Bred To Be Red

The $64,000.00 question now is "What of identical twins adopted out and raised in different environments?" Also, does this mean we can hope for liberalism eventually to be bred out of the gene pool as liberals abort their unborn, enter into same sex unions, or stop reproducing in the name of reducing their own environmental impact?

DrD, Read Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, and you will learn that modern liberalism (ie. socialism disguised) will be bred out of society because the most "conservative", the Muslims, are procreating far faster than western "liberals" are. Problem is that this "conservative" movement isn't very open to freedom of expression...

So politics is going to the dogs?

Then what, in God's Name and all that is Holy, was the great uproar over the "Belindog" controversy!!!

My considered analysis is: Woof, Arff, Ruff!!

Several weeks ago there was a population report done and people were shocked to discover that the blue states are not reproducing while the red states were. Rush stated that within a generation or two liberals would be non existent and they were aborting, ssm etc, as stated above. And with 500,000 supposed Iraquis killed that is a huge blow to repopulation also. CNN had a report last night that there are not enough liberals in the USA to elect a President.

i have a sad feeling that in my lifetime(47) there will be a serious attempt to impose sharia law in canada....all i can say is "keep your laws off my daughters'(3) bodies".....GO ARMY

Take a nott-head wild cow who abandons her calf, graf it to a docile cow who also has a calf of her own....the calf from the wild cow will usually end up being somewhat wilder than the docile cows own calf, however not near as wild as it would have been if it's wild cow mother had stuck around to raise it....
After being around livestock most of my life it is easy to see the connection between their behavior and ours...

Maybe it is possilbe to inherit a sense of reality.

I can accept that.
My whole family has a 'goddamn liberal' birth mark on their butt.

DrD asks, "The $64,000.00 question now is 'What of identical twins adopted out and raised in different environments?'"

DrD: You're way behind the 8-ball on this one. Studies have been conducted and it freaks the researchers out to find that identical twins raised separately are so alike it's scary. In some cases, they have the same make of car, they have the same kind of dog, they have the same hobbies, etc., etc.

We have a lot of twins in our family, and it seems to be true. Even when they have lived apart for years and pursued different paths, there's a point at which--somewhere in their thirties--they begin to manifest very similar traits, from physical ones to political opinions—which seem to be tied to ancestors who have either been involved in politics or related professions which involve both oratorical and/or advocacy skills.

A New Yorker article, somewhere in a box in my basement, actually says that identical twins become more alike as they get older because, contrary to the new scientism from the '60s onwards, which likes to think that personality and personal proclivities can be conclusively conditioned, nature is far more potent than nurture. Though the nurture of a child may have some marginal results when it comes to conditioning responses, it would appear from actual observation that it’s difficult to trump the role that one’s genetic makeup plays in one’s eventual tastes and choice of profession/vocation.

Kate knows this from observing her dogs.

I'm an identical twin, five minutes apart. We definately have all of the same views, including political.
Once, we were in a club in Montreal when a women walked up to us and asked, "wow, twins! Do you guys like think the same things, or do one of you think of a song and like the other one sings it"?

I looked at my brother and he was just staring at me. I was about to ask him what he was looking at when he turned his head towards her and stated, "we're discussing it". It was good for a laugh at the time.

I certainly believe traits and temperament tendencies can be inherited. The whole thing about the domestication of plants and animals relied on it.

I do doubt the identical vs fraternal twins "more similar" answers has anything to do with genes. There have been studies done on pollsters that indicate that the person who is asking the question, if they are told to expect x outcome, get a higher % of x. That coupled with the identical twins expectations of themselves could easily produce "more similar".

BATB - well ... I don't know. I think we tend to find the things the support preconceived conclusions and ignore those that don't.

OK well I guess I don't fit any mold being a singleton sandwiched between two sets of fraternal twins.

I just joke with my siblings and tell them I didn't have to share my brain with anybody else. So far that part has worked out pretty well.

My wife tells me I am functionally useless and don't keep house very well. I am not neat enough! But hey I married a Dutch girl, who are renowned for scrubbing the bricks in front of their houses!!

In any case, I always thought a clean desk was reflective of not enough to keep you busy.

