Heritable Political Beliefs?

A recent article suggesting that there is an heritability to political beliefs has fascinated me, and I have downloaded a fair number of journal articles to entertain me over the weekend.

I would suggest that something related but subtler is responsible for the apparent genetic contribution to political and social beliefs. People are persuaded by different types of evidence, and this could quite easily have a brain-structural component. This is fraught with peril, of course, because everyone will claim that their side is persuaded by strictly logical argument, while their opponents are responding to base emotional appeals. But the standard list of persuaders, including appeal to authority, social pressure, anecdote, etc, are not mutually exclusive. All sides at least attempt all methods.

For any large social issue, reasons for being on one side or another will not be homogenous across the group. There may, however, be strong tendencies, and these would be self-reinforcing. People who respond to appeal-to-authority arguments might well cluster together, and keep feeding each other appeal-to-authority arguments, reinforcing the original persuader with strong social ties.

This could also change over time. The group of people in favor of the death penalty in 1950 might be somewhat different than the group in favor in 2000, as the types of persuasion, and the predominance of the belief in certain social or ethnic groups might gradually change. It is certainly obvious anecdotally that certain professions tend strongly to particular political beliefs. Social workers are overwhelmingly liberal. Is this only because liberals go into social work, or is there some deeper affinity, even at the brain level, of how both groups perceive change and how the world works? Interestingly, theoretical mathematicians tend to be politically liberal, while the practical application mathematicians tend to be more conservative.

In large groups of identification such as African-Americans or evangelicals or progressives, people might adopt at least some of the beliefs because of social identification. This would not conflict with the idea of predisposition to certain modes of thought, as even a slight genetic predisposition could easily lead to associating with similar others, in a powerfully reinforcing social feedback loop. Assortive mating, for example, could easily strengthen belief.

Discussion: I have suggested often that there is a large social, almost tribal, component to liberalism. I suppose it is thus possible that a similar social component exists for conservatism. I think that is more diffuse, however, as there seem to be more kinds of conservatives. But as for group identification, it certainly seems true that there is a subset of conservatives for whom hyphenations of “American” is appalling. One is allowed to identify first with one’s religion, perhaps, but to put any other grouping above American is seen as unpatriotic. To be a hyphenated American is seen as in effect un-American. Worse still would be to see oneself as first a world citizen, or a woman/man. While that view is strongest in one subset of conservatives, it is somewhat true of conservatives in general.

DRJ, commenting over at GM Roper’s, suggests that Democrats are more people-driven, and Republicans more policy-driven. His initial comment:

In reading these and other comments, it strikes me how important specific people are to Democrats as opposed to specific policies. They hate Bush and are thrilled to see Rumsfeld resign. As a conservative, I'm not fond of Pelosi, Rangel, Kennedy, or Dean but I know that others like them are waiting in the wings. It's not the people that bother me near as much as the policies they embrace.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like Democrats are more people-driven while Republicans are policy-driven.

When I asked for elaboration, this is part of his longer reply.

My comment was more an observation than a theory although I think there are other factors that tie in. For instance, Democrats are more likely to identify with people based on their personal qualities (such as African-Americans, immigrants, women, etc.) than Republicans, who tend to group according to ideological issues. (e.g., pro-fence immigration reformists, small government/fiscal responsibility proponents, etc.). The Democratic groups are more fixed than the Republican groups, where we tend to realign on issues and make it difficult to stay on the reservation….
I think Democrats are also more likely to be attracted to and motivated by a candidate’s charisma than Republicans, although probably most Democrats think Republicans don’t have charisma with the exception of Ronald Reagan. (I think that’s why Civil Truth views Reagan as both policy-driven and people-driven.) Republicans could field charismatic candidates and Democrats could proffer policy-driven candidates but I don't think those qualities resonate with their respective voting bases.

Why Jim Wallis Is Still Dangerous

More than any backwoods Tennessee preacher, Jim Wallis will tell you how God wants you to vote.

