind of thing were ever "proven". Particularly in light of how much money gets pumped into politics. Is it too far of a stretch to imagine, in a world where genetic pre-disposition is linked to how someone votes, that the political parties would think about "creating" voters as opposed to "converting" voters? I don't think so, but then I am a cynical liberal.... :p

James.

Does such a study take into avccount the fact that many peoples views change. I run into former students foprm time to time who had fairly liberal idead when in school. However, now that they are adults adn raising their own children they have become much more conservative.

I also know many people (even adults) who vote for one party or another because their family has always been Dem or Rep. even though the other party may actually better represent their personal values.

I really don't beleive that beople are born with a polical predisposition. For some who actually take the time to analize their own world view their support for one cadidate over another is idealogical, for others its purely peer presure or "family tradition", etc. Some beleive the hype a politician spews and base their vote on that. I do not believe there is any real evedince that I saw in that article that would even suggest a persons political bent was genetic.

JMHO,

Ray

PS bare with me guys I'm learning a new keybord on my new laptop and I can't seem to find how to turn teh spell check on yet.

I agree with Ray about his observation. According to Erikson and Maslow, human development tends toward conservatism with age as developmental stages are mastered and needs become more refined. How many adolescents do you know who are relatively idealistic and how many older folks that are cynical. I would not imply that you cannot hold ideals in your heart, nor behave that way if you so choose, but experience is a great change agent.

I would also add that environmental factors play a much larger role than physiological. There are several valid criticisms of the oft (and wrongly) cite twins studies that cannot explain the ability to choose for oneself. I benefit from a heavy dose of graduate school. Once the teachers figured out how I generally thought, their assignments were to prove the very opposite of that which my nature would have found most easy to prove. I would encourage anyone to believe it possible to change with the facts as they become known.

Ray also identifies a very important factor. Someone who is controlled by external factors (other people, peer groups, advertising) versus an internal decision making process (self directed learning, personal choice control) is a critical difference that does more to explain many human characteristics.

My two cents anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryAndro

Some research indicates that our political persuasion is frequently predictable from a very early age. For example, one study tracked children from kindergarten and years after until their political flavor was established. The eventual liberal or conservative orientation of the children could be predicted based on such things as how the children responded to new stimuli and much more.


For example, before World War II, wouldn't a conservative Winston Churchill be better equipped to deal with Nazi German than a liberal Neville Chamberlain? On the other hand, would you rather have a conservative Joseph McCarthy or a liberal politician responding to the supposed Communist threat in Hollywood?



Finally, please, if someone responds angrily here, just ignore it!

---

No , I do not believe there is a "Genetic Political Gene" hidden in us at birth.
Any parent who cares about the well being of their child can testify to the volume of influence that a child consumes before the age of kindergarten. At the very least, someone needs to study the pre-kindergarten years, before tossing this assumption on the table.

Political standing is taken from your environment.

It's nice to sit around the table, hold hands and debate whether the pudding in our bowls is warm enough, needs a little more sugar, But when you tell me that I have too much pudding in my bowl and you reach in to take a spoonful; then the discussion is over and the love is lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

There may be a small measure of political slant that you are born with, but personally I feel that you gain your views and politics more from the environment you grow up in.

---

Absolutely !!

No one doing research that I am aware believes genetics is the deciding factor in political choice. However, it is my belief that there is a growing body of evidence genetics does play a role at times. While it can't be teased apart, and quantified, I think it wrong to dismiss out of hand the possibility.

I like to think of myself as reasoned and open minded. Applied to myself, it is sobering to think that there might be a small part of me that is inclined to a particular viewpoint.

I am not aware of anyone who believes we are born as blank slates, identical to each other. We don't have any trouble believing that some are born more mathematical, or artistic, or organizational. And, anecdotally parents say their kids popped out of the womb with distinct personalities and abilities. But, to consider that the same phenomenon might apply on the political level is politically incorrect. Even so, I think we should stay tuned.

These are very complex questions that we're bringing up. Why are people in the family unit take different sides in political discussions? They have basically the same life experiences to draw from?
Sadly we've seen this same type of behavior In the wars that our countries have fought. Look at the American revolution . Wasn't it Ben Franklin's son who was a governor for the crown. How can two people in the same family be so different?
These are not easy questions to deal with.

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

---

I'm curious to know how the pshrinks who ran the experiment turned out....

Good stuff CC, very good stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

---

I am the teacher in a Christian discussion group. I am going to excerpt the article linked by ChesterCopperpot for the group, and ask them whether any of part of the Rattlers or Eagles applies to them.

What an article! :)

Two excerpts...

The two tribes of children in Oklahoma formed because groups are how human beings escaped the Serengeti and built pyramids and invented Laffy Taffy. All primates depend on groups to survive and thrive, and human groups thrive most of all. It is in your nature to form them.

Sherif’s experiment with the boys at Robber’s Cave showed how quickly and easily you do so, how your innate drive to develop and observe norms and rituals will express itself even in a cultural vacuum...

I wonder what the author(s) meant by nature and innate drive?

I very much enjoyed that blog article. I would agree that, we as humans, need to belong to something, and will believe in and accept certain beliefs very much to remain in the group. That being said, I'd like to and will remain in the group that my family and heros belong to without hesitation or doubt.

And many people who lean a particular direction change their beliefs even later in life. They become disillusioned by the vast gulf that seems to exist between a party's stated goals, and their actual agenda. For example, I often say that George Bush created more liberals than all the Kennedys put together. But then, I'm sure some will counter that Obama created more conservatives than Reagan, or something similar.

