Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The January 2013 National Geographic is a special anniversary issue, focused on the unique human drive to explore. In one of the themed articles, "Restless Genes," it describes a specific gene called DRD4, which helps control dopamine, "a chemical brain messenger important in learning and reward."
Quote:
Researchers have repeatedly tied the variant, known as DRD4-7R and carried by roughly 20 percent of all humans, to curiosity and restlessness. Dozens of human studies have found that 7R makes people more likely to take risks; explore new places, ideas, foods, relationships, drugs, or sexual opportunities; and generally embrace movement, change and adventure.
What is further fascinating is that the gene seems to lead to superior fitness in unstable environments, and inferior fitness in stable ones.
Quote:
Among Ariaal tribesmen in Africa, those who carry 7R tend to be stronger and better fed than their non-7R peers if they live in nomadic tribes, possibly reflecting a better fitness for a nomadic life and perhaps higher status as well. However, 7R carriers tend to be less well nourished if they live as settled villagers. The variant's value, then, like that of many genes and traits, may depend on the surroundings. A restless person may thrive in a changeable environment but wither in a stable one; likewise with any genes that help produce the restlessness.
20% of the population is significant, but not close to a majority... and certainly more Americans self identify as conservatives rather than liberal:
How then is it that liberals appear to currently be in the political ascendance in our country?
Part of it probably has to do with the fact that, like it or not, we are not in a stable period in our national, social or cultural history. While much of conservative political rhetoric tries to blame that instability (and hence their unhappiness) on "progressives and liberals," in simple point of fact most environmental change is imposed on humanity, not caused by us. And as such, the current environment should favor the 7R variant, i.e. those individuals better suited to embrace that change rather than oppose it. In turn, such fitness cannot help but be noticed by those individuals with no strong leaning one way or the other and thus garner at least temporary political allegiance.
Minorities and new immigrants in a country such as ours would be expected to naturally self select for the 7R variant. After all, those who are resistant to change are less likely to pull up stakes and leave for a new opportunity, thus over representing the risk takers among those who emigrate. This would also account in some measure to the more intense work ethic commonly seen in the first one or two generations of new American immigrants. There are a lot of other interesting implications in terms of immigration policy, but why overwhelm the OP? I'll defer that discussion for now.
To me, the most interesting issue this raises is how much conservatives actually need liberals. Without the personal characteristics driven by 7R and its correlations with liberalism, humans may have never left Africa in the first place.
That's very interesting. I believe there is a genetic basis for conservative/liberal ideology.
ADD is said to have a similar evolutionary background. It's said that that those with ADD were likely good hunters due to their ability to focus and become very stimulated by hunting. (involves risk, exploring, new places) But bring that hunter back to the village and sit him down to learn how to weave a basket or build a hut and he's hopeless. He can't get into it. He's thinking about hunting the whole time. (being in a stable setting and thriving often involves repetitive tasks)
And also the physiology of the brains of conservatives/liberals may be different as well.
Then you have the group differences is IQ and their voting tendencies.
Ashkenazi Jews - Democratic voters (social liberals)
Asians - Democratic voters (social liberals)
Whites- Republican voters (although, highest IQ whites identify as liberals, lowest IQ whites with right wing ideology)
Hispanics- Democratic voters (but high degree of social conservatism)
Blacks-Democratic voters (but high degree of social conservatism)
Last edited by padcrasher; 12-29-2012 at 10:26 AM..
In find most liberals are nothing more than cubical dwellers, who follow the party line, and eat sheep dung, while growing obese.
The article is correct we don't need current liberals who are not risk takers.. Current liberals do not think... They have never had that Kodak Moment... They just keep their heads down and graze on Govt pablum...
Most are lucky to have any job.. because all they do these days is talk talk some more and maybe press a button..
That ain't workin'
0 living skills.... can't have so much as a BBQ with out a lighter and quart of lighter fuel.. No clue how things work.
Mean while stodgy old me dreams about riding the country on a motorcycle.......... Something I have already done for 10 straight months before, but I didn't see all 48 lower states yet... Still missing 8.
I dream about sailing around the world once too. Just me and my wife...... Began looking over boats last Spring... Haven't seen the right one yet.
Group IQ levels are basically how I understand American politics. The two groups with the highest IQ's are reliable liberal voters. (Ashkenazi Jews, Asians) They understand that their "self interest" is advanced by giving all members of society a basic social safety net, and a fair shot. They are joined in this ideology by high IQ whites, hispanics, and blacks. Then you have your average white with a lower group IQ. They operate on this tribal level where they get this vague sense that if they can keep the "other people" from gaining ground on them, they are better off. Likely was a survival trait in the Stone Age. Then you have blacks and hispanics and you don't need a high IQ to understand whites are out to shaft them. So they vote Democratic despite being social conservatives.
Theres a shocker. Filthy liberals, who spend their entire life telling us everything is environment and genetics count for nothing suddenly decide there is a genetic basis for conservatism. Guess it makes it easier for them to decide who to incarcerate in their FEMA gulags and death camps if they can tell who those right wing agitators are by genetic markers.
In find most liberals are nothing more than cubical dwellers, who follow the party line, and eat sheep dung, while growing obese.
Well, I think we have established that you must spend all your time in a cubical. With that single sentence you disqualified for yourself from deserving any attention in what could have been an interesting conversation.
Well, I think we have established that you must spend all your time in a cubical. With that single sentence you disqualified for yourself from deserving any attention in what could have been an interesting conversation.
Then you have the group differences is IQ and their voting tendencies.
Ashkenazi Jews - Democratic voters (social liberals)
Asians - Democratic voters (social liberals)
Whites- Republican voters (although, highest IQ whites identify as liberals, lowest IQ whites with right wing ideology)
Hispanics- Democratic voters (but high degree of social conservatism)
Blacks-Democratic voters (but high degree of social conservatism)
You know, I'm a white person that is not a liberal. Even so, my IQ is high enough to that there is no such thing as a "democratic voter."
What? That you didn't even read the post? Not really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS
Filthy liberals, who spend their entire life telling us everything is environment and genetics count for nothing suddenly decide there is a genetic basis for conservatism.
Ignoring that the OP discussed a genetic basis for liberalism, not conservatism, what would lead you to hallucinate that liberals (even the filthy ones) believe that "everything is environment and genetics count for nothing?" That's far more the assertion of conservatives on this forum at least... especially in the threads regarding homosexuality and those that flirt with tacit racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS
Guess it makes it easier for them to decide who to incarcerate in their FEMA gulags and death camps if they can tell who those right wing agitators are by genetic markers.
Ahhhhh. There's your problem. You're irrationally paranoid and bleieve some really dumb things.
Thanks for contributing essentially nothing worthwhile to the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