For amusement, see what they do with people with contrary positions over at Sojouners. They very politely and kindly, with great earnestness, inform you that your position is not what Jesus wants.

A Christian over at TCSDaily takes him apart here. The money quote from Wallis:

"When Jesus tells us he will regard the way we treat the hungry, the homeless, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner as if we were treating him that way, it likely means he wouldn't think capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy and food stamp cuts for the poor represent the best domestic policy."

This Is The Way It's Done

An economics article over at Brussels Journal discusses how Danish "Flexicurity" attempts to combine free market and protective elements in the labor force. The essay examines pros and cons, plusses and minuses, of doing things the Danish way versus the Swedish or French way. What are the results? What are the costs? Are there factors which make the Danish model difficult to duplicate?

This is the way economic discussions are supposed to happen. Rather than, for example, "these are only tax cuts for the rich!" or "the Republicans are abandoning the poor!"

I understand that it's not generally a higher level of discussion in Europe - but this article is.

The Chilling Day Draws Closer

There is an article on the proposed "euthanasia" of severely disabled newborns in the British Sunday Times. An eerie quote from the article.

The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said. (Emphasis mine).

Isn't this exactly what all those extremist nutcase pro-life people have been predicting for years, only to be waved off as fools by choice advocates?

When An Emergency Arises

We had preliminary training at work today about ERI - Epedemic Respiratory Infection - and what would be happening in the coming months for our hospital to prepare for a possible Avian Flu, pertussis, or other contagious emergency.

The MD running this for NH is Jose Montero of Dartmouth Hitchcock; there were two clearly oriental names in the list of who's on the Big Committee. But you know, there was no multicultural nonsense about having to spend time with Hispanics talking about their families before you got to the important part, or respecting Thai folk medicine, or cautioning honkies that black people might not trust authority figures.

Because lives are at stake, and everyone knows it, and in the face of our common need to keep each other alive in the face of a disaster, reality blows all that away like smoke. There will be no one complaining about how they were handed their Koran then, nor any white people afraid of Puerto Rican EMT's.

And that's what we should be aiming for in all of life, but multiculturalism makes it worse.

Sometimes It's Just Uncanny

When I went to bed the Republicans were taking it on the chin and the computer was acting screwy. When I awoke in the middle of the night, I pondered what the elections might mean. I’d be worried if I were an Iraqi or an African but I’m not sure the immediate effect on Americans will be that great. The economy is perking along; the Republicans weren’t reducing the size of government anyway; change in party dominance usually does something to knock out at least some corruption in the other party. So. Aggravating, but not so bad.

And it occurred to me that it gives the Democrats a chance to do what they complained about when Bush was elected both times: recognize that they are ruling a deeply divided country and attempting to be unifiers. My suspicion is that the closeness of the election, which was their entire reasoning for talking about “sharing government” in 2000, will go unnoticed, and they will immediately operate as if they have a mandate. But hey, I thought. Give ‘em a chance. Maybe they really did mean what they said, or at least, maybe enough of them meant it to make a difference.

I decided then to ask my readers to be hopeful, but alert. The campaign rhetoric had been about voting for change, but campaigns are what they are and people try to sell ideas in dramatic ways. Perhaps, I thought, when the dust settles they will go forth and represent all the people, as they asked Bush and the Republicans to do.

Sometimes it’s just uncanny. When I got in the car and turned on the radio this morning, the first sentence I heard was “2006 may go down in history as the year that Americans demanded a change from their government.” And it was the news announcer saying this. It wasn’t a Democratic candidate or a spinmeister. It wasn’t even a political commentator offering an opinion. It was the news announcer, giving us the proper interpretation of the results, I suppose, because that’s how he sees it. Republicans win 50-49, it’s a divided government, power should be shared, Bush should recognize this. Democrats win 50-49, it’s a mandate for change, the people have spoken. I turned off the radio.

