NationStates Jolt Archive

A study found that political preference is half genetic.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070528/sc_livescience/politicalpreferenceishalfgenetic)

Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann has to do with your genes and your psychology, according to a new study.

People who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative, whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend to be more politically liberal, says John Jost, a psychologist at New York University who conducted an overview of previous studies involving a total of more than 22,000 participants from 12 countries.

But that psychological profile only pulls half the weight when it comes to determining people's politics, his review showed. The other half is genetic, as is revealed in studies of twins and their political bent, Jost says.

Politics in America

A number of sociologists have argued that political ideology died in America after World War II because both the left and the right wing were heavily discredited at the time.

Jost says the latest research shows the opposite, that politics in America today are very much alive. His previous research has suggested, for example, that more than 90 percent of college students can identify where their political beliefs fit on a scale running from the “left” (liberal) to the “right” (conservative), and that their affiliations strongly influence how they vote in elections.

Americans also appear to enjoy being involved in politics.

For instance, 44 percent of respondents to the 2004 National Election Study reported that they regularly listen to political talk radio.

Recipe for beliefs

Given our current political appetite, Jost next wanted to know whether liberals have different psychological traits than conservatives.

His “meta-analysis” of previous studies, including his own, showed that liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty—for instance, they tend to support social change—whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo.

Jost’s findings, detailed in American Psychologist, suggest that environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.

For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said. A study of World Trade Center survivors after 9/11 reported that 38 percent grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attacks, as compared with only 13 percent who became more liberal.

The other factor that determines a person’s political beliefs is biology. Research by John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, showed that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. They also, of course, share more genes.

“Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics,” said Hibbing, whose studies were included in Jost’s analysis. While genetics are unlikely to “hardwire” people into being liberal or conservative, Hibbing said that genes could make people more or less likely to have certain values or react to situations in a particular way.

This knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.

“If you think your opponents are not just being willfully bullheaded but rather have a kind of biological predisposition toward a set of beliefs, you might not spend as much time beating your head against the wall trying to get them to change,” he said.

I guess we have an excuse now

I guess we have an excuse now

Like we needed one before?

My hope for the world just went out the window.

My hope for the world just went out the window.

What was your hope placed in, exactly?

Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

What was your hope placed in, exactly?

conservatives of course lolz

Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

Oh like conservative psychologists wouldn't do the same thing... :rolleyes:

Oh like conservative psychologists wouldn't do the same thing... :rolleyes:

They probablly do...
The left-right fight has gotten old, grown mold, and rotted, but it does not die

Its like it does not end...It's like Zombie politics

Oh like conservative psychologists wouldn't do the same thing... :rolleyes:

Ironically, the liberal psychologists claimed that conservatives were more likely to be "self-righteous," yet they were the ones claiming that an opposing political belief was the product of a diseased mind or a psychiatric anomaly. Does that sound like hypocrisy to you? Oh, wait! The liberals also claimed that conservatives were more likely to be hypocrites. Maybe I'm just wrong because, like other conservatives, I employ faulty reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism#Significant_Correlations

Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

Uh... didn't read the article, did ya? It simply states that those with a certain psychological make-ups tend to prefer one political lean over the other. It's not hard and fast, it's not a rule, it's not stating it's a disease, it is simply stating that those with different mind-sets(which is partly genetic) will have a tendency to prefer one political system over another.

Which makes freakin' sense.

Ironically, the liberal psychologists claimed that conservatives were more likely to be "self-righteous," yet they were the ones claiming that an opposing political belief was the product of a diseased mind or a psychiatric anomaly. Does that sound like hypocrisy to you? Oh, wait! The liberals also claimed that conservatives were more likely to be hypocrites. Maybe I'm just wrong because, like other conservatives, I employ faulty reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism#Significant_Correlations

But they are...:p

They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease"

no they didn't

Uh... didn't read the article, did ya?

I actually wasn't referring to the article, but rather a similar study which closely ties in with the point of the thread. But thanks for playing.

Uh... didn't read the article, did ya? It simply states that those with a certain psychological make-ups tend to prefer one political lean over the other. It's not hard and fast, it's not a rule, it's not stating it's a disease, it is simply stating that those with different mind-sets(which is partly genetic) will have a tendency to prefer one political system over another.

Which makes freakin' sense.

of course, scoring high on the rwa scale has a good correlation with being a blackshirt-in-waiting, so it's not exactly value neutral. but even then, that's just empirically grounding something that already makes sense.

Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

Ooh, LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, FAG, this is getting old quick.

Ooh, LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, FAG, this is getting old quick.

Oh no, It is old...

his knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.

Originally Posted by FreedomAndGlory View Post
Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

And you lefties accuse the right of misusing eugenics. :rolleyes:

It sounds like they want to somehow eliminate the 'conservative gene'

I actually wasn't referring to the article, but rather a similar study which closely ties in with the point of the thread. But thanks for playing.

Ho-kay, why the hell did you bring that up? It has absolutely nothing to do with this study. You bring in something to show political bias in psychology in a thread who's topic is not about political bias.

Basically, you are creating a tangent from the original topic in order to hijack the thread on a different topic all-together. I for one won't bite.

If you want to talk about this, make your own thread. Otherwise, don't bring new topics in hopes of starting a flame-war in this thread. Which is what appears to be the intent of you trying to hijack the thread.

And you lefties accuse the right of misusing eugenics. :rolleyes:

People can be bastards regardless of political mindset. Only reason why conservatives get more shpeal is because they were in near-complete power for six years. It's just more obvious when that's the case.

But liberals can be bastards as well.

Ooh, LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, FAG, this is getting old quick.

