The Liberal Mind vs the Conservative Mind -- Genetic?

Earlier today, I referred to McCain as having a "reptilian mind." I admit that I wasn't being literal... just sort of impressionistic. However, some interesting new data has come my way since then and I'd like to share it with you -- the literal, non-impressionistic stuff.

A fascinating new study from the British weekly scientific magazine, New Scientist brings up the question on its front cover, "Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative?" It delves into the serious scientific research on the formation of political opinions. My attention was immediately focused on several conclusions which I had been noticing since my student days when I was president of the freshman class at college and of the school's Young Democrats:

"...a rather unflattering view of conservatives emerges from the studies. They are portrayed as dogmatic, routine-loving individuals, while liberals come across as free-spirited and open-minded folk."

The story suggests that it's probably pointless to try to change most people's minds about politics. "According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. 'These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion,' says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas... [O]pinions on a long list of issues, from religion in schools to nuclear power and gay rights, have a substantial genetic component. The decision to vote rather than stay at home on election day may also be linked to genes. Neuroscientists have also got in on the act, showing that liberals and conservatives have different patterns of brain activity."

In 2003, John Jost, a psychologist at New York University, and colleagues surveyed 88 studies, involving more than 20,000 people in 12 countries, that looked for a correlation between personality traits and political orientation (American Psychologist, vol 61, p 651). Some traits are obviously going to be linked to politics, such as xenophobia being connected with the far right. However, Jost uncovered many more intriguing connections. People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views. Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs.

...A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. Some traits that are linked to openness, such as being sociable, are also known to be influenced by the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. And levels of these chemicals are controlled in part by genes. So while there isn't a gene for liking hippies, there is probably a set of genes that influences openness, which in turn may influence political orientation.

This is cross-posted from DownWithTyranny, where the full story, somewhat longer, is available, along with some lovely illustrative artwork.

Follow Howie Klein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/downwithtyranny

Comments

[vincentsonoma]

I think it's a bit simplistic to portray liberals as "free-spirited and open-minded," while portraying conservatives as "dogmatic and routine-loving." But I do think there are clear differences between the two mindsets. The title of this study really says it all--"Two Tribes." Knowing nothing about this study, I wrote a blog entry several weeks ago about the possibility of a genetic basis to political orientation. I believe that it has more to do with tribalistic tendencies. The conservative political mindset centers around a sense of exclusivity, separateness, and xenophobia (whether it's immigrants, liberals, those of other religions, etc.), while feeling regularly threatened by those outside of one's "tribe." Whereas, the liberal political mindset centers around an antithetical set of beliefs--inclusiveness, diversity, tolerance, and "leveling the playing field." Neither are inherently good or bad, but they do reflect a clear difference in terms of worldview.

These differences in mindset are so clearly defined that it’s often an easy matter to deduce one’s political persuasion merely by reading bumper stickers on a car. An American flag sticker typically means: conservative. A sticker picturing the earth as a whole typically means: liberal. A sticker picturing a specific religious symbol usually means: conservative. A sticker picturing all religious symbols placed alongside one another usually means: liberal.

Several of the posts here point out that liberals can be just as dogmatic in their beliefs, and I think that's sometimes true. Hyper-liberalism is really just the flip side of hyper-conservatism, and probably driven by the same genetic tendencies--but simply molded in that direction by environment/upbringing.

For those interested in my full blog entry on the subject, see: http://stevenmeloan.blogspot.com/2008/01/gene-genie.html

[libertron]

I would be more likely to believe this if it wasn't portrayed as 100% bad to be conservative and always more "evolved" to be liberal. Aren't there downsides to being too liberal also, like being overly willing to throw old traditions under the bus when you don't really understand why thousands of years of human evolution made them that way? Or being gullible enough to adopt new systems that should have been easily seen as failures like Communism?

The blog says righties are "dogmatic and routine-loving, but then references nuclear power as an example... Isn't that the newest and most high-tech power supply there is?

It also mentions being interested in different cultures as a completely good thing. I would love to try some of the crazy foods you see on No Reservations or GlobeTrekker, but no way do I want to see Sharia law come here to the US. Aren't there any limits? You can't say that liberals have everything right and conservatives are just cave-men.

