You do realize you have a serious psychological problem, don't you?

It worked - we got rid of you!

Only one?

with a liberal gene..your ass would not have survived..you been eaten by another animal hahahah..or if what i had seen in correct..would try to screw another animal..and get some shit like AIDS

discovering fire?? PLANTING CROPS??!! i think the liberal gene would had made people sit on their asses smoke dope and let the "other guy" discover fire and plant crops..either that or make very elaborate excuse to mooch off society..

Am on that same wavelength. The Dali Lama says:
" If you want others to be happy, practice empathy & compassion. If you
want you yourself to be happy, practice empathy & compassion. By liberaly (freely)practicing those qualities of warmth and nonjudgemental humanity,
a person's mind is automaticaly opened. You should read the Bhuddachi
Kung Fu meditation sometime. You'll see how it's premis follows into other
premises as naturaly as water finding its own level. The word has nothing
in the world to do with politics, and still be truthfuly applied.

THANK YOU! Saying that a Gene can have even a PARTIAL influence on something that is completely objective and arbitrary is simply absurd. It almost makes me ashamed to associate myself with fellow liberals because they ignorantly jump all over stories like this and look as silly as Glenn Beck.

Yes, like all words, liberal can be defined differently; that is why the study gave it's definition of the term: novelty-seeking behavior.

As opposed to conservatism, which is the desire to preserve the status quo.

This is NOT about capitalism vs socialism.

Nature and Nurture are not now, nor have they ever been, and either/or thing.

Nature DOES play a strong role in human behavior. Left and right handedness, Schizophrenia, Sexual orientation and Sexual identity are all innate characteristics.

People are not born with a blank slate.

You need to learn more about science before you criticize it.

Human personality is NOT "objective and arbitrary". I assume you meant to say subjective and arbitrary, BTW. Many personality traits have ALREADY been proven to have innate components; this is just one more.

Criticizing something you have not bothered to research makes YOU look as silly as Glenn Beck.

Actually, genes trump environment - I know personally a case of a woman whose daughter was adopted when she was a tiny baby. Thirty years later, the daughter found her mother - not only do they look very much alike, they have the same talents, self-taught the same instruments, sing the same way with the same voice, have the same sense of humour, the same verbal expressions, the same facial expressions, the same taste in clothes (they even bought the same clothes in H&M the same year even though they lived over a thousand miles apart), the same favourite colour, the same taste in books, the same politics, the same taste in men, and a great many other sames, and even their handwriting is very similar. The daughter even had a natural gift for her mother's native language even though she lives in another country, and speaks it with the same accent as her mother. Nature trumps nurture every time.

So far, you have shown precious little signs of being a liberal, and a great many signs of being very much a conservative.

You are correct I did mean "subjective." Since things such as novelty-seeking, TOO, is completely subjective...(what YOU think is novelty, I do not, and vice versa) This whole game could go on ad infinitum. This study is pointless....BUT the biggest issue I have is that those who jump on it and then talk about how this shows that conservative thinking is genetically inferior. When the study itself shows that there are times for conservatism, and times for liberalism, and both have equal importance and merit.

The Liberals commenting on this story are making themselves look illiterate.

What conservative viewpoints have I EVER expressed? Show me ONE.

*facepalm*

Did you even read the article you posted? I only ask because it doesn't sound like you did. From the article,

"By matching genetic information with maps of the subjects' social networks, the researchers were able to show that people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults,"

Heres the kicker.

" but only if they had an active social life in adolescence."

"It is our hope that more scholars will begin to explore the potential interaction of biology and environment," he said. "The way forward is to look for replication in different populations and age groups."

Lastly "it is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal."

In other words the growing consensus among scientists is that things like behavior or health are the product of natural proclivities expressed in part because of environmental influence. Both nature and nurture have to be taken into account.

+1 for resisting the urge to join the circle jerk.

The word "novelty" does not mean fun or amusing, like a whopie cushion or a hand buzzer.

The word "novelty" means anything new and different.

In science, especially for a research study, all terms are defined within the scope of the study- none of them are as vague as you think they are.

Liberals are people who seek additional mental stimulation.
Conservatives are people who prefer to preserve the status quo.
Conservatives want things to stay the same. They desire consistency and predictability.
Liberals desire innovation.

