Genetics: Is That What's Behind Our Political Orientations?

In an intriguing op-ed in last Sunday's Denver Post. Greg Dobbs - former ABC News correspondent- advanced the hypothesis that "a gene, psychological characteristic or personality trait" could be behind our political orientations.  Dobbs' observes:

"My own parents, who my siblings  and I loved and respected, by and large politically were on the right, yet each of their kids ended up on the left. However, I know plenty of families where the kids turned out as their parents' political clones. And yet others where some ended up conservative and some not. That doesn't meant our politics are hereditary, but are they genetic?"

But here he appears to confuse issues, because surely if a trait is "genetic" it is also hereditary. Let us say, using Mendelian genetics, that conservative orientation constitutes a homozygous dominant allele (C) and liberal tendencies the homozygous recessive allele (c).  Then assume the gene  frequencies distribute as the population polling discloses - say indicating a 2:1 ratio of  conservatives to liberals in this country. Then for 200 randomly selected individuals, one would find the genotype frequencies distributed such that 100 are homozygous dominant (CC = diehard conservos), while 50 are heterozygous, e.g. Cc (moderates), and 50 are homozygous recessive (unabashed liberals) = cc = 50.

In my own family, my mother was liberal, dad generally conservative and the five offspring would be designated: 3 CC, 1 cc, and 1 Cc (sister). All the CC members served in the military (Army-Marines, Air Force, Navy) while the lone liberal (me) served in Peace Corps.   A serious genealogy trace has revealed conservatism strongly embedded in our (paternal) family tree going back at least eight generations.   For example, a particular great grandfather born in Rockingham County, Virginia emerged to become one of the most firebrand bible punchers amongst "the Brethren" that 1860s Kansas had ever seen.  Tracing forward the Brethren (and military) connections, as the family spread out to Missouri and Arkansas,  leads  to most of the conservatives fighting for the South in the Civil War.

Meanwhile, my maternal grandfather - who emigrated from Cabuna, Croatia in 1914,  was a dedicated liberal and also a conscientious objector. He detested war and refused entry into WWI - thereby alternatively fulfilling his service in a Wisconsin lumber camp. This choice delayed his application for U.S. citizenship, but eventually he obtained it.

Back to Dobbs' referenced research, including from the University of Nebraska, which found conservatives and liberals responding differently to assorted images (he didn't elaborate on the nature of the images) with conservatives "feeling more threatened" - leading me to suspect they were likely sexual images.

But this bifurcation of response isn't new. Back in 2013, a NY Times Sunday piece, 'A Formula for Happiness' (Sunday Review, p. 1, Dec. 15) noted :

"Conservative women are particularly blissful, about 40 percent report being 'very happy'. This makes them slightly happier than conservative men and liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men- only a fifth consider themselves very happy."

Which elicits the question, 'Why?'. But Dobb's researchers really ought not be that astonished since years earlier  the authors of the book Nature's Thumbprint had already made quite an argument for the case that not only can physical factors be inherited, but also psychological traits, and personality. Note the term "inherited" and they also discussed a possible genetic link.

Most noteworthy was Dobb's citation of a study done at University College, London, which examined the part of the brain (amygdala) that "lights up" on MRI imagery whenever we are anxious or scared.  The researchers found it was significantly larger in conservatives. As Dobbs adds:

"This would help explain conservatives' fears when it comes to guns, health care and Iran."

Thus, conservos are terrified of having the "government" seize all their guns - their amygdalas light up big time-  just as they do with the mention of ISIS or Iran, and "government health care".    They are also "dug in" when it comes to supporting the national security state and are vehemently against any conspiracies (e.g. JFK assassination) that implicate them, as exemplified by the vindictive behavior of Alabama-born, conservative disinformationist John McAdams.

Dobbs ends his piece by writing:

"The upshot of all this is maybe we are blessed at birth with our political proclivities"

Or, cursed!

A 'Formula for Happiness'? Looks Like I'm Screwed!

Two dour great grandfathers: one a firebrand bible puncher in 1860s Kansas, the other (left side of second image) a fierce fighter in the Austro-Hungarian Army, ca. 1915.

