Liberals have more friends - it's official. Do you have the liberal gene?

[grannieonabike]

Apparently liberals had more friends as adolescents, and yes, there is a liberal gene. Here's the link:www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/28/liberal-gene-discovered

Does that mean Tories had sad and lonely childhoods? Explains a lot ...

I'm not at all surprised.

Yes, I can quite believe that, as most liberals are to PC to say what they really think!

They don't make good politicians tho, as their liberal 'gene' has kept hem out of top office for over 100 years! Even now they are only minor in a coaltion.

If you want something done, don't ask a liberal, you'll be waiting all day for them to 'get off the fence!'

I dunno mycounty, most of the liberals I know are very argumentative.

Strange view of friendship, mycountry - that liberals have more friends because they don't tell them what they really think? I think it's best to be honest with friends. And everyone else too, really.

Ryoko: No we're not. (you were asking for that one ...)

As a child of liberal politicians I can confirm that they are a) very argumentative b) Too intolerant PC to take into consideration other people's lfe experience.

what exactly do you mean by liberal?

Re: OP Oh, yes, we were encouraged to make friends with everyone.

Just read it, the scientist involved basically says don't claim that there is a liberal gene. So of course a journalist does just that.

Wonder what Ben Goldacre would make of that article?

Humphrey: No, but it's a gene that 'predisposes those carrying it to liberal political ideology'.

They go on: 'Simply having the gene ? ... ? is not enough by itself to make someone a liberal,... The study found that adults with the gene were more liberal depending on how wide their circle of friends was while they were growing up.

"It is the crucial interaction of two factors ? the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence ? that is associated with being more liberal," the researchers state. They found that the correlation held true independently of gender, age or ethnic and cultural background.'

According to the study: "Ten friends can move a person with two copies of [the gene variant] 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal."

The research, led by James Fowler of the University of California's San Diego campus, suggested that those with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' views, exposing them to a wider variety of lifestyles and beliefs and making them more liberal as a result.

"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience," said Fowler, a professor of political science and medical genetics best known for his work on social networks with Nicholas Christakis of Harvard, who worked on this study.

So you are right: 'The authors, however, say their findings should be "treated cautiously" and that more research is needed before hailing a liberal gene. "The expectation in genetics is that only repeated efforts to replicate associations on independent samples by several research teams will verify initial findings like these," they wrote. "Perhaps the most valuable contribution of this study is not to declare that 'a gene was found' for anything, but rather, to provide the first evidence for a possible gene-environment interaction for political ideology."

So it's not rocket science: a certain sort of personality + a certain sort of environment can lead to a certain set of political ideas. Most of us would probably have guessed that anyway. But what about the 10 friends business?

What really interests me is how this knowledge is applied. For example, if you want a little liberal, you'll take him to lots of parties, whereas you'll keep your little conservative in a locked room?

so many value judgements about the relative merits of liberalism/conservatism are just waiting to made on this thread.

being conservative and Conservative are two different things, as are being liberal and a Liberal.

Ryuk. I agree with you. Many so called liberals on here are not only argumentative, but are totally intolerant of others views.

Saying that I'm preety intolorant of anyone who is pro Europe, but at least I'll admit it!

It would be interesting to see what people think - whether there are different personality types that predispose people one way or the other. This would also mean, of course, that no matter how much you argue the toss, you'll never change someone's mind if it's their personality that conditions their views. Or can you change personality? Does it change anyway as you grow older? Why do so many liberal-minded people become more conservative when they get older? Do they lose their friends too?

It's a load of old nonsense. We change our voting behaviour over time. Sometimes we make the mistake of voting for progressives and other times we vote conservative. It has nothing to do with personality, it is to do with our understanding of the world, people and issues. Our experience leads us to make better decisions over time, because we get wise to the lies which we have seen before. That is why the idealism and naivete of youth, which results in voting liberal and progressive, eventually gives way to the sound judgement and common sense of voting conservative as we get older.

As we get older and wiser, we get more friends, as they enjoy our good company, but the liberal, progressive, aging hippies find that people increasingly avoid them.

'This would also mean, of course, that no matter how much you argue the toss, you'll never change someone's mind if it's their personality that conditions their views.'

Floating voters change their minds all the time. That is why parties use spin doctors and get their best minds to persuade us that they are "building a progressive future". Mrs. Duffy tried debating with Gordon. She was a lifelong Labour supporter, but what Gordon said may have possibly changed her mind, as I think she decided not to vote at that election.

Don't agree with your analysis of the process of aging, Claig! Are you saying there are no young conservatives?

I think young people are more likely to be braver and open to change. They think they're immortal and are not afraid of new ideas, always searching for better ways to do things. As you get older, you get worn out and disillusioned, because you realise that life is full of seemingly insoluble problems. But without the young idealists to provide the motor and drive to move things on, nothing would ever change.

Huge generalisations, I realise that, but as plausible as what you said, surely. Maybe both are true.

Obviously you're right that people (floating voters) do change their minds. Thank goodness for that.

But it wouldn't surprise me if a certain sort of person is more likely to vote in a particular way.

'sound judgement and common sense' - it's not only older people who have this.

on the whole I think that young, innocent, naive people are manipulated by older, wilier politicians. The leaders of progressive movements are not young. They are usually people like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown or Michael Foot or Tony Benn. There have been some outstanding young Tory politicians, like William Hague and William Pitt, but I think that most of the progressive ones are wily old buzzards.

The young are taken in and suckered in by older spinners and weavers. Older people have more experience and have fallen for the same old tricks before, and they can usually spot a spinner of lies playing the progressive tune.

It is rare for the young to have gained enough experience to have developed the degree of sound judgement and common sense necessary to spot the liars and deceivers. It is usually your nan that knows best. She has seen them come and go, and she can see them coming.

The 'wily' politicians currently manipulating the population as a whole - not just the young - are all in their 40s.

Odd that what you have said seems contradictory: older people are wiser, but Cameron, Osbourne and co are all babies.

Tony Benn is old, but he was at his most influential when a lot younger. (I love him, btw). And Tony Blair was very young for a PM. Yes, Williams Pitt and Hague were talented young people - there are a lot of them about.

Anyway, we're both making huge generalisations here!

I'm interested in how 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' have changed over the last twenty years. So much so that a liberal could vote for the Conservatives (freedom to make your own mistakes!) and a true-blue conservative would probably feel happier with some of New Labour's policies (big business, law 'n' order, etc).

You are right, they are in their 40s, they are middle-aged. But they aren't the young, idealistic university type students. There has been a trend to appoint younger leaders, because the spin doctors feel they are more telegenic. But I don't think that they necessarily make all the decisions. I think there are older, wiser minds who advise them.

New Labour was in many ways Thatcher lite. They abandoned many tenets of socialism. But it has become apparent that they were authoritarian, and people are now realising that the conservatives stand for freedom, which is why many liberals, who are also keen on freedom, are happy to be in an alliance with the conservatives.

Of course it's only freedom for some - or rather a free-for-all, in which everyone grabs what they can. I suppose there's not much difference between the Liberals and Tories, not now anyway.

Got to go now. Thanks for the chat.