Whatever else I have, apparently the "clean gene" is not one of them. I gather this is why I married a hygienist.

Cheers.

"That coupled with the identical twins expectations of themselves could easily produce "more similar"."

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that Ural. In a family of six kids, we would all pack into my father's station wagon and head off to our country place for the weekend. During rhe three hour travel, my parents would get freaked on how many times my twin brother and I would start speaking at the same time about the same thing. At my age now, I could see that it baffled them. At ten years old, there were no "expectations" of us, other than not to get into crap.
BTW, My parents dressed us in the same clothes...but different colors, thank gawd!!

Hmm- I'm going to disagree with the idea that political ideologies are genetic. And I don't think that a political ideology can be compared with a behavioural trait; and, I don't think that human behaviour can be compared with animal behaviour.

The reason for rejecting that human and animal behaviour is 'similar' is because most animal behaviour is genetic rather than learned; a certain amount is learned. But, with our species, most behaviour is learned rather than genetic - that's why humans, alone of all species, developed language. And that's why humans require such a long nurturance period. Because most of their knowledge is learned.

And that 'knowledge is learned' behaviour means that the political ideology is learned. If it were inherited, it would mean that the ideology would stay more or less the same over thousands of years. Is that the case?

No - we've seen, for instance, the emergence of democracies, something unheard of in primitive political ideologies such as bands and tribes. We've seen the rejection of god-kings, the rejection of supreme monarchs; we've seen the development of freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, the requirement for elected governance - on and on.

If political ideology were an inherited trait, then, going into Afghanistan and Iraq must be declared a waste of time and effort. Democracy in those countries would be doomed because their past was tribal rather than democratic.

Political organization is, in my view, closely correlated with population size - which is correlated with economic mode - which is related to the ecological area (you can't be a landed agriculturalist in the arctic )..etc.

What is inherited, may be behavioural tendencies, but, the ideological organization of the political systems of the human species is a human construction. And, it is not genetic; it can change.

Sorry to go off topic, Knows that Kate hates it, but I cant find an answer to a question, Of all the major industrialized countries that have signed the Kyoto Treaty how many are a course to make their targets. Can someone help me out with this. Tks

What do political scientists know about history in general? The two subjects should be complementary but more often are orthogonal. One need only think of various ruling families (Bourbons, Plantagenets, Julio-Claudians) to be aware of complex behavorial patterns, inter alia in regard to political activity, common through several generations.

BTW the hard-core lefties are widely thought to be pro-evolution, but that is only an exoteric doctrie for contending with Christians. Their esoteric doctrine is hatred of evotionary theory. In fact they hate Darwin far more than Christian fundamentalists do, because they want to think that human beings and human society are infinitely malleable by their concept of "political discourse", i.e. by seductive indoctrination (also known as "good teaching") and various forms of bullying.
In the pronouncement of the political scientist you see this at work.

I don't believe that Conservatives are born that way... I think they choose their perverted lifestyle.

Once again, the media has oversimplified and overstated the conclusiveness and implications of a piece of scientific research. Two criticisms are particularly relevant:

(1) The academic 'nature vs nurture' debate is inherently flawed, because it relies on a false dichotomy of genetics and environment. In point of fact, no main effect of either can ever be truly discernable through empirical study; both contribute dynamically to produce the human condition. Studies that purport to quantify the contributions of each (e.g., "altruism is 57% genetic and 43% environmental!" "political ideologies may be in the genes!") offer conceptually simplistic "results" that make for eye-catching headlines but (as ET points out nicely) are supported neither by historical, anthropological, nor psychophysical realities.

(2) Twin studies also offer a pleasingly simple conceptual framework. Alas, their methodological limitations make for far less confident conclusion-making that is often reported in the news. Much peer-reviewed literature has disproved the key assumption of twin studies that both identical twins and non-identical twins (the standard comparison group) experience similar environments. This is simply not true, even in studies in which twins are raised apart--for many sociological reasons, identical twins are treated differently than non-identical sibs. For more details, see Charney's excellent critique of Alford, Hibbing, et al's work.

I also like how certain commentors here have so effortlessly segued from a discussion of this newsstory into a discussion in support of what might be termed political eugenics.

Establishing a genetic component is the first step, diagnosing the abnormalities comes next, then the asylums.