In the NY Times Sunday piece, 'A Formula for Happiness' (Sunday Review, p. 1, Dec. 15) we are informed that the social scientists have finally "caught the butterfly" after 40 years of research, in terms of finding out what makes people happy.  This emerged thank to the "richest data available to social scientists thanks to the University of Chicago General Social Survey, a survey of Americans conducted since 1972".

The Times piece notes the data are remarkably consistent with a similar survey taken every four years showing roughly "a third" of Americans proclaiming they are very happy and about a half report being "pretty happy". Only 10 to 15 percent admitted to being "not too happy" - however, I warrant the actual proportion is substantially larger and the higher percentages include liars who just didn't want to fess up to being killjoys and 'Debbie Downers' in the US of Happyland.

The article does note that "beneath the averages are demographic differences", for example, women are happier than men. (Not surprising since women are permitted a wider spectrum of social reaction, emotional display). But nowhere do the differences appear greater than when it comes to political persuasion. In this case we learn:

"Conservative women are particularly blissful, about 40 percent report being 'very happy'. This makes them slightly happier than conservative men and liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men- only a fifth consider themselves very happy."

Whoa! I'm screwed already since not only am I a liberal man, but socialist to the hilt. Since so few of my confederates are located in this country and most of the "liberals" are more Neolib than genuine, I find myself an outcast - and hence, relatively unhappy at the isolation.  Hell, I can't even tolerate many of Obama's policies (war-occupation in Afghanistan-  now Obama wants to extend it to 2024, drone killings, NSA supporting, chained CPI for Social Security, etc.), setting the stage for arguments with wifey - usually resolved by "agreeing to differ". (She is a more 'moderate' lib but still not Neolib, thank god.)

But evidently where I'm really screwed is when it comes to genes. The social researchers "found that we inherit a surprising proportion of our happiness at any given moment (48 percent) from our ancestors. Tracing back my own genealogy  - or rather wifey doing it- we've come across a whole spate of dour, no-nonsense personalities, on both mother's and father's side - though they seem to predominate in the latter. In the former, we traced back to Anton, who rose to captain in the Austro-Hungarian Army. Anton brooked no foolishness and didn't have time for small talk or foolish pranks, jokes.

Meanwhile, a paternal great grandfather born in Rockingham County, Virginia emerged to become one of the most firebrand bible punchers amongst "the Brethren" that 1860s Kansas had ever seen. A photo of him with his wife is shown, ca. 1859. Their kids were more tolerated than anything else, and again, any  jokes and pranks earned the jokesters a trip to the woodshed. (One wise guy jokester son was apparently leather-strapped almost daily, recorded in a Brethren  'Good deed diary')

A paternal uncle also appeared to inherit these no-nonsense tendencies and didn't take to jokes very well- as his offspring often reported.  But the researchers' finds ought not be that astonishing since the authors of the book Nature's Thumbprint had already made quite an argument for the case that not only can physical factors be inherited, but also psychological, and personality.   If great grandfather Anton or Julius didn't see the glass half full, or take jokes kindly, chances were many later descendants wouldn't either. Add on a dollop of having the wrong political persuasion - by choice - and well, you aren't going to get 'Soupy Sales', or  any modern incarnations of him. Oh, and not Norman Vincent Peale either.

Thankfully, the study reported in The Times shows genes don't control everything. About 40 percent contribution arises from isolated, one-off events, e.g. winning a lotto, getting a dream job, or gaining entry to an Ivy League school. The problem? As the piece notes, the happiness created is usually ephemeral and "dissipates after a few months".

This leaves only 12 percent of your happiness which you can control  Lo, and behold, the social scientists found that "choosing to pursue four basic values of faith, family, community, and work is the surest path to happiness."  The first three are fairly intuitive, although again, if you're an atheist and introvert you're pretty well screwed. An atheist isn't going to plump for faith, and an introvert in general eschews multi- friendships and immersing himself in a "community". Again, I'm somewhat screwed here.

In terms of work, we're told we can make the biggest dent. Incredibly, and more or less at odds with assorted polls, the social gurus say "more than 50 percent of Americans say they are 'very satisfied'  or 'completely satisfied with their jobs".  The researchers add: "This rises to 80 percent when we say 'fairly satisfied'."

