The Liberal Gene

Hi mrsr! So sorry to read about that migraine; it would be impossible to see or concentrate on anything else, most certainly. I hope you can get relief and be able to sleep.

This author also discusses the Conservative amygdala in this article, if you would like to read it for comparison.

Thank you, and it's nice to see you here.

Great observation, Infohack, and one that I, too, have noticed!!

What first drew my attention to it was witnessing left-handed (right-brained) artists, musicians, etc. that were also self-proclaimed Christians, that had a socially liberal-democrat mindset. ..Proof that being Christian (or of other Faith) is not always associated with Republican leanings.

What I am hoping to determine (now and with future articles) is if 'environment' can truly override those natural "abstract vs. order and logic" tendencies, or if it is just a temporary state of 'being' for some.

Thank you for being here!

Infohack..

Thank you for the link. Handedness has always been something intriguing to me. I'm thinking of individuals I know that are similar to how you describe yourself.

The differences or 'outside of the norm' could be a result of some of the other theories/observations of lateralization, e.g., ambidexterity, cross-domination, dual brain theory, or emotional lateralization and others.

Under "Theories of Handedness," I found myself seeing a potential correlation to political leanings, imo.

The prevalence of right-handedness is universal across human cultures, although the percentage of right-handedness is smaller in primitive cultures^[4] (Previc, 1991). Newer theories of handedness look at handedness in different ways than previously.^[5][6] The newer view is that handedness is not a simple preference for one hand because the two hands actually work together in more subtle ways. For example, when writing, it is not a simple matter of one hand being dominant and writing on the paper. For a right-handed person, the left hand is involved in important ways: it orients and grips the paper and provides the context from which the right hand operates. Thus the right hand appears specialized for finer movements and the left for broader, contextual movements.

The right hand is seemingly more concerned with "logic and order," fine-tuning, perhaps; the left-hand is more of a coordinator and assists in a broad and general manner. See the political tendency implications?

******

ambivalent... thanks for the link! I'll have to get back on that a little later.

Also, I thought it was interesting--and significant--that it was pointed out that right-handedness is smaller in primitive cultures. That would suggest that the 'needs' are greater in a primitive culture to have a more broad and general approach towards survival. It wasn't a matter of logic, but more a matter of following basic animal instincts and intuitions. So now, we apparently have a more right-handed domination in societies.

Is it simply environment that took over, that we found that basic instincts weren't enough for survival? Or was it genetic natural selection that occurred as a result of man's curiosity to do more and have more than what is merely necessary for survival? Could this be the basis of political theory that has evolved---some of us retain more of the primitive cognition than others, despite a favoring of the right-hand due to necessity for survival in the modern world?

..I'll add these to my list of questions in my quest to understand the nature vs. nurture debate in more depth.

It’s a developed skill.

I would choose to term it a natural tendency. Those that aren't naturally ambidextrous and are forced to write or other with their right hand when they naturally favor their left hand---have consequences, usually evidenced in their language skills, why the two functions are so closely related... makes sense--they are both forms of 'speech.'

I think of right-handedness as an evolutionary *sign* that man gained increased awareness out of necessity for survival...a result of natural selection, perhaps.

As to your first sentence... now or in primitive times--there was no choice but to discover 'handedness' as being "hands-on" is necessary in nearly everything we do. We would naturally "know" at the stage of development (or necessity?) that required the use of our limbs and extremities.

I addressed the survival issue above--due to natural selection favoring traits that increased awareness in survival skills (using logic to come up with new ideas, instead of just relying on instinct) leading to enhanced cognition.

I think your guitar anecdote is a perfect example of the difference between the coordination factor vs. the fine-tuning factor.

I kinda thought this was a sensitive subject for you, Dale, from reading other comments in the past. I'm sorry that you are finding offense with the subject of genetic traits and predispositions.

You ask who cares? Imo, putting this topic in the context of politics as the article lends itself, and given that character traits are considered genetic, then learning a politician's true genetic political leanings, can make a difference in the policies they are going to support, the countries they are going to support, which self-interest groups they are going to support, and so on... When it comes to a candidate, we need to know a lot more about them than just what we see on the campaign trail; they are a "public figure"---we should pretty much know everything there is to know about how they have lived their lives up to their candidacy. ..I understand that you might not agree with a necessity to learn what their personal predispositions might be. I accept that.

I see past actions and genetic make-up pretty much related.

I've come to agree with the thinking that man has no Free Will, per se, because of genetic determinism for preferences that would affect his choices. It's the environment that can 'get in the way' and cause him to possibly make a mistake, interference pattern; so we must go with 'probability' when making decisions about candidates.

We will have to agree to disagree, as it appears you think man can logistically override his 'nature.'

doesn't mean they will ultimately make those choices that lead to that outcome.

I agree, infohack, because his genetic predispositions could be affected by his environment, but it could also be temporary interference, such that once the environmental factors are removed or altered, then his natural tendencies would then take precedence.

I'm not suggesting euthanasia and concentration camps :)... I am saying, that a pattern of past decisions and behaviors (a possible result of what is called the "liberal gene") would influence who I would vote for... past activity would reveal some of the particular qualifications that I look for, or perhaps not, depending on their circumstances. Genetics determine behavior and attitudes; I don't think there is anything wrong with being racist as long as we aren't 'harming' anyone. Or in other words, I see nothing wrong with choosing like-mindedness...as long as other important "qualifications" are met.

I am attracted to like-mindedness in personal relationships/friendships...why not a president?

Dale...Yes I did! That was not an oops! Again, it always depends on to what extent the environment is involved. But, I do believe a naturally pleasant person will always be 'naturally' pleasant when not distracted; a naturally mean-spirited person will always 'naturally' negative when not distracted, etc.

You have a right to your own opinion, as well. :)

Infohack...

I'd simply settle for an honest one that isn't beholden to corporate lobbyists..

..In complete agreement. If there was anyway to rid ourselves of the bribery, I would support it.

I'm signing off for now. Thanks for the discussion!!