I don’t think it’s just politicking or attempts to manipulate. I believe they really don’t even notice the disconnect. I think that at root, Democrats believe they know best and should make the changes they want to, and only have to wait for some sort of pro forma permission from the electorate. They may believe this in all innocence, as if what they want would be the natural, obvious result of progress. That’s why they don’t think of their ideas as being imposed on the rest of us – they see them as the natural and normal ideas, and an historic inevitability as mankind gets wiser.

Well, that’s a lot to read into a limited amount of campaigning. Time will reveal all.

Maybe this mandate-for-change/the-people-have-spoken-clearly will calm down in a few weeks. But I am more than a little suspicious.

Many libertarians were also grimly pleased at the prospect of divided government, as government grows more slowly in those situations. Well, they’ll get a chance to see if that’s what they really wanted.

Soundtrack, Part Three (of Four)

The first six songs in the soundtrack are
1. O Little Town of Bethlehem
2. The Ash Grove
3. David's OCD Song (discussion of 1-3 here)
4. Can't Help But Wonder Where I'm Bound
5. Darlin' Be Home Soon
6. Since By Man Came Death (discussion of 4-6 here)


7. Sunrise, Sunset I needed something to commemorate my brief but formative theater years. My father was an excellent actor, my younger brothers both make their livings in the technical support of performance, one son is a filmmaker. Even the Romanians have gotten dragooned into performance since joining the family. Musicals probably aren’t the most representative genre of my theater work, but this is a soundtrack, after all. My tryout piece for all musicals was “Man of La Mancha,” and there were a dozen other shows I could have drawn from, but this piece has the added advantage of continuity.

When I did “Fiddler” in 1973 I was both annoyed with and attracted to this song. Because I was 20 at the time, it was all too reminiscent of the my-how-you’ve-grown phenomenon of adults, and I disliked enshrining that foolishness any further. I wryly recognized that I would likely feel differently in 20 years, however. It is an overly sentimental song, both lyrically and musically, and at least 6 other songs from the show are better. I changed my mind. I think “Sabbath Prayer” is a better choice.

I would make a great Tevye, by the way, except that my voice is wrecked.

8. Gaudete With the last song I moved partway into the area where the life that the soundtrack is about is no longer mine, but ours. A man is to be one flesh with his wife, and though we grasp that but dimly, it is evident in this list. This was the first Steeleye Span song that I heard, and I knew instantly that this band would be an obsession for me. It fit well with Tracy, and sums up nicely all the Society For Creative Anachronism, Brother Caedfel, Inklings, and D&D parts of our life together. Our children were brought up in this fevered atmosphere, making the “ours” portion even more plural.

It is the responsibility of parents to establish a family culture, a solid ground for the children to walk on, but we found over time that it is not unidirectional. Our sons have influenced in turn who we are, and the family culture is no longer imposed, but shared.

9. Create In Me A Clean Heart, O God. From the Red Hymnal, please, not the Green. Tracy and I still sing this simple but lovely piece of music from the Lutheran liturgy. In a real movie, the dramatic night that I walked miles and miles alone singing A Mighty Fortress (all verses, of course) would get this soundtrack slot, and you could even foreshadow that with me watching “Davey and Goliath” on TV in the 1960’s. But that one night would be it, rather disconnected from the rest of the story. The text is from Psalm 51, has a remarkably NT theology for an OT verse, and has encouraged me for years.


10. Pleasures of Obedience Blues. I needed at least one song I had written in the mix, because singer-songwriter was my primary self-definition for over a decade, and how I expected to make my mark in the world. I must have written hundreds – romantic, bawdy, country, poetic - a few were pretty good. When I became a Christian in October 1975 (though I now see that night as more of a Return than a Conversion), I almost immediately lost interest in playing guitar and singing. It seemed very much a part of ego, arrogance, and falsity for me. I wanted to drop the whole thing. But prayer meeting and Sunday School worship don’t ask much about something as self-centered as your spiritual condition; they just need someone to lead the songs. Get to work. Shut up and sing. That may be the better lesson, spiritually. I wrote a few more songs after 1975, usually something to order for a special occasion. I have no idea which song of mine I like best, but this one, based on the difficulties Noah faced, is the most fun.

