Political attitudes predicted by physiological traits?

I would disagree. I am the lone democrat in a family full of republicans going back multiple generations. It's so bad, in fact, my father and I are not allowed to talk politics when in the same time zone. I think the results are interesting, but I can't say I agree with the conclusion.

No,
I agree with Winston Churchill, who said, "Anyone who's not a liberal when they're 20 has no heart. Anyone who's not a conservative when they're 40 has no brain." I'm 51!

Danielle,
My father always told me, "Republicans never evolved to their philosophical and political positions by learning from experience and education...they were born with the tendancies for those thoughts. I personally believe it's true. There seems to be a sociopathic content in their thoughts. One which leaves empowerment for the priveldged.

Fascinating. I've long noticed how conservatives seem to have this gut-level reaction to any perceived 'threat' and tend to lose their cool and composure when talking about them (I'm not aking a value judgment here as to their views, just their reactions). The more muted response from liberals to things like, say, terrorism, seems to convince them that liberals aren't *aware* of threats when in fact they 're simply not losing their heads over them, preferring a cool, analytical approach. If there really is a biological basis to this it could help explain why we're so polarized; we literally cannot comprehend one another's reactions to the exact same things on a very basic, hard-wired level.

What a bunch of bologna. I'm a PhD in genetics, and this is junk science. How can you claim a link between response to images to genetic makeup to political beliefs with any sort of accuracy? You can't even test the hypothesis! Wow...

As a person who lives and breathes politcs, I am convinced that there is a marked difference between the brain of a democrat and that of a republican. I beleive that genetics play an important part of the equation but education, culture, and geographic location also play an important part. I am happy to have the DEMOCRATIC BRAIN!

I know it happened in my family. My parents were educated, fairly liberal middle class people, Dad a university professor, Mom was at home when we were kids and later became a social worker. They opposed the Vietnam War, supported a woman's right to abortion, would not have felt threatened by gay marriage, etc. Intellectual pursuits and curiosity were strongly encouraged, and their children were prompted to think for themselves and question society's standards from a pragmatic point of view.

My political views tend to jive with this. My younger brother, on the other hand, is so conservative that he's far to the right of J. Edgar Hoover – and he was that way from very early childhood. We never could figure where he was getting it. He used to insist on sitting up late so that he could watch the television stations go off the air, and would stand in the middle of the living room, saluting, as the national anthem was played. He grew up to be the most narrow minded, jingoistic person I've ever met.

I will never forget him turning viciously on the one real friend he had from early childhood, a very kind and caring young man who was supportive of my brother in all sorts of crises. The young man was gay, and the minute my brother found out, he would have nothing to do with him. Twenty-one years of friendship down the toilet. Suddenly a person who had been a loyal, faithful pal, who never had the least sexual interest in my brother, was worthy only to be "led out and shot" (that is a direct quote). These days, my brother acts as if all heterosexual marriages will be instantly destroyed if gay marriage is permitted, and no amount of reasoning or logic will sway him from this viewpoint. My brother would go out of his way to do things for people he believed were his friends, a bunch of losers who exploited him endlessly, but wanted to have his longterm buddy shot because of his sexuality.

My brother didn't get this from our parents, and such views were never promulgated in our home when we were growing up. It started before my brother was even in school and we did not attend church, so I doubt outside influences had much to do with his intensely conservative viewpoint. He never evidenced the intellectual curiosity that his siblings did, but just seemed to pull opinions and values out of the thin air. My father used to say that there had been an uncle in his family who was the same, so there might indeed be something to the genetic theory.

Interestingly, my father became staunchly conservative as he grew older. He spent hours listening to conservative talk shows, became utterly paranoid, saw threats everywhere, particularly from certain ethnic groups. He carried a handgun with him all the time, This was so contrary to his original nature that we had him checked out medically.

He had dementia; his brain structure had actually altered as part of the degenerative process. Perhaps there is something to the idea that political leanings are physically based. After all, you tend to inherit the physical structure of your body. It could be that my brother's seemingly inborn conservatism, and my father's acquired conservatism were due to physical sources rather than environment. Neither one of them was raised in a conservative environment, and my brother certainly didn't learn his conservative views around the dinnertable.

More work should be done to prove the correlation between the findings and the physiology. The claims seem nearly far-fetched without plausible explanations of how this is a biological trait in some people...

What age are the people in this study? It seems to me movies and video games can desensitize people. Could people strongly left or right have different habits when it comes to these. Maybe after a few games of GTA and a showing of Pulp Fiction make a spider or bloody face less impactful.