For my part, I rarely discuss politics or religion, though I am interested in both. Both subjects seem to cause as much division as consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

... For my part, I rarely discuss politics or religion, though I am interested in both. Both subjects seem to cause as much division as consensus.

---

Obviously, since I started this thread, I don't always avoid discussion of politics, religion or even genetics. Even though discussion doesn't usually change minds, I think occasional discussions like these are helpful.

One summer, I worked out of town during the week, and drove home for the weekends to spend time with my wife. It always seemed like our relationship improved as the weekend went on. I concluded that our "wheels" spun independently of each other all week, how we felt and what we were thinking, and when we got together there was a grinding of gears, and a noticeable period where our awareness of the other synchronized.

Even though this might not be a good example, I think it useful to periodically discuss politics with others of alternate viewpoints. Without these periodic times when we listen to someone else, it is like we are spinning off into other worlds. Then, just like the Rattlers and Eagles, when we become aware of others, we are more inclined to steal each others flags, then together help pull a truck out of mud.

(Forgive the awkward analogies, and thought progressions.)

Good point, Larry-It does seem that the really far-out wing-nuts out on the edges of the political spectrum (left OR right) are the ones who only listen to each other, to the media (books, magazines, blogs, talking heads) that agrees with their viewpoint, and don't stay grounded in conversations that might make them more pragmatist, and less partisan.

I have said for years (and have tried to do this when I can since college) that thinking people who would stay truly informed need to read, listen to, watch and judge viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum. As a teacher of high school seniors for the last 15 years, I have met and talked to students and parents from ALL walks of life-the good, the bad, and the ugly. It definitely gives you a different perspective from someone who only socializes with people much like themselves (which, let's face it, many people do).

Having said that, I keep my politics and religion out of the classroom. What disgusts me are teachers who use their position as a bully pulpit to try to recruit converts to the cause. Sorry, this is OT from your original post (which is interesting, by the way-I have long suspected that we are far more prisoners of our genes than we would like to admit...). Take care-SHD

This whole thing really is related to a previous discussion here a while back where we discussed how people involved in certain academic disciplines tended to be conservative or liberal like people in the sciences tend to be conservative and engineers were very conservative and those in the social sciences were way more liberal. Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

... Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

---

I took a poll of all SRP members, and have a solemn promise from all not to flame ya. And, so, what is your best try answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

... Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

---

My best guess is that it's related to the amount of money.

My political leanings have varied quite a bit over the years. When I was very young, I was rather liberal I suppose, but in my 20s and through most of my 30s I was very conservative. At this point in my life, I am unclassifiable. I try to look at issues non-ideologically. I am pro 2nd amendment, pro choice, and very libertarian in some regards. When it comes to economic issues I sometimes get confused with a marxist or a free-market republican, depending on the issue. For example, pro nationalized health care, pro sending bankers to jail, anti bail out, anti union, pro labor and I want to bring back Johnson's Great Society.

I think that people take positions on issues simply because of the party that they affiliate themselves with. For example, if you're a Republican, you will more likely take a pro-life (as an example) stance than not, even though you may not have a very well formed opinion, or even care. Your party affiliation will push you into a position. It's the same if you're a Democrat.

I think most of the people here tend to stray outside of their "party lines" and come to their own conclusions, which is one of the things I like about the group here. People are, for the most part, pretty open minded and willing to look at issues from different sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joesixpack

My political leanings have varied quite a bit over the years. When I was very young, I was rather liberal I suppose, but in my 20s and through most of my 30s I was very conservative. At this point in my life, I am unclassifiable. I try to look at issues non-ideologically. I am pro 2nd amendment, pro choice, and very libertarian in some regards. When it comes to economic issues I sometimes get confused with a marxist or a free-market republican, depending on the issue. For example, pro nationalized health care, pro sending bankers to jail, anti bail out, anti union, pro labor and I want to bring back Johnson's Great Society.

I think that people take positions on issues simply because of the party that they affiliate themselves with. For example, if you're a Republican, you will more likely take a pro-life (as an example) stance than not, even though you may not have a very well formed opinion, or even care. Your party affiliation will push you into a position. It's the same if you're a Democrat.

I think most of the people here tend to stray outside of their "party lines" and come to their own conclusions, which is one of the things I like about the group here. People are, for the most part, pretty open minded and willing to look at issues from different sides.

---

Interesting viewpoint Joe. I personally tend to be very conservative on most issues. On some issues I am so conservative I make Rush Limbaugh look like the grand marshal at a gay pride parade. But I have a very libertatian political attitude becasue I appreciate the diversity of thought and beliefs we have int his country. The older I get the more I beleive there is a growing list of things Gov has no business legistlating. I stopped identifying myself by political party many years ago and for the last many elections (both local and national) I have felt like I was choosing the lesser of two evils rather than actually supporting a particular candidate or party.

I am just the opposite. I try to look at issues idealogically becasue I do beleive that some things are right and wrong. That being said, a balance needs to be drawn between the two. Pure ideology can lead to facism but so can pure pragmatism. Either taken to the extreme can lead to government oppresion over part of the citizenship. I think that is why our country has become as polarized as it is. both sides have forgotten to give the other a little space and thrive through the politcal machine to force their values ont eh rest fo the country.

THats why I beleive a lot of these issues should be hands off by the feds and left to the states or local comunities to decide for themselves.

Ray

ps anyone know how to turn the spellcheck on in windows 7?