

The genetics of politics

Body politic

Slowly, and in some quarters grudgingly, the influence of genes in shaping political outlook and behaviour is being recognised

See article

Readers' comments



Simplistic Science Journalism is BAD Science Journalism. This article is a prime example of that truism. Twin studies have been DISCREDITED for at least 40 years. The early ones where racist fakes. The later ones were more simple minded and uncontrolled than the "feeble minded" who were sterilized or murdered by the Eugenicists. Identical Twins AREN'T IDENTICAL, even genetically. For exquisitely complex and intricate structures like the brain and the blood and hormonal systems, genetic code is only a very sketchy indication of what the structures actually develop into and then age over time. Many genes can be switched on or off affecting mood, personality and aptitudes by random or individual circumstances of the "twins". Bottom line: twin studies which assume identical genetic and body structures between individuals are junk science!!!

Americanbill in reply to john4law

Clearly John4law is one of those old style progressives referred to in the article that choose to remain brainwashed for the last 50 years. The world is not flat, genes count and identical twins are called that for a reason.

john4law in reply to Americanbill

Do some research:http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=7C3C2950-237D-9F22-E8FFA44DF9399417. "What Makes Each Brain Unique", Scientific American, March 2012


I'm a Sociologist and wanted to add a missing piece to this article. While it's true, as is true for most complex behavioral patterns, that there is an element of BOTH nurture and nature there is another piece to it entirely. What part of the biological factors affecting these political behaviors itself caused by environmental influences? While genes are stablished from birth genes are only of elements affecting biological functions such as neural and hormonal activity. Nature and nurture don't simply both contribute towards behavior they are mutually constitutive and thus also affect each other constantly. What we eat, the quality of the air we breath, whether we exercise or any sort of extreme experiences we have can't be though of as simply "nurture" as all of those points actually affect our biology. Our brain rewires itself constantly and various environmental factors in turn affect what hormones our bodies produce and extreme environments can produce even more extreme physiological modifications. Environment affects biology which in turns affects behavior which in turn affects environment. Hopefully both biology and the social sciences will look past the dichotomous approach to behavioral analysis that tries to separate what is "nurture" and what is "nature" and begin looking at it as a single complex system that needs to be analyzed as a whole.



I thought that genetics had begun to reach the conclusion that DNA was more like a chipset than a program, that, in response to certain stimuli attributes are activated and/or deactivated, depending on the suitability of the assumed combination of a genetically appropriate response to stimuli given the process of approximation of that suitable adapted combination for the circumstances?

i.e., where puddles occur, be 'frog-like' leap now, (etc. and so on)



The argument this article presents is either flawed or incomplete. Of course, it is reasonable to suggest that discrepancies between identical and fraternal twins' political attitudes may have genetic origins, but in order to conlude that genes MUST be involved, we must first assume that the ONLY relevant difference between sets of fraternal twins and sets of identical twins is the discrepancy in their shared genetic material, a claim that is not justifiable given the evidence presented. Surely we can think of at least a few other differences between sets of fraternal and indentical twins.

Gender is known to be a significant factor in determining political leanings of an individual. This in turn would suggest that twins with different genders are more likely to have diverging political views than same sex pairs. So if the studies didn't control for sex, sn't it plausible that the lower rate of agreement on politics between fraternal twins comes from the fact that all identical twins share a gender while some fraction (presumably around 50%) of fraternal twins do not?

What about the nature and dynamics of the relations between fraternal and identical twins, isn't it possible these may differ in ways that could explain the results? As a college student, I had noticed that it seemed like there were many more sets of identical twins that chose to attend the same school, which raises the possibiity that a greater proportion of shared formative experiences is the driving force behind their greater consensus. Perhaps identical twins have a comparatively more intimate relationship that leads to more similar attitudes between them.

These are just a few quick examples, but it seems to me that, in fact, there could be any number of subtle differences between the experiences of being fraternal and identical twins that could be at play, either to the exclusion of genetics, or in tandem with them, and thus, that the claim that genes must be involved in determing our politics remains unproven.

Xavier Bloom in reply to minotaur142

Just to clarify: twin studies do control for sex. And the reason you think that there are many more pairs of identical twins on campus is likely because it's pretty easy to spot a pair of identical twins. Fraternal twins, not so much. And these "nature and dynamics of the relations" are also controlled for by investigating twins separated at birth.

Xavier Bloom

As a student of both molecular biology and political science, this article has brought me great pleasure, and hopefully a modicum of vindication amongst my colleagues.

While the attacks of "reductionism" and similar sophisticated rhetorical efforts to vilify the field will surely exceed my lifetime, I have no doubt that the evolutionary psychologists, rather than going the way of astrology and theology as some here predict, will be remembered as the Galileos and Darwins of our time. And it will indeed be their detractors who will be remembered as the antediluvians of the 21st century.

Doug Forbes

We can say that being a women or a man can effect your world view. However, that is about as far as we can go. Speaking Chinese appears to run in families. In fact it appears to run in families more consistently than being tall runs in families. However, we know that speaking Chinese is not genetically determined and we know that height is genetically determined.

