Just something I found interesting in one of my psychology lectures. The idea is that there is a difference in brain structure between politically conservative individuals compared to those who are more liberal. The part of the brain itself is the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that “signal[s] the occurrence of conflicts in information processing, thereby triggering compensatory adjustments in cognitive control” (Botvinick et al., 2004).

What was found was that “conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty”, with brain functioning within the ACC being found to be greater, on average, within someone who identified themselves as liberal. The “results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation” and that “stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts”

Now, we could all get our knickers in a twist and suggest that the paper in question is garbage and should be ignored so that we don't have this conversation. It would also be interesting to measure the brain activity of those who would rather do that instead of entertaining the possibility of genetic predetermination and see if their brain activity matched those who identified themselves as conservative within the study.

Something else that may be worth considering is the plasticity of the brain, so it may be that those areas that cope with cognitive dissonance came about due to nurture rather than nature. This could be due to a mentally stimulating home environment, good schooling or some natural predisposition towards cognitive challenges, in which case it would be genes and the environment correlating. Just to bear in mind that this is a possibility, though the brain activity difference between the two groups still stands, suggesting that there is still a difference that requires addressing.

So what do you guys make of this? Do you accept that what you believe is mediated by biology, that who you are as a person is determined by your DNA, or do you think otherwise?

Neuroplasticity seems to be more likely an explanation than genetic conservatism.

I'm pretty sure I have heard of this before, although it kind of makes me wonder where people who fall into radical ideologies on both sides of the spectrum fit in.

Illogical. A person's thought processes are generally more complex than that. Besides, this does not account for people who change sides based on which side they think is the most convincing at the time, all sorts of other inbetween states.

Sexuality is an example of genetics hard coding. Political affiliation, a purely ideological concept, is not. At least, there needs to be far more concrete evidence than this.

Edit

Essentially: A mix of nature and nurture is the most logical conclusion. The only question is, to what extent.

The Nexerus said
Neuroplasticity seems to be more likely an explanation than genetic conservatism.

Something that's interesting to think of though is that genetic predispositions could affect our personalities and behavior in order to guide us towards developing our brains in the first place. If a child is naturally curious about the world around it, they may seek out sources of mental stimulation which bring about the change caused by plasticity. It could also well be that the environment that a child is born into can enable their genetics to be fully realized. Both have similar end results, it's just a matter of identifying which is the cause. What can be agreed on though is that there is a definite correlation between the two.

Another thing to keep in mind are studies conducted with identical twins reared in separate home environments due to being adopted separately. The twins, despite not sharing the same upbringing, both developed along similar trajectories and shared common values. The thing that was least similar among them was intelligence, which still was pretty high. I don't remember the exact figure, something in the 0.6~ ball park in terms of positive correlation. The implication behind this is that perhaps genetics play much more of a role than people would like to think.

Jannah said
I'm pretty sure I have heard of this before, although it kind of makes me wonder where people who fall into radical ideologies on both sides of the spectrum fit in.

I would imagine there would be a pronounced difference in activity in key areas of the brain between the two extremes. It would be interesting to compare the two, though gathering enough people for that kind of study to be valid where the participants involved identify themselves as being "extreme" in their ideologies would be, at best, excruciating.

Brovo said
Illogical. A person's thought processes are generally more complex than that. Besides, this does not account for people who change sides based on which side they think is the most convincing at the time, all sorts of other inbetween states.Sexuality is an example of genetics hard coding. Political affiliation, a purely ideological concept, is not. At least, there needs to be far more concrete evidence than this.EditEssentially: A mix of nature and nurture is the most logical conclusion. The only question is, to what extent.

Political ideologies and the person you vote for aren't the same thing. One is much more concrete than the other. Your values will remain, on the whole, consistent throughout life, while who you vote for is much more dependent on external input. I imagine becoming more conservative in ideology with age may be reflective of degradation of brain activity dealing with novel information, which would be consistent with the idea that by that age, evolutionarily, we have established a comfortable routine to survive with. I mean if you look at the graph below, you'll see that who you align with politically has a negligible contribution from genetics. Your ideology, on the other hand, is accounted for by over half of it.



There is no gene that determines the party you are going to vote for. It would be naive to think so, in the same way there isn't a gene that makes you racist. However, it is possible that we can be predisposed towards certain beliefs due to our personality, which is determined largely by our genetic codes. For example, being racist applies to a single matter, which is race. Being prejudiced, on the other hand, is a personality trait, and one that applies throughout life. One brings about the other, and that one is influenced by your genes.

Liberal and Conservative in the American or European sense?

Liberal and conservative in the global sense, in that conservatives wish for society to remain traditional, while a liberal would go against tradition and desire change.

Brovo said Essentially: A mix of nature and nurture is the most logical conclusion

I feel like the solution to these types of questions almost always comes out to a combination of nurture and nature.

Not sure I can agree about values remaining consistent. Values change, often, and sometimes even by the millions. I hate to use this as an example, but, Nazi Germany would certainly not have been possible if people's core values were static and unchanging.

