Political genetics? Zell has the final word
On June 21, the NY Times published this article headlined, "Some politics may be etched in the genes."
Wow, I thought. What are neocons, genetic mosaics?
However, it turns out the research was more about concepts that influence politics than about political affiliation itself. Here's an excerpt:
...on the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people's gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance...
From an extensive battery of surveys on personality traits, religious beliefs and other psychological factors, the researchers selected 28 questions most relevant to political behavior. The questions asked people "to please indicate whether or not you agree with each topic," or are uncertain on issues like property taxes, capitalism, unions and X-rated movies...
The researchers then compared dizygotic or fraternal twins, who, like any biological siblings, share 50 percent of their genes, with monozygotic, or identical, twins, who share 100 percent of their genes.
Calculating how often identical twins agree on an issue and subtracting the rate at which fraternal twins agree on the same item provides a rough measure of genes' influence on that attitude. A shared family environment for twins reared together is assumed...
On school prayer, for example, the identical twins' opinions correlated at a rate of 0.66, a measure of how often they agreed. The correlation rate for fraternal twins was 0.46. This translated into a 41 percent contribution from inheritance...
But after correcting for the tendency of politically like-minded men and women to marry each other, the researchers also found that the twins' self-identification as Republican or Democrat was far more dependent on environmental factors like upbringing and life experience than was their social orientation, which the researchers call ideology. Inheritance accounted for 14 percent of the difference in party, the researchers found.
Here's the part that starts being relevant to what's going on with neocons (perhaps):
A mismatch between an inherited social orientation and a given party may also explain why some people defect from a party. Many people who are genetically conservative may be brought up as Democrats, and some who are genetically more progressive may be raised as Republicans, the researchers say.
In tracking attitudes over the years, geneticists have found that social attitudes tend to stabilize in the late teens and early 20's, when young people begin to fend for themselves.
Some "mismatched" people remain loyal to their family's political party. But circumstances can override inherited bent. The draft may look like a good idea until your number is up. The death penalty may seem barbaric until a loved one is murdered.
That's quite simplistic, but it's a version of the old "mugged by reality" line about neocons (one I've been guilty of using, although in retrospect I think it's glibly misleading, as further segments of my "change" series should wind up demonstrating. The true situation is far more complex.)
But here's my very favorite part. I'm with Zell Miller on this one, although I wish I could say it as well as he does:
Other people whose social orientations are out of line with their given parties may feel a discomfort that can turn them into opponents of their former party, Dr. Alford said.
"Zell Miller would be a good example of this," Dr. Alford said, referring to the former Democratic governor and senator from Georgia who gave an impassioned speech at the Republican National Convention last year against the Democrats' nominee, John Kerry.
Support for Democrats among white men has been eroding for years in the South, Dr. Alford said, and Mr. Miller is remarkable for remaining nominally a Democrat despite his divergence from the party line on many issues.
Reached by telephone, Mr. Miller said he did not see it quite that way. He said that his views had not changed much since his days as a marine, but that the Democratic Party had moved.
"And I'm not talking about inch by inch, like a glacier," said Mr. Miller, who makes the case in a new book, "A Deficit of Decency." "I'm saying the thing got up and flew away."
My sentiments exactly. The blasted thing just got up and flew away.
posted by neo-neocon @ 11:21 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
I suspect some people are born with a gene that predisposes them to accept the veracity of everything they read in the New York Times, even Frank Rich and Paul Krugman.
I've alluded to this in another blog or two - we need to start utilizing phrenologists again. They are more reliable than genetic assumptions, hands down.
Paul Giametti's character in the movie Sideways is a good example of the NYT gene. He exists and muddles through life in a self-absorbed fog and first thing in the morning he wanders into a coffee shop to order, robotically, a latte and copy of the Times.
I like the way a reader gets to see who is posting via the way the names are highlighted. It really makes is simple not to have to read certain respondents, not that I would ever mention Ho's name out loud.