These are psychological definitions of the terms. While they are not exactly the same as the political definitions, there is a strong correlation between the two.

AGAIN- you do not understand the study. You do not understand the research.

Here is the rub...every single WORD we use is subjective, so you can define "novelty" as innovation seeking, but innovation seeking itself is a subjective term. You say open mindedness means this...and I say it means this...who is right? Even if you attempt to determine static definitions for certain ideas and concepts, it does not make them static, it mean. You also assume that those you are LABELING as conservative, do NOT seek additional mental stimulation. Perhaps someone sought out additional mental stimulation, and after a period of time, of research and thought, decided they thought the status quo was the more beneficial option. So, what category do they fall into? How do you determine whether or not Rush Limbaugh is Liberal or Conservative?

Yes I did read it, but the post you are responding to is fairly unrelated to the article. Did you even read it? It sure doesn't sound like you did. The environment - social, family, cultural, etc., in which the daughter grew up was completely different from that of her birth mother, yet she turned out to be practically a clone of her mother on all levels; hence, nature trumps nurture.

Again- the words are defined within the scope of the study.

If I do a research study on cheese, then it is my duty as a scientist to define that I'm only talking about commercially produced cow cheese from the Kraft corporation sold in plastic wrap.

Again- the terms are defined within the study.

BY DEFINITION, conservatives are the people who do not seek additional mental stimulation.

Again- genetic predispositions are not absolutes, no one ever said they were. They ARE predispositions, and they are real.

You are born left handed, right handed, or ambidextrous.

Yes, a right-handed person can get in a car accident, loose the functionality of his right arm, and then learn to use his left.

Yes, a left-handed person can be trained from birth to fight against their inate nature and use their right hand.

That does not change the fact that left and right handedness is an inate characteristic.

How do you determine who is a liberal then? Does the absence of this genetic marker mean one will NOT be a liberal? Give me an example of a Conservative in the public arena.

Again- within the context of this study, Liberals are ones who innovate and try new things.

Steve Jobs is an innovator. Most scientists and artists are innovators. Most scientists and artists are Liberals.

As I said, Liberals constantly search for new stimulation- thus, Liberals are more likely to pursue an advanced education. Most people with higher degrees are Liberal.

Liberals can also be reckless- you will find more liberals in "extreme" sports- and more likely to be adrenalin junkies.

Conservatives wish to preserve the status quo.

Glen Beck is an extreme conservative, constantly pining for a yesteryear that never was.

Conservatives look to the past with rose colored glasses, and look to the future with fear.

Conservatism is nostalgia combined with paranoia.

Conservatives seek the safety of conformity.

Yes, it is important to have some conservatives to temper the recklessness. But it is equally important for the leadership to be Liberal, and move us forward instead of holding us back.

Among the rich, you will find more "new money" who got rich on their own are Liberal.
Most "Old Money" who inherited luxury without having to do anything in their lives are conservative.

If you would like, I can give you links to a bunch more studies on the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives.

So Meg Whitman is a liberal then.

Those are some cases... but I can find an equal amount of other cases. People who have had brilliant parents and who have turned out to be complete failures. Other people have had very humble parents and have gone on to become overachievers. Some people have very nice parents and are complete assholes - while others have very strict and militaristic parents and turn out to be very sweet people.

For every example for genetics, people can come up with a counter example. I have plenty of people in my own family. I am a product of my upbringing - not my genetics.

If I was raised by a group of ultra conservative church-going Mormons, I would have never even tried out some of the things I've done.

Jesus you make my brain hurt. First off your personal comment does have something to do with the article. Let me demonstrate.

Here’s your comment,

“Actually, genes trump environment “

And from the article, and keep in mid this is just a small portion of the comments made about that exact same subject.

“This is the first study to elaborate a specific gene-environment interaction that contributes to ideological self-identification, and it highlights the importance of incorporating both nature and nurture into the study of political preferences.”

“Moreover, we show that the 7R allele is not directly associated with the reported number of friends, nor is it directly associated with ideology. Instead, it is the combination of this specific gene variant with a specific social environment that may contribute to the development of a liberal political ideology.”

