Scott, more simply put, genes do not account for learned behaviors. They may influence the degree of learning, but are not responsible for the behavior directly. Much of the political behavior is passed from one generation to the next by parents, family and mentors!

Obtuser==what you say:  NOT!!!! according to the linked study that started this subset conversation.

don't you guys EVER respond to a new idea?---or is it what you learned in High School over and over?

I'm not talking revolution here, just a "shading" on what we all learned.

IT'S ABOUT FRICKIN TIME:

Citigroup shareholders make history by becoming the first Wall St. shareholders to reject the executives' compensation packages.  But not far into the article:  "The vote is advisory and won't force the bank to change its pay practices,...."  WTF?  In other words, RAPE of the shareholders continues as per normal.  My Nanny State Instincts tell me more regulation/change in regulation is needed:  EG===CEO's to be paid only up to a set multiple of average corporate pay.  That simple rule would have all kinds of significant impact.  All for "fairness" you know?

http://marketday.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11263196-citigroup-shareholders-snub-execs-on-pay?lite

Obtuser==what you say:  NOT!!!! according to the linked study that started this subset conversation.

don't you guys EVER respond to a new idea?---or is it what you learned in High School over and over?

I'm not talking revolution here, just a "shading" on what we all learned.

I am responding to a new idea. For years, we put way too much faith in how much of our personality is controlled by genes. Then the new idea of a gene shortage says that there just aren't enough genes for this. Don't you ever respond to a new idea? How about at least responding to the points I made instead of accusing me of being closed minded when I believe I've already explained that the gene shortage idea is in fact fairly new and is further bolstered by the newer information about the paucity of genes in the human genome?

I made six points. Respond to them without just saying effectively that one article says blah so it must be true.

Scotty--six, Six, SIX (6) points?  My, my.  I think the Nature vs Nurture conflict/interaction has been going on from day one?  What is your authority for the notion that Genes gained primacy in times past?  My view is that Nurture has always had a slight edge over Genes with genes coming on more strongly now with our mapping/engineering capabilities.

I'll go find your six points and respond here....in some manner....but before that==your position seems ludicrous on its face?  The human genome is too small to produce humans?  How is the balance made up then---magic?  You got some serious calcification setting in there, let's see how much of it is evident in your points?

...........................

Yes, your post #74, let's parse:

I read the article. It is one study. It is some evidence, yes. I just think it's far too little evidence. I disagree with the results and have given numerous reasons why. ///  How is it evidence if you disagree with the results?  If it is evidence, how can you disagree?  "In science" you are not supposed to simply ignore evidence against your previously held free floating opinions.  You are supposed to RESOLVE the conflict with additional EVIDENCE--not simply repeat your opinion until people leave in disgust.  Lets see how you do:

1. I do not believe there are enough genes for the complex behavior often attributed to them. ///  Vague and ambiguous.  WHAT complex behavior are you talking about?  The mating dance of the wood grouse?  Or the political affiliation of Hoomans?  Maybe the behavior IS influenced by genes and by your unstated assumption--said behavior is not really all that complex?  Is anything or everything that trailer trash does "complex" in your view?
2. I do not believe there has been sufficient time for evolution to have much to say about political bent.  ///  "I don't believe" is only advancing your ignorance against science.  I don't believe the earth circles the Sun because all you have to do is look into the sky and observe the obvious.  Silly argumentation twice in a row.  Got any facts/studies/link?
3. I do not believe they have even sufficiently defined liberal and conservative, which are NOT mutually exclusive. ///  Well thats a good point if true.  Let me parallel your approach:  I do believe they suficiently defind liberal and conservative which when not exclusive are irrelevant to the question.
Liberal means generous. Conservative means resistant to change. The opposite of liberal is stingy. The opposite of conservative is progressive. And, as political leanings, there are many more than just liberal and conservative. The tea baggers are neither. They want lots of radical change, deregulation, more church in state, less government or no government. All true conservatives, being resistant to change would want to preserve the world in its current state, so would also be environmentalists. All true liberals would be willing to pay higher taxes, and few people today are. (I am, BTW, but not knowing that the money will all go to war and oil companies.)  //// Lots of words and baseless irrelevant opinion.  Either the study defined the terms for the purposes of the study, or they did not.  We both "know" they did.
4. I do not believe liberal and conservative are the only political options, so the article has not only failed to define their terms, but has started with a flawed premise. ///  Irrelevant.
5. I do not believe that an inherent bias, even a weak one, can be supported in a world where political bias changes frequently with the wind or the current state of the economy.  ///  Irrelevant.  I don't believe lakes are wet because they can dry up.  Silly to shift the time context of when the lib/con grouping is determined.
6. I do not know to what extent the sizes of the parts of the amygdala are genetically determined versus environmentally determined. Identical twins share a womb and all of the toxins and nutrients they are exposed to in it. They are then typically raised very similarly in the same house, while the brain forms further. The biggest difference int heir environment is each other. Whatever slight differences they have each then become slightly different environmental factors for the other. There are some studies of behavior using identical twins separated at birth. Thankfully, there are not many such people. But, the results are often intriguing. Though, the environment of the twins is still the same for the first 9 months of brain development. ///  And what's your point?  I hope it is that twin studies show a weak to moderate positive correlation on certain defined traits often well above any random sampling even of fraternal twins or siblings.  Thats the science of it, but you've moved to pure ignorance instead of believing against it.  Sixth point showing a glimmer of promise?