Yes, liberals. Do you think conservatives attempted to catalogue their supposed mental "shortcomings" by devising a diabolical scale to measure how "authoritarian" (read: sick) an individual is? That's preposterous. Obviously, this method of categorization was created by leftists. And what's really getting old is the persecution of "dim-witted" conservatives by the "clerisy," so-called "intellectuals," academia, liberals, etc. Their (and your) holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to grate against my sensibilities.

I knew, right from the get-go, this could be a fun thread.

First thought to come to mind was the episode "Home" from The X-Files.

Also remniscient of burning crosses, white sheets, whistlin' dixie and three toes on the left foot.


Thanks for the memories.

At first I was going to call this article bullshit, because I've been influenced in both directions over many years, but then I realized what it was actually talking about: small, subtle influences one way or the other determined partially by brain chemistry and mental makeup, which is indeed determined by genetics, which makes perfect sense. It simply says one is more likely to lean in this direction or that direction, not that they WILL lean in this direction or that direction.

It sounds like they want to somehow eliminate the 'conservative gene'

That's what most conservatives tend to define themselves as, as a mindset: everything outside their parameters of philosophy and/or behaviour is a threat.

It's okay, though, since there's plenty of biological evidence to explain what happens when there's too much redundancy in the gene pool.
...like dogs, for example.
:)

It wouldn't shock me if the scientists discovered that good breeding and conservatism fo hand-in-hand, if they dig a bit deeper. :D

It wouldn't shock me if the scientists discovered that good breeding and conservatism fo hand-in-hand, if they dig a bit deeper. :D

Liberal obsession and research of micro-biology and genetics and how they keep implying that they'll use them to somehow destroy non-liberals, conservatives and everyone else they hate makes me a tad uneasy.

the twin paper (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscifacpub/7/), for anyone interested

That's what most conservatives tend to define themselves as, as a mindset: everything outside their parameters of philosophy and/or behaviour is a threat.

It's okay, though, since there's plenty of biological evidence to explain what happens when there's too much redundancy in the gene pool.
...like dogs, for example.
:)

Well if you liberals are for 'genetic purification' then how come you don't research how to somehow stamp out those who are genetically criminal who are way worse than those with the 'conservative gene'.

Liberal obsession and research of micro-biology and genetics and how they keep implying that they'll use them to somehow destroy non-liberals, conservatives and everyone else they hate makes me a tad uneasy.

Well, genetics may create a predisposition to certain politics, but good old common sense leads toward conservatism just the same. :p

Well if you liberals are for 'genetic purification'

wtf?

wtf?

Don't play blind, I know liberals want to make everyone liberal, I know they want to purge the world of non-liberals, conservatives and Christians.

Don't play blind, I know liberals want to make everyone liberal, I know they want to purge the world of non-liberals, conservatives and Christians.
I am glad you are on to the evil liberal conspiracy. Now hurry up, you have an interview on Fox News you need to get to!

Don't play blind, I know liberals want to make everyone liberal, I know they want to purge the world of non-liberals, conservatives and Christians.

i know that projection is fundamental to high rwa's but this is just silly

I wonder if people will be looking for ways to genetically engineer their kids towards a certain political viewpoint...

This knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.

I hope not...I shudder to think people will allow ridiculous ideas to sneak through because people are genetically predisposed to them. Frankly, it seems like a rather premature conclusion that contemporary politics have a genetic basis given the left-right political spectrum and even conservatism vs. liberalism are at best a couple of hundred years old.

I wonder if people will be looking for ways to genetically engineer their kids towards a certain political viewpoint...

I do not want to see kids being born conservative.

I wonder if people will be looking for ways to genetically engineer their kids towards a certain political viewpoint...

Thats what I fear. Lefties are as insane and hypocritical as it is along with other extremists. I don't want some wacked out extremist didling with my children's DNA should I have any. (I doubt I'll have any) And also we shouldn't tamper with DNA, we might do something harmful without knowing it. Remember when scientists messes around with chemicals and molecules and came up with margarine and soda (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528287)? About a few decades later [present time] we are finding out that the stuff is harmful and is screwing with the way our cells work?

I do not want to see kids being born conservative.

Frankly, I'd just neutralize the effects of it as much as possible and let them decide for themselves. Our genetics should be just as malleable as our personalities.

I do not want to see kids being born conservative.

How hypocritical of you, your acting just like them.

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born homosexual"

Or if you'd like a more extreme right wing comparison.

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born Jewish." sayeth the nazi camp officer.

(replace Jewist/homosexual with conservative)

And who are you to decide whose born as what?

Why would a Nazi's kid be born Jewish? :p

Frankly, I don't care what my kid is born like. He/She would be my kid, and it doesn't matter what their predisposition is.

How hypocritical of you, your acting just like them.

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born homosexual"

Or if you'd like a more extreme right wing comparison.

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born Jewish." sayeth the nazi camp officer.

(replace Jewist/homosexual with conservative)

And who are you to decide whose born as what?
I don't want kids being born liberal either. People should decide for themselves. Nobody is "born" conservative or "genetically" liberal-- it influences it, yes, but doesn't cause it.

What are you going on about?

Why would a Nazi's kid be born Jewish? :p

Frankly, I don't care what my kid is born like. He/She would be my kid, and it doesn't matter what their predisposition is.

1) Where did you come up with that question?

2) Good to see somebody here sees children as a person and valued loved one rather than a puppet to a political agenda.

1) Where did you come up with that question?


I apologize, I thought this:

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born Jewish." sayeth the nazi camp officer.

was

"OOH I don't want to see my kids being born Jewish." sayeth the nazi camp officer.

Reading slip, happens to me all the time.

Guys, don't mock FreedomAndGlory, he's sick, he has a genetic disorder which makes him think in this unreasonable manner, so don't blame him, he needs help. With enough dead stem cells, abortions and genetic experimentation I am sure the medical community will develop a cure for him to act tolerant.

I actually wasn't referring to the article, but rather a similar study which closely ties in with the point of the thread. But thanks for playing.