Wasting Resources

The industrialized nations of the world consume almost 90% of the years of college in the world; nearly 50% is used by the US alone. There are only a finite number of books, but Europe and North America greedily suck up 75% of this precious resource. We have more than our share of lawyers and football players, and the European languages, especially English, account for a shameful percentage of the number of words used worldwide.

In some specialized resources, American use is so predominant that there is almost nothing else left for the rest of the world. Among these niche markets would be American flags, Slim Whitman CD's, and all varieties of Boone's Farm "wine."

Remember this concept when some green or anti-poverty group tries to sell you on the idea of American wastefulness. We use electricity because we make it. We have more wealth because we make it, not because we steal it. (I grant the exception that our agricultural subsidies do contribute to world poverty). We are not running out of everything. If you want to eliminate poverty, there are two American/Western products that will do it: the rule of law and the free market.

Comment You Would Otherwise Have Missed

My email contained a long comment about conspiracy theories that had been posted to this site. I couldn't figure out which topic it came under, and hunted back through my archives to find it. In the comments section of my September 9 posting about conspiracy theories, there is now a new comment. I love it when my opposition makes my points for me.

The Elections of 1958

A second-term president’s party often loses a large number of seats in the mid-term elections. Republicans who fear being banished from the corridors of power and Democrats who think that this year’s elections represent some unprecedented dissatisfaction with a president would do well to consider the history. A second-term president’s party loses on average 6 seats in the Senate and 25 seats in the House in the mid-terms.

But in 1958, the Democrats gained 15 seats in the Senate: 13 which they won from Republicans and 2 more in the new state of Alaska. New Senators included Robert Byrd of WV and Chris Dodd’s daddy, Thomas, in CT. The Democrats additionally gained 48 seats in the House.

If you are having trouble remembering what it was that created such enormous pressure to throw the bums out, it is because there wasn’t much. There was a worldwide recession in 1957-58, which was blamed on Eisenhower. The effect in the US was a one-year spike in unemployment, which went from 4% to 7%, then back down to 5% in 1959, and an inflation rate that jumped from 2 to 3%. There was a scandal involving Sherman Adams of NH, who was Eisenhower’s Chief Of Staff, and was forced to resign because of accepting the gifts of an oriental rug and a vicuna coat. As is often the case with such scandals, what angered people at the time turned out to be small potatoes, while the corruption we didn’t know about was much worse.

The USSR had also just launched Sputnik, which made Americans nervous that we had lost our technological edge over our enemies. We hankered for someone new to come rescue us. Eisenhower, who had proved himself an excellent military mind, was resented by the Democrats as a dolt who had somehow defeated the intellectual Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson had proved himself an excellent, um, give me a minute here, intellectual. Because he was an academic and Eisenhower, er, wasn’t.

That’s it. Those were the reasons. An economic blip, a petty scandal, irritation, and falling back to a close second place in the space race. We were at peace, and extreme poverty was dropping quickly. The Republicans got creamed.

The French hated us even then, by the way.

Welcome, Guests

It is unusual for me to twice get links from high-traffic sites within 48 hours. It is odder still that I received them for my commentary on neurobiology, in the "Insight and Misattribution" post, below.

Waterboarding

Ever wonder what all the fuss is about? Video here.

I can now see why it both works and isn't torture.

Throw Your Stuff Away

I helped someone move today, an elderly woman from church who is going into a retirement community, while two of her daughters move into her house.

The organization of the whole project seemed rather random, with no one having a particular vision what things were going to go, in what order, or whether they would fit. This mirrored the contents of her house, as what items had been lovingly kept and stored in closet or basement seemed to bear little relation to utility.

