Where does our personal politics come from? Does it trace back to our childhood, the views that surround us, the circumstances we are raised in? Is it all about nurture — or does nature have a say through the subtle levers of DNA? And where, in all of this, is the brain?
Scientists have delved seriously into the roots of political belief for the past 50 years, prompted by the rise of sociobiology, the study of the biological basis of behavior, and enabled by modern tools such as brain scanners and genome sequencers. The field is making headway, but teasing out the biology of behavior is never straightforward.
Take a study published last week. Researchers in Greece and the Netherlands examined MRI scans from nearly 1,000 Dutch people who had answered questionnaires on their personal politics.
Photo: Kuan Shu-ping, Taipei Times
NATURE
The work was a replication study, designed to see whether the results from a small 2011 study, bizarrely commissioned by the actor Colin Firth, stood up. Firth’s study, conducted at UCL, reported structural differences between conservative and liberal brains. Conservatives, on average, had a larger amygdala, a region linked to threat perception. Liberals, on average, had a larger anterior cingulate cortex, a region involved in decision-making.
In the latest study of Dutch people, the researchers found no sign of a larger anterior cingulate cortex in liberals. They did, however, find evidence for a very slightly larger amygdala in conservatives. The MailOnline declared evidence that conservatives were more “compassionate,” but later changed their headline noting that the study said nothing about compassion.
Photo: Lo Pei-der, Taipei Times
It is worth looking at the size of the difference the scientists found. When Steven Scholte, a co-author on the study at the University of Amsterdam, did the calculations he found that the amygdala of a conservative was, on average, larger than that of the liberal by the volume of one sesame seed. That is three times smaller than the 2011 study found. In their write-up in iScience, the researchers said it was “critical to approach these findings with caution, to avoid fostering misconceptions and stereotypes.”
What, then, does it mean? Do people with larger amygdalas feel more threatened and so tend towards conservatism? Or do conservatives feel more threatened and develop a slightly larger amygdala as a result?
“It’s impossible to know, using such correlational data, what causes what,” said Diamantis Petropoulos Petalas, the first author on the study.
Photo: Wang Yi-sung, Taipei Times
NURTURE
Social environment, clearly, is one of the most powerful shapers of people’s politics. Political values and beliefs can emerge in early life, particularly when children have politically engaged parents or carers. But political ideology continues to evolve with education and into adulthood as family influence declines. Higher education is consistently linked to more liberal views, especially on issues such as immigration, civil rights and gender equality.
Perhaps most intriguing is the role of genetics. Studies of twins show that political ideology is about 40 percent heritable. But again, what does that mean? These are population-level measures, after all. It is not that 40 percent of a person’s beliefs are shaped by genetics and 60 percent by environment.
“It tells you the extent to which differences between people are due to genetic factors,” said Aaron Weinschenk, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. “It’s not an estimate about an individual.”
How genetics affect people’s politics is similarly nuanced. Researchers have not, and do not expect, to find a Tory gene or a Democrat gene. Rather, says Tobias Edwards at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, genes work indirectly through personality and other factors such as how long people spend in education, their income and intelligence.
POLITICAL GENES?
“We should not expect there to be any specific genes for liberalism, or conservatism, but many genetic variants of infinitesimally small effects, acting indirectly through other traits,” he said.
Earlier this year, Edwards and his colleagues reported that genetics could be used to predict political leanings, with more intelligent siblings in families tending to more liberal politics. But the relationship with party allegiance is far more complex, Edwards said. As he points out, extraordinarily intelligent people are found on both right and left.
Another mistake would be to equate intelligence with sensible values and opinions.
“Looking back across history, we can see intelligent individuals have been attracted to all sorts of different and often contradictory ideas,” Edwards said. “Intellectuals have flirted with and been seduced by dangerous ideologies and tyrannical regimes. Many smart people have believed ideas that are downright stupid.”
Towering high above Taiwan’s capital city at 508 meters, Taipei 101 dominates the skyline. The earthquake-proof skyscraper of steel and glass has captured the imagination of professional rock climber Alex Honnold for more than a decade. Tomorrow morning, he will climb it in his signature free solo style — without ropes or protective equipment. And Netflix will broadcast it — live. The event’s announcement has drawn both excitement and trepidation, as well as some concerns over the ethical implications of attempting such a high-risk endeavor on live broadcast. Many have questioned Honnold’s desire to continues his free-solo climbs now that he’s a
Francis William White, an Englishman who late in the 1860s served as Commissioner of the Imperial Customs Service in Tainan, published the tale of a jaunt he took one winter in 1868: A visit to the interior of south Formosa (1870). White’s journey took him into the mountains, where he mused on the difficult terrain and the ease with which his little group could be ambushed in the crags and dense vegetation. At one point he stays at the house of a local near a stream on the border of indigenous territory: “Their matchlocks, which were kept in excellent order,
Jan. 19 to Jan. 25 In 1933, an all-star team of musicians and lyricists began shaping a new sound. The person who brought them together was Chen Chun-yu (陳君玉), head of Columbia Records’ arts department. Tasked with creating Taiwanese “pop music,” they released hit after hit that year, with Chen contributing lyrics to several of the songs himself. Many figures from that group, including composer Teng Yu-hsien (鄧雨賢), vocalist Chun-chun (純純, Sun-sun in Taiwanese) and lyricist Lee Lin-chiu (李臨秋) remain well-known today, particularly for the famous classic Longing for the Spring Breeze (望春風). Chen, however, is not a name
There is no question that Tyrannosaurus rex got big. In fact, this fearsome dinosaur may have been Earth’s most massive land predator of all time. But the question of how quickly T. rex achieved its maximum size has been a matter of debate. A new study examining bone tissue microstructure in the leg bones of 17 fossil specimens concludes that Tyrannosaurus took about 40 years to reach its maximum size of roughly 8 tons, some 15 years more than previously estimated. As part of the study, the researchers identified previously unknown growth marks in these bones that could be seen only
RSS