So, what I've said is that I don't find this one study very convincing. Sorry if that disturbs you. /// I'm not disturbed at all.  Scotty, if I said there was a strong positive correlation between head size and hat size would you counter you don't believe that and you know people with large heads that wear small hats?  Or that people change hats?  Or that not all hats are made of felt?  Or that no single hat design can explain all hat variables?  Would you repeat your argument on this issue or only save it for genetics?

Yes--this is but one study showing a mild positive correlation.  No reasonable person can disagree.  If you do---read a dictionary.

if FOLLOWING YOUR GENES WAS A dominant TRAIT, WE WOULD ALL still BE IN OUR TERRIBLE 2'S.

The Fun part of being an ADULT/Parent..tends to be BREAKING those little things we WANT, that have little bering on life and living.
They have to TEACH us how life IS'..and hope we get the point, while STILL fighting our genes.
Fighting our GENES is like fighting HORMONES/SEX...GOTTA HAVE IT..
But as time passes, we learn abit about control.  IF ADULTS could change it, or make it easier, THEY WOULD(I hope).

GENES can help us..as long as we learn to Control them as needed.  but, LIFE and parenting tends to HELP, we hope.

I'll go find your six points and respond here....in some manner....but before that==your position seems ludicrous on its face?  The human genome is too small to produce humans?  How is the balance made up then---magic?  You got some serious calcification setting in there, let's see how much of it is evident in your points?

So, are you actually saying that all of our behavior is genetically determined? If some part of it is not, we're just quibbling about the amount. Human behavior takes on a great many forms. It is our flexible behavior that has allowed us to conquer the planet and likely destroy ourselves in the process. Do you think it is all genetically predetermined? If so, say so. If not, then admit that 20-25,000 genes cannot possibly predetermine everything we do after they get through building our basic physical structure.

Remember as you think about this, every time you learn something, your brain physically changes from its basic genetic model.

I read the article. It is one study. It is some evidence, yes. I just think it's far too little evidence. I disagree with the results and have given numerous reasons why. ///  How is it evidence if you disagree with the results?  If it is evidence, how can you disagree?  "In science" you are not supposed to simply ignore evidence against your previously held free floating opinions.  You are supposed to RESOLVE the conflict with additional EVIDENCE--not simply repeat your opinion until people leave in disgust.  Lets see how you do:

What??!!? Are you saying that any piece of evidence is always enough to sway you one way or the other? The number of scientific studies of nature versus nurture are huge. And, about half say one thing while the other half say the exact opposite. So, do you flip flop every time you read an article about the subject? Or, is this the only one you've ever read?

1. I do not believe there are enough genes for the complex behavior often attributed to them. ///  Vague and ambiguous.  WHAT complex behavior are you talking about?  The mating dance of the wood grouse?  Or the political affiliation of Hoomans?  Maybe the behavior IS influenced by genes and by your unstated assumption--said behavior is not really all that complex?  Is anything or everything that trailer trash does "complex" in your view?

What's ambiguous? I gave hard numbers long ago. You forgot them. Or, perhaps your brain structure never modified itself to incorporate them. The brain has a hundred billion neurons and several trillion connections. The overall structure is created by the genes in interaction with an environment that may include proper nutrition  (or not) as well as toxins. The fine details of these connections are formed as we learn. You simply can't code for all of the neurons and connections with only 20 to 25 thousand genes. It is physically impossible. It is also why humans have such a long learning period, for some of us, lifelong.

2. I do not believe there has been sufficient time for evolution to have much to say about political bent.  ///  "I don't believe" is only advancing your ignorance against science.  I don't believe the earth circles the Sun because all you have to do is look into the sky and observe the obvious.  Silly argumentation twice in a row.  Got any facts/studies/link?