[PaulineB]

I recommend George Lakoff's "Moral Politics - How Liberals and Conservatives Think". It helps me recognize, if not exactly understand, the conservative viewpoint: unquestioning to authority, male dominant, preferring punishment to nurturing, and reluctant to embrace new ideas.

[Centaur]

I think it's a matter of evolution. Liberals seem to have a more evovled state of mind.

[Cathexis]

I am skeptical of the "genetic" association hypothesis -- how does it explain people such as myself, who spent decades as a Far Right Neocon, coming from a long line of Neocons, only to come to Liberalism, later in life?

I still remember what shocked me out of my rigid mindset: The Clinton Impeachment fiasco. It was SO ridiculous and SO uncalled for that I found myself unable to rationalize it away, as I had been able to do with so many other Far Right actions and beliefs.

Far Right mindsets *are* DEEPLY entrenched ... but if a situation is successfully reframed, I believe that some/many will slowly start to come to terms and start questioning.

In my case, once I stopped rationalizing (trying to fit reality to my ideology) and actually started questioning (open to forming an ideology based on reality), my Far Right beliefs collapsed like a house of cards.

[Cathexis]

I suggest that falling for a "genetic Conservatism" belief is non-constructive, at best -- it will just make us less likely to debate/discuss issues, assuming that "they" are genetically incapable of "seeing reason."

We'll stop interacting and the belief theat they will not change or listen to reason will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know it can be maddening "debating' with "conservative," but every now and then ... seeds which we have planted actually do sprout!

I am living proof of that.

[Querent]

There's probably some type of continuum involved. I'm guessing folks like you are somewhere near the middle. You were raised as a conservative, so you were a conservative. If you were further away from the middle, maybe the house of cards would still be standing.

[veracitatus]

A single data point does not a scientific argument make.

There are actually quite a few anecdotal stories like yours. I was once a republican (not a neocon) and believed deeply that what was good for business was good for America. Dog help me, I voted for Reagan. But like you I learn from evidence and soon came to realize that the story told by supply-siders and deregulators made no sense in light of what was happening to America. That and the take-over of the party by the religious right sealed it for me.

I'm still fiscally conservative to the extent that I insist on getting value added for the tax dollars I put in. But I'm not unwilling to put in those tax dollars to contribute to a functioning society - including helping out those less fortunate than myself.

Anyway, your story and the genetics connection are not mutually exclusive. Genetic influence is only just that - an influence. It is not deterministic in the ordinary cause-effect sense.

V.

[research]

I watched Katrina convert about a dozen lifetime conservatives into liberals.

I too doubt the genetic aspect. I would like to see how different countries varied in this correlation, I believe social environment would have at least as much effect.

[avicenna]

One's genes aren't static - mutations occur all the time - some are evolutionarily favourable like your sudden liberalization ;)

[realpolitic]

Well, that explains the fin I have on my back.

[thesimulacra]

I think this is another case of media puffery. To make the article more palatable to the general public they've dumbed down the analysis to liberal/conservative, but really what you talk about when you talk about different political opinions is a major divergence in how people view the world. Two people can witness the same event and have completely different opinions about it (case in point: 9/11), and it comes from a person's intuition regarding their belief in the processes of the world and of the human condition. This distinction is important. For instance, though some might think so, it is not contradictory to one day work at a soup kitchen and the next day vote to end welfare. A person can endeavor to help the poor while still maintain the philosophy that helping the poor is not the job of the government, and frequently people do.

Regardless of how influential these genes may be, the important thing for anyone interested in ending partisanship to understand is that frequently an opposing political view does not imply an opposite moral value or priority, but instead comes from a different core perspective on the world.

[veracitatus]

And your data to back up this hypothesis is?

You may be right on some of these assertions. But the psychology, genetics, and neuroscience of thinking styles and personality traits is pretty solid. It has more explanatory potential than personal opinion.

V.

[Aramingo]

Hmm... That would explain the anecdotal evidence of Reagan and Heston. If there's a genetic basis for political leanings, based on the examples given, conservativism is an early sign of Alzheimer's.

[Querent]

Best Humorous Comment Award

[misslily]

I guess this would 'splain my neo conservative religious zealot inlaws...I'll try viewing Christmas with the inlaws as a psychological experiment. I'll stand in the corner taking notes, it'll really creep them out.

