Is Liberalism a mental disorder?

[Jedidiah]

Some of you have missed how political beliefs seem to be founded in genetics and biology.

That means that I changed from liberal to conservative as I matured. That what you are saying?


Problem with your pseudo science it it is detecting differences in reactions but there is no way to determine if the differences are caused by differences in belief or differences in belief are causing the differences in reactions. That applies to your first example in the OP. The later examples are no more than declarations based upon poor evaluation.

[pancreasman]

That means that I changed from liberal to conservative as I matured. That what you are saying?


Problem with your pseudo science it it is detecting differences in reactions but there is no way to determine if the differences are caused by differences in belief or differences in belief are causing the differences in reactions. That applies to your first example in the OP. The later examples are no more than declarations based upon poor evaluation.

In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?

[Adrift]

Wo, slow down. I'm not suggesting that political opinion is TOTALLY determined by genetics, merely that it seems that genetics is a component.

Look! Scientists disagreeing! I think that's cool. It certainly doesn't 'prove one view or another. I'm prepared to withhold judgement. Your reaction just seems so strong.

Its strong because it sounds so outlandish. It doesn't strike you as outlandish?

[KingsGambit]

Its strong because it sounds so outlandish. It doesn't strike you as outlandish?

"Outlandish" does not necessarily equate to wrong. I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility of some connection on some level. Some people may be more susceptible to fear, for example. .. maybe their amygdyla gets easily overstimulated. You don't see how that could have an effect?

[Adrift]

"Outlandish" does not necessarily equate to wrong. I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility of some connection on some level. Some people may be more susceptible to fear, for example. .. maybe their amygdyla gets easily overstimulated. You don't see how that could have an effect?

With politics? No. What would fear, or any emotion, have to do with liberal/conservative politics? Are liberals generally more fearful than conservatives or vice versa? There is absolutely no way at all for anyone to determine's one's political leanings based on genetics. They don't put a fingernail clipping under a microscope and say "aha! there's the liberal gene". They do twin studies which are fraught with problems that scientists have been aware of for quite awhile now. As professor Charney said, its pseudoscience. It seems to me as ludicrous as phrenology.

[KingsGambit]

With politics? No. What would fear, or any emotion, have to do with liberal/conservative politics? Are liberals generally more fearful than conservatives or vice versa? There is absolutely no way at all for anyone to determine's one's political leanings based on genetics. They don't put a fingernail clipping under a microscope and say "aha! there's the liberal gene". They do twin studies which are fraught with problems that scientists have been aware of for quite awhile now. As professor Charney said, its pseudoscience. It seems to me as ludicrous as phrenology.

People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.

[Adrift]

People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.

This is so vague its meaningless. Being more prone to fear isn't going to put you into a political party. All political parties thrive on fear. Again, this idea that party alignment is based on genetics is very eugenics-y sounding. Did the Jews not align themselves to the Nazi Party because they were genetically greedy and cowardly? Maybe blue eyed, blonde haired Germans are just genetically more courageous; More open to taking risks that involve world conquest!

So help this blue-eyed, blonde haird German...if one of you cry Godwin!

[Jedidiah]

In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?

I am generally dismissive of a lot of psychology as I was a psych major many years ago. That does not mean it is all bad, but . . .

Back in the early 60s there was an annual meeting, of the APA I think but am not sure. There was a lot of threats and intimidation of attendees because they did not declare homosexuality a normal healthy expression of human sexuality. It was in this atmosphere that homosexuality was ultimately declared to be such a normal healthy behavior. I read this in reports about the meetings and in the news papers. When asked for cites, I was not able to find any. A lot of that stuff disappeared and never made it onto the internet.

I explained the problem with the study you started with. You can not tell from the experiment whether the differences are caused by the political stance or if the political stance is caused by the differences.

[Sparko]

Well I have the same political views as myself, and I also have the same DNA as I do, so maybe there is something to it?

[Teallaura]

People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.

But what would cause the particular leaning? they could just as easily fear government conspiracy and have the opposite leaning - this makes no sense.

Genetics on something as mercurial as spectrum? That's really idiotic sounding to me - and both of my degrees are in political science. Leaning demonstrably changes over time - it's normal for people to become more conservative as they age - which makes it very hard to take genetics as a factor seriously.

You might make a reasonable case for genetics as a factor in political activism (some personalities are more likely than others to become active) but spectrum? No, that sounds as ridiculous to me as it does to Adrift.

[Teallaura]

This is so vague its meaningless. Being more prone to fear isn't going to put you into a political party. All political parties thrive on fear. Again, this idea that party alignment is based on genetics is very eugenics-y sounding. Did the Jews not align themselves to the Nazi Party because they were genetically greedy and cowardly? Maybe blue eyed, blonde haired Germans are just genetically more courageous; More open to taking risks that involve world conquest!

So help this blue-eyed, blonde haird German...if one of you cry Godwin!

Sie sind Deutsch?

[Teallaura]

In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?

Reading:

We agree with the authors AFH when they state that theEEA is essential for conclusions drawn from twin studiesconcerning human behavioral traits. However, we concludethat the EEA has not been well tested nor validated.We point out numerous problems with the studies citedby AFH. These studies report small sample sizes with lowstatistical power, problematic retrospective interviews,and assumptions about misidentified zygosity that are oftennot supported by data. The attempts to control for traitrelevantenvironments in these efforts are quite limited,admittedly because it is difficult to know exactly which environmentalfactors to control for. Furthermore, several ofthe studies cited in support of the EEA contain evidencethat could be interpreted as arguing against the assumption.It is difficult not to get the sense that in the face ofinconvenient data, a fair amount of intellectual acrobaticswas necessary to arrive at some of the conclusions drawn.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mor...files/2008.pdf

Those are the biggies. Small samples are the bane of social science research. The environmental issues are major hurdles for twin studies. The zygosity business is questionable as heck.

Drawing conclusions with inadequate samples is just flat out bad research - the rest makes it worse.

[Adrift]

Sie sind Deutsch?

Ja, ich bin, aber mein Deutsch sprechen ist nicht so gut.

[Rushing Jaws]

The whole idea seems like pure Bulverism: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.htmlhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/621/6...21-h.html#toc3

- William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), chap.1

## The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder can be retorted with equal justice upon those of a different political persuasion who make it. It is a suicidal method of reasoning. It solves nothing, because it is vulnerable to the same attack. Nor is it a gracious way of proceeding.

[Paprika]

Its a few steps away from saying something totally ridiculous like race is a factor in IQ

How is this in any way 'totally ridiculous'?