Buchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/biology-and-ideology-the-anatomy-of-politics-1.11645>.
It has been thought that people’s political views are based on social factors, like their environment and their peers. However, there were recent studies that showed that the political views of people may actually be affected by their biological settings, like their genes, hormone levels, and their neurotransmitter systems. This study began in 1986 when Nicolas Martin, a geneticist, and his crew tested the attitudes of twins concerning issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, and immigration: they compared the results of the genetically identical twins with those of fraternal twins of the same sex, who only shared 50% of their genes on average. The fraternal twins did not share as much similarities of political beliefs as the identical twins. The team used twins because they would have most likely grown up in the same environment, meaning it was a more controlled experiment. This suggests that genes were what affected their opinions. However, this experiment was mostly ignored until the early 2000s, when some political scientists, Hibbing and John Alford, at Rice University examined the experiment and did some tests themselves with US twins. They had similar results as Martin, which shows “strong correlations between genetics and political views.” This caught the attention of few researchers, and like the other scientists, they used the twin method which all ended with all similar results. However, there are some uncertainties that they have to figure out; the problem with the studies is that they cannot completely control the environmental factors because “compared with fraternal twins, genetically identical twins are more likely to have the same friends and to maintain regular contact as adults. Furthermore, parents, friends and teachers often treat identical twins more equally than fraternal twins. All of that makes it hard to unpack how much genes and environment each contribute to the shared political attitudes of identical twins.” Few attempted to solve this situation by showing that the beliefs of identical twins were the same, even if they do not spend much time together. However, this study is still facing criticism especially since they have not found out what sections of the genome actually contribute to which political side somebody would be. They are “looking for sequences linked to a behaviour or trait. But researchers in this area are only just beginning to use such resource-intensive strategies.” They have done more tests; this time, linking political preferences and change to personality and emotion, which can be more understandable.
This information can help politicians decide how they can play with the voters’ primal emotions to gain votes. However, more importantly, by recognizing the fact that people’s views may not be rational just because of who they are, the public and the politicians can maybe “develop more respect for those with opposing viewpoints.” John Hibbing hopes that by understanding this concept, the fact that some people just experience the world differently, people overall can be more forgiving and not so outspoken against another person; they may be more civil and accepting of differences. This discovery is also important just because it connects modern politics to basic human biology; turns out that even the subjects that aren’t usually associated with biology eventually comes down the human genome and DNA. With more research, this study can deeply affect our views of who we are as an individual.
This article was fascinating and easy to understand even with the extensive amount of information that was provided. It included many quotes from the scientists who performed the experiments along with those who disagreed with it. Though it was a long read, the author made it easier by adding subtopics, so I could clearly tell what she was going to be discussing in the next few paragraphs. However, I feel like the author quickly skimmed through the experiments, but personally for me, I would have liked to know more about the science behind this phenomenon. There would have to be more evidence and experiments that need to be done before it can really be confirmed. Something that this article could have included would maybe be more specific on how the experiments were actually done and include data from the various experiments.
The main point of this article is that not only can social factors affect your political views, but biological ones can too. Genes, hormones, and neurotransmitters can all have an effect on your political beliefs. In the 1980s Nicolas Martin did an experiment on identical and fraternal twins. He found that identical twins shared political beliefs more similarly than fraternal twins. Amy said that the reason twins were used is that they usually grow up in similar environments. Another experiment similar to this was done in the early 2000s and the results were similar. The problem with these experiments is that people never experience exactly the same things as anyone else. Fraternal twins are more likely to be treated differently than identical twins, which skews the data slightly. Scientists are trying to figure out which genomes contribute to different political views, but have not been able to find them yet. John Hibbing says that this study can help “develop more respect for those with opposing viewpoints,” because people will realize that genetics have a role in people’s viewpoints. I thought this article was very interesting and I had never heard this viewpoint before. It makes more sense that you would share political viewpoints with your parents not just because they have taught you to believe what they believe.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I would have liked to know is if they tested general political ideas and not just controversial ones. Though when you share the same beliefs in hotly debated ideas you often share similar general ideas. I would have liked to know some applications for the results of the experiments because I do not really know how these findings would help that much. It explains some behaviors, but I do not see it having a huge impact on politics in any nation.
The largest factor in shaping one’s political views in the environment and experiences that you’ve been exposed too. Knowing that genetics may have a role does not change much. Scientist found out that fraternal twins shared less in their views, which is understandable because they are not exposed to the exact same things, and they do not share all of their DNA. Identical twins usually spend more time together and therefore would share more of the same views. I think that genes could play a small role in our political views, but I don’t think their effect is that great. I chose to read this article because I had never heard of these experiments of the idea that politics could have to do with our DNA.
Dear Amy Kwok,
ReplyDeleteI love your article because not only is it relative to biology but you were able to branch it off to another subject, politics. It's a weird, but interesting combination. Another aspect I like about your piece is your incorporation of quotes from expert scientists. By utilizing these quotes, you transcended the typical summary and brought more of the analysis aspect. Also you had a nice balance of information of a seemingly complex topic, which as a reader I was thankful of. It was easy to understand and follow the logic behind the researchers' findings on this unique topic.