I'm an admitted internet dinosaur so when I linked the "genetic mosaic" thing, I noted how you phrased your search and thought, "Oh, so that's how you do that. I just might need to do that myself sometime so I'll make a little mental note." Then I get into the comments and Goesh puts me to the test with the word "phrenologists". So, thanks, neo-neocon...off I went to google and I wasn't stumpede for long.
It is a pleasant surprise that the NYT even allows Zell to speak for himself.
I have been a fan of your blog since I recently discovered you, and you have been something of an inspiration for my blog, Neuro-conservative.
I have several posts on this genetics article, as well as several on Freud and related topics that you might be interested in. I hope you have a chance to check it out.
Neo - Thanks so much for your blog. I discovered you about 2 months ago via Roger L Simon, and since then read you every day. Regarding Zell Miller, I agree with the good doctor that he is unusual, based on my own experience. This Southern belle became a Republican (the party of Lincoln!) early on,in 1968 (though she didn't realize at the time that it would be life-long.)Up until that time the Democratic party really had been the "big tent party". From that year on, there was clearly no place for a conservative. So I agree with Zell: I didn't leave the party, the party left me. That it took so long for him to admit this I can understand, for it is rooted in the southern reverence for "tradition". Most southern conservatives defected long before he did he did.
A very interesting article on political genetics, I don't agree with everything but I must say that with my years of experience in politics the most truthful part is the party identification aspect and ways holding onto such is almost like religion in the sense it is a means most measure family loyalty and social order. As a former life-long Democrat I will tell you that voting for Bush created a fury within my circles, but the permanence of changing political parties (which I did) almost got me a full mock burial, it was as if I swore off my Jewish heritage.
I would also like to add that saying "the party left me" is too simplistic as I do believe that the truth lies in between. The parties have changed but the priorities of many of us political crossovers has also matured. It is quite plain to those without jaded eyes to see retrospectively that since Reagan the Republicans have been the more progressive Party, but further if one has come to see War as the only true means to achieve the ends of freedom, one party barely has the stomach for it, while the other party has no stomach for it at all. The other point is my changing testified to the lack of hope I had in influencing the Democrats and their base to change in appreciable degrees on such matters. In a nutshell I lost any sense that it was worth fighting over because the WOT is a more important fight with little time to waste and this is where I feel my energy should go. Which Party would make me feel I was spinning my wheels in such efforts? On this Zell and I agree.
Uncle Ho,
the US severed diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq shortly after the Yom Kippur war of 1973. If I'm correctly informed, it was the only western nation to do so.
Diplomatic relations were then resumed in 1984, in the midst of the Iraq-Iran war: when the tide had turned against Iraq and it was in danger of being overwhelmed by Chomeinist Iran. To support Iraq at that time was a pragmatic choice between the lesser of two recognized evils.
It was in this context, by the way, that the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was taken: When he, as Reagan's envoy to Iraq, prepared the resumption of diplomatic relations.
Let me add that in 1984 Saddam had not yet revealed the full extent of his demonic nature and rule. The gas attacks against the Kurdish villagers, e.g., only took place in 1987. Therefore, while nobody in his/her right mind in 1984 could harbor any doubt that Saddam was a thuggish autocrat, he did not yet stick out very much by the standards of his region.
U.S. diplomatic relations with Iraq were again severed over the Kuwayt crisis and war in 1991. They were only re-established recently (2004 or 2005).
So much regarding your clichéd evocative drivel about the "extent America was involved with Saddam Hussein [over] the past 35 years". Diplomatic relations over this period were limited to less than a dozen years. The U.S. neither created nor continually nurtured the monster.
Michael, Germany
Thank you for the history lesson, Michael from Germany. (Incidentally, isn't Ho from Germany as well?)
In other news, maybe no one cares but I have my doubts about the methodology of this study. The strategy of comparing MZ and DZ twins is a decent one in general, but used on political views it presents a problem. Identical (DZ) twins are famous for the level of intimacy they share with each other. Now of course this is not universal, and some DZ twins hate each other or go their separate ways for whatever reason. But that said, I'm almost certain that DZ twins, on average, spend more time talking together than MZ twins. This certainly might be enough to induce a greater correlation in political views.