Hence the phrase "virtual heredity".


My selfish genes are telling me that these "just so" stories from evolutionary psychology will some day be seen as being about as "scientific" as astrology now is.


During time the way people see and understand their surroundings changed (see women rights, race ideas, sexual relations understanding in their evolution, for instance) together with the way they lived. I can see this facts contradictory with the claim that your opinions lay in your genes. It may be true that genes can favor certain attitudes but it is very risky to say that genes determine ones attitudes. What is brain and thought for then? Looking at the facts back in time I'd say that the environment has the main influence in shaping our thoughts and actions.


I would like the author to tell me whether and how the data was screened for correlation as opposed to causation. Most identical twins I have known tend to do everything together. What if their habit of voting together after age 21 is influenced more by the sense of security they get from doing things together than by a left- or right-inclining gene?

Xavier Bloom in reply to WowowShamuga

There is certainly a risk of mixing these up, that's why twin studies are conducted among sets of fraternal/identical twins that have been separated at birth -- this way there is no conflation between environmental and genetic factors.


The graph on the article is quite informative, but it will be much more so, if there is a quantitative meassure of the percent of decisions that are not driven by genes and/or environment...would this be a quantitative meassure of freedom?

Mike Hoy in reply to holik

That would be true if the definition of 'freedom' was limited to the ability to think and act independently of individual genetic and environmental influences. But true 'freedom' surely includes the right to live and think according to all of one's preferences, regardless of their origins.

Xavier Bloom in reply to holik

While an individual's genes may incline them to one sort of behaviour, it does not absolve them of moral agency for capitulating such inclinations. Certain individuals may be predisposed to violence, for instance, but a defense of "my genes made me do it" is legally and morally insufficient.
Human behaviour is categorized into little boxes in every academic discipline. For economists, we are utility maximizers. For philosophers, we are free and equal moral agents. For biologists, we are byproducts of our genes. Undoubtedly there is feedback between these different conceptions, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a particular one ought to apply in all contexts.

Sense Seeker

What I get from this is that people have genetic tendencies to (1) be more or less open to new ideas, and (2) be more or less inclined to try to influence others to believe what they believe.

What political ideas this results in among those that are less open to new ideas, is largely a function of what ideas are considered mainstream in the environment of these individuals. If that is social democracy, such people will tend to be social democrats. If it is radical Islam, they may be jihadis. If it is free market fundamentalism, they may be Paul Ryan.


The genetics of politics. Sounds like a selfish genery scenario. The strongest is never strong enough to be become a Politian of command unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. If force makes the right of politicians then we have a dictatorship. The right of command is through a force, a “mœurs” and a party (a bunch of cronies). Alienatation of ones right by a vote for a politician one becomes a slave to a master not giving himself but selling himself. Simply the democracy of making people do what you what.


It is good that this question, and the broader question of the significance of genetic inheritance, is being examined, though care is needed. I was staggered, in a high-level national debate on education, that no-one wanted to discuss the extent to which the good performance of the kids of bright parents might be innate.

Anything other than the view that all kids should be the same at birth seemed heresy!


"[e]ugenics that had led, via America's sterilisation programmes for the 'feeble minded', to the Nazi extermination camps...." Is this guy putting part of the blame for the Holocaust on America?! Where does the Economist find these writers?

migmigmigmig in reply to YCt9L9EN2v

How much do you know about the history of Eugenics?

Just because some/many Americans supported Eugenics and horrible things like the sterilization of the weak does not mean "Americans are partly to blame for the Holocaust."

But, equally, American Eugenics and Nazi Eugenics spring from the same source.

(For everyone playing the Godwin's Law game at home, empty your drink)

YCt9L9EN2v in reply to migmigmigmig

I probably know as much about the history of eugenics as you do. As for the article author's remark, do you know what "via" means? It means "by way of" or "by means of", not "from the same source, as you seem to think it does.

migmigmigmig in reply to YCt9L9EN2v

Nazi Eugenics were certainly inspired by American Eugenics.

"via", indeed, by your definition.

However, that's different than saying "America is partly responsible for the Holocaust".

I could probably make a list of a handful of Americans that likely ARE moderately responsible for the Holocaust, but I would think it to be a foolish stretch to blame the whole country for a handful of its citizens.

Perhaps there are some folks in our country who are a little sensitive to presenting the accusation that anybody would "Blame America" for anything?

Do you "Blame America" for the excesses of Eugenics that occurred only in America? Who do you blame for that?

Damn Dirty Ape

Utter rot. Whenever a journalist repeats anything that talks about genes causing social behavior they should be taken off the magazine and forced to take at least one year of molecular genetics and banned from mentioning science in any article for a year. Junk science, worse journalism.

Funny... I've got degrees in Biology and Anthropology and this entire article seems entirely appropriate.

When you have twin studies that can determine, in approximation, how much of a behavior is due to nature and how much of a behavior is due to nurture, you have the ability to make perfectly valid scientific statements of fact.

Genes influencing social behavior are well documented (go look up "novelty seeking gene"), and it is in no way implausible that genes can have influence over political behavior.