It also minimizes the need to think critically about your political position, since you were born that way. Cloning Dolly was expensive and time consuming, this method of breeding sheep might be easier.

University researchers love all that stuff.

Establishing a genetic component is the first step, diagnosing the abnormalities comes next, then the asylums.

It also minimizes the need to think critically about your political position, since you were born that way. Cloning Dolly was expensive and time consuming, this method of breeding sheep might be easier.

University researchers love all that stuff.

"Kate McMillan, dog breeder, retorted:"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, very funny Kate. Humanist/moral relativists/Tabula Rasa dummies take note: don't get into nature vs. nurture debate with someone who uses the words "bitch" and "stud" as verbs.

ET: Although specific political ideology may not be hereditary or genetically-influenced, it stands to reason (in my feeble mind, at least) that a person's genetically-shared "nature" would lead him/her to respond to stimuli and situations in a similar manner. Although the ideology would not be hereditary, the odds are that their responses to situations would lead them to the same general conclusions.

As others have noted, I also spent the first part of my life on a dairy farm where cows were artificially bred, matching their physical genetic weaknesses to physical genetic strengths in the bulls...basic "personality" is also clearly inherited, based on observations. No, not political ideology, but instinct and basic reactions were inherited...in man, I contend that this would tend to lead to similar responses to situations/stimuli which would ultimately lead to similar views on any number of subjects, including politics.

Nature AND nurture shapes a person's personality.

hassle - I'm certainly a strong advocate of 'nature', ie, I reject the postmodernist or conceptualist view that 'everything is nurture'. That would mean that all human behaviour can be programmed, and I disagree with such 'social engineering'.

But beliefs are not the same as behaviour. An aggressive, confrontational personality (genetically not socially caused) doesn't mean that the individual chooses fascism or criminality; they can equally be an aggressive entrepreneur focused on the freedom of democracy.

My point is that a behavioural attribute (mild temper, confrontational temper, analytic, pragmatic) is heavily genetic. But, a belief system is a human construct and not linked to behaviour. You can have many temperaments within a democratic ideology, a communist ideology, a tribal ideology or within a Liberal or NDP or CPC. The cause of the political system is NOT a genetic base.

If you claim that a political ideology is correlated with a genetic base, then, you have to assert that no political ideology can change, unless you accept genocide. Since the world has seen the emergence of new political ideologies, then, I think one has to conclude that these ideologies are 'nurtured', are free developments of the human mind.

I have an identical twin brother and for many years we could not have been more politically different. He was a unwavering NDP/Socialist and I bounced between the Liberals and Conservatives. My brother finally left the NDP a few years ago when he could just no longer stomach the corruption of the NDP here in Saskatchewan.

Looking at the ecology Trudeau choose to make us a socialist state and pay for it with NEP oil in Alberta. Ditto the ME tries to pay for its failed states and ideologies with oil.

If we can’t change our behaviour from utopian social engineering to piecemeal-capitalist social engineering then we aren’t we going to be able to replace our utopian chattering class with entrepreneurs. How else are we going get an investor class thrust in Canada unless we socially engineer ourselves in that direction? Won’t this require unlearning Liberal and academia’s and the MSM self-loathing utopianism?

The reality is even the USA has 35% GDP of it’s economy run by governement .. ergo it is interventionist and always will be. It might even have to grow beyond 35% with military and baby boomer Medicare and social security … once they fund it. That is all social engineering isn’t it?

In other words we have to learn our way out of being an excessively socialist economy. The Middle East has to learn itself out of being tribal and learn how to build a self-sufficient middle class population that allows women to participate equally. If this can’t be learned, if it’s genetic; then given Mark Steyn’s demographics in America Alone, I would say we’re done for .. but I don’t believe that because I think we can learn to grow up .. politically.

With respect to the analogy of hunting or show dogs, there is no proof that 'behaviour' is inheritable. If it were, then every hound would hunt, every border collie would herd, every mastiff would guard.

What is proven to be inheritable can certainly contribute, eg, if you have a line of tracking dogs and you breed only dogs with exceptional nose and stamina, you are more likely to have dogs with the required attributes to develop tracking ability. I believe that the actual behaviours are a result of training, first by the bitch, then by the owner. Even still, many dogs purpose bred for guide work, to give an example, do not pass the tests.