I am not at all surprised.

It does seem to somewhat explain conservatives’ virtual fixation on security, both national and personal. They seem willing to turn a collective blind eye to violations of civil liberties in order to create the mere perception that they are safer.

Benjamin Franklin observed, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

This study reminds me of the work by Richard Davidson at UW Madison of long time meditators. They demonstrate the ability to practice non-attachment to various stimuli. This non-attachment has been suggested to lead to less emotionally-based reactions and responses that are more grounded, integrated and rational. So, would it be a leap to say to liberals are more rational and conservatives more emotional in their polical views?

this is interesting, but it doesn't prove that you are born with it. maybe political leanings are conditioned psychological traits. my personal opinion is that group think, family/regional indoctrination, and access to information have more to do with what you chose to believe.

Who says this is about genetics? First, there are a couple of alternative explanations for this outcome. One, maybe the liberals don't have such a gut reaction, because they are simply acclimated to seeing such disturbing images: maybe that's what turned them liberal in the first place - an awareness of just what sorts of things go on in the world. But this sort of conditioning has nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with upbringing and the sort of experiences people go through in life.

Another possibility, is that some people are more emotional than others, and the degree to which people are slaves to their emotions has an impact on their political leanings (thus, in this case, emotional thinkers are conservative, while more rational are liberal.) But has anyone done any studies on whether genetics affect the degree to which people are slaves to their emotions? Is there conclusive evidence, for example from studies of separated twins, that emotionality/objectivity has a strong genetic component? If so, at least your piece ought to have mentioned it!

Very interesting article but I personally disagree because I was at 1 time a Democrat but now am Republican pretty much because the party on each side started changing in different ways for me.The Democrats were beginning to make my skin crawl, and I was no longer in agreement with the path they want this country on and I for the most part now agree with most Republicans and John McCain for example is a man I very much admire and respect. He has no problems crossing party lines which is one thing that really ticked me about Democrats. I for one am very frightened of the strong possibility of having a Democratic Congress and White House. I would say the same for the Republicans as well. I feel there should be a law where if one is one way the other should have to be the opposite. This way the needs and feelings of all Americans are at least addressed at some point in time as oppossed to having people who just agree all the time.

This is very interesting. But one thing that is puzzling is that if it's the liberals who don't react differently between a picture of a bowl of fruit and an open war wound, implying that conservatives do react to to a picture of an open war wound as a threatening image, then why do conservatives support things like war and the death penalty?

Was this study done completely by political science researchers? Was it blinded? What physical responses were measured, but what physical responses were not measured?

I think Dr. Alford's study is somehow on track and that is why people hold different views in political issues - there is no way to bring these two different minds on one table.

I think that the "genetic" conclusion is premature. George Lakoff sights evidence that family environment has a high degree of correlation to political affiliation. According to Lakoff, those raised in "nurturing" family environments, tend to become "liberal" in their political leanings while those raised in a "strict father" family structure, usually become "conservatives". As almost always, human behavior is more of a dance between genetic potentials and specific environmental toggels.

No, I don't think that genetics has anything to do with it. I think that the way we feel about certain issues is entirely to do with our environment and how we were raised. I completely disagree with this assessment.

Hey Danielle!

This is a very intersting study. Consider this: Conservatives are considered more "traditional" in their values while liberals are generally considered more progressive and open.
The pictures and reactions you described mirror exactly that:

For example someone that's liberal is more open to violent movies, video games, hard rock or rap, is less opposed to adult and violent images. However a conservative is generally turned off by such things.

So perhaps it's a "chicken and the egg" type of thing...perhaps the physical reactions to images stem from deep rooted beliefs, and in some ways the pictures the subjects viewed are an extension of that. In that case, this study simply exemplifies what we already know about the person on a more rudimentary scale.

I think a more conclusive study would be to show the pictures to young kids and then see how they vote later in life.

Great article!

Funny...a picture of a spider would scare the heck outta me (still does, especially centipedes) and bunnies still make me smile yet I've been a lifelong champion of the Democrat philosophy. What is the percentage of the test subjects who, like me, don't fall into the hypothesis? That number would interest me.

While this may be mildly interesting, it is far from conclusive that political views are related to reactions (or a lack of same) to images. Does this mean liberals are cool headed while conservatives are hot heads?
The study might have more credence if it had been applied to babies who were then followed thru various life changes, and environmental factors (such as widely traveled or small town, suceptible to influences or decisive, willing to study issues for themselves or lazy enough to just accept what they hear), and, of course, educational levels . Then they could be checked again once there became 40 something adults to see how they react (or don't) to the images..