The thread isn't about that study. Go make your own thread for that. The thread is about possible biological predisposition to ways of thinking that would be more typical of either conservative or liberal politics.

Ooh, LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, FAG, this is getting old quick.

Oh wow I smell some high and mighty liberal hypocrisy. Aren't liberals supposedly the more tolerant of the two sides?

Don't play blind, I know liberals want to make everyone liberal, I know they want to purge the world of non-liberals, conservatives and Christians.

I wish that was sarcasm. Unfortunately, it's probably actual idiocy.

Don't play blind, I know liberals want to make everyone liberal, I know they want to purge the world of non-liberals, conservatives and Christians.

Oh for the love of all that is holy, that is idiotic. Very few liberals think that. What's more, there are Conservatives who think the same about liberals. This door swing both fucking ways, friend.

Now, I'm more liberal than most. Hell, some think that I'm the most liberal person they know. Yet, I have never professed a desire to purge the world of conservatives and christians(Infact, when some pricks decide to bash Christianity and say it shouldn't exist, I usually argue for Christianity, even though I am an agnost- you know, freedom of Religion and all). I have no desire for that.

So really, you are spewing shit here.

So if there is a genetic basis for political inclinations, maybe there is a genetic basis for different countries having different type of governments? Maybe democracy isnt for everyone?

Oh wow I smell some high and mighty liberal hypocrisy. Aren't liberals supposedly the more tolerant of the two sides?

This has nothing to do with FreedomandGlory being Christian and conservative, but instead with him being an troll. There is a difference.

So if there is a genetic basis for political inclinations, maybe there is a genetic basis for different countries having different type of governments? Maybe democracy isnt for everyone?

I like to think that Freedom is for everyone, but you never can tell - could be that there is Socialism built into some people's DNA. Nothing that good life experience can't cure though, I should think. :p

So if there is a genetic basis for political inclinations, maybe there is a genetic basis for different countries having different type of governments? Maybe democracy isnt for everyone?

You are misinterpreting what the article says. It doesn't say that there is a necessary basis for political inclinations, instead saying that different mindsets and psychological make-ups will tend to lean towards one view over another... which makes sense. Their genetics may make a person lean one way, but it is not the only factor, at all(As life experiences also affect it).

I like to think that Freedom is for everyone, but you never can tell - could be that there is Socialism built into some people's DNA. Nothing that good life experience can't cure though, I should think. :p

Oh, come on. Socialism is not the anti-thesis of Freedom. It is merely a different system. A "true" democracy can in fact go against freedom. Tyranny of the majority and all that fun jazz. As well, Capitalism is not necessarily free either-only free to those who have money. Those who don't, tend to have little to no rights. But hey, let's not get facts in the way, shall we?

This has nothing to do with FreedomandGlory being Christian and conservative, but instead with him being an troll. There is a difference.

Thank you, Commodore Obvious.

Oh wow I smell some high and mighty liberal hypocrisy. Aren't liberals supposedly the more tolerant of the two sides?

Thank you, Captain Oblivious.

According to CNN, here are the results of a May, 2007 national poll asking Americans about their political party affiliations:

42 percent Independents
33 percent Democrats
25 percent Republicans

Since politicians are typically on someone's payroll (churches, corporations, member of the billionaires' club), they don't really represent the American people. Since the media are owned and controlled by the same people who fund the politicians, they're subject to censureship and don't really report factual news - some things don't get reported at all and others have so much spin on them they're unrecognizable. Hence, the exodus from political party membership. The Independents have something in common - they're all afraid of what the two parties will do to continue to screw up our country and try to vote for candidates who they think will do minimal damage.

The other factor that determines a person’s political beliefs is biology. Research by John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, showed that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. They also, of course, share more genes.


Since when does correlation imply or establish causation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) Unless said political scientist has found, demonstrated, and described the exact biological mechanisms and processes giving rise to a particular political belief?

Someone pointed out a statistical curiosity. But precisely jack has been "determined."

Even if genetics is behind political beliefs, wouldn't such a conclusion just be another way of saying "biology influences behavior!" No, really?

Nothing to see here, move along.

the twin paper (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscifacpub/7/), for anyone interested


We conclude by urging political scientists to incorporate genetic influences


Not until specific genetic/biological processes actually giving rise to political ideology are actually found and understood. Until then, all we'd be incorporating is a statistical curiosity (big news in the "soft" sciences, yes, but should we not be striving for slightly higher standards?)

Have you heard of the last nugget of wisdom from liberal psychologists? It was called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) scale. They tried to classify conservatism as a "disease" or a "maladjustment problem." They even set forth hypotheses as to what could explain such aberrant behavior. As if more proof was needed that the scientific establishment was hopelessly out of touch with reality, elitist, and infuriatingly arrogant.

Or proof that conservatives are psychologically ill.

For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said.
Like I've always said. If you're an ignorant coward, you vote conservative.

Since when does correlation imply or establish causation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) Unless said political scientist has found, demonstrated, and described the exact biological mechanisms and processes giving rise to a particular political belief?

So you're saying what? That having similar political beliefs might cause two unrelated people to turn into identical twins? Correlation doesn't establish cause because both factors might be caused by something else. But the biological mechanism that gives rise to being identical is known. And a particular mechanism that gives rise to a particular belief is not needed to show that two people who have almost all the same mechanisms also have almost all the same beliefs, whereas those neurologically more dissimilar are also more dissimilar in behavior and politics.

Also:
To say a "Correlation does not suggest causation" is false: A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests or increases the probability of some causal relationship (or implies it, in the casual sense of the word).

Someone pointed out a statistical curiosity. But precisely jack has been "determined."

Even if genetics is behind political beliefs, wouldn't such a conclusion just be another way of saying "biology influences behavior!" No, really?

Nothing to see here, move along.