What? Are these people on some kind of drug? They'd have to be! Especially the fast food workers, or waiters, waitresses that earn $2.13 an hour and have to hope they get enough tips. Is it me, or is there a lot of lying going on in this country in surveys?  Yet the author of the Times piece writes with a straight (presumably) face:

"This shouldn't shock us. Vocation is central to the American ideal. The root of the aphorism that we 'live to work' while others 'work to live'"

Yes, so in other words, Americans are mindless drones. Unlike Europeans, whose governments have policies to ensure their waking lives are diverse via enough vacation time and even sick days. They don't have to report for a wait job vomiting, or only earn a sick day by sending a selfie from a hospital bed. They don't have to work their asses off for 33 years, and then - just before their pension arrives- get fired, errr......downsized.

The other bollocks spouted by the deluded author is that:

 "throughout our history America's flexible labor markets and dynamic society have given its citizens a unique say over our work- and made our work uniquely relevant to our happiness."


Which makes one wonder what planet this guy lives on that he could push such baloney and expect any reasonably intelligent person to swallow it. Until one looks at the byline and sees it is "Arthur C. Brooks" one of the conservo clones at the American Enterprise Institute. The same bunch that two years ago offered $10k "prizes" to academic who would write good anti-global warming essays to publish in the mainstream press. The same bunch of whackos that has defended Neoliberal capitalism in all its wretched permutations.

So, basically, we can take that "12 percent" offal and just chuck it as not being under the control of most Americans. But the funniest bunkum in Brooks' piece is when he insists that - according to the General Social Survey "three quarters of Americans wouldn't quit their jobs - even if a financial windfall enabled them to live in luxury the rest of their lives."

Huh? You mean three fourths of Americans are so fucking dumb they'd rather waste their lives slaving away at a (likely) crap job, running coffee errands for the suits and honchos, or flipping burgers, or welding pipes, than to be able to travel to different lands and see other cultures - oh, and have time to improve their minds? I can't believe it. If so, Europeans are right to mock us for being brainwashed drones.

The thing that really is a slap down? Brooks claims that the ones who mainly say they wouldn't bolt are "those with the least education, the lowest incomes and the least prestigious jobs". But that bears out my point, that in order to eschew their work if they won a lotto, say, they'd have to have been brainwashed by the American Neoliberal capitalist system. Only a fool would remain working after winning enough to enhance his life quality and enrich it via diverse experience.

But then, maybe that's just the anti-capitalist curmudgeon in me or perhaps I'm among the "elites" that Brooks says would "take the money and run". You're damned fucking straight, you idiot! 

Oh, oh, Jeebus, sorry,.....that's old great grandfather Julius (maybe with a mixture of Anton) creeping out from inside my skull. Those genes again!

As for "happiness" - to me I more go along with what one Chinese friend of mine related to me back in 1986: "Only Americans would make a big deal out of something as irrelevant as happiness and put it into their Declaration of Independence too."

Thanks, Cao Fei, for words to the wise and a lot more insight than the wingnut tool Arthur Brooks offers!

Slandering Introverts Again!

As an INTJ profile introvert, pushing at a threshold of nearly 95% toward the "I", I confess I have little patience with this sociophile society which glorifies blabbering, half-drunken (with themselves) extros, and the nitwits that provide them with incessant pedestals. But my greatest ire is reserved for the pseudo-scientists in the psychological arena that further contribute to this "extroverts are better"  meme with their half -assed research that attempts to show introverts are in some sense sick. Or at least maladapted and possibly neurotic.

Now, this comes to the fore in terms of recently reported research in a new British study  which attempts to make the case that extroversion and neuroticism are opposites. In other words, if I am not an extrovert (which I am assuredly not) than I must be "neurotic".  WTF?   According to the general first year textbook, 'PSYCHOLOGY', used at Clark University (p. 598):

"Extroversion and introversion refer to the main direction of a person's energies, toward the outer world of other people and material objects or toward the inner world of one's own thoughts and feelings. The extrovert is sociable, impulsive and enjoys new experiences, while the introvert tends to be more solitary, cautious, and slow to change. Extroversion is indicated by affirmative answers to questions such as 'Do you like to have many social engagements?' and 'Would you rate yourself a happy-go-lucky individual?'"

The same text page also notes "neuroticism is equivalent to emotional instability". Also, (as Eysenck conceived it) "neuroticism/ emotional stability and extroversion/ introversion are independent of each other."

