The environmental theory of human development — which holds that all humans are born blank slates and are shaped solely by their environments — has received a death blow with the news that scientists have discovered a genetic link to liberalism.
The announcement of the existence of a “liberal gene” which predisposes individuals to being liberal even in the face of the most incontrovertible evidence that their world view is wrong, was made in the reputable Cambridge University Press' Journal of Politics.
The lengthy study, based on research carried out on more than 2,000 test subjects (and which can be seen in full here), proves that genetics plays a substantial role in behaviour.
This means that people with certain genetic make-ups behave in a predetermined way, irrelevant of their place of birth.
The environmental “blank slate” world view has, from the time of the infamous Frankfurt School and the anthropological standard set by Karl Mannheim and Franz Boas at the beginning of the 20th Century, held that hereditary plays no part in predetermining human behaviour.
For decades, this leftist argument has been used to stifle any suggestion that individuals, both within and between racial groups, have different inherent abilities, intelligence levels or behavioural and psychological make-ups.
The advent of the science of genetics has however completely undermined this leftist delusion, and the discovery of a “liberal gene” must come as the most shocking of all developments to proponents of the now-disproven environmental theory.
According to the new study’s lead researcher, James H. Fowler of the University of California in San Diego, people with a variant of what is known as the “dopamine receptor gene” (called DRD4-7R) are more liberal in their political outlook than those people without it.
The gene, which has previously been associated with novelty-seeking behaviour, means that individuals carrying it are exposed “to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles would make them more liberal than average,” his study paper said.
“Studies of animals indicate that DRD4 is involved in cortical excitability and behavioral sensitisation,” the paper said.
“These alterations in cortical arousal affect ‘‘approach traits’’ such as novelty seeking and sensation seeking, which in turn affect personality and behaviour.
“The relationship between openness to experience and ideology holds when ideology is measured either as support for ideological political parties or as ideological self-placement.”
The paper was extremely scientific and fair in its overview, stressing that it did not “claim that this evidence proves a causal relationship between DRD4 and political ideology. However, the association is consistent with a causal theory that we develop about the way genes and environments combine to affect political ideology.
“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,” it stated.
“Rather, it is the crucial interaction of two factors—the genetic predisposition of having a greater number of 7R alleles and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence—that is associated with being more liberal.”
As a result, the study said, it can be concluded that “genetic effects take place in complex interaction with other genes and environments, and it is likely the combination of hundreds if not thousands of genes interacting with each other and with external stimuli that influence political attitudes and behaviour.
“In light of these and other findings, political scientists can no longer afford to view ideology as a strictly social construct, perfectly malleable and completely subject to historically changing circumstances.
“Finally, the results here suggest that, contrary to Mannheim’s assertion and the body of work that followed him, the social and institutional environment cannot entirely explain a person’s political attitudes and beliefs.
“We must take into account the role of genes and gene-environment interactions in the formation and maintenance of political beliefs,” the paper said in its conclusion.
Further recommended reading: Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged Edition, by Professor J. Philippe Rushton.
Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book shows that there are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man: Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians); Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans).
There are recognisable profiles for the three major racial groups on brain size; intelligence; personality and temperament; sexual behaviour, and rates of fertility, maturation, and longevity. The profiles reveal that, ON AVERAGE that Orientals and their descendants around the world fall at one end of the continuum, Blacks and their descendants around the world fall at the other end of the continuum and Whites regularly fall in between. This worldwide pattern implies evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic, or cultural, causes. Softcover, small format, 106 pp. £4.78 including postage and packaging. Order online here.