It is an interesting question but I think it is the training influence which will cause a trait to develop or remain hidden, not the actual DNA.

Intelligence may be inheritable though, which might explain things...:)

Exactly, nomdenet, we can change our political ideology; it's not genetically programmed.

As I said, behavioural attributes are indeed genetically induced - they can be increased or decreased, slightly, by learning. Eg. - if I am a confrontational person, I can learn to play sports rather than rob a bank. But an ideology is not genetically programmed.

Canada 'chose' or rather, Trudeau chose to set up Canada as a welfare state, with enormously costly social programs and set up 'kept rather than self-organized provinces'(Quebec, Maritimes) which the nation couldn't pay for - except within huge taxation and the robbing of the West.

The result is our enormous national and provincial debt. And the total lack of an investor class requiring development to be funded by foreign investment. Canada has been saved from collapse only by the fact that anything it manufactures is bought without competition by the US. If we had to invest in competitive market practices in the world, we'd be in serious trouble. And, we've withdrawn into international isolation, saving us military and aid costs.

Are any of these ideologies genetically caused? No, of course not. That means that we can change. And must change!

It also means that the ME, which have moved from its peasant tribalism into a fascist tribalism, can change; they aren't genetically programmed to be fascist fundamentalists.

ET wrote: "The cause of the political system is NOT a genetic base."

I don't believe the study made that assertion, nor did I. But I agree with commentor Hassle - that personality traits and susceptability to stimuli could certainly tip the scales towards a formal ideology.

What doesn't seem to have been understood is that I'm speaking about more than general personality traits - though, no question, these are highly heritable and certainly could play a role in the formation of a political belief system.

I'm referring to specific behaviors - some general across groups of domestic breeds, such as Quarter Horse "cow sense", heel-nipping in Australian cattle dogs, and of course, setting, pointing and retrieving behaviors in sporting breeds. Training only modifies or enhances these behaviors - it cannot instill them.

In addition to traits that have been captured for specific use, within breeds we often notice more specific, and idiosyncratic behaviors. I'm reminded of a top winning family of Dobermans of the 1980's well known for their shoe-carrying fetish. In my own line of Schnauzers, toy "obsession", natural retrieving, and vocalization/communication patterns are traits of certain sire lines and will express regardless of environment or training - and completely absent in others.

Following these traits is made easier in domestic animals than it is in humans because of the widespread practice of line-breeding within families. Considered a more moderate form of inbreeding, it can often be sustained for generations (in some cases, decades). Unsurprisingly, the practice has a tendency to create identifiable sub-populations within a breed, as different breeders select for and attempt to concentrate those traits they desire.

(It's a powerful enough tool that experienced breeders can often identify the get of certain sires from ringside, without looking at a catalogue.)

You made another statement based on a false assumption - "And, it is not genetic; it can change."

The assumption that gene interactions are rigidly programed and do not change over time is inaccurate. Genetic traits are, as you know, determined by gene pairs. How those pairs interact with each other, other gene pairs and the environment over the course of time can have profound effects on their function.

Some genes are only active for brief periods of time, or remain dormant to be triggered later in life. Think puberty. Or they may simply wear out (graying of hair).

Sometimes the "wearing out" comes prematurely. Normally functioning genes may be paired with non-functioning, or poorly-functioning mutations. As a result, the ability to sustain normal cell function decreases over time. This helps explain the phenomenon of late onset genetic disease.

Other genes may have their function altered by environmental or hormonal changes. Certain drugs to treat Parkinsons are now thought to trigger the onset of pathological gambling in some elderly patients. There is even evidence to suggest that the diet of the mother, may in isolated cases, have an effect on the gene expression of her young. The more we learn, the more we realize we do not know.

It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, therefore, to believe that genes responsible for personality traits might modify over time, and make one less likely to tilt to an ideology once strongly adhered to.

Certainly, if exposure to different rational arguments can change one's thought patterns, it's not inconcievable that genetically induced changes in brain chemistry might have the same effect!

". I believe that the actual behaviours are a result of training, first by the bitch, then by the owner."