With which I totally agree. What would be the consequence if such independence were not so? Well, it could mean that one half of humanity would be consigned to being labeled with a propensity toward emotional instability. We'd be viewed as potential serial killers, mass murderers, terrorists, or plain whackos! In other words, the already existing societal bias against us would be amplified.


Anyway, the authors of the British study, led by by Catharine Gale of the University of Southampton, concluded in an article appearing in the Journal of Research in Personality that extroversion had “direct, positive effects on well-being,”  Gale and her colleagues examined data on 4,583 people compiled by the National Survey for Health and Development, conducted by the U.K.’s Medical Research Council. All were born in 1946; they completed a short personality inventory at age 16, and again at age 26.

Decades later, when the participants were 60 to 64 years old, 2,529 of them answered a series of questions measuring well-being and their level of satisfaction with life. They also reported on their mental and physical health. Their answers point to a distinct pattern. “Even after a period of nearly 50 years,” the researchers reported, “extroversion is a direct predictor of wellbeing.”

Neuroticism, in contrast, had "a negative impact", due to its connection with “poorer mental and physical health.”  Hmmmmm.......,so I guess all of us "intros" are fucked, eh?


Note the false dichotomy betrayed by the words "in contrast".  It reminded me of the August, 2003 NBC Today show series headed up: "Truth or Conspiracy?"  Posed as the false dichotomy that one can have truth or one can have conspiracy, but not both. No wonder so many Americans have their brains in a mess, lack critical thinking ability, and exhibit one of the highest rates of mental disease in the world!   After that sequence - which had to do with the JFK assassination, I thought to myself that a warning label for every network news show ought to be on a crawler: "This may be hazardous to your mental health! Don't watch without some critical thinking skills or a knowledge of history!"


But we expect a much higher standard from researchers even remotely connected to a mental health field, who should not fall for such loose thinking. ( Extroversion was assessed by determining their sociability, energy, and “activity orientation.” Neuroticism was assessed by such measures as emotional stability, mood, and distractibility.)

Clearly, it doesn't take a professional psychologist, only someone who has worked in a strong scientific research field, to see these researchers loaded the dice against introverts. They did this by their choice of methodology, their biased emphasis - reflected in determination of "good-positive quality" markers -  and their obvious tendency to incorporate selection effects and not notice them.  How else explain lazily posing neuroticism opposite that of "healthy" extroversion?

One is almost led to conclude that Gale and all her co-workers were extroverts, hence were unable to see the bias latent in their approach to the study, the statistics and selection bias.  (I also seriously doubt that intro researchers would be so cavalier, certainly in their use of language!)

If accepted seriously, the effect of this "study" will be to reinforce the existing personality bias to further render one personality type acceptable and another abnormal. This despite the fact that at least 1 in 3 humans are born with the DNA of intros (see the book  'Nature's Thumbprint') and hence it's as much an abomination to expect introverts to become extroverts as it would be to expect short men or women to always wear 6" heeled shoes to fit in with "tallies". It also leaves enormous human potential unused if those introverts are unable to fit in, and hence must pay a steep status and economic price.

All of this is why Susan Cain's book, QUIET, is must reading for any introverts, and also ought to be for the extro brigade (including Catherine Gale and her co-workers). Cain, since its publication, has become the de facto spokesperson for introverts everywhere. To see more of Cain and her TED talk on introverts, go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4

 

Evangelicalism in the Genes- And Why This Movement is Growing Worldwide

My wife’s primary avocation, now that NFL season is over, is genealogy. She will spend hours plumbing through the archives and documents unearthed at ancestry.com especially to learn more about my family. Thus far she’s unearthed a German side (the Brumbaughs) that hearkens back to Germany ca. the 16th century, as well as a Revolutionary War soldier (Conrad Brumbaugh), and a thread disclosing a kind of ominous commitment to an extreme evangelical sect known as “the Brethren”.


The latter was marked by her 2011 discovery of a powerful evangelical Bible puncher (originally one of the group called "the Brethren") back in 1860s Kansas. This turned out to be none other than my great, great grandfather (born May 12, 1812) in Rockingham County, Virginia, on my dad's father's wife's side. (They're the parents of my grandmother's mother). Their image is shown in the accompanying ca. 1867 photo.