I don't want whoever has to go through my stuff when I die or downsize to curse me, particularly as it will most probably be my children, for whome I have some fondness. Looking through all the lovely sentimental junk will be a poignant and bittersweet experience for them - for about an hour. After that, it will descend into hours or days of wild-eyed irritation on their part, including recriminations against each other, interspersed with snarls at my grandchildren, yet unborn, who have the misfortune to be part of the project and commit sins of inattention or boredom. It seems an unfortunate way to be remembered. Eccentricity is all quite charming in theory, but when you have to actually deal with the idiosyncracies of others, rather than just read about them in books, it takes a bit out of you emotionally.

I also note a downside of increased longevity. When people regularly went to their final reward at the biblical threescore years and ten, their children were still relatively whole and hale (a little etymological joke there. ed.) and could manage bending over to move rugs or get a better purchase on the bottom of bureaus. Now that we regularly make it to fourscore and more, the Chosen Descendants are themselves in their fifties, with physical limitations of their own. So this is going to be great, then, in about fifty years, when few couples have more than one child and many have none, trying to find someone who has four operative limbs who remembers being related to Mrs. Brown.

If you are over forty, just throw stuff away. Even valuable stuff. Even things you are sure your children would be deeply insulted if you treated callously. Even things that make you cry.

The Proto-Wymans

I started this blog last November, and will reprise posts I like throughout the next year. I have no particular method in mind. Just ones I liked, for any reason.

Most of those born with the name of Wyman in this country descend from John and Francis Wyman, who settled in Massachusetts in the 1630’s. Almost all 20,000 Puritans who settled Massachusetts arrived in the 1630’s, so no surprise there. The Pilgrims, who came earlier, were different, you unlearned fools. Some of those were also ancestors of this branch of bloggers, but they were not Wymans. They hoped to be, but failed in the attempt, getting only as far as being Whitneys.

continue reading...

Grand Rounds - The Prediction

We have a doctor from Central Maine over to speak at Grand Rounds next week. I often like to google these guys in advance, to get some idea whether I want to attend or not. I think I might like the presentation, because philosophically and tempermentally he comes from my POV about depression. He acknowledges the benefit of medications in many instances, noting the decreased toxicity of the newer medications. But he also notes the large percentage of folks who seem insufficiently improved by this model – the popular phrase “chemical imbalance” really torques him off – and he reviews a back-to-basics scientific method approach to designing treatment. He wants us to resist the oversimplified medication-only approach beloved by insurers and pharmaceutical companies. I don’t note that he goes into any tirade against them, and respects their obvious interest in medication solutions – but he reminds that they do have their own interests, and fund research accordingly.

So I think I like this guy professionally. I went to the forums at his website, and though he doesn’t have a lot of traffic, I thought his answering was very sensible. I did note in researching about the guy that he is a frequent commenter at leftie sites: MyDD, DailyKos, Salon. And when he gets rolling he really gets into the idea that Bush is narcissistic, that he has no conscience, that he doesn’t care about the victims, that Republicans (who he calls “Repugs”) are hate-filled, and all the rest.

Here’s where the prediction part comes in: He will be unable to contain himself and will have to make a sneering and/or condescending political reference during his professional presentation next Thursday. I suppose he could stumble on this and set me up to be wrong, but that’s unlikely.

Wasted Politeness

There is a marked contrast in how I treat the patients currently in the hospital and those at the group homes across grounds. Many of the latter were inpatient clients of mine at one point, and some will be again.

With current clients, I am rather stern until the day of discharge, because I expect people to work hard, and my expectations are high. But I also have recognition of the enormous pressures people with emotional or psychological issues face outside the hospital. They are often not treated with respect, or even avoided. Many of them have endured this lack of respect and fellow-feeling for years or even decades.

I speak to them much as I would an old school friend, a previous co-worker, or any other person I meet on the street, taking care to neither overdo it nor remain too aloof. They don’t get a lot of people just treating them like regular people in their lives. I like to think that they feel a touch more valuable without knowing why.