While I am a white male and am fairly conservative in my own beliefs. I am a strong proponent of civil liberties and the rights of others, which make me essentially a liberal. Am I a product of my times ... the 60's and 70's, my religion ... Catholic. I don't know. Would it make any difference that Thomas Jefferson, and I are distant cousins. We share some of the same ancestors. Of course it was a few generations back for him, and many generations back for me.

This is very interesting. I'm certain that genetics plays a role. It brings to mind another characteristic of the brain. We've all heard of the numbing effect when people see repeated horrors. If having a sort of "numb" natural reaction to the grotesque predisposes one to being a "liberal", then would one phisiologically become more liberal by seeing suffering? I'm reminded of studies indicating that smiling can make you happy – The old fake it until you make it.

This is an interesting study but I believe that even those humanistic reaction to imagery can be skewed by how you were raised and where you were raised.

It has a lot to do with whether or not your parents/guardians reinforced your feelings of being scared by a spider, or whether they told you "hey, it's just a spider, nothing to worry about."

I think the parents who jump up screaming when they see a spider usually end up with kids who are also terrified of spiders because they see their parents reacting in the same way. ...and we all know that a lot of children look to their parents for ideas on how to behave.

Also, I don't believe certain issues even relate to the kind of visual imagery used in this experiment. For example, no one is born with a hate for homosexual people or homosexual marriage. So it is impossible to say that 30 or 40% of why you dislike homosexuals or homosexual marriage is physiological or from birth. That is a purely learned behavior. And gay marriage is not the only topic where opinions are 100% learned. It's the same with pro-choice or pro-life, that's learned too. You don't even know what those are when you are born so you can't possibly be born with a pre-instilled knowledge of your opinion of that topic.

It's a fascinating study, but I fail to draw the conclusion that a difference in reaction to such images stems entirely from genetic inheritance. War veterans, for instance, that may not have had anxiety issues around large crowds and loud noises before active duty, certainly can end up reacting differently after returning from conflict.

Still, even without the conclusion that genetics predispose a person to a certain political outlook, the findings are fascinating. The irony of "bleeding heart" liberals being psychologically more callous when encountering violent images compared to hawkish conservatives isn't lost on me. I'd be interested to know what the implications are of the study. Are liberals more level headed for viewing the images unemotionally, or are they missing the basic biological impulse to react to threatening situations? Interesting stuff.

I think the more striking characteristic of this study has nothing to do with whether or not our genetic data plays a role in our political leanings. Look, in general, i think the debate of Nature versus Nurture is, or should be, moot by now; is it not obvious that both factors play a role in the evolution of our personalities?
What is almost alarming is the apparent "fact" that those whom have a more "republican" personality react to the threatening images more strongly, in other words with less equanimity, than do those of a more liberal character. This seems like something that someone ought to really dig into... =o)

Very interesting that it is the conservatives with the stronger physical reactions - complete the opposite to the portrayal of the 'bleeding heart liberal' ...

Makes sense to me: genetics influence psychology, and psychology influences political beliefs; therefore, genetics influence political beliefs.

Perhaps I'll start paying attention to how I react to different things to see if this study's ideas are true for me.

So the study seems to show that conservatives see a clear difference between threats (spiders for examples) and non-threats (bunnies and children) while liberals can't make out a difference between a bowl of fruit and an open war wound...hmm, and liberals declare themselves the superior intellects huh?

Seriously. Don't you think you're overstating your conclusions just a bit???? This is the genetic equivalent of radical behaviorism. What's next? Physiological responses of the type described above and NOT purely a function of genetics and it's ridiculous to assume so. They are developed in response to a person's experiences and their interactions with the envirnoment.

Genes are responsible for the synthesis of protiens - period. And it's a long way from a strand of protein to a voting booth.

Personally, I don't think it's totally genetic. It can be upbringing. Families that are multi-cultural, multi-religions, or exposed to many things tend to be more liberal. I think they should expand the study and track the backgrounds of people.

I don't believe that genetics would play much of a role in political ideology. Certainly not at the 30-40% they are describing.

People's reaction to photos would have to do with the way the synapses in our brains are connected – all of which happens after we are born (only the autonomic nervous system – the part of the brain that controls involuntary actions like breathing, digestion, heart rate, etc – is wired before we are born). And the wiring of our higher brian is in no way predetermined. It has to do exclusively with our environment.