“Studies based on large samples of twins from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia find that at least a third of the variation in political attitudes can be accounted for by genes and approximately half of the variation can be explained by unshared environment. Hatemi et al. (2007) replicated these results using an extended family design that includes parents and nontwin siblings. But no study has yet identified specific genes that are associated with ideology.”

So no V, nature does not trump environment. The article YOU posted CLEARLY disproves your own exhaustive and detailed study of some random lady and her daughter. My god I swear you get some weird and perverse kick out of making an ass of yourself.

I’ve tried to stay out of this conversation as long as I can but seeing as though its pointless to argue with V let me say this. You’re reaching so hard to make a claim Utopian, and in the process your distorting the scientific work presented in this study.

This is not a study of everything. Its not a confirmation of liberalism as the superior or defining mindset in all things and in all ways. Steve Jobs, the wheel, innovative business practices and all that jazz have nothing to do with this study.

“the words are defined within the scope of the study”

Yes they are but the overall definition provided by the authors is intentionally non-specific.

“We define ideology as a general belief system that encompasses a wide set of idea-elements that come together in a nonrandom fashion (Converse 1964; Gerring 1997). Here, we refer more specifically to the liberal-conservative continuum commonly understood as organizing American politics (Treier and Hillygus 2005). It has been long debated whether ideology is rooted in issue preferences (Converse 1964) or whether ideological labels are symbolic and affect-oriented (Conover and Feldman 1981). ”

“Ideological labels are more salient and more meaningful as party leaders and elites polarize They are also useful even if not everyone precisely agrees on what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean.”

So the comparison of this study to one of cheese is pure apples and oranges. Furthermore the actual study deals with issues, traits that have much more to do with how someone might become liberal or conservative and not what is liberal or conservative when applied to a discussion of politics, and with respect to your argument, everything else.

“Studies of animals indicate that DRD4 is involved in cortical excitability and behavioral sensitization. These alterations in cortical arousal affect “approach traits” such as novelty seeking and sensation seeking, which in turn affect personality and behavior (Eichhammer et al. 2005). People who score high on measures of novelty seeking have less tolerance for monotony and constantly seek the new and unusual (to them) in order to alter dopamine levels to affect mood; at the extremes, they are characterized as impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered, and extravagant (Puttonen, Ravaja, and Keltikangas-Jarvinen 2005). People who score low on this measure tend to be more inclined to follow the rules (Golimbet et al. 2007). Those who score lower also tend to be more reflective, rigid, loyal, stoic, slow-tempered, and frugal.”

So, to borrow the phrase again, the words defined within the scope of the study describe traits that honestly could belong to either a liberal or conservative individual (in the broader, MUCH broader sense of the word) but (in the actual context of the study which you’ve intentionally ignored to justify your larger belief set) the study specifically aims to show how a genetic trait expressed within a particular environment (which can be unaffected by again genetic components) could help explain HOW someone came to embrace an ideology and not WHY.

The how and why distinction is important because without it you end up reducing the complexity of life into a ridiculously simplistic model based on emotional attraction and not objective reasoning.

Here’s one quick example. You do not necessarily have to be impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered, and extravagant to say be a scientist or innovator. It’s just as reasonable to suppose an individuals ability to conduct scientific experiments or innovate could stem from a reflective tendency combined with a rigid observance to logic, reason, and or an observance of proper scientific principles.

Ultimately your amazing “the wheel was invented by a political liberal” claim (which is funny because historians don’t even have a concrete answer on who first invented the wheel) doesn’t even allow for the looser (or in other words not discussed with respect of this article) interpretation of liberal thought because its an ideology that can’t progress beyond simple observations like scientists are always, or have to be A and can never be B.

LOL...I find that "Liberals" and "conservatives" alike tend to LOVE "proving" how superior they are over one another that they BOTH tend to look like spoiled little children without the ability to play in the same sandbox together. Let alone think rationally.

Read what I wrote again, carefully.
Two or three times.
Then, please apologize.

You projected a whole lot of crap into what I wrote that was NOT there.

I made a clear distinction between Liberal and Conservative as political labels vs Liberal and Conservative within the context of the study.

You say:
"Ultimately your amazing “the wheel was invented by a political liberal” claim (which is funny because historians don’t even have a concrete answer on who first invented the wheel)"

Show me where I EVER said the wheel was invented by a political Liberal.