Journalists reporting on these bits may not understand the details, but they're not wrong to report it.

In any event, it seems like you missed all of the softening points (go search for the word 'inclining' in the article, yo?) and are throwing rotten tomatos at a plump straw-man. Just like the author predicted in his preamble to the story.

David Shedlock

C S Lewis saw this kind of argument coming when he coined the term Bulverism, which comes in expressions like "you only say that because you are a woman" or "You say that because you are a black". Now, shortly man can explain another person's foolish reasoning by simply saying "You only say that because your genes "inclined" you to say that."

The next step is a simple one. Identify those opinions which are most helpful in "evolution" and delete the remaining ones. Malthusian Eugenics is already the driving force behind some abortion and end-of-life decisions.

This study doesn't pass the smell test. The "olfactory" nerves of God himself can smell the dehumanizing aspects to this approach of human behavior.

While I do not agree with all of Satoshi Kanazawa's theories, and while I concede that many of them are extremely unpalatable, I cannot disagree with his magnificent quote: "Science is the accumulation of pure knowledge for its own sake; it has no other goals or purposes. In science, only logic and evidence are the arbitrators of the truth; nothing else matters. No scientific conclusions can ever be good or bad, desirable or undesirable, sexist, racist, offensive, reactionary or dangerous; they can only be true or false. No other adjectives apply."

Whether or not evolutionary psychology is "dehumanizing" -- and I would say it is not dehumanizing in the slightest, it investigates the very threads that weave our common humanity -- it does not detract from its scientific merit, from its essential truth.

Kanazawa's definition of science is a tautology that adds nothing substantial to the debate. He is essentialy saying that whatever is true is true, and whatever is not true, is not true. It's construction has many flaws and comes from many tenuous assumptions at best.

The first major error is to confuse science with scientists. "Science" cannot accumulate anything. From a human standpoint, there is no book of knowledge where we can go to some library and read in it every thing we know. Our "body of knowledge" changes, not because the universe changs, but because men (including scientists) are flawed individuals who have their biases.

Without a standard outside science itself, there can be no "pure knowledge." It will be mixed up with ignorance at every turn. Finally, who decided that science is investigated "for its own sake?". Satoshi must have somebody other than people in mind here. Scientists don't work for free - randomly picking subjects to study. They are generally hired to discover something in particular, to solve a problem or invent something. (or self-employed with a goal in mind).

Again, the idea that only logic and evidence matter is to make scientists into some "god." Truth cannot be all the things he said, but scientists can be "good or bad, desirable or undesirable, sexist, racist, offensive, reactionary or dangerous."

His definition serves no practical purpose except to obscure the fact that men are flawed and their conclusions, as well. Otherwise, everything else he said is window dressing and his conclusion is as I stated earlier - Truth is truth and error is error. But we know that already and don't need a scientist to tell us.

migmigmigmig in reply to David Shedlock

Random question, Mister Shedlock:

Do you believe that genes influence how likely one is to become addicted to a substance (like nicotine, alcohol, or cocaine)?

Or do you believe that is "dehumanizing" to say so?

And that only God and Satan determine whether one becomes an addict?

Certainly, if one is an addict, it's not a useful excuse to say "My genes made me that way" -- and it's up to the willpower of the individual (plus whatever help modern medicine can give) for a person to break that addiction.

But to deny the process of genetics in behavioral issues like addiction is strictly foolish.

The same point exists here.

Genetics *do* influence behavior. It seems to me that to deny that fact is far more "dehumanizing" than to accept it.

Apparently, all you're *really* complaining about is that such recognition *might* maybe lead to a slippery-slope that actually is dehumanizing.

But, let's face it, just about ALL human endeavours (including religion) are only one or two steps away from a slippery slope to dehumanization.


Vis a vis twin studies I wonder if identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to remain in very close communication and to belong to the same social group. Furthermore fraternal twins have a roughly 50% chance of being of different sexes which might colour the issue.

migmigmigmig in reply to WowowShamuga

No. It's not a valid concern.

Science Journalism shouldn't be required to play mommy as to whether or not the scientists involved know how to do their jobs.

If the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the Journalist reporting on the science should be able to trust the peer reviewers.

And the public at large should be able to trust the Journalist trusting the peer reviewers.

This idea that the "lay public" is doing anything useful by questioning the validity of a study that they probably couldn't even understand if they read the actual text is patently absurd.

If the authors of the study didn't properly control for sex differences between fraternal and identical twins, then the study would/should be laughed off the reservation by the peer reviewers.

And the study would never land on the Journalist's radar to begin with.

While it's true that some scientists DO falsify their data, the whole point of repeatability is to be able -- in the long run -- to determine what the Actual Objective Truth is and encourage anybody to come up with a different set of data to prove them wrong.

Feel free to do so.


Facinating article. I am 'inclined' to agree with the author's surmises. External & internal exposures/experiences, including genes, obviously influence our preferances, attractions & inclinations. But that is not to say that we are stuck with them, for all eternity!


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43


Products & events