Skip to main content

Left wing liberals are born not made.

Pinko Liberal gene discovered! I wonder if I have it? Ge here. My suspicion is we are actually mutants. Thanks to John Rathbone and Telegraph.

Researchers have discovered that the "liberal gene" opens you up to new ideas and alternative lifestyles – and could influence your belief in left wing politics.

The findings may mean that liberals are born not made – although it is exacerbated if you an individual is popular during his or her young formative years.

The Liberal Gene is a "transmitter" in the brain called DRD4 which is connected to a chemical called dopamine, known as the reward currency of the brain.

When those with the gene are socially outgoing they seek out and are "rewarded" by other people's points of view, far more than they might be without the gene.

This suggests they are more open minded and tend to form less conventional political viewpoints as adults – especially if they have a socially active adolescence, says the study.

The research by scientists from the University of California and Harvard looked at 2,000 Americans.

It is published in the Journal of Politics.

It found those with a strain of the DRD4 gene seek out "novelty" – such as people and lifestyles which are different to the ones they are used to.

This leads them to have more liberal opinions, politically, it found.

The person's age, ethnicity, gender or culture appeared to make no difference – it was the gene which counts.

DRD4 is controlled by dopamine which affects the way the brain deals with emotions, pleasure and pain and can therefore influence personality traits.


wombat said…
Talk about desperate to get published!

Given that the gene leads it's carriers to seek novelty it would also seem to lead those living in a liberal society to see the opposite i.e. authoritarianism, oppression of minorities etc.

Will it lead its carriers to try and stop from passing it on to their children now that its been discovered?

They will want their children to be different won't they and probably be in favour of eugenics anyway.

Never mind - a debunking paper will be along shortly.kwart
Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

It's not a new idea that our political tendencies are encoded into our genes, though I've never heard of the 'DRD4 gene' before.

Whilst almost all of our 'traits' are a product of the interaction of genes and environments, it's now well established from twin studies that there are 5 basic personality traits that are genetically influenced, if not actually determined.

New Scientist published an article on this, specifically in a political context, a couple of years ago, and I wrote something on it in response.

Regards, Paul.
Paul Mealing, that is not at all correct.

Personality and traits (and especially behaviour) are largely shaped by life experience.

I doubt any research could determine if there was a genetic component to personality in principal because there is no possibility of a control or comparative study.

After all, you cannot get people with no personality or without genes, or people without life experience.

Certainly, society creates criminals, serial killers and even shapes law-abiding bankers.

Thats the Truth.
Unknown said…
dear sad wombat: you missed the point! No it wouldn't lead them to want fascism etc. for the "novelty" It means that they aren't ruled by fear of the unknown or easily stirred up by hate messages, but have a strong desire to feel that the world is fair and just; it makes you happy not to crush others. Try imagining it? oh no, you're too busy sneering at "liberals". I don't know why I bother; guess it's in my genes to want to help you.
Hugo said…

"The most striking behaviour genetics finding, however, is the 1999 finding by Eaves et al. showing that conservatism/Leftism is even more hereditary than how tall you are."

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o