There have been about 10 generations of politics. For half of the population, they have only had 5 generations of politics. And, that's in the U.S., one of the world's oldest surviving democracies. Evolution takes more than 10 generations. The only way to have any effect in such a short time would be to selectively breed humans for political bent. This has not been done.

Do you need links for the ages of the various democracies of the world?

Do you need a link to tell you that there would be no selective force for political bent in a monarchy or other totalitarian regime?

3. I do not believe they have even sufficiently defined liberal and conservative, which are NOT mutually exclusive. ///  Well thats a good point if true.  Let me parallel your approach:  I do believe they suficiently defind liberal and conservative which when not exclusive are irrelevant to the question.

I'm not sure what article you're reading. The one you posted in 44 has no definition at all of either liberal or conservative. I apologize for stating that they did not sufficiently define the terms. I implied that there was some definition. This was incorrect on my part.

There is no definition of liberal or conservative in the article at all.

Liberal means generous. Conservative means resistant to change. The opposite of liberal is stingy. The opposite of conservative is progressive. And, as political leanings, there are many more than just liberal and conservative. The tea baggers are neither. They want lots of radical change, deregulation, more church in state, less government or no government. All true conservatives, being resistant to change would want to preserve the world in its current state, so would also be environmentalists. All true liberals would be willing to pay higher taxes, and few people today are. (I am, BTW, but not knowing that the money will all go to war and oil companies.)  //// Lots of words and baseless irrelevant opinion.  Either the study defined the terms for the purposes of the study, or they did not.  We both "know" they did.

WTF bobbo? How are you, the self-proclaimed master of definitional debates, suddenly making the case that definitions are irrelevant? Of course we both know, if we read the article, that there is no definition of their terms. Post what you believe is a definition. And, of course, if the article is comparing liberals and conservatives, not only does the definition matter, but it matters how they're picking their liberals and conservatives that are such a small number of people as to be completely irrelevant to any U.S. political debate.

4. I do not believe liberal and conservative are the only political options, so the article has not only failed to define their terms, but has started with a flawed premise. ///  Irrelevant.

A flawed premise is irrelevant? How so?

5. I do not believe that an inherent bias, even a weak one, can be supported in a world where political bias changes frequently with the wind or the current state of the economy.  ///  Irrelevant.  I don't believe lakes are wet because they can dry up.  Silly to shift the time context of when the lib/con grouping is determined.

??!!? Lakes are not predetermined by genetics. If politics is, you must explain how one changes one's genetics throughout life.

6. I do not know to what extent the sizes of the parts of the amygdala are genetically determined versus environmentally determined. Identical twins share a womb and all of the toxins and nutrients they are exposed to in it. They are then typically raised very similarly in the same house, while the brain forms further. The biggest difference int heir environment is each other. Whatever slight differences they have each then become slightly different environmental factors for the other. There are some studies of behavior using identical twins separated at birth. Thankfully, there are not many such people. But, the results are often intriguing. Though, the environment of the twins is still the same for the first 9 months of brain development. ///  And what's your point?  I hope it is that twin studies show a weak to moderate positive correlation on certain defined traits often well above any random sampling even of fraternal twins or siblings.  Thats the science of it, but you've moved to pure ignorance instead of believing against it.  Sixth point showing a glimmer of promise?

What's my point? You mean aside from the fact that identical twins share not only their genes but their environment? I don't know. Maybe you're having a hard time with the concept that environment affects behavior.

So, what I've said is that I don't find this one study very convincing. Sorry if that disturbs you. /// I'm not disturbed at all.  Scotty, if I said there was a strong positive correlation between head size and hat size would you counter you don't believe that and you know people with large heads that wear small hats?  Or that people change hats?  Or that not all hats are made of felt?  Or that no single hat design can explain all hat variables?  Would you repeat your argument on this issue or only save it for genetics?

Yes--this is but one study showing a mild positive correlation.  No reasonable person can disagree.  If you do---read a dictionary.

Oh, so now we're at the point of simply stating that one piece of data should be sufficient to convince 100% of the "reasonable" population of the world? And you find that to be a reasonable position? Really? I've read a lot on the brain, articles and full length books. I've also heard scientists lecture on the subject. This does not convince me. You think that makes me unreasonable? I don't give even one rat buttock, let alone an entire rat's ass, whether you think I'm reasonable.

Regards the human genome, I believe they used to say that most of the genes in the chromosomes are inactive most of the time and only some of these are activated occasionally by neuron-chemical reactions. I am not aware of recent research that may have changed this view, but it was at one time believed that these inactive genes were just surplus left overs from our evolutionary history! [maybe this was where the expression "not firing on all cylinders originated! ha ha]
How does this reconcile?