Overall, I found it interesting that genes play a role in political thinking. It was so amazing because naturally you think it is solely the environment, the people you associate with, or one's culture that shapes ones political views, but this article forces me to bend that idea. I thought your article’s idea that identical twins are more similar genetically compared to fraternal twins, and therefore more alike in their patterns of thinking politically was a certainly a different outlook of biology . Although your article claims that the findings aren't an absolute, as there are always variables present, it has the potential like you said on changing the way politicians approach voters.
Your essay was pretty good and has almost no flaws. If you had to change anything though, I think it would have to be the length, at least of your summary paragraph, and including quotes with more impact and significance, rather than something you could easily paraphrase. Although it may be hard summarizing such a complex topic I think it would make your piece stronger because when we condense overall ideas of articles even further we're forced to focus on the major important parts of the article. In all honesty though, your piece was a great read and I only noticed minor flaws in it when I was forced to look for them.
Buchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBuchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. .
DeleteHyperlink:
http://www.nature.com/news/biology-and-ideology-the-anatomy-of-politics-1.11645
Great job Amy! You chose such an interesting topic! I really appreciated how you put the the first study that took place in the late 1900s in your review. This better helped me understand the background about this theory and how this testing first started. It is surprising to see that today the way they are testing this theory is the same and has not yet progressed. I also really liked how you used quotes from the article. It helped justify all of your points. Stating data also helped in justifying your points. Your topic does not have a lot of information on it due to the lack of knowledge on the researcher's part. However, I think that you did a great job of making it clear what results were found and what the effects on the twins could be.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I think you could have done better is better explaining how exactly is it that genes, hormone levels, and their neurotransmitter systems affect the political views specifically. Maybe there was not enough research in that area but I was unclear how those two parts related to one another. Another thing I would have liked better is if you put any new information on the study in the article. From what I read the research was being done in the early 2000s and I would definitely be interested in finding out about any new research that is happening today.
I learned alot from your article. I would never think about hormone levels, and their neurotransmitter systems having anything to do with a person’s political views. Again great job definitely learned alot!
Jeanne Chrisanthopoulos
ReplyDeleteArticle Comment: Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics.
The mains aspects of this article talks about how genetics and social factors affect one’s political views; this is an uncommon relation. There was a good usage of quotes from credible scientists that were explained and not just plopped in there. It was not too hard to follow the article, and this summary enhanced my knowledge. Nicolas Martin’s experiment done in the 1980s on identical and fraternal twins showed that identical twins share political believes more than fraternal twins. It is shocking to hear that our genes actually affect our political beliefs; it is not exactly based on genetics though. The conclusion of this experiment was that twins grow up in similar environments so they have the tendency to have similar beliefs. Another experiment was done in the past 15 years, and the results were also similar. A factor that contributes to error is that fraternal and identical twins are all brought up differently. Again there is always human error because there are always other variables no matter what the experiment is. Like for this example two parents may have different beliefs and each child may choose to follow one of their’s or find his own.
I previously thought that one’s culture and education were the aspects that shape one’s political views, but this article and analysis has allowed me to shift my opinion. It would have been beneficial to test political ideas that are not too controversial to see if minor topics are still similar. Like in most articles, they should have explained the procedure better in this. This could alter the way politicians handle their target citizens in order to sway them in their favor. These findings are very interesting but I am not sure how exactly this would help a politician, so maybe in a follow-up article they could address that. I enjoyed reading this summary because it flowed really nicely and had interesting opinions and facts; it was also not too long so I did not lose interest.
Buchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
This article sounds very interesting, especially with the election coming up. I thought that Amy did a very good job not only summarizing the experiments and what they showed, but also showing how there are factors that make the information less reliable; such that twins are often exposed to the same factors, such as political ideas expressed by friends, so it may not necessarily be the genes. I also though Amy did a very good job in connecting the article to today because in political campaigns information such as this could be very important. Often times when campaigning, politicians speak out against others with differing viewpoints, but this information that the political opinions are written in genes could change how people act when campaigning, and in general during political conversations. Lastly I liked how Amy not only included information on the experiments, but also background information on the testing over a period of time. She included information on when the study began in 1986 and the topics they tested for, as well as newer studies in the 2000s. I liked the information background on the testing, because it gives an idea of when these ideas originated, and also shows that this has been an idea that has been looked into for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI think that although this was very well done, there could have been more information done on what brought this study into light now. There was a lot of background information about studies performed prior and in the 2000s, but nothing about recent studies. I felt that there could have been more information on what new findings have brought this topic back into discussion. Also, I felt that although there was a lot of information, but she could have done a better job tying the information together. I felt that there wasn’t a lot about how genes would affect someone's political opinion and what originally led scientists to believe this.