If this were the case, a Beagle raised by a Border Collie would be useful in herding sheep.

".....My brother finally left the NDP a few years ago when he could just no longer stomach the corruption of the NDP here in Saskatchewan."

Yep! That's definitely EVOLUTION at work!

The study says that "results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies". This statement, to me, is a claim that 'genetics plays an important role in shaping a political system, which is the result of 'political attitudes and ideologies'.

Here, I'll disagree. As I said, our political systems have changed over time, and my feeling is that these systems are more aligned with population size and economic mode than psychological behavioural modes.

Kate says that "It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, therefore, to believe that genes responsible for personality traits might modify over time, and make one less likely to tilt to an ideology once strongly adhered to." Again, this is a focus on the pyschological correlated with the political. As I've said, my view is that the political is aligned with the demographic and economic - not the psychological.

And Kate said "Certainly, if exposure to different rational arguments can change one's thought patterns, it's not inconcievable that genetically induced changes in brain chemistry might have the same effect!"

I agree and disagree. Again, because of my axioms that political systems are founded in demographic and economic systems and not the psychological - I consider that a political system is not the result of nature, but is a human construction, dependent on population and economy. But...there is still the pyschological..

And also, animal and human behaviour can't be compared. The knowledge base of an animal is primarily genetic, honed by nurturance (training). The knowledge base of our species is primarily learned. Therefore, any comparison between the two is, in my view, empty.

I am, of course, aware that genes are not deterministic (I'm not a genetic reductionist) and am aware of the input of both genders, the input also of 'reading' of genes by RNA and proteins, and even, the instigation of gene-action by parental nurturance (eg, the rat mother must lick the newborn rats or, they don't properly develop their gender).

BUT - Kate has a point.

Do all Liberals share the same behavioural characteristics? Do all Conservatives? Do all NDPers (well, hmmm..the latter seems to be valid..oh well). In other words, is there a particular psychological 'type' that can be found in a particular political ideology?

Here, I'll agree. Since there ARE different behavioural types - and a limited number of them, according to the psychologists, then, are these types to be found dominant within various political ideologies which are also a 'limited number'? Yes. I think this is valid. A psychological type, with a behavioural mode that is genetically induced, will 'group' together into a political mode that confirms and supports that behaviour. How strong is this correlation? It can't be 100%; it has to be only a statistical average.

BUT, this means IF we accept that there are a number of behavioural typologies, then, a society will always have multiple ideological groups (not necessarily political) to accomodate these different behavioural types. Is this valid? In small societies, no; there is very little room for social variation. Does this mean that a small society has a limited variety of psychological types? Or that nurturance constrains their expression?

At any rate - I see Kate's point, which is based around, (I think) that psychological types, which are genetic, move into social groups which support that typology. An inhibited analytic mind will not feel comfortable in a Biker's Gang. BUT - this 'the individual' chooses a similar type of group' may lead to feeling comfortable in a political political party (are all NDPers urban and smug; are all Liberals middle of the road; are all conservatives independent risk-takers??? Or??

But - a political system (tribe, democracy) is not psychological but is based on demographics and economics.

This statement, to me, is a claim that 'genetics plays an important role in shaping a political system,...

With all due respect, ET - if you have to "interpret" a clearly worded sentence to introduce a non-existant claim against which to argue, you're probably just in the discussion for the sport of it.

***

That said, I think your understanding of genetic-environmental interaction is a bit "old school", as are your assumptions about the limited ability of other species to learn through experience - or humans to resist their own genetic predispostions through sheer force of reason, societal pressures, demographics, whatever.

There are too many documented examples of compulsive, anti-social and/or self-destructive behaviors arguing against you.

It's why we have jails.

If societies are only partly successful in curtailing undesirable behaviors, then we are foolish to believe that neutral or positive behavioral traits would not play a role in tilting any individual in a free society towards the political frameworks that "wind their clock".

The primary difference between observating behavior patterns in animals and humans is the application of controlled breeding vs random assortative mating.

Inbreeding and linebreeding, combined with the ability to observe transmission of traits in high numbers of offpsring, over many generations in a very brief period of time, provides information that mating patterns in modern human populations don't don't allow.

