Genes and Politics

Poland's Kaczynski brothers. 

City Journal has an article by James Q. Wilson about DNA and political outlook. There is evidence that genes rather than experiences account for a sizable chunk of the differences in political outlook. 

Three political science professors—John Alford, Carolyn Funk, and John Hibbing—have studied political attitudes among a large number of twins in America and Australia. They measured the attitudes with something called the Wilson-Patterson Scale (I am not the Wilson after whom it was named), which asks whether a respondent agrees or disagrees with 28 words or phrases, such as “death penalty,” “school prayer,” “pacifism,” or “gay rights.” They then compared the similarity of the responses among identical twins with the similarity among fraternal twins. They found that, for all 28 taken together, the identical twins did indeed agree with each other more often than the fraternal ones did—and that genes accounted for about 40 percent of the difference between the two groups. On the other hand, the answers these people gave to the words “Democrat” or “Republican” had a very weak genetic basis. In politics, genes help us understand fundamental attitudes—that is, whether we are liberal or conservative—but do not explain what party we choose to join.

In addition, there is evidence that genes explain much of the reason why some vote and others don't.

Genes also influence how frequently we vote. Voting has always puzzled scholars: How is it rational to wait in line on a cold November afternoon when there is almost no chance that your ballot will make any difference? Apparently, people who vote often feel a strong sense of civic duty or like to express themselves. But who are these people? James Fowler, Laura Baker, and Christopher Dawes studied political participation in Los Angeles by comparing voting among identical and fraternal twins. Their conclusion: among registered voters, genetic factors explain about 60 percent of the difference between those who vote and those who do not.

Source: City Journal

Genetic Variation in Political Participation

American Political Science Review (2008), 102:233-248 Cambridge University Press

Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

doi:10.1017/S0003055408080209

Research Article

Genetic Variation in Political Participation

JAMES H. FOWLER, LAURA A. BAKER and CHRISTOPHER T. DAWES a1 University of California, San Diego a2 University of Southern California a3 University of California, San Diego Abstract The decision to vote has puzzled scholars for decades. Theoretical models predict little or no variation in participation in large population elections and empirical models have typically accounted for only a relatively small portion of individual-level variance in turnout behavior. However, these models have not considered the hypothesis that part of the variation in voting behavior can be attributed to genetic effects. Matching public voter turnout records in Los Angeles to a twin registry, we study the heritability of political behavior in monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The results show that a significant proportion of the variation in voting turnout can be accounted for by genes. We also replicate these results with data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and show that they extend to a broad class of acts of political participation. These are the first findings to suggest that humans exhibit genetic variation in their tendency to participate in political activities.

Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?

American Political Science Review (2005), 99:2:153-167 American Political Science Association

Copyright © 2005 by the American Political Science Association
doi:10.1017/S0003055405051579

ARTICLES

Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmited?

 

JOHN R. ALFORD, CAROLYN L. FUNK and JOHN R. HIBBING  a1 Rice University a2 Virginia Commonwealth University a3 University of Nebraska

Abstract

We test the possibility that political attitudes and behaviors are the result of both environmental and genetic factors. Employing standard methodological approaches in behavioral genetics—specifically, comparisons of the differential correlations of the attitudes of monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins—we analyze data drawn from a large sample of twins in the United States, supplemented with findings from twins in Australia. The results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies but a more modest role in forming party identification; as such, they call for finer distinctions in theorizing about the sources of political attitudes. We conclude by urging political scientists to incorporate genetic influences, specifically interactions between genetic heritability and social environment, into models of political attitude formation.

AP Econ Quiz

The New York Times has a quiz with questions drawn from past AP Economics tests.

Most of the “correct” answers presuppose a Keynesian framework. 

Source: New York Times

Genes or Experience: Experienced Opinion

People with more experience are more likely to believe that genes are more important than experiences in determining personality.

Genes or Experience: Popular and Educated Opinion

1-in-4 Americans believe that it is genes rather than experiences that are the biggest determiner of personality.

Does that change with years of schooling? Not as much as I expected.

We can safely ignore the results of the respondents who had less than 8 years of schooling. The sample sizes are too small. (There were only 12 respondents in the "7 years of schooling" camp. The other, shorter lengths of schooling had even fewer). Above that, the ratio largely moves in a range from 1-in-5 to a little over 1-in-4. The outliers can be found at the ends of the range of education. People with only high school education are more likely to believe in genes. People with post-graduate education, less so. People with 19 years were the least likely to believe in the power of genes. Tenured radicals. Retirement looms.

Source: GSS

Two, Three, Many Neandethal Groups!

ScienceDaily (Apr. 15, 2009) — The Neanderthals inhabited a vast geographical area extending from Europe to western Asia and the Middle East 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Now, a group of researchers are questioning whether or not the Neanderthals constituted a homogenous group or separate sub-groups (between which slight differences could be observed).

.

Paleoanthropological studies based on morphological skeletal evidence have offered some support for the existence of three different sub-groups: one in Western Europe, one in southern Europe and another in the Levant.

Researchers Virginie Fabre, Silvana Condemi and Anna Degioanni from the CNRS Laboratory of Anthropology (UMR 6578) at the University of Marseille, France, have given further consideration to the question of diversity of Neanderthals by studying the genetic structure of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and by analyzing the genetic variability, modeling different scenarios. The study was possible thanks to the publication, since 1997, of 15 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences (the mtDNa is maternally transmitted) that originated from 12 Neanderthals.

The new study confirms the presence of three separate sub-groups and suggests the existence of a fourth group in western Asia. According to the authors, the size of the Neanderthal population was not constant over time and a certain amount of migration occurred among the sub-groups. The variability among the Neanderthal population is interpreted to be an indirect consequence of the particular climatic conditions on their territorial extension during the entire middle Pleistocene time period.