Your whole analysis of my comments shows you did not read my comments.

Is Meg Whitman a liberal?

What makes you think she fits the description of being a Liberal?

Projecting my ass. You’re playing so fast and lost with your synonyms and the basic perceptions of liberal thought/conservative thought in both a political and general scope that you haven’t once addressed the issue in a strict political sense, or in the very least your assertions into the political and general liberal/conservative are indistinguishable from one another.

Seriously man, stop and think about it for just a second. We’re supposed to be talking about the evolution of political ideology and where genetics fit into that understanding and here you are talking about wheels, Steve Jobs, flying to the moon, using fire and so on and so forth.

And you say I’m projecting. Aw lawd!

If you boiled everything in this study down to the essential components what you’re left is a very particular idea. Novelty seeking behavior combined with a high number of friends COULD possibly explain why SOME people gravitate toward political liberalism.

“However, we argue that the DRD4-7R allele cannot by itself predispose someone to a liberal ideology.”

So the researchers assert that having this gene does not necessarily create a liberal but might contribute to one of the speculative situations capable of producing a liberal political ideology. So how is it that not having this gene (and the traits expressed by this gene) automatically disqualifies a person from pursuing (in your interpretation of the world) an associative vocation, or in your laughable opinion ANY AND ALL advancement?

Does an individual really have to possess a novelty seeking behavior to create or be smart or change the way he/she lives? If so why is it said that necessity is the mother of all invention and not boredom?

“Show me where I EVER said the wheel was invented by a political Liberal.”

That was partly a joke on my end and also a subtle way of addressing your haphazard and all encompassing application of the term liberal.

“Your whole analysis of my comments shows you did not read my comments.”

Utopian this is fluff. I obviously read your posts on the issue. If I hadn’t I would not of provided direct quotes and I definitely would not of raised questions related to but not directly addressed by your own posts.

As it stands I’m sticking to my previous belief that your opinion is ironically not reflective of a liberal disposition (and by that I mean the type of liberal thinking specifically relevant to the previous statement. I‘m sure you probably adhere to a liberal ideology in a whole host of ways) . Come on man, level with me. If you can’t figure out how a conservative individual can contribute to society, technology, and everything else maybe your not applying yourself, and if you are then you at least owe us an explanation that cannot be immediately and easily countered.

You say:

"Projecting my ass. You’re playing so fast and lost with your synonyms and the basic perceptions of liberal thought/conservative thought in both a political and general scope that you haven’t once addressed the issue in a strict political sense, or in the very least your assertions into the political and general liberal/conservative are indistinguishable from one another."

That is the DEFINITION of projection.

As you said, I HAVE NOT "addressed the issue in a strict political sense" because this is NOT about politics.

YOU say "We’re supposed to be talking about the evolution of political ideology" when we are NOT talking about that at ALL.

That is all you.

In the English Language, words can have different meanings in different disciplines. This discussion is about psychobiology, NOT politics. It deals with the psychological definitions of Liberal and conservative, NOT the political ones.

I will say there is a correlation between the two, but it is not the same.

Your ENTIRE complaint is about what you read INTO what I wrote, not based on anything I wrote.

You are even complaining that I did not write about what you think I said!

To a rational person, the fact that I did not write about it means I did not write about it.

So to that I say- learn how to read.

Oh wow, whine much?

“As you said, I HAVE NOT "addressed the issue in a strict political sense" because this is NOT about politics.

YOU say "We’re supposed to be talking about the evolution of political ideology" when we are NOT talking about that at ALL.”

You right UtopianSky this study has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I can’t believe I made that mistake seeing as though the study was published in The Cambridge Journal of Politics and is titled “Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology.” Additionally I can’t believe I assumed you even brought up liberalism or conservatism in a political sense with you saying things like,

“I made a clear distinction between Liberal and Conservative as political labels vs Liberal and Conservative within the context of the study.”

“These are psychological definitions of the terms. While they are not exactly the same as the political definitions, there is a strong correlation between the two.”

Dang I just got served huh?

“This discussion is about psychobiology, NOT politics. It deals with the psychological definitions of Liberal and conservative, NOT the political ones.”