Now – kids may have some genetic predisposition for their brains to develop in a certain way because other "input" sources (eyes, ears, nose, etc) will have similar characteristics as their parents.

Environment in this case will play a much bigger role in forming political beliefs. Parents primarily, followed by friends and personal experiences. Perhaps its those same environmental experiences that also explain the responses to images in the study.

NO, this is ridiculous and poor science. of course people with different opinions will react differently to pressing images. how do you figure this means that political leanings are inherited?

This study is a good-breaking point but we must do more to further prove it.

Very interesting. But this is an association study (conservative participants "associated" with stronger physical reaction) , not causation (have stronger physical reactions "causes" them to be conservative)

Personally, I identify as liberal on most issues, and I'm always very easily disturbed by war and violence-related images. : \ I have one big problem with this study (or maybe the way it's been described in this article), and that is: where is the evidence that these people's "physiological reactions" could be rooted in their genes at all? It's kind of a big jump to go from a physical reaction to genetics. How you react to something may be influenced as much by your personal experiences as your biology. A rape victim may have a much more visceral reaction to a rape scene in a movie than a non-rape victim.
I believe that very little, if any, of our political selves are rooted in biology. What about those people who change political affiliations during their lifetimes? It's possible to believe very strongly in something and then stop. I believe that experiences are what allow people to form political identities. It's a very similar process to how people choose their religious beliefs. Someone may be anti-gay marriage until they befriend a gay person (or learn that their child is gay) and see things from the other side. Someone's loved one could die at the hands of terrorists, and this may cause them to support a war against terrorism.

I was brought up to believe that good things don't always happen automatically but that you have to work for them,, i.e. a good family, education, job. When good things do happen it is called grace but that there will be great difficulty in life and I need to be personally prepared for it... Good and bad things happen to everyone. Free men live because other men had courage to stand for something and some selflessly even gave their own lives. You can't force anybody to believe anything... but you can live what you believe and change the world around you however big or small it is. These were some of the values I was brought up with and taught. Was I born this way? Or were these values taught and observed?

Most all babies are born screaming and helpless and have no clue about the world around them... they need somebody to feed them and give them attention, teach them. this is the difference or the X factor for eveyone... this experience is different for everyone. Time goes on, babies get taller, but one thing I also learned is that wisdom is not a promise to everyone who grows old... some people never grow. Why?

I say it is a socialogical study rather than about something a person is born with.

But the study does have an interesting case for showing how different 'groups' of people respond to different images or circumstances.

very interesting study, I have a few comments:

1- I think it's too shallow and doesn't quite lead to their conclusions. Firstly I think the sample size is too small, secondly I think physical reaction to threats doesn't have to be completely genetic. That could also be environmental.

2 – Which way would evolution be biased? I think it would make sense for evolution to be biased towards conservatism in "threatful" environments, but in a safe and secure society , the liberals would prosper. (that's why the repubs are always trying to make us scared!!)

3 – I hope they won't start to exploit this to win elections!!! (like genetically modifying people so they're born republican!!)

I'm no expert in research studies, but it seems to me that the level-headed reactions of the "Dems" in this study seem to indicate just a higher IQ or perhaps it's a comment on their ability to control their emotions – or emotional intelligence – not sure...

But those who reacted in a fearful way to pics of spiders and open wounds seem to be more "conventional" in their emotive responses. These would be the Conservative types.

I don't think everyone who is a conservative is less intelligent than everyone who is a liberal, but honestly, the word "liberal" implies more open-mindedness, greater acceptance of adverse or unconventional situations, better educated (whether that's self-taught, better read, or formal), and better able to detach??? something like that.

Anyway, interesting study! I wouldn't have thought it possible to correlate between these reactions and political leanings – seems a bit of a leap – but still quite interesting.

Perhaps liberals don't react with fear toward frightening images of warfare and things like that...But, they react with fear when they think they might lose an election they have no excuse to lose.

To the liberal mind...perhaps fear is no longer based on primal instinct of survival but something else...

The pursuit of entitlements?....hehehe...

BTW...There are conservatives and liberals in every culture (every genetic makeup of human beings)...The unemployed as a group are always left-leaning no matter what race...The affluent as a group are always right-leaning no matter what race.

