New Scientist of 2 Feb 2008 has an article titled "Are political leanings all in the genes?"

Here is a link but you'll need a subscription to read it.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726411.800-are-political-leanings-all-in-the-genes.html

The short answer is this.

There is no one gene that controls the way you vote.

There is no "ALP gene."

BUT

There are multiple genes, ENSEMBLES of genes, that influence various character traits.

According to the article three character traits appear to be important in determining political leanings.

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: Being organised, self-disciplined and responsible and likely to follow rules

OPENNESS: Being open to experiences, focusing on change as an opportunity rather than a problem and think of about the world as it might be.

EXTROVERSION: Being quick to self-disclose, tending to process information out loud and being fond of being seen to be busy.

All three traits are known to be highly heritable.

But, remember, these are NOT single gene affects. There is, for example, no single gene that makes you an extrovert. Rather there are multiple genes that collectively incline you towards extroversion.

In the US, people who score high on conscientiousness and low on openness and extroversion TEND to vote Republican (= Australian Liberal?)

People who score low on conscientiousness and high on extroversion and openness TEND to vote Democrat ( = ALP?)

I THINK this link to a graphic will work:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2641/26411801.jpg

Remember that these are tendencies. There are many extroverts who vote Republican and many conscientious people who vote Democrat.

So next time you encounter someone who does not agree with your politics don’t get angry. Perhaps the poor fellow was born that way.

And remember:

The world is under no obligation to conform to your desires.

The world is what the world is.

Dear Steven,

There's a website that may be of interest:

http://www.brainconnection.com/content/207_1

It mentions Howard Gardner's book, "Changing Minds" (2004) which explores what cognitive scientists have learned about how we change our own and other people's minds.

I quote: "Gardner persuasively argues that an important mind change is rarely a sudden phenomenon, but rather typically occurs over time as we weigh the relative significance of seven central cognitive properties that gradually lead us to (or away from) a mind change..."

Great link Foxy, thanks.

I've book marked the site.

When I first came here 11 years ago I struggled to understand the differences between the ALP and the Coalition.

The atmospherics were a bit different but, on substantive issues, their policies seemed to be identical. Clones of each other in fact.

Sometimes even the terminology is the same. In 1996 the newspapers were full of the "Howard razor gang." Now it's the "Rudd razor gang."

Then, a few years ago I stumbled on an online betting site called betfair.com. This allows you to place bets on sports and politics.

Interestingly "politics" was classified under "sports" on betfair's main menu.

And THEN the penny dropped!

In Australia politics is simply another one of the team sports Aussies get so passionate about. You "barrack" for the ALP the same way you might barrack for Essendon.

If you're a Greenie you probably barrack for Melbourne because you're devoted to lost causes

Dear Steven,

There is a lust for life in much of what Australians do.

It's as Australian as a Chiko roll and as familiar as a kookaburra's raucous laugh. And it's theirs to use any way they damn well please.
Be it barracking for their political party or their football team.

I would like to discuss a little bit further - the topic of your thread - whether we're the products of heredity or of learning or rather of a complex interaction between the two.

We can readily see that this is the case with some of our physical features. Height and weight are partly determined by heredity. But people born with genes for tallness or fatness may not actually become tall or fat.

If they're underfed, they will be shorter and thinner than they might otherwise have been. The same appears to be true of many aspects of
personality.

Scientists have not found any specific genes that can be shown to influence personality, but many suspect that some traits, such as intelligence, shyness, and artistic abilities, are partly influenced by hereditary factors.

However, people learn to develop and satisfy their potentials in a social setting, and it's primarily their social experience that will determine whether they realize or fall short of these potentials.

A placid baby, if systematically ill-treated, can become a psychologically disturbed adult; a person born with a capacity for high intelligence, if raised in a stultifying environment, can grow up to be a dullard.

As you pointed out - our genes may set the broad outlines and limits of our potential, but how or whether we use that potential depends on the environment in which we live.

I guess though there are exceptions even to this line of thought.
For example - the case of identical twins - who although were reared
apart in totally different environments - yet still shared similarities in their personalities.

Interesting ...

stevenlmeyer,

Shush, don’t tell anybody but I will admit to entering this thread more times than any other I can recall.


I cant help it I keep coming in here to take a look.

Your new topic brought the house down up here.

We are waiting for response from a certain poster- Hilarious.

I know I am be naughty but couldn’t resist.

Very interesting thought which I have pondered more than a few times myself.

Perhaps if we behave you will allow us to join your thread later.

Mean while we wait in anticipation:)

Pastor Jack Burrell speaks in his much travelled around the christian churches book "What will become of Australia" 1975 about a time when theres an invader in the land.
The invader in the top half of the nation and a communist style government in the lower half.
I think any gene likely to be in Labor will be a communist gene right to the end.
It sleeps at the moment but later it will awake and do much damage. When the dye is in the cloth it generally stays there.