Is liberalism caused by a gene

[kvnchrist]

^ That has nothing to do with liberalism being caused by a gene, but okay.

 

 

Also to be clear, the report doesn't say the gene causes liberalism, it says that it increases the chance you become a liberal. Quite a big difference.

 

 

Yea, but how do they know any of this. Thus the question in my original post.

 

Personally, I believe they are just trying to spark a little controversy here, and probably get some more funding. Having convictions aren't, to me genetics, but social interest comes from being aware and being willing to point out descripencies It is the strength of those convictions and the courage to stand for them that really decides wither a person is a true liberal or conservative, and not just a politician, looking to get elected.

[marharth]

^ That has nothing to do with liberalism being caused by a gene, but okay.

 

 

Also to be clear, the report doesn't say the gene causes liberalism, it says that it increases the chance you become a liberal. Quite a big difference.

 

 

Yea, but how do they know any of this. Thus the question in my original post. Personally, I believe they are just trying to spark a little controversy here, and probably get some more funding. having convictions aren't to me genetics. It is the strength of those convictions and the courage to stand for them that really decides wither a person is a true liberal or conservative, and not a pushover.

Well based on their study they tested a group of liberals and conservatives, liberals had the gene more then conservatives.

 

That study can be deeply flawed though for obvious reasons, and your right it could of been done just to stir up controversy.

[crimsonblade1]

My father, who was a former Liberal, big left wing guy told me the main flaw in that ideology, is the people are completely emotion driven, and often don't think very logically, and form opinions based on emotion instead of facts, logic and common sense. Using things like playing the frustrations of the poor and using it as a means of class warfare is one means of emotion based politics, and ideology. But in the real world it doesn't make a lot of sense seeing as how the rich are the ones hiring people and creating jobs. The tree huggers are 100% emotion driven people, there is no logic or common sense at all behind their actions or agenda. Edited September 29, 2011 by crimsonblade1

[kvnchrist]

My father, who was a former Liberal, big left wing guy told me the main flaw in that ideology, is the people are completely emotion driven, and often don't think very logically, and form opinions based on emotion instead of facts, logic and common sense. Using things like playing the frustrations of the poor and using it as a means of class warfare is one means of emotion based politics, and ideology. But in the real world it doesn't make a lot of sense seeing as how the rich are the ones hiring people and creating jobs. The tree huggers are 100% emotion driven people, there is no logic or common sense at all behind their actions or agenda.

 

The left doesn't have a monopoly on emotionally lead responses. Try dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine. You will see a fairly emotional response from the right as well.

 

 

Can you say ballistic!

[Aurielius]

@kvnchrist

Your right that was tasteless..and entirely uncalled for.

[grannywils]

Oh good grief, is this entirely necessary?

[kvnchrist]

Well, this was meant to be a light hearted look at wacked out science trying to explain human nature.

 

The whole thing reminded me of Jerry Lewis's nutty professors character. I envisioned Carl Rove morphing into Jerry Garcia.

 

I never meant it as a put down to anyone. If it offends people it needs to be closed. I ask that it be so, immediately. I will not post another like this one. I apologize to those that were offended.

[ffa1mf]

Read the article and.... laughed til I was helpless lying on the floor gasping for breath.

 

I read a lot of research documents in my day to day job and that was one I would have to nominate for excessive "weasel clause" usage and just plain bad, well everything.

[Vagrant0]

Also to be clear, the report doesn't say the gene causes liberalism, it says that it increases the chance you become a liberal. Quite a big difference.

Yes, yes, not all that different from a "gay" gene really. Remember that comparison I made in that other thread... Kinda the same animal when you get down the nuts and bolts of it.

 

We accept these identities based on how easy they are to accept based on a combination of both genetic, biological, and environmental factors. The gene itself is not a cause nor an absolute, but just makes a person more accepting of certain thoughts and feelings which one might attribute with a collection under any given social group. Afterall, the only way these sorts of groups can have any significant size is if the framework that unites them is present in enough persons. It's not actually a gene which does a certain thing, but rather a gene which determines many differences in perception, attribution, and emotional connections, but is just being linked to the social identity of "liberal".

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there wasn't some other "genes" which could in some way be linked to just about any other social or personal status. But, people are not defined by their genes, the only thing genes do is give them a place to start.

[crimsonblade1]

My father, who was a former Liberal, big left wing guy told me the main flaw in that ideology, is the people are completely emotion driven, and often don't think very logically, and form opinions based on emotion instead of facts, logic and common sense. Using things like playing the frustrations of the poor and using it as a means of class warfare is one means of emotion based politics, and ideology. But in the real world it doesn't make a lot of sense seeing as how the rich are the ones hiring people and creating jobs. The tree huggers are 100% emotion driven people, there is no logic or common sense at all behind their actions or agenda.

 

The left doesn't have a monopoly on emotionally lead responses. Try dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine. You will see a fairly emotional response from the right as well.

 

 

Can you say ballistic!

 

I was going to make that point as well, but discussion about it is forbidden.

Edited September 30, 2011 by crimsonblade1