I tend to think there is evidence Dems must have been dropped at birth.

i don't know how much value i can give to this study once you do factor in the variables of movies, video games, general exposure, education, etc. i am very liberal, but my sensitivity level is pretty high. i myself wince at spiders, horror movies and the like...

I don't understand how the observation they made says anything about the genetic nature of political attitudes. The way people react to these images is correlated with their political leanings. This could be 100% attriubted to their previous expreriences. Why is it genetic?

"Do your genetics play a role in which way you vote?"

How did you jump from physiological reactions to genetics? If something has genetic predisposition or predeliction, then it is a priori. Physiological reactions, however, cannot tell you if the reaction is based upon a priori or a posteriori impact upon neuronal pathways or neurotransmitters. What about considerations of how conditioning or other experiential events impact someone's neural responses? Aside from that, if the vast majority of African-Americans register as Democrats and over 90% of polled African-Americans say that they will vote for Obama, is that because their a priori influence from genetics is causing them to register and vote as Democrats or is that because of a posteriori experience in this postmodern world? Along this line, how would this genetic notion hold in the face of national landslide victories (i.e. Ronald Reagan vs. Mondale or Dukakis) in our pluristic nation's history?

In any event, there are significant flaws with this study... and this study only provides correlation without establishing cause & effect... but it is even more flawed to make such bold statements with just this one study. What ever happened to Evidence-Based Medicine or serious research? While genetics may be involved with character traits and other things that may possibly lead toward certain perspectives, this is not the best way to study the cause & effect of biology upon political perspectives and decisions.

The results you expect seem totally counter-intuitive to what you'd anticipate, whether this is genetic or environmentally (or a bit of both) in causation. It sounds like if you're in a life or death situation say in a lifeboat in the middle of a hurricane, where the team has to pull together you want to be in the boat full of "bleeding heart liberals", maybe they have a pragmatic growth experiences and reflect that in their policy beliefs, rather than take on a head in the sand or reaction-formation/preemptive approach to threats. In my limited life experience it does seem that the greater than normal balance of physically and/or morally courageous individuals I have known have either been open liberals or self-avowed conservatives who actions actually speak "closet liberal".

While physical reaction to images is a matter of cause, political affiliation with the subjects in this matter is a matter of correlation. Due to the fact it is difficult to quantify levels of media exposure over a lifetime, and it's affect on our sensory intake (and thus ideological inclination), it is completely logical that political affiliation is caused by peoples' TV watching habits as it is genetics. Without specifics into the sample size used, the method upon which political ideology was determined, and what dependent variables were measured, I would argue that all quantifiable research can be engineered to produce a predictable result. Just because the study produced a significant finding doesn't mean it was a well conceived or designed study. The study also creates a false dichotomy of 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' and only tests people with 'strong political views' (which may be interpreted to mean political dogma). Many Americans change positions over time; many Americans are moderate. If genetics caused political ideology, it would have to be proven in a more generalizeable sample. At best you could conclude that sensory responses indicate a predisposition towards strong views that can be categorized by two extremes.

I have long thought it was genetic or at least in large part. The reactions make sense too. It explains why Conservatives want to rush to war,judge others,fear the unknown or different, become brainwashed easily. Liberals are curious and want to look deeper into something rather than just fear it. I grew up surrounded by Republicans. I have never understood them as people. I don't talk to them anymore because of it. Who wants to spend time fearing and judging others? I sure don't. But I have always just accepted it as they were missing something important in their brain or it was genetic and they couldn't help it. I feel sorry for them. I've always found if you givem an American flag they'll entertain themselves for hours with it. They're kinda like the little slow kid. You just distract them and maybe they won't freeze up in fear and bust into a rage. Religion is a good way for them to be able to function. Without it, they can't think for themselves. It also forces them to show some kindness, which is usually uncommon for them. But it also allows them to feel better than others which is important for their egos.Yeah. This study has made me have a knew understanding for conservatives. They just can't help it. So the next time one of the white working class people come in my store, which is often here in TN, and they use a racial slur for my candidate... I will try to reach down into my liberal heart and feel sorry for them and realize they can't help it.