Finally, it is illogical to argue that humans are somehow exempt from inheriting genetically derived behaviors, some of them very specific and complex - unless you believe our dna is derived from alien stock!

Unlike domestic animal breeds, there has been very little selection against for or against it. Genes aren't altered by selection - only their frequency is.

" How strong is this correlation? It can't be 100%; it has to be only a statistical average.

Well, obviously!

Kate, that's an interesting question. A beagle raised by a BC might very well exhibit herding or other abilities. There are herding titled dogs of many breeds.

Working breeds like the BC, the Kelpie, the Malinois, etc, have been strongly selected for ability, not appearance as we see in conformation. Even in working lines, only a certain percentage of dogs will have the right combination of attributes to exhibit the desired behaviour and this must be enhanced through training.

I have quite a few friends who breed, show and judge and yes, they can spot the physical attributes of certain lines of dogs without much difficulty.

All dogs can be trained to herd, retrieve, guard, kill vermin, etc, but some breeds are better at some tasks than others. Just as some humans have differences in stature, senses, brain structure so do other animals. An English bulldog, for example, might be trained to track or retrieve but due to the barrel shape and lack of nose would be unlikely to excel at either.

Even the so-called 'fighting dogs' such as the American Pit Bull terrier do not, as many believe, emerge ready to fight. Colby's excellent book about his famous line of dogs states that a very few dogs, sometimes none at all in a litter would be suitable for fighting and this was a quality for which he strongly selected.

Studies have shown that neurotransmitter pathways can develop or atrophy due to environmental influences. In other words stimulus, not genetics, can change the shape of the brain's wiring.

Well, Kate, I still have problems with this idea.

I understood the section that states 'inheritance might influence general political tendencies' and 'political ideology can be inherited' - to mean that an ideology or predisposition to an ideology, is inherited.

I don't think so; I think what is inherited is a psychological behavioural tendency - for example, to shyness, outgoingness, aggression etc. How can this be correlated with a political ideology or a general political tendency?

And I reject too close a comparison between the human species and that of animals; the 'great gap' between the two is in my view enormous, because humans have moved out of a genetically derived knowledge system to a socially based knowledge system. No other species has made this leap; no other species uses symbolic language. Homo sapiens has to learn how to live; no other animal species spends that amount of time on learning.

I'm not arguing that humans are exempt from genetically derived behaviour; I'm arguing that this behaviour is, proportionally, less important than it is in animals. I also don't correlate the psychological with the social. A human behavioural trait doesn't mean, in my understanding, a political trait.

I also doubt that an unacceptable mode of behaviour could be 'bred out' in humans; I think that the various typologies of behaviour would simply re-appear. Obviously that's pure speculation.

From Alford, Funk & Hibbing (2005), "Are political orientations genetically transmitted?" American Political Science Review, 99, pp. 153-167 [emphasis mine]:

"[T]he connection is rarely so simple that a given genetic allele can be seen as causing a certain behavior. More typically, findings in modern behavioral genetics reveal the effect of genes to be interactive rather than direct, let alone determinative...Whether the behavior of interest is depression, cooperation, fear response, or susceptibility to drug addiction, some people are more sensitive than others to particular features of their environment, and genetics, far from determining behavior, influences its sensitivity...In other words, the connection between genes and attitudes may not involve specific attitudes as much as the flexibility of those attitudes (Is abortion always wrong, or does it depend?). The issue is not nature versus nurture but the manner in which nature interacts with nurture."
[...]
"We further predict that attitudes on political issues tracking most closely to central personality traits should be the most heritable since personality traits are generally heritable and since the heritability of social attitudes is likely derivative of the heritability of various personality traits. For example, one of psychology's “Big 5” personality traits is general “openness” and it seems likely degree of openness is relevant to the political arena as well. Liberals and conservatives, on average, differ in their openness to atheism, homosexuality, communism, immigration, and countercultural activities. These differences may be entirely due to enculturation, but then again, they may not be, and we will never know without testing for the effects of genetics."
[...]
"If, as our results suggest, there is a genetic basis for the varying political views people hold, and if, as seems probable, genetic transmission frequently affects clusters of political attitudes, we are likely to observe broad but distinct political phenotypes. The number of these phenotypes may vary, but for purposes of illustration we discuss two probable orientations. One is characterized by a relatively strong suspicion of out-groups (e.g., immigrants), a yearning for in-group unity and strong leadership, especially if there is an out-group threat (“Do not question the President while we are at war with terrorists”), a desire for clear, unbending moral and behavioral codes (strict constructionists), a fondness for swift and severe punishment for violations of this code (the death penalty), a fondness for systematization (procedural due process), a willingness to tolerate inequality (opposition to redistributive policies), and an inherently pessimistic view of human nature (life is “nasty, brutish, and short”).