A caveat: why do DZ twins spend more time together? If it's due to a greater "natural" affinity then perhaps the gap could still be traced back to genetics. But it also might be the eeriness of having a different version of yourself in the top bunk, and just needing to try to figure that person out...
Whoops! I switched "MZ" and "DZ" in the last post. Identical twins are MZ. Just imagine it reversed and everything still makes sense.
ah, Uncle Ho will blame us for the Soviet gulag, because of WWII lend-lease...yup, makes sense to me...ahem.
Micheal makes some excellant points. The vain arguments certain folks make, not that I would ever mention anyone whose name starts with an H, simply do not hold water. The analagous example to Iraq often cited is the US assisting the mujahadeen in their fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. The ol' Lefty reasoning goes: because the US helped, we are responsible for the aftermath. Sure, sure, it's like alerting someone to a fire in their home then being blamed because they fell down and broke a leg fleeing the house. At times I pity the twisted logic of the Left, at other times, I am blessed with the ability to ignore it. You da' man, George Bush, you da' man!
Michael, excellent comment, making some very good points that are rarely brought out.
Alex, in an earlier version of this post I had tried to go into just that--the doubts I have about the indentical/fraternal twin methodology and the assumptions about having the same environment. But I figured the post was already technical enough. Sometimes I really do go on! Thanks for the explanation; I agree with you entirely on that.
Joseph--your comments are insightful, as usual. I agree with you that it isn't quite as simple as "the party left me." Although for me, it is still a very very strong perception.
Alex, Goesh, dear Hostess,
thanks for the flowers.
As to Ho being German, I have no idea, Alex. Did he hint something to that effect in comments to earlier threads? (I'm a relative newcomer to this site.) In this thread at least he consistently speaks of the US as "us" (ha, a little pun!). While that could of course be a ploy, I dont't detect any interferences of a presumed native German in his English. Therefore I would cautiously bet against Ho being a German.
Sorry, forgot to sign the last comment, which is from
Michael, Germany.
neo-neocon,
I feel a need to cover part of what I discussed at Roger L. Simons blog concerning Oriana Fallaci and her kind of transcending politics in the stereotypical right/left sense because it touches upon this topic. It had been said by a person posting that Oriana was following a long proven good sense of smell and while I agreed with this I felt it needed to be pointed out that when we talk about this sense of smell she is not unique in smelling such bad things out, for I think this is something we are all capable of, but what is lacked by many (myself included at times) is the moral maturity, mental courage, commitment to one's convictions, and the inner strength to put principle above petty prejudice,and selfishness shunning politics all the way on such matters.
Now this touches upon change in the political sense, but for me it is quite simple, when we approach life with sound ideas to achieve certain ends, what is important is the ends even more so then the means, but the means is where the true test is, courage is needed. It is the means that brings so much trouble, this is where change can be affected and influenced by the courage or lack thereof for our convictions, it can truly reveal our true priorities. Peaceful ends may justify means that seem ugly, but the means employed does need to be fair and principled and sometimes war fit that description, especially when one looks to the alternatives.
Neo-neocon the truth is if I was anti-War during Vietnam, and as a teenager indeed I was, how can I say the "party left me" now that the Democrats are playing the same role? This is why I said change was a mixed bag, part of that change is me maturing in a way to see that at times the necessity of War is real, but even more necessary then I had afore thought.
Now the above for me is what being a "neo-con" is all about. I still dislike the term but it appears to have been pinned on my behind by those around me, I consider myself a liberal. But alas I am an agnostic Jew breaking bread with pro-Israel Social-Conservatives, why? Because of the ends, but don't get me wrong it does breed a certain loyalty to this group but before 911, I would not have done such a thing. One day it hit me that the ends of life needed in this world were more important then my long held inner-prejudice and protection of party affiliation and the truth is many principles and ends that I felt worthy were being more universally sought and succesfully acheived by the other political team not because my party "changed".