Thanks for clearing that one up. I get it now. This whole time you’ve engaged in a shameless self promotion of what you self identify as and you could honestly care less with what is actually discussed within the article. Maybe that’s why you’re repeatedly ascribing qualities or abilities solely to self identified liberals even through the study clearly states that the genetic variants and traits that are of interest in predicting a liberal ideology are not actually exclusive or even required to form a liberal ideology.

“To a rational person, the fact that I did not write about it means I did not write about it.”

Yeah I know I’m not that rational. I keep throwing questions at you that oddly enough you ignore (probably because you don’t have a rebuttal) and then after you bitch and complain to no end I come back and hurl the same unanswered questions. So check it out, I’m going to throw you a bone, I’m going to repost all those unanswered questions and hypotheticals in the irrational hope that you might actually answer them, thus proving how irrational I am. Here yougo bud, you earned it ;)

So how is it that not having this gene (and the traits expressed by this gene) automatically disqualifies a person from pursuing (in your interpretation of the world) an associative vocation, or in your laughable opinion ANY AND ALL advancement?

Does an individual really have to possess a novelty seeking behavior to create or be smart or change the way he/she lives? If so why is it said that necessity is the mother of all invention and not boredom?

You do not necessarily have to be impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered, and extravagant to say be a scientist or innovator. It’s just as reasonable to suppose an individuals ability to conduct scientific experiments or innovate could stem from a reflective tendency combined with a rigid observance to logic, reason, and or an observance of proper scientific principles.

This entire conversation has flown over your head, making you hostile and abrasive as a result.

You are tossing about a bunch of irrational questions based on your irrational assumptions, all of which show that you did NOT read the article, you did NOT read the study and you definitely did NOT read what I wrote.

You have a stick in your craw about these obviously loaded questions, so I will address them- if only to show how loaded they are.

"So how is it that not having this gene (and the traits expressed by this gene) automatically disqualifies a person from pursuing (in your interpretation of the world) an associative vocation, or in your laughable opinion ANY AND ALL advancement?"

No one said it DID.
That is your assumption, based on your ignorance of psychology and biology.
NO ONE EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DISQUALIFYING ANYONE.
I wrote that in all caps- maybe that you help you grasp something.

And here is a cut and paste of what I said previously:

Again- genetic predispositions are not absolutes, no one ever said they were. They ARE predispositions, and they are real.

You are born left handed, right handed, or ambidextrous.

Yes, a right-handed person can get in a car accident, loose the functionality of his right arm, and then learn to use his left.

Yes, a left-handed person can be trained from birth to fight against their innate nature and use their right hand.

That does not change the fact that left and right handedness is an innate characteristic.

You say:
"Does an individual really have to possess a novelty seeking behavior to create or be smart or change the way he/she lives? If so why is it said that necessity is the mother of all invention and not boredom?"

As for the first part of your question, it is entirely based on absolutes, not tendencies, which is a key flaw in your entire assumptions. As for the second part, are you actually asking a question based on the assumption that a colloquial expression is an absolute truth? Well then, Idle hands are the devils workshop! A rolling stone gathers no moss!

And then you go on this rant:
"You do not necessarily have to be impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered, and extravagant to say be a scientist or innovator. It’s just as reasonable to suppose an individuals ability to conduct scientific experiments or innovate could stem from a reflective tendency combined with a rigid observance to logic, reason, and or an observance of proper scientific principles."

So, by that rant, you should not be a scientist- you are definitely excitable and quick-tempered.

Do you know what you need to be a scientist? Inquisitiveness. or from your list "exploratory".

In other words, Novelty seeking behavior.

The people who simply observe proper scientific principles in an orderly fashion with no drive or quest for knowledge behind it are at best research assistants.

AGAIN- try READING things instead of reading things INTO other things, and you will be a much happier person, and far less aggravating to others.

“As for the first part of your question, it is entirely based on absolutes, not tendencies, which is a key flaw in your entire assumptions”

That’s just plain ridiculous. So by your reasoning its an absolute to acknowledge a capacity but its not an absolute to demand that an ideology adhere unwaveringly to its believed tendencies? So where did you pick that up from, Mien Kampf? Additionally you’d have to admit that any liberal minded individual that did not possess the novelty seeking gene and its associated open minded qualities could not actually be considered liberal. Wow once again you find yourself at odds with the research paper.