The question that my wife asked, and others have too, is: “How could you (a de facto Freethinker and agnostic atheist) have emerged from this family?” The question implies every family or genealogical line is somehow rigidly defined, but we know this is false. At any given point, someone 'X' could marry someone 'Y' and ‘Whammo!’ the family line is altered by the introduction of a wild card, or in this case, maybe a freethinker-leaning persona!(Interestingly, my 'emergence' had to wait one of the Brumbaugh -Stahl line (my dad) marrying a woman totally outside his region and family line and of Catholic Austro-Hungarian ancestry. Who knows how many freethinkers, agnostics or atheists had already existed in that separate line? Also - how many Anti-War forbears, like my maternal grandfather, who proclaimed conscientious objector status rather than fight in WWI.)

So what about all the Bible beaters descended from great great Grandpa in my family?

The authors of the book 'Nature's Thumbprint' have made quite an argument for the case that not only can physical factors be inherited, but also psychological, and personality. Who knows, there may even be more conservative family members who are yet to fall out of the family tree! In any case, it's interesting to speculate that these hyper -religious genes may well have been at work for some time, just waiting for the right person or incarnation to pop back out again! (In the case of one family member who shall remain unnamed)


But while all of this may well explain genetic propensity to hyper-religious memes, it still doesn’t account for why so many of the family (especially clustered around places like Joplin, MO) have retained a very powerful fundamentalist outlook. So, what is it that keeps feeding their values and their commitment to those values, despite living in a secular world that finds little to pay homage to? And what is it that’s driving evangelical fundamentalism to challenge mainline Protestantism (as well as Catholicism) worldwide and posing a political threat to every sane-minded person?


Freethinker author Jeff Satterwhite has documented the fact that the moral worldview of the Evangelical Right can be best described as one of perpetual militancy. His “sub-cultural identity theory” posits that hard-line evangelicals construct symbolic boundaries with the outside world that: 1) reinforce their theological and political beliefs within their closed community, and 2) designate outsiders that must be opposed at all costs.


In the case of (2) we’ve seen repeated forays against: Catholics, Eckists, Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Yoga practitioners, Hindus, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. In other words, any group that doesn’t perfectly fit in with the Christianoids’ template. If they don’t make the cut they – the group- must be fought as some kind of enemy, or in league with the ultimate enemy of “Satan”.

According to Satterwhite, Evangelical leaders and pastors thereby create an “embattled tension” within the sub-culture with their rhetoric. This rhetoric then mobilizes any adherents to do battle against all the forces that putatively threaten their faith or existence.

Regardless of the enemy’s label: Satan, godless Liberals or “Libos”, self-proclaimed atheists, Yogis, Imams, “Homos”, “Baby-killers”, “evolutionists” or some other confected adversary – the Evangelical Right inevitably sees itself under siege.


They are the perpetual victims and despite all their God-fearin’ claims to spiritual strength through the Bible, they evidently cower in terror at the spectacle of little 10 year –old girls doing Yoga and whispering ‘Om’, or of Buddhists in silent meditation, or…..of atheists simply writing about evolution or the Big Bang.
But it is this rhetoric of victimhood and the need for constant “spiritual war” that embodies the strength of the Christianoid Right. Thereby, as Sattlewhite observes, a “collective identity is reinforced that is durable and transferable to the next generation of young people” In other words, the fear mongering allows some excellent brain-washing.

The worst travesty is wrapping the gift of social acceptance in theological conformity. Thus, the Rightist Jesus freaks insist on every manjack being “saved” according to his special formula, and also conforming to other aspects of behavior.


Satterwhite (as a former evangelical) insists the Evangelicals like the Brethren are principled in their moral stance, but “overly obsessive about external authority”. In other words, they’re almost all hard-wired authoritarians. We already know the psychological genesis of this human variant is rooted in being denied love and affection as a child, while being beaten and mistreated instead. (See e.g. Harvey A. Hornstein's Cruelty and Kindness: A New Look at Aggression and Altruism, Prentice-Hall, 1976, 'We and They', p.13. )

The solution may well be to ensure children are treated properly as children and not with beastliness, vicious beatings and hyper-authority. We may then be more likely to see less of it manifested in venomous, authoritative religiosity later! As well as a perverse meme that seeks by its very nature to dominate all of humanity.