I have watched friend and family member declare over and over evil what would be considered acceptable if only implemented by Democrats, I have grown impatient with such thinking. Agian, saying "they left me" in a sense places to much responsibility on those I have parted with. It aviods admittance of being in error in the past because to say "they left me" implies no mistakes on my part, is that really what happened to most of us? Their may be exceptions but the truth is I also needed to do some changing to get there.
The biggest component or avenue for change also is what gave me the ability to accept the "neo-con" pejorative label first slapped upon me in the most derogatory terms by my brother, even though at the time I almost punched him in the nose! But the definition I give for neo-con answers the question.
Their are many definitions of a neo-con... a liberal mugged by reality, neo-liberal on steroids, neo-liberal with boots, but for me my own self made definition is this,
neo-conservative - "a liberal who is willing to use conservative means to achieve liberal ends."
A liberal willing to use conservative means to achieve liberal ends? Damn straight! I feel I talk for many so-called neo-cons and lifelong Democrats that find themselves in my position. My commitment is for the ends and in a post 911 world the means just happen to be War and a Republican President. What has changed? I have come to love the ends of achievement above and beyond justifying my prejudices of who is fighting for the cause. Do I want to lose so I can say I told you so? Many in my family wouldn't admit it yet their prejudice and anger is ruling them.
Oriana Fallaci is an Atheist and doesn't love the Pope because he is Catholic, and I certainly don't love Dubya because he is a Social Conservative. Oriana has enough courage for her convictions to respect all race creed and color who share her goals, I have finally matured enough to try and do the same. That is the true point! Zell Miller did not change party's, the courage of his convictions didn't require it, but he did declare Bush to be a far-sighted leader with courage, and Zell's desire for achieving the goals he shared with Bush out-stripped all his former party "team player" tendencies. In my case I felt the courage of my convictions did require changing party affiliation but in the end the story is the same. The ends Zell and I desire to achieve transcend Party loyalty and as I said, how we behave in such times reveals much. Great Blog!
Joseph Samuel Friedman
I only think Ho is German because on his profile (viewable by clicking his name) it says his location is Hamburg, Germany. Suppose he could be an expat, who knows. Well, I guess Ho knows. (Sounds like a certain ad campaign.) Care to enlighten us, Ho?
G&S take from Iolanthe
SONG--PRIVATE WILLIS.
When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical--Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive--Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let's rejoice with loud Fal la--Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive--Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Neo
I posted on this article on Tuesday but didn't see your article until today. As with so much that the MSM writes about science, the article is almost completely worhtless in terms of conveying menaingful information.
From my post:
"Genes direct a cell to produce proteins and proteins can do many things, but they do not produce attitudes or behavior."
I have a lot more in the post about the vast distance between gene expression and attitudes/behavior, a distance so vast as to make such conclusions as stated in the article the wildest of nonsensical speculation. When you have a moment, take a look.
To be honest, ShrinkWrapped, I don't share your critism. Genes don't produce behaviors? What about instinctual behavior in animals? In humans, genes are far from the only things that produce behaviors, and indeed may be far less important than other factors. And also, the pathway from gene to behavior is extremely complex, too complex for us to trace or to give us predictive power. But I think it's a mistake to say that genes have no influence in the matter just because the analysis is beyond our means.
Note that this article, like the paper on which it was based, is not concerned with finding the specific mechanisms by which genes might affect opinion. It doesn't need to. You take them to task for not writing about feedback loops and protein folding. But supposing the research strategy were truly airtight (which I don't think it is; see my comments above), and we truly had a natural experiment comparing MZ and same-sex DZ twins, then by comparing correlations we could make a very strong case for or against the influence of genes without ever going near a microscope. We wouldn't know which genes they were (further research might do that) but we'd know it was genes and not environment.
As for things like the exact 14% influence that you rail against in your post, I'm pretty sure there's a margin of error around that number that the Times just isn't reporting.
Listen, I wasn't crazy about this story either, and I do agree that by saying something is "all in the genes" some people will take that to mean that no one is responsible for their actions, and we wouldn't want that. But it seems undeniable that genes have some influence, and this methodology is as good a shot as I've seen at teasing out the contribution of genetics.
Post a Comment
<< Home