http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html

Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

"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,” according to the study.

"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

Source: Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' | NBC San Diego

I had lots of good friends at school. Well-liked and popular. Good personality and a caring attitude.

I'm percieved to be leftist here in this forum.

Interesting to extrapolate from that, the personality traits of the rightists.

Yea, sure and I was an Eagle Scout, class president and king of the prom. My mom ran the PTA and my father was really rich and the president of Canada . That's the ticket!

"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,” according to the study.

All it shows is that liberals like to tell scientists that they had lots of friends when they were teens. It's odd that scientists would include this sort of subjective and unreliable data. What it doesn't show is that they have lost those friends by becoming lefties.

Seriously, assuming it is true, maybe there is some sort of dependence formed in adolescence due to having many friends? Maybe their independent spirit has been sapped away in youth by the need to please everyone around them so they tend to think more with their heart instead of their brains.

Another thing, I would have expected the popular kids in their teen years to be less likely to be tree huggers or hippy peaceniks or anti-establishment in almost any way. Life is going well for them, they don't want to change society. The kid roaming the halls with petitions to sign to save the forest whatever are usually the quirky loner kid.

Another thing, I would have expected the popular kids in their teen years to be less likely to be tree huggers or hippy peaceniks or anti-establishment in almost any way. Life is going well for them, they don't want to change society. The kid roaming the halls with petitions to sign to save the forest whatever are usually the quirky loner kid.

I see your point, though I have a different take; Kids with good social relationships learn empathy, and some probably have empathy to begin with..

Rightwing hawks may have made captain of the football team, with the associated adoration.,...but sycophants are not friends, they are merely followers and almost invariably not so intelligent.

Another thing, I would have expected the popular kids in their teen years to be less likely to be tree huggers or hippy peaceniks or anti-establishment in almost any way. Life is going well for them, they don't want to change society. The kid roaming the halls with petitions to sign to save the forest whatever are usually the quirky loner kid.

Left wing radical movements have a long history of beginning with the offspring of well heeled upper middle class parents. If you look at the history of most "peasant revolts" there's usually a cadre of educated people born into a comfortable life leading them. (Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Ho Chi Min, and Abemael Guzman (Shining path) for example.

The quirky loner kid is usually the Oswald/Hinkley type. The lefty radicals begin their movements in comfortable surroundings.

Another thing, I would have expected the popular kids in their teen years to be less likely to be tree huggers or hippy peaceniks or anti-establishment in almost any way. Life is going well for them, they don't want to change society. The kid roaming the halls with petitions to sign to save the forest whatever are usually the quirky loner kid.

Left wing radical movements have a long history of beginning with the offspring of well heeled upper middle class parents. If you look at the history of most "peasant revolts" there's usually a cadre of educated people born into a comfortable life leading them. (Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Ho Chi Min, and Abemael Guzman (Shining path) for example.

The quirky loner kid is usually the Oswald/Hinkley type. The lefty radicals begin their movements in comfortable surroundings.

I can't picture any of those guys you listed as having many friends as teens. They wouldn't have been brooding so much.

Another thing, I would have expected the popular kids in their teen years to be less likely to be tree huggers or hippy peaceniks or anti-establishment in almost any way. Life is going well for them, they don't want to change society. The kid roaming the halls with petitions to sign to save the forest whatever are usually the quirky loner kid.

Left wing radical movements have a long history of beginning with the offspring of well heeled upper middle class parents. If you look at the history of most "peasant revolts" there's usually a cadre of educated people born into a comfortable life leading them. (Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Ho Chi Min, and Abemael Guzman (Shining path) for example.

The quirky loner kid is usually the Oswald/Hinkley type. The lefty radicals begin their movements in comfortable surroundings.

I can't picture any of those guys you listed as having many friends as teens. They wouldn't have been brooding so much.

I agree.

If you look deeper into their psyches, you may find a commonality with agressive rightwingers; Have a need for power, finds a following by choice words, and plots to gain power in areas that he has no power.....and some of them may even have enjoyed pulling wings off flies. The "ideal" fought for is often not the real reason for the leader to instigate the fight.

Have you actually read the histories of these figures or is this just what you imagine they would be like?

Have you actually read the histories of these figures or is this just what you imagine they would be like?

Uhh, cdnvic.

Harcourt usually does not let facts get in the way of his theories.

All it shows is that liberals like to tell scientists that they had lots of friends when they were teens.

I cannot see anywhere in the text in the OP where it states that this information comes from personal interviews. Do you have more background information on how the study was carried out?

The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a Republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

"Republican" in the above quote means anti-royalty / revolutionary. Nothing to do with current American politics.

All it shows is that liberals like to tell scientists that they had lots of friends when they were teens.

I cannot see anywhere in the text in the OP where it states that this information comes from personal interviews. Do you have more background information on how the study was carried out?

OK, how else would the scientist determine which subjects had "many friends in adolescence" if not by asking?