"It's not true. But if it is true, we all knew that already." Wow! I haven't checked your older posts to determine your politics, but with gibberish like that, you must be a conservative. First deny it, and then when you can't, pretend it's old news. Classic Dubya.

Yes, liberals. Do you think conservatives attempted to catalogue their supposed mental "shortcomings" by devising a diabolical scale to measure how "authoritarian" (read: sick) an individual is? That's preposterous. Obviously, this method of categorization was created by leftists. And what's really getting old is the persecution of "dim-witted" conservatives by the "clerisy," so-called "intellectuals," academia, liberals, etc. Their (and your) holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to grate against my sensibilities.

Paranoid much? Here, you'll need this to protect you from the ebil liberals...


http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9021/tinfoilqd2.png (http://imageshack.us)

"OOH I don't want to see kids being born Jewish." sayeth the nazi camp officer.
If you knew anything about Judaism, the only way for a child to be considered truly Jewish is for the mother to be Jewish. The lineage is traced through the mother's bloodline because it's easier to determine the mother and not the father. So, you can choose if your child is Jewish or not by whether or not your mother is Jewish, so this point of yours is invalid.

This isn't to say one can't convert to Judaism, but even if a woman does convert, it doesn't make her truly Jewish because her mother isn't necessarily Jewish.

For this reason, despite that my fiance is Jewish (because his mother is; not because he follows the religion), any children I have with him won't be Jewish because I was born Catholic.

In this case, it is a choice because a person can pick the person they have sexual relations and children with.

According to CNN, here are the results of a May, 2007 national poll asking Americans about their political party affiliations:

42 percent Independents
33 percent Democrats
25 percent Republicans

Since politicians are typically on someone's payroll (churches, corporations, member of the billionaires' club), they don't really represent the American people. Since the media are owned and controlled by the same people who fund the politicians, they're subject to censureship and don't really report factual news - some things don't get reported at all and others have so much spin on them they're unrecognizable. Hence, the exodus from political party membership. The Independents have something in common - they're all afraid of what the two parties will do to continue to screw up our country and try to vote for candidates who they think will do minimal damage.

Do the majority of the Americans vote for an independent?

Do the majority of the Americans vote for an independent?

Um, no.

A study found that political preference is half genetic.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070528/sc_livescience/politicalpreferenceishalfgenetic)


And here I will prove that is study is totally useless and tautological.

His “meta-analysis” of previous studies, including his own, showed that liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty—for instance, they tend to support social change—whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo.


From the Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1con·serve
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&rv
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·served; con·serv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conserver, from Latin conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe; akin to Avestan haurvaiti he guards
1 : to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance>; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>
2 : to preserve with sugar
3 : to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of chemical, physical, or evolutionary change <conserved DNA sequences>
- con·serv·er noun

I wouldn't have ever thought that a person would waste time with genetics to explain etimology.

I feel much more comfortable feeling that people believe what they do because of their overall lives. If it had something to do with heritage than it would mean that there would be little chance of converting the religious right to becoming accepting of other peoples choices and not try to restrict everything. If it is experience than it would mean you have much more of a choice in what you believe and will be able to change.

Anyway, I don't see why people want to assume that genetics has to do with everything you do. It just sounds like an excuse to justify your actions to others who disapprove, you can shout "I can't help it, I was born this way!" and escape responsibility.

If this theory were true, I'd be a neocon. My entire family is pretty consistently conservative.

So you're saying what? That having similar political beliefs might cause two unrelated people to turn into identical twins?


I'm saying that: "Correlation doesn't establish cause because both factors might be caused by something else." And yes, consistant correlation does increase the probability of there being some causal mechanism. So, show me the proliferation of studies demonstrating such consistancy (so far I've only see one study...). But even so, even consistancy does not describe the actual causal chain.


But the biological mechanism that gives rise to being identical is known.


Of course. Now, one needs to demonstrate the mechanism that forms/alters the brain in such a way that a specific political ideology is adopted later in life. Show me the precise gene.


And a particular mechanism that gives rise to a particular belief is not needed to show that two people who have almost all the same mechanisms also have almost all the same beliefs, whereas those neurologically more dissimilar are also more dissimilar in behavior and politics.


Note the bolding above. Assumptions that have no more evidence than statistical correlation (big deal...) are being made.


"It's not true. But if it is true, we all knew that already." Wow! I haven't checked your older posts to determine your politics, but with gibberish like that, you must be a conservative. First deny it, and then when you can't, pretend it's old news. Classic Dubya.

Note the description on my nations' NationStates page (http://www.nationstates.net/the_loyal_opposition), and I'll provide a political compass quiz results later. One should note that I am anything but "conservative" or a "Dubya." At most, I don't let political ideology interfer with or cloud my scientific judgement (incidently, I major in political science so this is a self-discipline that I must practice rigorusly and daily).

One should strive to not confuse a personal ideology with science as well. One will be less likely to rely on or employ nonsense ad hominems.

If this theory were true, I'd be a neocon. My entire family is pretty consistently conservative.

As been said before, it's a tendency, not a rule. An overall trend that isn't necessarily completely true 100% of the time. Also, as been stated, did they really need a study for this? Seriously, this is something is just common sense. Biology has an effect on one's psychological make-up, which in turn has an affect on ones political lean. Doesn't mean that it's a sure-bet, just a trend. Just seems like a waste of time and money to come to a conclusion that is just not that terribly interesting or significant.

Id just like to say that this thread has inspired me to completely discard my previous principled opposition to eugenics. Hmmm...Now all I've got to do is rob a bank so I can afford to commence the creation of my evil army of liberal, morality-destroying fags:p Future world domination FTW

Of course. Now, one needs to demonstrate the mechanism that forms/alters the brain in such a way that a specific political ideology is adopted later in life. Show me the precise gene.

we don't need to know the mechanism to know that there is a mechanism to be found. especially since we already know from numerous studies that political tendencies actually do break down along some general psychological lines, and this study covered both genetic and social forces by looking at identical and fraternal twins.

we don't need to know the mechanism to know that there is a mechanism to be found.