Ok, fair enough...but my beliefs have lead me to the following: As the season has progressed, McCain and Palin have emerged as a terrible twosome of half-truths and outright lies. I'm starting to regret stating that McCain is "respectable" in a previous blog response. He served his Country with courage, while captured. No one will state otherwise. But he's now losing his "maverick" appeal, and just coming across as desperate and dishonest. I actually feel bad for him, cause it appears he is out of his element. I'm glad the so-called "Hillary voters" (and I say that with the uptmost respect, cause I know you were all focused on the issues, and not just the fact that she was a respectable, smart, and charming woman) are staying true to the message, and identifying with Obama. It would be a complete shock if women voters thought McCain/Palin honestly had their issues in mind. I am constantly on CNN. com (and watch Fox News for the propaganda – cause it's smart to know what the opposition is "selling" to their viewers), and hear the hatemongers out there, posing as both fake Hillary voters, and angry Republicans. Oh, the "phony outrage". We can all take ease knowing that these are plants. Any reasonable person (not just Elitists), will know that Biden has the foreign policy background, and Obama has the vision, respectability, intelligence, voice, humility, tact, and commitment to focus on the issues and the future. This is truly what we need in a "ticket". Thanks for reading this.

Obama/Biden

Thanks,

Paul

I think New Scientist had this as a cover item and main article earlier this year.

Having said that: watch out for confusing statistical and causal links. And watch out for too easily putting the word 'genetics' and `makeup' in something with statistical brain studies as the brain is extremely flexible and may even change as the result of behaviour. Even if there are brain differences that show up in MRI-scans and such, they need not have been present at birth.

Having said that: it might be that the difference is a fear. It seems that the conservative base is rather driven by instinctive fear, which is corroborated by their strong reaction to threatening images. This might be true but even if the research corroborates that link, it says nothing at all of the source of that link: nature or nurture.

We need to remember that science cannot prove cause and effect. We are democrat or republican because of the way we are raised. The way we are raised also influences the way we respond to our environment. The only proven motivator is fear. Those who have high levels of fear tend to vote for war and things like the death penalty, (keep the enemy away from me) immigration reform and (keep an eye on the enemy at the expense of his human rights) The Patriot Act.

Liberals tend to be more focused on love, love of God, and faith in God first, his property second, and in particular life and human life. Science is not able to prove love as a motivator. At least not yet.

Notice what the passage says, "Those with more liberal views — low support of Iraq war and higher support of gay marriage, gun control and abortion rights — showed no differences in reaction when viewing the threatening and non-threatening images. They appeared to physically react to the same to an image of a bowl of fruit and one of an open war wound."

It does not say there was no reaction, or that the reaction was weak or strong. It only says that there is no difference in reaction. This is what would expect from someone who loves. For someone who loves, the reaction would be strong in both cases. The article does not say if the reaction was strong or not. Further study is therefore required.

what about the people who are against the war and against gun control?
for immigration reform and against the patriot act?
why do some studies try to force people into 2 catagories when there is an almost endless combination of political views one could have. why cant just some people be afraid of spiders because of some childhood fear or trauma? I would say someones knowledge on a paticular subject or if a political view affects them in some way determines someones views. what if i showed a physical reaction to a open wound but felt calmed by a snake or spider? why don't they just do a study on if your favorite color is red or blue and then see what party you affiliate with? ridiculous!

It may be related to the size or effectiveness of the amygdala which is the part of the brain that processes the "fight or flight" reflex, which would be genetic. Or it could be familial, If one is raised in an authoritarian fashion he/she would tend to be more republican.

I believe that we only inherit basic traits from our parents genes. Say how empathic you are, etc.. How these traits shape our political attitudes depend on the upbringing we get from our parents, the invironment in which we grow up (Our school, our friends, our colleagues), and the experiences we make in life.

One can argue that the upbringing by our parents is also an inherited part that shape your political views. However, I think it's important to distinguish between what is given to you by birth, and what is given to you in life. The subject then, opens towards researching how twins shape their political view. Given that one or both were removed at birth and grew up in another environment.

It is, as Dave puts it, a fascinating study.

Regarding this statement:

"Rice University researchers believe this study, while small, is proof that our political views, in part, are genetically instilled in us."

Actually, it is a leap to go from physical response to genetics. Just because something is physical doesn't make it genetic. Think about the physical responses people have in post-traumatic stress disorder. That is brought on by an experience, though genetics might play a role in who is more susceptible.

I have two sons, both of whom I have said for years were "born" their political view; one is 90% Republican and the other is 90% Democrat. Both listen and debate both sides well and can generally live with some compromise, but are on totally opposite sides in general. Born politics is real in my family.

Get rid of Dems Philosophy now and do-nothing but lies attitude. Put someone like John/Palin who will be there to fight for you future.

John/Sara 08

Testing of twins separated after birth and raised in different environments supports this thesis.

Then again, I am genetically open minded.

