Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Oct 29, 2010.
You mean being a liberal isn't a choice?
Uh, that assumes that there is a set definition of what exactly constitutes a liberal (or any other ideology for that matter).
It says liberals are more "novelty seeking" which is associated with openness.
Whatever that means.
I'm sure it means exactly whatever you want it to mean.
I dont buy into this stuff anyways, but the "Novelty Seeking" part is just tooooooo hilarious.
"The researchers theorized novelty seeking would be related to openness, a psychological trait that has been associated with political liberalism."
Really? We're going to make assumptions off what some researcher theorizes relates to openness? I don't understand the supposed correlation at all.
I'm particularly interested in the 'number of friends in highschool' component to the study. There are many interesting psychological and sociological implications to that finding. I'm definitely going to read morethis stuff fascinates me and the study of the political-psychological intersect was a major focus of my undergrad coursework and research.
Just a side note:
I didn't have many friends in highschool and still don't. I've always been a core group kind of guy.
Some here call me a liberal.
Conservatism would tend to reflect a staid, traditionalist outlook. If you are conservative, you want to preserve the status quo, or maybe wind things back toward older, better days. A "liberal" (or perhaps "progressive" might be more apt) wants to review tradition and shed the parts that make life less than ideal for most of us - hence the correlation with "openness", as in willing to explore alternative ideas. Most often this parallels with greater empathy, particularly for strangers, hence the relevance of the circle of friends.
Interesting. I had more friends than I could have ever wanted in high school. I tried to befriend as many people as possible- same in college. My friends are extremely valuable to me.
That's not necessarily the truth. I mean, in politics it's a lot more about specific issues than general outlook on life. I think the words "conservative" and "liberal" are misleading when it comes to politics.
But anyway that's as far as social ideologies go.
Then there's also the economic ones (which unfortunately a lot of people don't know enough about to make wise choices). Both influence (or should influence) people when it comes to voting for a party.
A drop of water in a bucket. There are hundreds of things you can correlate with political ideology. Genetics is only part.
I am also a core group person.
I'm happier spending time with two or three of my closest friends than with a large group of more "casual" friends.
It's really pretty fascinating. It seems to make sense that those who have more friends are more likely to be progressive and seek out new experiences. But, I also agree that the hypothesis might be a little over reaching.
Hot-dawg, if I could only wrangle up a pair of those bad boys.......
To contrast, I had several friends through high school, but none of whom I would call close. Through college and until now, I have very few casual friends, and no close friends. I'm also pretty hesitant when trying out new things comparatively. I also don't drink alcohol. Still, anyone who has read my posts I think would not hesitate in calling me a liberal.
Liberal chicks are easy.
This is a typical over-simplification of a genetic test. Most traits are polygenic. And nurture often trumps nature. Nothing to see here.
There was never such as thing. As we grow older the world simply moves away from what we were used to. Better Days are entirely subjective.
So my advice is Get with the Program Grandad!!
In my view any attempt to describe a political opinion using the language of a medical diagnosis should be viewed with utmost suspicion if not rejected out of hand. Anything that comes close to an attempt to turn an opponent's position into a pathology is the dirtiest kind of politics.
That's such a DRD4 carrier thing to say.
I must agree. It would only be a matter of time before someone starts calling for liberals to be "cured."
The research is showing a correlation between a locus, environment, and a phenotype. It's not saying a specific gene causes X. Like all behaviours it's a combination of many genes and the environment. It's not a particularly surprising result and doesn't result in the conclusion that a behaviour can be "cured".
The direct corollary is that "conservatives" lack this locus (or are less likely to have DRD4 alleles). One could just as easily (and be just as wrong) in saying that they can be fixed. It's not the case however.
These traits have been pretty well explored and researched, and there are generally well established metrics for them. The association seems clear to menovelty seeking people tend to be curious, look for different and new things, where people high in openness tend to be accepting of new ideas, curious and 'tuned in'. I don't think this kind of research is done with an agenda, more just out of genuine interest in learning about why we are who we are.
FWIW I am extremely high in novelty seeking, high in openness, had many friends in high school and consider myself quite liberal.
Oh, no. Now conservatives will become pro-choice. (If the fetus has the liberal gene they'll abort it.)