We don't know that there is a mechanism to be found. It is suggested that there is a mechanism to be found. (By all means, find it if it exists...a solution to the libertarian/determinism issue would indeed be most entertaining, even if I don't like the solution that the biology link implies... :D)

But am I completely out of line if a red flag is raised in my mind by a study that appears to draw conclusions about biology using the methodology of political science. Something about this doesn't seem right.

Considering the general reaction in this thread ("liberals are retarded!" "conservatives are stupid!" "Let's all act like we're in second grade!") as well as against myself (apparently I'm a "Dubya"), I'm more inclined to conclude that scientific rigor is being sacrificed in the name of mudslinging. Part of me also wants desparately to believe that anyone disagreeing with me is somehow developmentally challenged, but the other part of me says that kindergarten was a long time ago.

I'm also inclined to question whether the political scientist(s) responsible for the study are simply trying to justify their being able to wear a white lab coat so they can hang out with the big boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/natural_science).

I read the thing about the RWA's on wiki
and i didn't find anything about conservatisms being a mental disorder or disease. Did I just miss it or was it some kind of mistaken inference?

But am I completely out of line if a red flag is raised in my mind by a study that appears to draw conclusions about biology using the methodology of political science. Something about this doesn't seem right.

twin studies are the methods of not-biology? really?

Well if you liberals are for 'genetic purification' then how come you don't research how to somehow stamp out those who are genetically criminal who are way worse than those with the 'conservative gene'.

Liberal obsession and research of micro-biology and genetics and how they keep implying that they'll use them to somehow destroy non-liberals, conservatives and everyone else they hate makes me a tad uneasy.

And you lefties accuse the right of misusing eugenics. :rolleyes:

It sounds like they want to somehow eliminate the 'conservative gene'

Not this shit again... :rolleyes:

You couldn't support your paranoid ravings about genocide last time and you sure as hell can't do it this time. Why don't you hit your head against a brick wall until you knock some sense into it?

This knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.


Well, after seeing the replies to this thread, I would have say... no, this knowledge does not pave the way to a more tolerant society.:(

I'm in favor of banning genetic experimentation in this one instance.

twin studies are the methods of not-biology? really?

If anything, what I said is that twin studies are the methods of not-political science. They most certainly are the method of biology (contrary to what might be the current consensus, I'm not completely stupid :D), but the study claims to be doing political science.

A quick search of the names of the authors of the paper linked to on page two of this thread (or somewhere there abouts) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12707889&postcount=27) indicates that they are all political scientists. Granted, I'm just lowly undergrad scum, but I have yet to hear a lecture on the methodologies of biological inquiry in any of my political science classes.

Naturally, the apparent mixing of "soft" and "hard" methodologies makes me suspicious. The history of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) and folly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) (EDIT: or bell curves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)) resulting from past occurances of people getting the two mixed up makes this suspicion valid, I think. (No, I'm not accusing the cited authors with malicious intent of any kind. Actually, such intent is not necessary in order to produce foul results. Shoot, just read this thread from the beginning.)


Well, after seeing the replies to this thread, I would have say... no, this knowledge does not pave the way to a more tolerant society.


Unfortunately, Hibbing's apparent ideological agenda only serves to cover up this obvious conclusion. More tolerant society, or political leadership having a new excuse for the usual "You're a <political '-ism'>, so your brain must be broken. Here, have some cure..."

Seems unlikely. The number one indicator for what political alignment a child will have is what their parents beleived, followed closely by what their broader community environment is. Most of it is developmental. I can see mild genetic pre-disposition towards authoritarian or anti-authoritarian politcs, but politics are mostly developmental.

...politics are mostly developmental.

Historically, that seems to be the case. Otherwise, how would one be able to explain the large prevalance of communists in the USSR as opposed to the liberty-loving people of the Free World? Perhaps genetic inferiority might play a role, but it's most likely environmental.

Should we make exceptional efforts to question our political beliefs if our family seems to share them?

Should we make exceptional efforts to question our political beliefs if our family seems to share them?

We should always make exceptional efforts to question our political beleifs. Elsewise, they stagnate and become little more than excess baggage.

I feel much more comfortable feeling that people believe what they do because of their overall lives. If it had something to do with heritage than it would mean that there would be little chance of converting the religious right to becoming accepting of other peoples choices and not try to restrict everything. If it is experience than it would mean you have much more of a choice in what you believe and will be able to change.

Anyway, I don't see why people want to assume that genetics has to do with everything you do. It just sounds like an excuse to justify your actions to others who disapprove, you can shout "I can't help it, I was born this way!" and escape responsibility.

It isn't about assumptions. It's about facts and evidence. You may be more comfortable with the idea that experience has the greatest part in shaping our personalities, but that doesn't make it true.

I like the idea that when my computer doesn't work it's because the gremlins inside have gotten bored and are trying to annoy me. It would save me hundreds of dollars in hardware upgrades and anti-virus software. All I would have to do would be leave a cupcake and a thimble full of wine next to the computer every now and then. Sadly, all I'll get for my trouble with the cupcakes and wine is a cockroach infestation.

Reality is not an ideology. We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

Historically, that seems to be the case. Otherwise, how would one be able to explain the large prevalance of communists in the USSR as opposed to the liberty-loving people of the Free World? Perhaps genetic inferiority might play a role, but it's most likely environmental.

Forgetting your nonsense for a second, I'll answer your question.

Hundreds of years of peasantry, disparity, and poverty while being treated essentially as slaves created resentment of anything resembling the aristocrats, or the upper class. Due to this, it was really quite easy for the common people to adopt an ideaology which also destroyed the upper class. Of course, it didn't in practice, merely changed who was upper class while most didn't change, but the reason for the ideology arising and persisting in the USSR is based on historic exploitation of the "lower class" in Russia.