I am not convinced that these reactions are genetic in origin. I believe that strong reactions to things like spiders are largely learned behaviours that children pick up from parents, other carers and peers. That's why I try to keep my cool around my kids when a wasp turns up. I don't want them freaking out like I tend to! And I have tried to teach them that spiders are fine, as they eat flies, and therefore should not be stamped. By the way, we have no poisonous spiders here in the UK!

I'd have to read the entire study to form an opinion; however, we must accept that environment is also involved. How many of the participants have parents who also react similarly? These could be learned traits.

Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who wrote about "the selfish gene?"

I think selfish and/or ignorant people are more drawn towards the conservative crowd. Remarkable unselfish people can be too, as long as they are ignorant enough to be fooled into believing the conservatives are the generous ones.

I suppose that is the root factor: are you ignorant enough to be fooled easily. If so, you are very likely to be a conservative – and if not, but you happen to be very selfish, you are still likely to become a conservative.

If any of this is genetic, then sure...

Just reinforces what I've suspected all along. Liberals don't recognize a threat until it is too late. Just look at Europe as Hitler's power became a growing threat. I think this has to do with intelligence. Liberals are too stupid to know the difference between a threat and a non-threat.

Hi, the study was great. but all of us know that the political game is allways based on genetics and how everyone is rasied thats why they have thease studies so they know how to talk to curtain populations. Genetics, up bringings , social statis, financial statis, religion, race, gender, educational statis, of course poloticians have to know all of this why because all of the elements I mentioned have great impact in how we view things and eventually in how we vote.

This is a very interesting, though highly preliminary, study, and I tend to agree with it.

During my college years, I was rather liberal. However, I think it is the fact that I perceive much of the world as a dangerous and threatening place that has made me much more conservative later in life. I have come to see "liberal America" as being out of touch with the basic realities of the world and the physical threats that face our society.

My problem with the study is that I don't see how the different reactions are biological or genetic. Those reactions could be learned from life experiences without any biological component.

Don't buy that. People change their political views on a regular basis – I think it has more to do with personal growth, getting informed, regional needs, etc.

Politics is simply the tool to negotiate responsibilities between individuals and the society that they agree to belong to.

My opinion is that it has nothing to do with genetics.

I think they are overlooking the level of influence that your family will have on instilling your value systems as a child. A lot of those values will stay with you all your life (which can have a negative or positive affect on you, depending on the circumstances). But I believe it's a learned behavior, not a biological difference.

I don't know.........its like I am and independent but mostly vote republican.............my brother 14 months older usually votes democrat.....my father was independent but usually voted republican

As described, what this study demonstrates is a corelation between political leanings and physical reactions to certain kinds of stimulii. I don't see any indication that the physcial reactions are genetically controlled rather than learned.

In that sense this finding is really no different from the democratic versus anti-democratic personalities that political science has been talking about for at least the last 50 years. (The first dicussions I'm aware of on the subject were post WWII.)

I know more about political science than psychology, but my sense of it is that the democratic personality is essentially the same as Freud's oral personality and the anti-democratic personality is likewise essentially the same as Freud's anal retentive personality - which also maps well to members of the so-called conservative movement (not to be confused with people who are more traditional conservatives). What this study seems to do is no more than find an objectively measureable componant of the same split between personality types.

Thanks for that compelling report about the physiological differences between Democrats and Republicans. However, I didn't quite get it all. Could you do it again and talk more slowly?

Yours truly,
A poor Democrat just trying to keep up with a fast-talking John McCain

first and foremost, i believe that if one is going to conduct a study, they should be much more thorough. showing pictures of bullet wounds and rainbows are not going to help show one's political views. video games, movies, and everything else we see in the world today desensitize people from acting rashly toward a violent act and does NOT exactly show one's political siding. Political views are gained from experience and what that particular person has been taught.
Also, while a Liberal may be more calm wether it be a threatening or non threatening subject, opposed to a Conservative being a bit more emotional, it only further proves that it matters not on one's genetics. and if this was a matter of genetics, technically speaking, if all conservatives had the same exact views and all the Liberals had the same exact views, there would be an effect on one's outer appearance. all liberals would look at least slightly the same and so would the conservatives. but i don't know anyone who looks like me.
and for those who believe this malarchy about politics being genetic, please reconsider what you have read about the "Research". that's like saying if you like chicken you're a democrat and if you like beef you're a conservative.

This would have been an interesting study if they had stopped at just reporting the scientists' observations. But, when they tried to make the leap to genetics it made this really lousy science.

