Is there a liberal gene?

There is a smart gene. One of its side effects is a liberal inclination.



Tom

 

What about the Intelligent Design/Creationism gene? Or is that the absence of a chromosome pair? :madgrin:

 

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be liberal in your politics and your choice of religion, or lack thereof. Probably not genetic, except to the extent that genes influence intelligence. And of course, most everything about a person is an interplay between genes and environment. Almost anybody can develop high intelligence, if s/he is well educated (including early-life intellectual stimulation).

And there is definitely not ONE gene for any of this. Only a minuscule number of traits are governed by a single gene.

Consider this: There is definitely a genetic component to some mental illness. Why would a mental illness gene survive? The answer is that where mental illness has a genetic component, there are many genes, all of which can be beneficial in different combinations or under different environmental circumstances. It's only in the unlucky combination, combined with the wrong environment, that they manifest as mental illness.

So too genes that influence intelligence. A good environment can offset many sorts of bad gene combinations, and a bad environment can undermine the best genes. But there is probably a genetic component to intelligence, and there is definitely an environmental component (the later is probably more important in the case of intelligence) and more intelligent people will usually be more liberal. They'll also be more likely to reject religion, or to choose liberal religions such as the UU or the UCC.

So, no, there is not a "liberal gene." But there may be a small genetic component.

 

Just another excuse for being who you are.

 

I agree about intelligence vs. political affiliation. I am pretty sure all countries that have better educational systems than the US (and there are lots) are considered "left" by the US. Within those countries, the conservatives would side with most US democrats or even be further left.

If you look at the rankings of countries by education and the list of irreligion by country you will see there is a notable pattern. The exceptions being countries where a state religion is mandated, and then countries like China and North Korea where the figures are too far off to extract any information.

 

Liberals are pragmatic thinkers. Conservatives are dogmatic--mainly because most are religious. And religions are dogmatic. One of the reasons why politics in America is now borderline irrational.

The dialogue is dominated by extreme right ideologues who are controlling the media with advertising funded by a few rich extremists (e.g., the Koch brothers: Libertarians, not even Republicans, who are a front for the much advertised Tea Party.) Not to mention right wing Fox news, owned by R. Murdoch, who isn't even an American citizen. Imagine a guy who isn't even a citizen with that kind of media power in this country! Dangerous to democracy.

Right now, liberals occupy the center portion of the American political spectrum. The "left" is nonexistent. Conservatism has moved dangerously farther to the right, much more Libertarian, bringing the Republican party with it. The media has failed to point out these shifts. Having a major political party so extreme is a threat to our political stability. Hopefully, the Republicans will come to their senses at some point.

The failure of the Democrats is their inability to define the Republicans in these terms.
Remember the mushroom cloud behind the little girl in the TV ad in '64 warning about Barry Goldwater? LBJ frightened people into voting for him. The fear element works all the time--as the Republicans have learned so well. Obama the socialist muslim? Democrats too far left? The Democrats, in truth, are the only diverse party left.

To answer your loaded question, politics aren't in the genes. In the words of the song from South Pacific: "You've got be be taught..."

 

Intelligence is somewhat learned, somewhat genetic. It's like everyone is given a petrol tank of varying sizes. Some choose to only fill it up so far even though their capacity is more. Others just have larger capacities and fill the smarts up further.

I do not believe it is a coincidence when a single bloodline repeatedly outshines others with no predisposition.

 

this is awfully political for a non-political forum.

 

This isn't political. This is a biology discussion.

Tom

 

Politics is advocating positions. Sociology is explaining group behavior. PriusSport's post was sociology, not politics.

 

You're just saying that because YOUR A NAZI.

 

oh come on, anyone can read his post and know exactly which side he's on. it's totally political. it's his OPINION that liberals are in the center and conservatives are dangerous. if you don't think so, then let me re-type exactly what he posted, except we'll exchange the roles. i took a couple of parts out but you get the gist of it:

"The dialogue is dominated by extreme left ideologues who are controlling the media with advertising funded by a few rich extremists (e.g., george soros: socialists, not even democrats, who are a front for the much advertised left wing.)

Right now, conservatives occupy the center portion of the American political spectrum. The "extreme right" is nonexistent. Liberalism has moved dangerously farther to the left, much more socialist, bringing the Democrat party with it. The media has failed to point out these shifts. Having a major political party so extreme is a threat to our political stability. Hopefully, the Democrats will come to their senses at some point.

The failure of the republicans is their inability to define the democrats in these terms. Remember the mushroom cloud behind the little girl in the TV ad in '64 warning about Barry Goldwater? LBJ frightened people into voting for him. The fear element works all the time--as the democrats have learned so well. conservatives too far to the right? The republicans, in truth, are the only diverse party left.

To answer your loaded question, politics aren't in the genes. In the words of the song from South Pacific: "You've got be be taught..."

 

Well done! I was going to write something similar but I have been cyberbullied over that last week.

 

well said. the most intelligent don't drink the koolaid from either side. unfortunately, we only have two choices at the voting booth. it's always a compromise.

 

Compromise??? Two candidates who essentially believe the same thing, who get their funding from the same corporations, and who after retirement will probably end up working as lobbyists for the same company, representing the same interests. Where's the compromise? If the political spectrum from far right to far left is drawn as a line ten feet long, there's about a tenth of an inch separating the two parties in the U.S. The biggest-spending candidate does not always win, but without hundreds of millions of dollars for a presidential race, or tens of millions for a state-wide race, a candidate is less than a footnote. That guarantees that BIG money runs our country. (See the third item in my sig.) It's like two small dogs yapping their heads off at each other while riding around in the same pocket, and we get to vote for one or the other. And when it's all over, neither of them gets to decide anything.

 

Reading the pair of posts each claiming their side represents the middle ground of American thinking reminds me of Annie Hall, where the husband and wife are each describing their sex lives to their respective therapists:

Therapist: "How often do you have sex?"

Husband: "Practically never. Three times a week."

Wife: "Constantly. Three times a week."

Both sides start with the same information, but come to differing conclusions.

Tom

 

twas ever thus.