Of course, that's the rational explanation. I'm sure yours involves something like the gateway to hell opened up in Moscow, and terrorist kittens spewed out, engulfing all that they came across with Communist cupcakes and tea.

Historically, that seems to be the case. Otherwise, how would one be able to explain the large prevalance of communists in the USSR as opposed to the liberty-loving people of the Free World? Perhaps genetic inferiority might play a role, but it's most likely environmental.While I don't see why citizens of Western World should have genetic inferiority...

It could be an ethnic thing: There are many types of mentalities attached to different ethnicities - Politics is just an extension of local society and ultimately of the individual. Usually countries nearby - similar ethnicities, similar genetic background - share similar culture and political disposition: Nordic welfare states, Banana republics, sub-saharan civil wars...

There might be something to it...or not. It might also be interesting to ponder which came first, genes or culture :)

Um, no.

...and that's what fucks the rest of us.
:mad:

Well if you liberals are for 'genetic purification' then how come you don't research how to somehow stamp out those who are genetically criminal who are way worse than those with the 'conservative gene'.

Us liberals?
Ah, emulating the "typical conservative playground approach" of "us vs. them".

Good show!

wtf?

I suspect that the poster has already had a history of being taunted for some reason regarding genetics, or at least is very good at playacting.

It wouldn't shock me if the scientists discovered that good breeding and conservatism fo hand-in-hand, if they dig a bit deeper. :D

If they dug a bit deeper, in the same well, it's likely to be rewarding only in case of a purgative or a laxative.
:)

... old common sense leads toward conservatism just the same. :pYes, which is why they spend so much time attacking people with
* experience
and

* education
... calling them "elitists" and such.

Yup, conservativism leads you to is clawing desperately at your own delusions while the grave is only so happy to gobble you up ... which may also explain the need to attempt so many to turn to their thoughts and share their philosophy, or at least, share their fate.

I don't want some wacked out extremist didling with my children's DNA should I have any. (I doubt I'll have any) Guess we ... erm, you ... haven't much to worry about then, eh?
I'm sure we can hook you up, though ... btw, ever seen "Idiocracy"?

Oh wow I smell some high and mighty liberal hypocrisy. You should pay more attention to what you put near your face, perhaps, and perhaps, at the same time, where you sit.

Like I've always said. If you're an ignorant coward, you vote conservative.You know you should amend that ...
you might consider including the part about them wanting everyone ELSE to remain ignorant AND for them to cower at conservative "might" ....

A better study would be on how conservative people use more rational thought processes while liberals react emotionally to issues.

I read the thing about the RWA's on wiki
and i didn't find anything about conservatisms being a mental disorder or disease. Did I just miss it or was it some kind of mistaken inference?

It was a great opportunity for pissed-off posters, kind of like how i appear, to knock conservativism down a few notches with some flinging of something or another.

A better study would be on how conservative people use more rational thought processes while liberals react emotionally to issues.

FIRST post?
Classic. :D


Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
Oh maybe you're onto something - i reacted emotionally to your post!!!!

Too bad it's the internet and you have plenty to back up your ass-ertion.

FIRST post?
Classic. :D


Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
Oh maybe you're onto something - i reacted emotionally to your post!!!!

Too bad it's the internet and you have plenty to back up your ass-ertion.

It was a hell of a first post, if I should say so myself :p

As for the ass-ertion, I stand by it fully. In Hellraising, we do not aim to please. But seriosuly, if you look at the arguments presented by each side, at least in American politics, the Democrats are much more likely to use emotional appeals and portray some segment of society as victimized. As I read the original post, I thought of countless times in the last few years when so-called "change resistant" conservatives have offered completely new and revised plans, such as Social Security reform, healthcare funding reform, budget reform, immigration reform, and so on, and yet this liberal professor throws all of the *rational* facts out the window and broadly portrays conservatives as closed-minded and somewhat scared of change.

It was a hell of a first post, if I should say so myself :p + 1


As for the ass-ertion, I stand by it fully. o.0


the Democrats are much more likely to use emotional appeals and portray some segment of society as victimized.Perhaps, in good measure, you should include how many republicans, when proof is provided of malfeasance on their own part, employ specifically the same tactic, and as well, how much time is spent by them to attack anyone with differing views from them. Again, the net is just flourishing with ample example.
As I read the original post, I thought of countless times in the last few years when so-called "change resistant" conservatives have offered completely new and revised plans, such as Social Security reformPerhaps you could elucidate that a bit. Include the part about which groups of people would benefit from the shift ... Primerica, for example.
healthcare funding reformPerhaps you've caught the co-sponsored motion by Gingrich and Clinton?
budget reformErm, hope you don't mean Iraq or anything ... or, perhaps, how Clinton had quite the surplus when he left, and how the congress has been republican until VERY recently, and what our deficits stand at right now.
immigration reformDid you happen to catch the news about that this week?
yet this liberal professor throws all of the *rational* facts out the window and broadly portrays conservatives as closed-minded and somewhat scared of change.Well, you might consider narrowing your very first post to reflect your perspective about *specifically* the professor you have a problem with.

Seems unlikely. The number one indicator for what political alignment a child will have is what their parents beleived, followed closely by what their broader community environment is. Most of it is developmental. I can see mild genetic pre-disposition towards authoritarian or anti-authoritarian politcs, but politics are mostly developmental.

well, parents and children are genetically quite alike too, so that doesn't sort the issue out much. i think we need a bunch of twins separated at birth.

well, parents and children are genetically quite alike too, so that doesn't sort the issue out much. i think we need a bunch of twins separated at birth.