I would suggest that ultra conservatives tend to think in "black and white" something is either all good or all all bad. Leftwingers tend to see things along a gray continuum.

Conservatives can then take one issue and use that to generalize that something is something is good or bad. I also see republicans more attached to symbols to represent a point of view (flag, rifle etc). Thus pictures would represent reality whereas democrats would view a picture as a picture.

Seems to me evolution required both: fear based gut reactions (we need to beat up that other camp before they take our food), and more thoughtful approaches (maybe we can work together). Like our pre-programmed preference for high fat meals (never know when I will catch another gopher to eat), I think the too-scared-to-think-straight angle has served out its usefulness and hopefully will die out.

This entire study and discussion are so biased that it's unclear if there is truly a genetic link or not. This seems contrived.

I think younger people don't understand human nature and have utopian views about how the world will some day join hands and sing Kumbahya, while middle age brings with it the understanding that there are lunatics and sociopaths in the world and that has not changed over time.

Both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals include extremists who are pro-war, if the target is the correct group in their minds. I'm sorry, but this seems like junk science to me, and the comments are mostly just demonstrating bias, too.

The only issue I have is where a smaller reaction pairs with political stance. Aren't Democrats being MORE reactionary when considering gun control?

I agree, this may be more of a correlation of your habits due to your political stance, than an actual cause-and-effect relationship.

So...what about the libertarian brain?
I really hate it when they leave the minor parties out of these studies. Does anyone know how a libertarian would react to these?

Alright, first things first,
Thanks to all of those that will actually read this comment because believe it or not i have to say something important. First off anyone and i mean anyone who believes that John McCain is a good president because he "crosses party lines" or is a "maverick" I bet you half the conservatives i know couldn't even tell you what maverick means. Honestly, and the Winston Churchill quote at the top was not said by Churchill it was Putin and he didn't talk about liberals and conservatives, because when he was alive that wasn't so big. No Putin said "He who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, he who wants it back has no brain." So there and John McCain is more of the same ™ he voted with and i mean with bush 90% of the time, and it was a blatant mistake to pick Palin, she has less and i mean less total experience than Obama does, and yet she is trying to make him look bad, Alaska is a small state and it doesn't take a genius to run anything, so look if you like the way our country is going vote for mccain, If he wins i'll be on the first train to Canada.

By the way Jerry Lemeuix, let me remind you that name calling is not acceptable and that it was a highly liberal president that got us through WWII okay and saved us from the great depression and although the Republicans have spent the last 30 years attempting to tear down the New Deal its the surviving programs that make sure that your money is safe from the economy that Reagan started to wreck and Bushes SR and JR are finishing, I know clinton was inbetween but guess what he was helping our economy out okay, plus have you ever been threatened? No its people like you who shoot at every shadow that help the psychopaths that Reagan put on the street get guns and kill 20 people. So don't get me started on threats buddy

I, too, must disagree with this conclusion based on personal experience. I was born into, and reared in, a conservative/evangelical Christian family. Anyone who's had that experience knows that the indoctrination is pretty complete. However, left to my own devices as an adult, I've morphed into being a person who's both "green" and most decidedly a social liberal. I had a "pressure event" which forced me to choose between the values that were indoctrinated into me as a child (and thus were not truly "my own"), and striking out alone to find my own values. I chose the latter course and have never regretted it.

David Cherby:

Remember Tipper Gore? Her fellow liberals hated her when she was trying to censor records.

Personally, I prefer blues, jazz, Celtic and world music. I don't care for violent movies, and I am annoyed by gratuitous sex. I'm not sure how much of this has to do with my being liberal, though.

I agree to an extent. I think you are a product of your environment. I was brought up in an upper middle class, white, AngloSoxon home. I went to an all white school, and was lectured on wealth and security every day. My college education was paid for with a trust fund, as were both of my children's education. I have amassed finances to propel them and my grandchildren for some time in the future. Thus, I pride myself in not being a liberal, but a very right wing conservative REpublican. But in this election, change must come. McCain is too wishwashy, liberal, and too old. Obama , while a liberal, has never tried to play both sides of the fence as McCain.

Only 46 subjects in the study–much too small a sample for such assumptions, in addition to the questions raised by others about the value of the study.

Conclusions don't fit me either –scared to death of airplanes (but not of spiders) and I was the only one in college audience to cry at a nuclear doomsday drama; yet I vote for Democrats 99% of the time.