No one said it DID.”
“That does not change the fact that left and right handedness is an innate characteristic.”

Dude that analogy is deeply flawed and now I’m starting to understand why you‘re not getting it. You can’t describe a novelty seeking conservative in the context of a right handed man forced to use his left because the innate predisposition toward either hand is unique to that particular group. However in the case of this study, a novelty seeking gene (or innate bias) is not exclusive or even required to be a liberal.

Remember the gene does not in itself produce a liberal ideology. Only when combined with a very specific environment do the researchers even begin to claim any amount of predictability. So a better analogy would involve a study of ambidextrous individuals (or those with the novelty seeking gene) of the same exact degree living and interacting in different environments.

Liberalism could then be described as an ambidextrous individual that through a particular environment learned to favor his/her left hand in a whole host of different ways (or liberal attitudes or acceptance/understanding of different lifestyles expressed by the gene in an environment with a higher degree of friends) and conservatism could likewise describe maybe a single particular activity say single-handed swordsmanship( or engaged in whatever environment that would produce a conservative ideology to the same degree which the former influences a liberal ideology). Ultimately the question your left with is who now is the purer, or truer ambidextrous ( or novelty seeking) individual?

Now getting back to the actual study. On the surface it might seem easier to say the liberal has a better opportunity to nourish those novelty seeking desires because he/she could literally start anywhere with those progressive ideas, on top of applying the experience he/she applied through observing different lifestyles. However at some point it doesn’t matter how much of a novelty seeking individual you are (or how much time you have to live, or how much information you can process, or how far you can speculate with any self imposed sense of realism) at some point enough is enough. Case in point all those liberal founding fathers that had the gall to sign the constitution but not (for varying reasons) demand equal rights for minorities.

The limitations imposed upon the conservative are pretty self explanatory. They’re pretty much restricted to the body of information concerning their chosen vocation, avocation or whatever. That being said in the case of political conservatism that still allows for plenty of time to familiarize oneself with the particulars, test, apply and expand upon its tenets which by the way HAPPENS ALL THE TIME (see I can use caps too).

Citizens united, the overthrow of the D.C handgun ban and even to some extent Roe V Wade (which was partially justified on a conservative interpretation of the constitution that did not acknowledged a fetus as eligible for “personhood” ) are all great examples of political conservatives breaking rank from other conservative thinkers while simultaneously maintaining that ideological identification.

“So, by that rant, you should not be a scientist- you are definitely excitable and quick-tempered.”

Oh boy you’re not going to like this. That “rant” you quoted, yeah, I actually lifted that straight from the research paper. Impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered, and extravagant are the traits ascribed to those with a heavily expressed novelty seeking gene. Likewise reflective and rigid were used to describe (possibly not absolutely) those with a low expression of that gene.

So there you go. When offered the associated traits of a novelty seeking gene, copy and pasted, in the SAME EXACT order as its presented within the study, you dismiss it as a baseless rant. That IMHO beautifully illustrates your command of the subject matter that you keep telling me to read.

“As for the second part, are you actually asking a question based on the assumption that a colloquial expression is an absolute truth?”

Oh wow you’re really going to whine about a fundamental construct that anyone with half a brain could find an example of in real life? I bet you dollars to donuts that if I asked a hundred people what was the more truthful statement,

Nessecity is the mother of all invention
Or

“BY DEFINITION, conservatives are the people who do not seek additional mental stimulation.”
Way more people would choose the former and not the latter.

There is no purpose arguing with you.

Everything you wrote, the entire basis for your objection, is based on hyperbole, strawmen, and pure irrationality.

You consistently ignore the fact that liberal and conservative within this study are NOT political ideologies. You CONSTANTLY confuse the two.

Next, you are going to say that a study that shows left-handed people tend to be more creative than right handed people is bogus, because that means left-wing people are more creative than right-wing people.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES.

AGAIN- liberalism, the word, is defined as novelty-seeking behavior in the study. It does NOT mean protesting wars, socialism, or the Democratic party.

Conservatism, the word, is defined as conforming to the status quo. It does not mean a free market economy, FOX News, or the Republican party.