It's easier than that. Check to see if foster children share politics with their foster-parents at the same rate that non-adopted children do,

According to CNN, here are the results of a May, 2007 national poll asking Americans about their political party affiliations:

42 percent Independents
33 percent Democrats
25 percent Republicans

Since politicians are typically on someone's payroll (churches, corporations, member of the billionaires' club), they don't really represent the American people. Since the media are owned and controlled by the same people who fund the politicians, they're subject to censureship and don't really report factual news - some things don't get reported at all and others have so much spin on them they're unrecognizable. Hence, the exodus from political party membership. The Independents have something in common - they're all afraid of what the two parties will do to continue to screw up our country and try to vote for candidates who they think will do minimal damage.Thats nice. What does it have to do with the article in the OP?

If this theory were true, I'd be a neocon. My entire family is pretty consistently conservative.
No. It says taht you would have a potential tendancy towards conservativism. There is still nurture and genetic variation to consider (see: blonde/blue child with two brown/brown parents)
A better study would be on how conservative people use more rational thought processes while liberals react emotionally to issues.Nothing like a study that doesn't question, but instead asserts. It is full of fail already.

It was a hell of a first post, if I should say so myself :p

As for the ass-ertion, I stand by it fully. In Hellraising, we do not aim to please. But seriosuly, if you look at the arguments presented by each side, at least in American politics, the Democrats are much more likely to use emotional appeals and portray some segment of society as victimized. Democrat =/= liberal. Republican =/= conservative. Politicians =/= human beings.
And look at the constant references to 9/11 on the part of Republicans, as well as references to the "liberation" of Iraq. Both sides are guilty.

As I read the original post, I thought of countless times in the last few years when so-called "change resistant" conservatives have offered completely new and revised plans, such as Social Security reform, healthcare funding reform, budget reform, immigration reform, and so on, and yet this liberal professor throws all of the *rational* facts out the window and broadly portrays conservatives as closed-minded and somewhat scared of change.Interestingly, particularly with immigration reform, their policies exist to maintain the status quo for those in the US.

Thats nice. What does it have to do with the article in the OP?


No. It says taht you would have a potential tendancy towards conservativism. There is still nurture and genetic variation to consider (see: blonde/blue child with two brown/brown parents)
Nothing like a study that doesn't question, but instead asserts. It is full of fail already.

Democrat =/= liberal. Republican =/= conservative. Politicians =/= human beings.
And look at the constant references to 9/11 on the part of Republicans, as well as references to the "liberation" of Iraq. Both sides are guilty.

Interestingly, particularly with immigration reform, their policies exist to maintain the status quo for those in the US.
Sark!!!
*bows*

Nothing like a study that doesn't question, but instead asserts. It is full of fail already.

The study cited asserts that political thinking is hardwired into peoples' brains. I guess it was full of fail too. Damn. When was the last time you read a study that disproved its assertion?


Interestingly, particularly with immigration reform, their policies exist to maintain the status quo for those in the US.

"Interestingly" with immigration reform the agreement is far from the staus quo and instead grants amnesty/a "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants. Also "interestingly" very conservative politicians want to deport illegals and stop further immigration. This is also far from the status quo, as it seeks change. So now I'm not sure where you were going with this post.

Perhaps you could elucidate that a bit. Include the part about which groups of people would benefit from the shift ... Primerica, for example.

Everyone would benefit from reforming a system which is going to run out of money and is the worst investment anyone can make over their lifetime. Privately owned accounts that could be passed on to future generations would especially help poorer people who often don't have such assets to pass along. Richer folks don't really need this sort of help, as they seem to be staying rich just fine by themselves. [/QUOTE]



Erm, hope you don't mean Iraq or anything ... or, perhaps, how Clinton had quite the surplus when he left, and how the congress has been republican until VERY recently, and what our deficits stand at right now.

Actually total tax receipts and government income has increased since Republicans took office and cut taxes. Unfortunately, Congress has spent irresponsibly and we now have massive deficits despite having more money flow into government coffers than when Clinton left office. Its a spending problem, definitely NOT an income problem. Compare it to you getting a big raise at work but outspending your new income on fancy cars and needless subscriptions-- you'll be in deep finanicial trouble despite having a better income.

Everyone would benefit from reforming a system which is going to run out of money and is the worst investment anyone can make over their lifetime. Privately owned accounts that could be passed on to future generations would especially help poorer people who often don't have such assets to pass along. Richer folks don't really need this sort of help, as they seem to be staying rich just fine by themselves.
The "going to run out of money" cry has been happening before Clinton even took office, you might consider checking that out.
There's a bigger problem of "earmarking" and "redflagging" so money is shifted from whatever remains of SS into things like ... oh, i don't know, bridges to knowhere, or perhaps even to trying to force a "slam-dunk" democracy in a less-than-appreciative-with-parades-and-flowers kind of environment, where it ends up making sure that Cheney gets ever richer and keeps on about how bin Laden likes to hang out in Iraq and how we just need to have "a little more patience" while simultaneously paying Pakistan to pay off Al-Qaida, which of course results in THEM using the funds for ... oh i don't know, recruiting and training?
Republican budget brilliance, ayeah, and i suspect you don't know what i'm talking about when i say Primerica. Look it up maybe?




Unfortunately, Congress has spent irresponsibly

...and we're back up to your OWN point, one line up or so .... who was in charge of said Congress for how long?

The "going to run out of money" cry has been happening before Clinton even took office, you might consider checking that out.
...and the system is clearly going to run out of funds in the future since the number of people paying into it is decreasing while the number of people drawing on it is increasing. The current robust economy has somewhat extended the time we have to prepare for this problem, but that doesn't mean we should simply put it off further into the future. But you raise an excellent point- why didn't Clinton and either the Democratic or Republican Congresses during his term do anything about this during his tenure in office since people have known about the problem since then? We could have had many years of pilot programs and tests already to see what works BERFORE we run out of money.