[Patriot555]

They’ve been able to nail down the individual genes that are responsible for such esoteric characteristics as artistic prowess or mathematical skills etc., so it should come as no surprise that someone’s political leanings should somehow be linked to genes. One thing does stump me though; why is it that so many neo-conservatives hail from the former slave states? This anomaly should show that a person’s political leanings may be framed by genetics but that a person’s culture plays just as big if not a bigger roll. You really want to look for a gene that is responsible for a person being Liberal or Conservative, find the one that is responsible for homophobia and you’ll have your smoking gun...

[fiatpax]

This would be a plausible theory, if we were fruit flies. The human genome is infinitely more complex, and the many factors which go into the formation of character (environment, education, intelligence, religion, philosophy, etc., etc.) all play a role in determining whether a person will lean right or left. Besides, if being liberal or conservative was a matter of genetics, why was I born into a long line of conservatives? That would mean someone has to be a mutant (I'm pretty sure it's them).

[avicenna]

Virtually every personality characteristic is both a factor of nature and nurture. Kolberg's theory of moral development has a better layout as to what makes a "conservative" or right-wing personality - it is a product of a "formalized" personality, which is one that developed without the opportunity or desire to question what is passed on to them by "authority" figures. It is easier for them to simplify the world into "right" and "wrong" - whether this characteristic is a genetic susceptibility is very possible. However, there is also a tendency by most academics (who happen to lean largely to the left) to paint themselves in favouralbe light - so it has to be appreciated that those who claim a genetic composition to the one's world perspective do so believing that intellectual superiority is also a genetic trait.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I give this 2 thumbs down. Stop the tea leaf reading, and the Great Zambini mind-reading, and really put policy concepts 'in writing', and do a little work here. Political candidates need to be more than Pandidates, promising people money, because that puts you right back on the old road to hell. I'd like to see reforms and to support that, I registered as an Independent. I think we need a third party with a bona-fide voice, because A vs. B kind of leaves people out, and that's no accident.
There's been a trend toward elitism, exclusivism, towards one-way conversations, where basically you have these snake charmer people out there trying to GIVE you your opinion, rather than actively soliciting the public's participation in shaping policy.
I think 'liberal' is a label, 'conservative' is a label, when the actual term that's applicable here is 'american', or 'citizen', or 'US citizen', the full target audience of any given piece of campaign rhetoric. (Implied, but I'll state it anyway, other countries need to be taking notes, but not seeking to influence this process to their material benefit, because we just got done watching what 8 years of that BS will get you, a mess, with many consequences.)

[Querent]

Two things: a multiparty system, or more explicitly, a parliamentary system would make the government more responsive to the people. Instead of twenty years, we might only take ten years to get out of Vietnam. You need proportional representation before you can get to a multi-party system. These are structural reforms. They would require Constitutional change. It's a huge task, and it would take a generation to accomplish, if it could be accomplished at all.

Secondly, liberal and conservative are useful categories, and they describe real political philosophies. The conservative philosophy has just been given an opportunity to demonstrate its correctness, and has instead provided us with its total refutation. This is not a trivial thing. It is history. We need to learn from it.

[Kantinflas]

Psychological studies of voter behavior typically show that, irrespective of ideology, emotion trumps reason.

[realpolitic]

You mean people vote for who they like?

[Kantinflas]

No. I mean people vote for whom they like.

[thedirtman]

Does reason ever trump anything?

[lehrbob007]

Sounds like a bunch o' hooey to me, but:

"Many conservatives are not stupid people, but many stoopid people are conservatives!" -John Stuart Mils-

[dolphy]

Rethugs are the kids who change the rules in the middle of the game and everyone hates them. They lie and cheat in early childhood. Since their parents are the same, they fully develop being vile as they age.

[Kundera]

You mean like beginning an election going for the most electoral votes and then when it's over saying it's more important to win the popular vote. You mean that kind of changing the rules??

[realpolitic]

Well, I think it may be more important to actually win the Oval Office. But the Supreme Court had something to say about that.

[Querent]

You should change your screen name to "You Mean Like . . ." Kundera, that seems to be the only way you think about things. It's like . . . conceptualization by analogy. There are these new things available now, like logic, and science? You should learn about them.