Let's make this easier for you-

Forget the words Liberal and Conservative. You obviously associate too much political baggage with the terms.

Instead pretend the article is about "Explorers" and "Conformers". Change the word Liberal to Explorer, and the word Conservative to Conformer.

THAT IS ALL THE DAMN STUDY IS ABOUT.

“You consistently ignore the fact that liberal and conservative within this study are NOT political ideologies. You CONSTANTLY confuse the two.”

This is the title of the study.

Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology

“AGAIN- liberalism, the word, is defined as novelty-seeking behavior in the study. “

You couldn’t be anymore wrong. Novelty seeking behavior is not described within this study as being liberal. If that was the case then the essential argument made by the researchers would go like this,

Liberal individuals that grow up with a lot of friends end up being liberal.

Why is this so hard to understand? Here let me quote the study and an interview with the guy you don’t agree with, the coauthor of this study. First let’s start off with the actual connection that does link novelty seeking behavior to liberalism.

“[When we found that] a direct relationship between the gene and political ideology did not exist, it occurred to us that openness to new experiences might apply to nonpolitical or nonsocial experiences. So people with less of a social life might seek out new experiences like climbing a mountain or trying new food that would have no impact on their political beliefs. But people with more friends who are novelty seekers might be exposed to many different points of view, and this might increase their openness, which would tend to make them more liberal” James H. Fowler

“In our case, we were only interested in DRD4 for political ideology because of its association with novelty-seeking behavior, and we developed an explicit theory that the interaction between DRD4 and friendships—and not the main effects—would be significant.”

“It is important to note that the 7R allele by itself does not make a person liberal and neither does simply having a greater number of friends as a teenager.”

“However, the association is consistent with a causal theory that we develop about the way genes and environments combine to affect political ideology.”

“So suppose you very much wanted to be conservative and you learned about our study, and other researchers were able to replicate the results. If you learned you had the R7 variant of the DRD4 gene, you might be able to choose to be more conservative by socializing with fewer people in high school. This information could empower you to become a different kind of person, the person you want to be. Knowledge is power.” --------From the horses mouth. James H. Fowler, coauthor of the study.

This is a study about political ideology. The subject of this study is a gene that is strongly linked to novelty seeking behavior. Nowhere in this study do the researchers define novelty seeking behavior as liberalism. In fact they specify argue against that assumption.

“Conservatism, the word, is defined as conforming to the status quo. It does not mean a free market economy, FOX News, or the Republican party.”

People Routinely Offer Junk Explanations Cause They’re Idiotic Obsessions Nagger Speculation

"Forget the words Liberal and Conservative. You obviously associate too much political baggage with the terms."

Say what?! You're crazy for calling a MOUNTAIN CLIMBER a conformer. Yes sir, absolutely bonkers. Mountain climbers are not conformers they're awesome.

I am a total Libra who loves to read books (mostly non-fiction but some science fiction).
And I have an hypothesis. Based on my lifelong observation of politics and religion I must conclude that liberals tend to have an IQ above 100 and conservatives tend to have an IQ below 100.

My observation has been that those who identify themselves as either "liberal" or "conservative" both have relatively low intelligence. Incidentally IQ does not determine how intelligent someone ACTUALLY is, but the POTENTIAL. So, all those liberals you know with high IQ's could be just as retarded as all those conservatives you know with low IQ's.

My mom was a Libra, and I am a Libra Ascendant Angle(1st house influence)
I'll wagger all your true friends think of you as sociable, and fair minded, no ?

Good point. When the reptiles faded from dominance, the mammals arose
to take their place. Especial;y all the modern Cro Magnons who shared
stories about how they scouted around away from the tribe during the day
only to share stories around the campfire with their camp dogs at night.
Which is why we're having these pleasant conversations here on Current.

Humanity has always evolved due to liberal thinking because it is always the open minded individuals that break the mold and are willing to step into the dark.

We are not sacred like most cons that just want the old ways...............we want to pave the future as we have in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Without liberals there would be no science, math, philosophy and humanity would be stuck in the old ways. Your life as you know it would not exist...........you would be living in a cave fighting for scraps.

Also as Mariased mentioned, it seems that you are so undereducated that you think man walked with dinosaurs..........I can't believe you actually tried to use this argument as it proves your ignorance!