I think that this article is relevant now at the time of election and is important and political candidates are often bickering among themselves and information like this could probably help them to better understand that it is people's genes that make up their political opinion. I think this is very interesting, although I feel as though there need to be further tests. Although twins are good to test because of their similar genes, they are also exposed to the same environmental factors and political ideas of family and friends so I feel this is difficult to test for. However, I think with more discoveries of the human genome, more information will be able to be discovered on this topic. I find it very interesting that similarities in genes could also explain similarities in political opinion.
This article was very interesting. I thought that the topic choice was very relevant and very interesting to anyone who has been listening to recent news. This is currently a very hot topic in social and political situations. I thought that the writing was well done and well written. The article was very long but this review managed to take the key points and provide very good analysis as to why this information is important to acknowledge in the world we live in today. Also the transitions were done very well and there weren’t any key pieces of information missing that would take away from the reader’s understanding.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well written article. The only thing I would say to improve it would be to maybe separate the first paragraph into two paragraphs because there was a lot of information that was included in the first paragraph. Making it into two may make it easier for the reader to comprehend and organize their thoughts with ease.
I took away a very interesting perspective on the way people view politics. To think about the level of prominence genes has in everyday life is so expansive and it even works its way into politics.
http://www.nature.com/news/biology-and-ideology-the-anatomy-of-politics-1.11645
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the review of the Nature article "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics.” The background research that lead to the scientific discovery was clear and concisely written. The research found that many biological settings, such as, genes, hormone levels and neurotransmitter systems, are what form the political views of people. To test this theory, scientists conducted research on twins; both fraternal and identical. Using twins created a controlled experiment, since they both grow up in the same environment. The identical twins demonstrated greater similarities in political views in comparison to the fraternal twins. Genetics are the primary component of what forms political beliefs. Furthermore, the errors and shortcomings of the experiment were clearly addressed. The environmental factors of both fraternal and identical twins is hard to pinpoint. Research suggest that genetically identical twins are more likely to have the same friends and be treated more equally by their peers. This phenomenon makes it difficult to measure to what extent genes and environment contribute to the shared political attitudes of identical twins. In addition, scientists have not studied what section of the genome directly influences political beliefs, behavior and attributes. The use of quotes made the developing research easy to comprehend and relevant to today with the upcoming 2016 election. The scientist John Hibbings of Rice University states that the connection of genes to political beliefs may create “...more respect for those with opposing viewpoints.”
The importance of this research would have been interesting to hear with more current discovery. The article solely discussed research conducted in 1996 and the early 2000s. Additionally, the summarized description of the research relied heavily on quotations and seemed to be missing information from the article. It was not integrated fluidly.
This article was interesting and informative. Political views are shaped not only by the environment and experiences of the individual but also by the individual’s genes and biological settings. It is fascinating that the human genome and DNA impact political opinion. I am interested to see the altercations in the results of the experiment when the scientists do not test twins, but other types of relationships.
Buchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. .
Amy,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job in summarizing and analyzing this article about genetics having effects on political views. One thing I think you did very well was how you stated the experiments done to either prove or disprove this theory. You did very well in going into detail for all of them and presenting the details in a clear, concise, and easy to follow manner. I also feel that you did a great job in incorporating quotes from scientists experienced in this topic of anatomy having effects on political views, for you included them at great places, and really tied points that you were trying to make together with the use of the quotes. One last thing I appreciated was how you included the data from the experiments briefly, so that it was very concise and well organized, with plenty of information.
One thing that I would have liked is if you incorporated a little more of an explanation on what contributes to the relation of the political views and anatomy, and explain how exactly they relate. Another thing that I would have liked to have seen in this review is any sort of follow up to the original experiments, and to see where this theory is today. Also, I would have liked to know is what political ideas they tested on the patients.
I found this article and topic in general to be very intriguing, because there are not many instances where Biology and Politics are so closely related, especially in how now, according to the article, our anatomy has a direct effect on our political views. Now, I will always think about how our anatomy affects our political views, and will most likely ask any identical twins about their political views to test out this idea.
Buchen, Lizzie. "Biology and Ideology: The Anatomy of Politics." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. .
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved reading this report and was so impressed with this topic. I give Amy major props for shedding light on an experiment that hasn’t received much credibility but is still incredibly compelling. I can’t think of anything more interesting than to infuse two of the most prevalent fields in society: science and politics. The report and article are great pieces of evidence for how democracy can better operate; if we accept and understand why we are all different, people may reap more benefits than expected. Amy also identifies the potential of this study, suggesting that it should continue in depth so that we can find out how certain variables “affect who we are as individuals.” There isn’t much that could have been improved in this report as I had to give the article a read myself and she encapsulated it quite accurately. All I can think of would be a better concluding sentence and a more formal writing technique could have been applied.
Although science and medicine are the fields that I am most interested in, at some point, everyone is forced to face politics in the duration of their lives. It is a field that embraces so many things that make up a human. To investigate why humans act the way they do and how that determines the role they play in the most major way of regulating a people (government) is undoubtedly one of the most essential questions of experiencing life as a human.