The system doesn’t always work. I have greeted Nancy for years, even though she dislikes nearly everyone and barely grunts in response most of the time. She is slightly older than I, college educated, and believes she has no mental illness. She bitterly resents the guardianship and legal commitments that enforce treatment upon her. Yet she will smile in spite of herself at humorous or wry comments, and has stopped to speak with me several times over the years, even enduring my gradually changing the subject from her mental health complaints to more neutral topics.

I thought we had developed a decent rapport over the last two decades I have known her. So it took me rather by surprize when my wife was overnight at the local hospital and Nancy, who was visiting an aunt, approached me. She seriously and calmly said “I have never forgiven you for accusing me in front of all those people of having sex with George. That was completely uncalled for,” and walked away.

Who’s George? What people, where? What decade was this? Hey, wait a minute – I would never do such a thing to anyone.

I didn’t think it would be helpful or kind to shout after her down the radiology corridor “Nancy, I have never made the slightest sexual comment about you in any context.” Weird. Even after all these years, things can still take me by surprize.

"We All Know..."

To go with my political language commentary about Republicans working for you and Democrats fighting for you, I have been noticing the phrasing “We all know…” in political speeches lately. I think I may be hearing it more from Democrats, but I haven’t looked at that closely. When Republicans use it I just may not notice.

Either way, it makes me nervous. I am very suspicious of what “everyone knows.” People have tried to bury a lot of junk behind that phrase. I am not claiming that every time a politician uses it, s/he is lying, still less that no sentence constructions should ever begin with those words or the equivalent. It just narrows my eyes suspiciously when it’s uttered.

Nukes In Iraq

The NYT has an article about how stupid the Bush Administration is putting captured documents from Iraq up on the web for translation. Why, other countries could use that information to build their own nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons? Iraq? You don't say.

Stem-Cell Research

I’m a numbers guy, a residual benefit of having OCD, so when organizations make claims with numbers in them, I juggle them around in my head to see what they mean. There is a radio spot I have heard over the past few months which starts with the bland and comforting claim that everyone has an opinion about stem-cell research. It encourages people to “get the facts,” a harmless-sounding but enormously arrogant claim. The first time I heard it, before I heard anything further, my mind conjured images of that robot on Lost In Space, waving its arms and warning “Danger, Will Robinson!” Whichever side this group was about to advocate for, they had just very nastily set up for the audience “The other side has opinions. We have facts.”

They went on to claim that 113,000,000 Americans could potentially be helped by stem-cell research. So right off, they are completely ignoring the actual controversy about the research – that some people have moral objections to some of the research based on the source of the cells: human embryos. I’m already annoyed at this kind of sneaky advocacy, but let’s just stick with the numbers. Does 113M seem like a large number to you - more than 1 in 3 Americans benefitting? What kind of benefit and how much? Over what period of time, a decade? A century? Is this including family members to pad the total? What illness and condition affects one-third of the populace? Can’t be Parkinson’s. Will we be using stem-cells to treat the flu, then? The announcer doesn’t say.

I could theoretically get talked into supporting embryonic stem-cell research, though that hasn’t happened yet. But this type of dishonesty sends me flying in the other direction. My position then becomes I don’t know what full human rights embryos qualify for, but I do know that those SOB’s shouldn’t be anywhere near the ethical decisions. Advantage: embryos.

Today even more evidence came to my attention, over at powers-point

The most bizarre aspect of this debate is the amount of energy that has been spent trying to secure funds for research that to date has not cured a single person, yet we have people walking around among us who have been treated by research from adult stem cells.

Terrorist Surveillance

Austin Bay gathers an estimate of how much it would cost the US to reconstitute the bank-tracing surveilling of terrorists that the New York Times exposed last June, but has now decided was, gee, perfectly legal, that they had their facts wrong, and probably shouldn’t have run the story. No estimate of the damage done now that the terrorists know how we traced them until June.