Regards the human genome, I believe they used to say that most of the genes in the chromosomes are inactive most of the time and only some of these are activated occasionally by neuron-chemical reactions. I am not aware of recent research that may have changed this view, but it was at one time believed that these inactive genes were just surplus left overs from our evolutionary history! [maybe this was where the expression "not firing on all cylinders originated! ha ha]
How does this reconcile?

It reconciles easily. The 20-25,000 genes are the active bits of the genome. The junk DNA is the rest. There is also some question about just how junky the junk DNA is. But, the mainstream view is still that it's junk. If there are several trillion genes hidden in what we think is junk, I'll recant my gene deficiency argument. Actually, it's not my argument to begin with. But, I'll recant it nonetheless if there turn out to be enough genes for this level of encoding. I'll still retain my other arguments though. The idea of encoding so much in a brain engineered by natural selection to be a general purpose machine is still a whopper, IMHO.

Obtuser--if we are thinking of the same issues==I think that "garbage" DNA is turning out to be mostly "control genes" that tell the other genes when to turn on and turn off.  Why that isn't considered just as "active" as anything else is beyond me.  All flowing from the concept of what is genetic, or chromosomal, or inheritable, or active and so forth.  Just saw an article on another source other than dna and rna as passing along inheritable traits.  I was going to post it but this is after all a thread about politics.

Scott--I stopped reading your post after the first sentence:  No that is not what I clearly said.  No, the genes are not determinative.  You need to read a dictionary.  Read up on what a weak correlation means.  I'll probably go back and finish reading your post.  You are being far from relevant.  Your choice.  Probably first going to reread the linked article that started all this.  Your continuing error Scott is failure in basic language.  Language that should be part of your professional devotions?  Correlations are not determinative. 

So, I reread the original linked article:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428590.200-political-divides-begin-in-the-brain.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news and it strikes me as being more affirmative than I recalled.  I do take all these studies with a grain of salt.  Lib and Con were as self described?  Thats never a good thing--just another loose link of weak positive correlation?

But I self describe as liberal and I have little response to loud noises, my environment is messy and cluttered, I am open to trying new things just for the heck of it, and ambiguity doesn't bother me much, I do accept scientific consensus even when many such issues are not clear to me.  Makes me want to measure my amygdala and my anterior cingulate cortex.

If you did or didn't like that short link to read, it references another one that will only reinforce those ideas:  The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality.   http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118094514.html

So, I reread the original linked article:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428590.200-political-divides-begin-in-the-brain.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news and it strikes me as being more affirmative than I recalled.  I do take all these studies with a grain of salt.  Lib and Con were as self described?  Thats never a good thing--just another loose link of weak positive correlation?

But I self describe as liberal and I have little response to loud noises, my environment is messy and cluttered, I am open to trying new things just for the heck of it, and ambiguity doesn't bother me much, I do accept scientific consensus even when many such issues are not clear to me.  Makes me want to measure my amygdala and my anterior cingulate cortex.

If you did or didn't like that short link to read, it references another one that will only reinforce those ideas:  The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality.   http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118094514.html

I also self-describe as liberal, modern American liberal to be precise. I can be neat or messy, though not dirty. My wife also self-describes as liberal and is a complete and utter organization freak. But, we should probably skip the anecdotal discussion of particular liberal individuals and whether they broadly share the characteristics mentioned in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

Note that there are many other forms of liberalism. You may need to read up on the various forms, some of which differ significantly from modern American liberalism so that you can be sure to specify what you mean by "liberal" as you self-indentify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_worldwide

I'll read your newer article later. I think I may have already read it some time ago but don't remember it all that well. So, I should at least skim it again.

Scott--you are doing violence again.  The liberal and conservatives being reported on here are "self described."  That takes in all types.  Your red herrings are belly up on the sea shore.  Unlike too many people, you do have links/facts=="dots" so to speak--but you don't connect them well or understand the connections.  What is connected and what is not connected.  How the dots relate/correlate/cause or don't cause one another.

Its all factual, but starts and is understood definitionally.

Scott--you are doing violence again.  The liberal and conservatives being reported on here are "self described."

The problem with the study then is that they probably had no conservatives. Instead, what they had was radical right-wing extremist nutjobs. To call them conservative is an insult to a small remaining group of respectable individuals who genuinely do resist change. I don't agree with true conservatives either. I'm a progressive and a liberal and an environmentalist and ... ... .... But, true conservatives have a viewpoint I can respect.

Most self-proclaimed conservatives today are not. So, once again, the study is flawed from the get-go.

Scott--its definitional.  Something you have to learn.