Obviously, linking specific behaviors - such as voting or, for that matter, performance on particular types of tests - to genetic makeup can be very tricky. A lot of that stuff was simply pseudo science cooked up to support racist ideologies - which gave the idea a bad rap and pushed the pendulum to the other, "culturalist" extreme. But there is enough evidence to suggest that human cognition is shaped by an interaction of genetic and environmental factors e.g. environmental triggers of genetic traits (i.e. X and Y may have the same genes but if environmental stimulus triggers a trait carried by those genes in X but not in Y or even if it triggers it at different times, the outcomes will be different,) or neuroplasticity in response to environmental stimulation. Even the term 'determinist' is a 19th century anachronism - outcomes of genetic/environmental interactions are probabilistic not deterministic, so we are dealing with general tendencies here not clockwork mechanism controlling every single move.
In any case, there is enough evidence that human cognition is affected by personality traits (which are genetically transmitted,) which make us more likely to accept certain types of ideas rather than other types. There is also plenty of research (most notably by George Lakoff) showing that political ideologies differ in their cognitive framing (Lakoff even claims that these frames have neuroplastic effects). So it stands to reason that political ideologies are linked to our genetically transmitted affective traits via cognitive framing.
Again, that does not men that voting Dem or Repug is "in the genes" - and honestly think that such formulation is a canard intended to discredit the idea without even considering it. As I already mentioned, same cognitive "styles" can be found across the political spectrum - rigid-mindedness and the need for closure and certitude can be found on both left and right, and so can be more open-minded free thinking. What matters is not a particular contents but the form - or as they say in the media business - not what to think but how to think about it.
Wojtek
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because genetic determinist sociobiology is horsepoop. Did you look Fowler
> up? He claims to have discovered three genes influence voting behavior
> (tying them to serotonin and dopamine systems), to have found that decisions
> to vote, egalitarianism, cooperation and altruism are heritable, and the
> social networks have meaningfully (if not totally) genetic foundations and
> that these genetically mediated networks can be used to forecast epidemics.
> This is an analysis of data from 2000 people a portion of which are
> indicated to have DRD4 genetic subtype and a portion of those are said to
> have lots of friends and the subset of the subset is then said to be more
> likely to vote for liberals - an transhistorical and unchanging category
> equal to the singular and monolithic Democratic Party agenda since we know
> that young Montana Blue Dogs are exactly like old Massachusetts homosexuals,
> much less Vermont ex-socialists and northern Ohio post-industrialists.
> Yeah, this is a BRILLIANT study, all of us should accept it at face value.
> Not a single variable could be dubiously operationalized in the slightest.
>
> In re: the DRD4 gene: does the following suggest anything about how Fowler
> might be thinking about the "liberal" gene? From wikipedia - "As with
> other dopamine
> receptor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor> subtypes,
> the D4receptor is activated by the
> neurotransmitter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter>
> dopamine<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine>.
> It is linked to many neurological and psychiatric conditions including
> schizophrenia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia>, Parkinsons
> disease <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_disease>, bipolar
> disorder<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder>,
> addictive behaviors including sex
> addiction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_addiction>,
> and eating disorders <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_disorders> such as
> anorexia nervosa <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa>, bulimia
> nervosa <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa> and binge
> eating<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_eating>.
> It has also been linked with novelty
> seeking<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking>and
> liberalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism>
> [2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4#cite_note-drd4liberalism-1>.
> It is a target for drugs which treat
> schizophrenia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia>and Parkinson
> disease <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson_disease>."
>
> Last, go here: http://www.world-science.net/ and tell me that the huge
> percentage of biologically determined social phenomena - plus the lack of an
> About Us or Who We Are page - doesn't raise flags.
>
> If he were dead, Dick Lewontin'd be rolling over in his grave to see lefties
> embracing this pile of hooey.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How can you be so sure that something does not exist?
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This confirms my long held belief that a rational discussion between
>> >> liberals and conservatives is pointless, because cognitive frames used
>> >> to form each point of view (or "motivated cognition" in psychological
>> >> parlance) are a priori determinants of how information is being
>> >> processed - i.e. deciding what is relevant and what is not and how the
>> >> relevant information is arranged and interpreted. Therefore, any
>> >> information obtained in a discussion will be either deemed irrelevant
>> >> by the other side or interpreted in a manner that is consistent with
>> >> his own cognitive framework. This is especially true of conservatives
>> >> who tend to be more cognitively rigid than liberals.
>> >
>> > ==============
>> >
>> > There are no a priori determinants of how information is processed.
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>