There's a bigger problem of "earmarking" and "redflagging" so money is shifted from whatever remains of SS into things like ... oh, i don't know, bridges to knowhere, or perhaps even to trying to force a "slam-dunk" democracy in a less-than-appreciative-with-parades-and-flowers kind of environment, where it ends up making sure that Cheney gets ever richer and keeps on about how bin Laden likes to hang out in Iraq and how we just need to have "a little more patience" while simultaneously paying Pakistan to pay off Al-Qaida, which of course results in THEM using the funds for ... oh i don't know, recruiting and training?
Republican budget brilliance, ayeah, and i suspect you don't know what i'm talking about when i say Primerica. Look it up maybe?

I'm impressed that you managed to bring up Iraq in an economics discussion. You must watch CNN 24/7. However, I completely agree with you that Republicans have completely mismanaged the budget, and I'll go further to say that they were probably the wimpiest majority ever to hold Congress. Notice though that I often use the term "conservative" unless I am specifically responding to another post or referencing Republicans-- many people don't really consider the Republicans fiscally conservative at all.

As for Primerica, you're right, I have never heard that term. I assumed that it was a combination of "Prime" and "America," meaning rich/well-to-do people or perhaps corporations, but if I was wrong I'm sure you'll correct me;)




...and we're back up to your OWN point, one line up or so .... who was in charge of said Congress for how long?

Republicans were in control of Congress, which spent irresponsibly. Republicans and Democrats are both part of Coongress, which I referenced in the singular because it as a whole has spent irresponsibly. Furthermore, my point was merely that Congress (as a whole) has more money to spend after the tax cuts and has simply mismanaged the funds. The argument that tax cuts have increased the deficit simply doesn't make sense-- spending has caused our current problem.

...and the system is clearly going to run out of funds in the future since the number of people paying into it is decreasing while the number of people drawing on it is increasing. The current robust economy has somewhat extended the time we have to prepare for this problem, but that doesn't mean we should simply put it off further into the future. But you raise an excellent point- why didn't Clinton and either the Democratic or Republican Congresses during his term do anything about this during his tenure in office since people have known about the problem since then? We could have had many years of pilot programs and tests already to see what works BERFORE we run out of money.Last time i'd looked, for over 10 years, the issue has had about a 30-year "final countdown". The difference is who felt like they were going to do anything about it, and who would benefit from it.



I'm impressed that you managed to bring up Iraq in an economics discussion. I'll give you a "hmmm" on that one.
You must watch CNN 24/7.You were doing okay 'til that one. I don't like how quickly CNN turns its news cycle into repetition. I tend to do a lot more research than that channel allots (in general), and i really don't get a lot of TV time. For "education" :rolleyes: , i use TV for Mail Call, Mythbusters, and most any show (perhaps even at random) on The History Channel ... and occasionally The Animal Planet station. As for amusement, though, i tend to see House, 24, and The Daily Show/The Colbert Report. :D
However, I completely agree with you that Republicans have completely mismanaged the budget, and I'll go further to say that they were probably the wimpiest majority ever to hold Congress. Notice though that I often use the term "conservative" unless I am specifically responding to another post or referencing Republicans-- many people don't really consider the Republicans fiscally conservative at all.Thank you. *bows*


As for Primerica, you're right, I have never heard that term. I assumed that it was a combination of "Prime" and "America," meaning rich/well-to-do people or perhaps corporations, but if I was wrong I'm sure you'll correct me;) Ah, don't worry about me correcting you. :p You really should punch it up, though, being a topical relationship and all.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ContributorsAndPaybacks/pioneer_profile.cfm?pioneer_ID=8
That used to be a pretty good site of interest, but they've changed it a little.



Republicans were in control of Congress, which spent irresponsibly. Republicans and Democrats are both part of Coongress, which I referenced in the singular because it as a whole has spent irresponsibly. Furthermore, my point was merely that Congress (as a whole) has more money to spend after the tax cuts and has simply mismanaged the funds. The argument that tax cuts have increased the deficit simply doesn't make sense-- spending has caused our current problem.Decent enough.

...For "education" :rolleyes: , i use TV for Mail Call, Mythbusters, and most any show (perhaps even at random) on The History Channel ... and occasionally The Animal Planet station. As for amusement, though, i tend to see House, 24, and The Daily Show/The Colbert Report. :D

If you substitute Scrubs for Animal planet we watch the same stuff :eek: haha I guess TV crosses party lines :D


Ah, don't worry about me correcting you. :p You really should punch it up, though, being a topical relationship and all.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ContributorsAndPaybacks/pioneer_profile.cfm?pioneer_ID=8
That used to be a pretty good site of interest, but they've changed it a little.


Ok, I looked it up and I'm sure that Primerica, along with Vanguard and other investment companies, would be quite happy with the proposed Social Secuirty reforms. But I still contend that lower to middle income people would be the true winners :) Maybe we could compromise and just buy everyone treasury bonds because even THEY outperform social security as a long-term investment :P

If you substitute Scrubs for Animal planet we watch the same stuff :eek: haha I guess TV crosses party lines :D Funny, my sis-in-law quoted one of those dudes all the time, and for the past two years i shrugged her off as being flaky (with good reason).
Then i was waiting for Daily Show, and Scrubs was on, caught a few episodes. It is pretty funny. I watch that every now and again too. :)



Ok, I looked it up and I'm sure that Primerica, along with Vanguard and other investment companies, would be quite happy with the proposed Social Secuirty reforms. But I still contend that lower to middle income people would be the true winners :) Maybe we could compromise and just buy everyone treasury bonds because even THEY outperform social security as a long-term investment :P

I can't find myself disagreeing much at all with your post here. :)
If it'd been done different ... you know, the old lament "if only" ....

and btw, i tend to cross whatever party lines that suit me, since i'm an independent moderate (right now, anyway .... time and circumstances allowed and forced as much)
a little bit o'this, a little bit o'that.