"The other phenotype is characterized by relatively tolerant attitudes toward out-groups, a desire to take a more context-dependent rather than rule-based approach to proper behavior (substantive due process), an inherently optimistic view of human nature (people should be given the benefit of the doubt), a distaste for preset punishments (mitigating circumstances), a preference for group togetherness but not necessarily unity (“We can all get along even though we are quite different”), suspicion of hierarchy, certainty, and strong leadership (flip-flopping is not a character flaw), an aversion to inequality (e.g., support for a graduated income tax), and greater general empathic tendencies (rehabilitate, don't punish).

"Common political usage would call the first phenotype conservative and the second liberal, but we seek phrases that are less connected to political ideologies and that indicate that these two phenotypes run to the very orientation of people to society, leadership, knowledge, group life, and the human condition. Thus, we label the first “absolutist” and the second “contextualist”...We certainly are not asserting that everyone holds one of these two orientations. Even if the individual genes involved with absolutism or contextualism tend to move together, this does not mean they always do. Some individuals may carry, say, an absolutist's aversion to out-groups but a contextualist's rejection of a universalistic behavioral code. Moreover, genes not included in these central packages, perhaps those related to extroversion, ambition, and intelligence, often muddy the waters.

"More importantly, let us not forget that a heritable component of 50% for political ideology and probably somewhat higher for the absolutist-contextualist dimension still leaves plenty of opportunity for the environment to alter attitudes and behaviors—and even orientation. An individual with a contextualist genotype who has been repeatedly victimized by out-group members, or who has simply spent a great deal of time listening to persuasive absolutists, may adopt attitudes that run against type. Thus, even if a political system started with two pure genotypes, it would soon display a fascinating array of expressed orientations and beliefs, intensity levels, and degrees of involvement even as the system would continue to revolve around the central division between absolutists and contextualists."

Perhaps no one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole: But what about the effects of spirituality on behaviour?

"Even the so-called 'fighting dogs' such as the American Pit Bull terrier do not, as many believe, emerge ready to fight. "

I'm selecting this sentence - I could have chosen others to dispute. It's just the most obvious.

You really need to talk to breeders who actually have long time experience in the combative terrier breeds, including some of those whose heritage didn't include dog-on-dog fighting (Airedales, Bull Terriers, for example) - who are forced to separate puppies at 6 weeks of age just to keep the peace.

That's unheard of in my breed and most others.

I recall an amusing exchange a few years ago - advice was being sought on how to break up puppy fights amongst littermates. Someone responded that she just "picked them up and threw them into the pool". A Bullie breeder advised that for her to do so would involve "picking up a long string of white sausages".

One particularly honest pitbull breeder on a once-lively genetics list I'm subscribed to described the inclination of her dogs thus[paraphrasing] - that the only thing one needed to do to "train" a pit bull to fight was to present another pit bull.

Indeed - I've come full circle on the pit bull debate. I used to defend the breed, but long time observation of the deep state of denial (not to mention, sheer ignorance) of the average person who chooses to own one has convinced me that there is no hope for the "breed" unless they once again become extremely rare - in the same way Rottweilers, who are also far too numerous, once were.

These are most decidedly not breeds for the inexperienced or the naive. The dominance and dog aggression of a fighting dog is innate. How strong it is will vary from individual to individual, and can be tempered to some extent through training - but few humans who gravitate to these breeds could be described as selective in their life choices....

That some individual members of a breed are in better hands than others, that some have higher stimulation thresholds is beside the point - dog aggression is as profound a drive in the fighting breeds as retrieving is in the average Labrador Retriever.

