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.