Personally, my values have changed over time as well, as I've grown older, sharper, my lifestyle has changed, and so on. Granted, certain values have not, like I strive to be an honourable man, but then, those types of values are very vague and subjective. One man's definition of an honourable deed differs to another.

Again. I think the answer for this is too complex to chalk solely up to birthrite. We can, and do, regularly defy genetically programmed behaviours. So Ehh... Nehh...

Tl;Dr: insufficient information. More research required, but from what I have personally observed, I cautiously think it is a mix of genetic predisposition and intellectual, sentient choices.

Rocketman said

So what do you guys make of this?

I suggest that this requires more study. Which would require more liberals and conservatives donating their brains to science.

Thought I'd throw in a spin-ball with the whole nature vs nurture argument, as it's often used as a vague term to say "Nature being something predetermined and Nurture being something completely changing only to the thought patterns and behaviours" with the two being mutually exclusionary of the other.

To end that thought, look up Epigenetic, this is the area were genetic predisposition is determined by the environment of the person, in other words, where behaviour that would be determined by genetics is dictated to either be active or passive determining on the environment that the person grows in.

So, considering the political ideologies correlation with differences in brain function, it should be noted that the genetic predisposition (as opposed to a predetermination and erring on the side of eugenics), it will have little to no result on the actual brain structure of an individual past the age of 5, unless that person has a particular condition. In other words, whether your brain is on what is proposed to be a "conservative model" or "liberal model", is entirely determined by environment of your upbringing.

So, the behaviour of how genetics are expressed are directly resulting in the family values you were given (unless conflict arose out of other external influences), and the means in which your community, direct or indirect, dealt with things.

Examples:

Impoverished individuals in urban society will usually vote more liberal as the policy of being given more financial support is mutually beneficial to them, but unlike academic liberals, will have a more right-wing attitude to social norms as a result of living in a "dog eat dog" environment. Liberal voters with more conservative minds, responding heavier to black and white, fundamental truths, traditional, orthodox understandings of the world.

High achieving entrepreneurs will often vote conservative due to it's relaxing laws on fiscal matters, which fits in the ideology of "The economy will bring the goods with free market enterprise", but have a far greater response to novel ideas and new information, as well as exchanging communication and tolerating differing view points, which ultimately leads them to finding better opportunities within the business sector. Which shows more response to novel, ambiguous complexity in information than the traditional conservative mindset (shown by a large demographic going for a libertarian vote).

Yet, the main tropes which are represented or caricatured are the traditional blue collar conservative vs the academic, intellectual liberal, as these are often the most polarizing of the two. Which is less a matter of necessarily the representing demographics of these voters, rather the media's means to express two opposing view points into a scalable, easily swallowed conceptual package for the general masses to gain some sort of narrative to communicate in. Problems are, it over simplifies things. Let's not make the mistake of looking at this study from a top down manner, as it only contributes to hardening the outdated and detrimental political narrative, already being overtly amplified by the competition rewarding political system at play (which, due to these problems, needs to change).

I think obviously there's something 'Genetic' influencing it if you boil it down to the way our brain acts and sends signals. Our brain signals and our hormones essentially make up everything we are, what we do, what we like, what we think. It's impossible for anything we do to not be connected to it in someway.

So for the sake of argument, I'm ignoring brain signals and speaking strictly pre-existing genetic code you're born with. If I were to theorize I'd guess there are some ideologies you are more susceptible to, but which one you ultimately adopt is mostly based on individual experiences, and allowed you to adopt certain values, opinions and mindsets.

Magic Magnum said
I think obviously there's something 'Genetic' influencing it if you boil it down to the way our brain acts and sends signals. Our brain signals and our hormones essentially make up everything we are, what we do, what we like, what we think. It's impossible for anything we do to not be connected to it in someway.So for the sake of argument, I'm ignoring brain signals and speaking strictly pre-existing genetic code you're born with. If I were to theorize I'd guess there are some ideologies you are more susceptible to, but which one you ultimately adopt is mostly based on individual experiences, and allowed you to adopt certain values, opinions and mindsets.

I recommend you look up Epigenetics. I'm not disagreeing with you here but, anyone who even wants to approach the nature vs nurture argument need to know it in the context of the epigenetic.

scribz said I recommend you look up Epigenetics. I'm not disagreeing with you here but, anyone who even wants to approach the nature vs nurture argument need to know it in the context of the epigenetic.

Thanks for that tip.

Fascinating stuff. I guess with that in mind my post can be reworded a bit to say that "Your experiences affect your genetic code in ways that can help determine things such as values, opinions and mindsets".

Genetics influencing political ideologies sounds like silly talk. Perhaps correlations can be found in studies of limited extensiveness, but correlation can be found anywhere. I'm sure the topic will spawn some interesting discussion and posts, but the heart of matter is complete tripe.

xenon said
Genetics influencing political ideologies sounds like silly talk. Perhaps correlations can be found in studies of limited extensiveness, but correlation can be found anywhere. I'm sure the topic will spawn some interesting discussion and posts, but the heart of matter is complete tripe.

Actually, to denounce it completely on correlation is equally silly talk, what's important is the method of measurement in this study, that way you can see if the correlation is isolate or holistic.