The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a Republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

"Republican" in the above quote means anti-royalty / revolutionary. Nothing to do with current American politics.

True. In most countries where there is a republican movement, they're usually on the left.

As for the Americans, it was only in the 20th century that the two main American parties switched places. At one time the Republican party was the lefter leaning party.

All it shows is that liberals like to tell scientists that they had lots of friends when they were teens.

I cannot see anywhere in the text in the OP where it states that this information comes from personal interviews. Do you have more background information on how the study was carried out?

OK, how else would the scientist determine which subjects had "many friends in adolescence" if not by asking?

One possible method would be to ask people that were around at the time and who might know, such as parents, teachers, peers. A lot of work, and probably not feasible on a grand scale. I will concede it may just be big words for conducting personal interviews with the test subjects, but '"maps" of their social networks' to me seems to suggest a more sophisticated method.

EDIT: OK, I found how it was done - friendship and social relations was data already available from the reference survey:

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design/contexts

Seems rather well thought out.

A lot of work, and probably not feasible on a grand scale.

Agreed.

If you check the link I posted though, you will see that the info regarding friendship actually seems quite reliable.

All the test subjects took surveys while still at school where they were told to name their friends, and then that data was cross referenced to map out networks of people and their relation to each other. Hence the scientists actually had quite a good idea of who had a lot of friends, and who had not...

Did they interview their "friends" too? I was really close with all of the cheerleaders and the girls who ran for prom queen myself.

All it shows is that liberals like to tell scientists that they had lots of friends when they were teens.

I cannot see anywhere in the text in the OP where it states that this information comes from personal interviews. Do you have more background information on how the study was carried out?

OK, how else would the scientist determine which subjects had "many friends in adolescence" if not by asking?

One possible method would be to ask people that were around at the time and who might know, such as parents, teachers, peers. A lot of work, and probably not feasible on a grand scale. I will concede it may just be big words for conducting personal interviews with the test subjects, but '"maps" of their social networks' to me seems to suggest a more sophisticated method.

EDIT: OK, I found how it was done - friendship and social relations was data already available from the reference survey:

http://www.cpc.unc.e...design/contexts

Seems rather well thought out.

In the end it is the same thing - they asked the respondents via a questionnaire. The libs probably counted among their friends - their pets, the trees around their house, Mother Earth who was so generous allowing them to trod upon her everyday and never ask for anything in return. You know, goofy stuff like that.

Koheesti:

Don't forget the libs would also include the postman who delivers their AFDC check, the cashier at the local supermarket that accepts their food stamps, all the clerks at the local unemployment office and their Democratic party leadership.

The next question for scientists: Finding the 'attempt to deflect from being proven wrong by posting washed-out stereotypes' gene.

The next question for scientists: Finding the 'attempt to deflect from being proven wrong by posting washed-out stereotypes' gene.

Proven wrong? Nahhh, not this time....nothing to prove.

It's more likely to be the gene that produces low self esteem, over-compensated for in later life with aggressive bullying and groundless arrogance, presented in children with no real friends.

Don't forget the "admitting the study is flawed and then backpedaling and trying to claim otherwise" gene.

Don't forget the "admitting the study is flawed and then backpedaling and trying to claim otherwise" gene.

No such gene that I am aware of.....citation needed.

Don't forget the "admitting the study is flawed and then backpedaling and trying to claim otherwise" gene.

Deliberate misinterpretation is rather cheap.

When I replied to koheesti's question 'how else would they do it' above, I speculated about how the scientists might have done it, but also admitted 'it would probably not be feasible on a grand scale', because I did not know that that work had already been done.

The new genetics study took those data from a larger earlier health study which did have exactly the type of cross-referenced data needed readily available.

If you take 20 minutes to browse how both studies were conducted, you will see that social relations were measured in a reliable way, because it checks the veracity of one survey person's statements with the statements of the other people referred to.

The link to the relevant part of the large health study is still available above.

The next question for scientists: Finding the 'attempt to deflect from being proven wrong by posting washed-out stereotypes' gene.

So you believe asking kids how many friends they have is reliable? Well, it isn't.

I think it odd that "scientists" would combine something like DNA with a questionnaire about one's social life completed by people when they were teenagers and call it scientific.

I didn't read the study in its entirety but are they saying that teenagers filled out a questionnaire them years later as adults some scientists examined the DNA of the same individuals and found that those who claimed to have many friends in their youth leaned more liberal when they got older?

Don't forget the "admitting the study is flawed and then backpedaling and trying to claim otherwise" gene.

Deliberate misinterpretation is rather cheap.

You are right about that, but I am not misinterpreting anything.

To adjust one's opinion after checking facts is considered good form by those who value honesty and truth. I don't know what you are driven by, but it sure is not the pursuit of facts.

A lot of work, and probably not feasible on a grand scale.

Is that so?