They belong only in the hands of thoroughly experienced owners who have worked their way up the ladder in dealing first with moderately dominant working breeds like the GSD, Doberman or Boxer. Only then, they are ready to deal with the temperament demands of owning a Rottweiler, Akita or the man-stopping mastiff breeds.

Actually, the purebred bull-and-terrier types are extremely rare in Canada. In Ontario, for example, there are fewer than 30 registered American Staffordshire terriers, the AKC/CKC version of the American Pit Bull. There are fewer than 800 Staffordshire Bull terriers and around 150 registered APBTs in the province. The dog population in Ontario is estimated at 3,000,000.

I am well acquainted with experienced breeders of AmStaffs, APBTs and SBTs and by experienced, I mean they have decades of experience.

They will agree that any dog in the hands of an uncommitted, uneducated owner will be unlikely to turn out well. It is true, of course, that a tiny dog when mishandled is less of a threat than a medium or large one but it is still a liability.

I do agree that dogs of all shapes should be more difficult to acquire than they are now.

Actually, if one does have a dog-hot pup, the breed of the other dog is irrelevant. As 'pit bull' is a slang term for a backyard bred mongrel whose physical characteristics are applicable to over 20 CKC purebreds and an unknown number of mutts, it would be virtually impossible for it to encounter another of its 'breed'.

Well all I can offer is my own life experience. I was raised by parents who verged on the fanatical support of the NDP. Yet, in matters other than politics they were conservative. I tended to follow their example when I was grown, but over the years became disenchanted with the NDPs divergence from reality, and I gradually moved to the right. I'm now very conservative in both politics and lifestyle (to the everlasting shame of my parents). My siblings all remain politically liberal, even though they are unable to present a logical defense of their position. My kids tend to be socially liberal, but politically conservative. Genetic? I don't see it.

"Actually, the purebred bull-and-terrier types are extremely rare in Canada".

CKC registrations?

You know, if that's the quality of the argument the Staffordshire Bull people brought to the table in Ontario, I can see why they lost the breed ban battle.

Well, I'll make a comment on spirituality: it has huge potential to change people. For those of us who are Christians, we believe in the "old"--unredeemed--man and the "new creation", after a conversion of the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is certainly super natural and rejected by many in a secular society. But many of us have seen this happen to people we actually know, or believe accounts of it, e.g., Saul on the road to Damascus, who was transformed into a believing Christian and later known as St. Paul. When one considers that virtually all the helping institutions in the West--and often elsewhere, e.g., Mother Teresa in Calcutta--were started by Christians, who often go/went where others won't/ wouldn't, it seems that the effects of spirituality are often very beneficial.

I'm only speaking here of Christianity--on the plus side. "Spirituality" can also go very wrong. I'd contend, however, that such sprituality is false: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

It seems to me that Conservatives have a higher instinct/logic for survival - rejecting those things that risk survival of the culture and therefore the survival of the individual.

Altruism, mostly introduced by our Judeo/Christian culture has become somewhat of an enemy because of the abuses of good will.

Altruism - trading something of greater value for something of lesser value, based on good will (ie. wanting to help the poor and weak) has been debased, most recently by the synthesis of altruism into multi-culturalism and political correctness. To that end we are trading a greater culture for a proven weaker one. Hence Happy Holidays (whatever that means), instead of Merry Christmas. And in allowing muslim immigration - a culture of strength and safety to a culture of fear.

I have no idea if an individuals political leaning is a result of genetics or not. I'm not sure that it matters. However, if it is, I would have to think that given the fact that Jack Layton's father was a Conservative MP and he is the leader of the NDP, there might be a genetic defect in his generation, with a resulting loss of reason.

Example A:

"I don't believe that Conservatives are born that way...I believe they choose their perverted lifestyle."

- Todd

Having added nothing to the topic other than an insult, based on the reversed meaning of perversion (not knowing good from evil, or survival from extinction), is typical of leftists and may very well be a genetic defect.

Surely there must be studies which show a link between personality and temperament, on the one hand, and an affinity for certain political leanings on the other.........?

It's called 'satire' Irwin.

Darwin Allways works...the weak will eventually be bred out of existence. The rest of us just need to be careful not to get caught in the lemmings rush to oblivion! And try to teach our kids the difference between a good idea and following the herd!