Keep drinking the Jesus juice!

haha dumbass

^mariased

No, because Liberals are smarter than you.
We know dinosaurs died out before humans evolved,
and we know we are smarter than animals.
Not you, just us.

Your gene mutated, your parents' didn't.

or his/her parents were not exposed to the diverse world that we live in. Most Conservatives are conservatives because 1) their parents were cons and 2) due to their strict Christian beliefs.

its true everyone one of their family members are extremely conservative..
I have 13 cousins on my dad's side alone...not including the other members of his family..
then my cousins on my moms side who the only person i could think of who USED to be liberal was my uncle lanny...but then he stopped smoking pot and idk..i guess thought it was important to please family rather than make his own decisions haha.
its weird really , maybe i am a mutation 0_0
i wouldn't deny that possibility lol..but then again i'm also the only one who even tries to think critically or for myself at all..
everyone claims to be christians but are extremely judgmental and highly hypocritical ...

ALSO,
my dad is adopted and his real family lives in CA but as far as i know (based on their facebook profiles) they are also christians and conservative .. lol

and i'm a her :3

Sure they can, but very few do.

READ THE ARTICLE.

It's not about political parties. Liberalism and Conservatism are entire outlooks on life; like Optimism and Pessimism, or Neurotic and Psychotic.

Definition of Liberal:

from answers.com

...Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry

....Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others

...Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism

...Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

...Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct

...Favoring civil liberties and social progress

...Characterized by bounteous giving

please stop using this word like it's some sort of insult or class of people or something... it just makes you look retarded to those of us who actually think. thank you.

By posting here with those views you admit you're either genetically defective or that as a teen you were a loser with no friends.

That is hilarious!

You are jumping to the conclusion that a genetic difference equates with being genetically defective. Please stop posting, as you give liberals with the capacity for rational thought a bad name.

tell that to obama..LOL..

If that happened humanity would die out in something like half a year at best.
Reality has proven that conservatives just fuck everything up. Without liberals there'd be no one to try and fix things.
-ie. Obama with the the Two wars and the recession Bush left him with. And little thanks he gets from them.

um, i would probably agree

Retardation is genetic, usually congenital. :)

"... would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view"

i dont think i can associate you with a "liberal"..a nazi ..yes

If it's any consolation, I usually find it difficult to think of you as "mentally functional"... a retard ... yes.

Also, retardation can often be the result of a genetic anomaly, though not always. And the manner in which you throw out the word nazi is idiotic. Nazi's would execute people who were mentally or physically retarded as a means to keep impurities out of the "race", and I assume that's what you are aiming at by referring to Vierotchka as a Nazi. News flash turbo, pointing out a biological fact does not make one a Nazi, nor is it a good means to associate someone with Nazi's. However, labeling someone with a broad and hateful stereotype, such as calling someone a Nazi for no real reason, usually puts you closer to being a Nazi than the person whom you labeled. No, I'm not calling you a Nazi, but from your written attack, it seems like you might philosophically have more in common with them than the person you labeled.

By the way, what do you do for employment?

We are all interested in other people's points of view.
And, we all make fun of yours.

I dont think liberals would fight for freedom..they think it comes free

The Founding Fathers were Liberals.

Believe it or not, quite a few soldiers in the armed forces are of a more liberal persuasion.

And every post you make shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
You are never simply slightly off- it's always completely and totally wrong.
It's like all the sentences need to be flipped to their exact opposites for them to be true.

And I always thought it was the inability to understand facts of evolution that made them act primal! Man was i far off!

It's not logic that leads you there, since almost all children start of naturally conservative and authoritarian.

Wow you did NOT understand the article at all.

It's INTELLECTUAL stimulation, not emotion.

It's that Liberals seek out new stimulation, thus gather MORE information to think about. Conservatives, by limiting the amount of information they process, have LESS to think about.

Thus, Liberals are an evolutionary advantage by being able to try new things, while conservatives stagnate with the status quo, or like you regress to previous failed patterns.

No, children start off in the whole spectrum. There are even tests that can predict if an infant will grow up to be conservative or liberal, based on their behavior.

Our culture enforces child groupthink and conformity. Grade school turns them into mindless little zombies.

LMAO!