Genes tell me who you'll vote for

[Heraclitus]

I'm not sure if you can conclude that genes have the same effect on opinions on divorce in 20th century America as they do in other cultures. It could be that the way an American would approach the divorce issue is very different from how an ancient person would, so genes that make Americans more likely to condone divorce may not have done that in the past. So I wouldn't assume this is an indicator for how views on divorce affect the chances of passing on genes.

Of course. However I'm using divorce just as a example. What about hypothetical opinion X for which people got consistently rewarded thought history for leaning towards? Just please articulate why the heritability would fall to zero for the pupils, since I have a feeling you do know the answer and that it seems trivial to you.

[giblets]

Of course. However I'm using divorce just as a example. What about hypothetical opinion X for which people got consistently rewarded thought history for leaning towards? Just please articulate why the heritability would fall to zero for the pupils, since I have a feeling you do know the answer and that it seems trivial to you.

I'm guessing the genes that cause people to lean toward the less beneficial option would gradually become less common, and eventually most people would have genes that support opinion X? Then if someone opposed opinion X, it would probably be because of something else.

[David Floyd]

The highest heritable trait seems to be support for school prayer.

This isn't surprising, though. It's hard to oppose something if you believe you'll be sent to Hell for opposing it.

In other words, children often share the religious beliefs and religiously-oriented political views of their parents. Shocking.

[giblets]

This isn't surprising, though. It's hard to oppose something if you believe you'll be sent to Hell for opposing it.

In other words, children often share the religious beliefs and religiously-oriented political views of their parents. Shocking.

Well, according to the blog Heraclitus linked to:

The data we utilize … known as the “Virginia 30,000” … were … approximately 30,000 adult subjects (aged 18–84 years) were twins (N = 14,781), spouses (N = 4,391), parents (N = 2,360), relatives (N = 195), offspring (N = 4,800), and non twin siblings of twins (N = 3,184). … The inclusion of nontwin relatives is especially helpful in identifying the multiple sources of biological and cultural inheritance. …

If identical twins are more likely to share a trait than siblings, that would suggest that genetics is a factor.

[Ben Kenobi]

This isn't surprising, though. It's hard to oppose something if you believe you'll be sent to Hell for opposing it.

In other words, children often share the religious beliefs and religiously-oriented political views of their parents. Shocking.

What, you don't believe in the God gene? I'm disappointed in you, Floyd.

[David Floyd]

I'm not a geneticist by any means, and if people smarter (or at least more qualified) than me say I'm wrong, so be it. However, let's do a thought experiment.

An extremely devout couple has twins. Somehow the twins are separated at birth. One of the twins is raised with devout parents, the other is raised with atheists. Any bets on which child feels strongly about school prayer?

I'm just saying - I really think that a lot of the stuff we may be ascribing to genetics is more of a learned behavior/taught opinion.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, according to the blog Heraclitus linked to:



If identical twins are more likely to share a trait than siblings, that would suggest that genetics is a factor.

A better test would be identical twins vs. fraternal twins.

[Heraclitus]

I'm guessing the genes that cause people to lean toward the less beneficial option would gradually become less common, and eventually most people would have genes that support opinion X? Then if someone opposed opinion X, it would probably be because of something else.

Exactly over time nature would exhaust nearly all the genes that affect opinion on issue X and don't incur fitness reducing side effects that overwhelm benefits derived from having this or that opinion on issue X.

Here is your virtual/imaginary cookie.

A better test would be identical twins vs. fraternal twins.

+1

Controlling environmental effects is vital in these things.

[MRT144]

Why the **** is this guy so concerned about genes. We get it, you're a racialist. Nobody cares.

[Al B. Sure!]

Heraclitus:

STOP EDITING YOUR POSTS 30 MINUTES AFTER YOU POST!


Anyway, Hera, check out epigenetics.

[DaShi]

Also I'm surprised no one has so far noted that if selection for any particular belief was strong in the past (divorce seems like one of the things that may have been selected specifically for) the heritability would tend towards zero. I'll give a virtual cookie to the one who gets the answer as to why this is so right.

Because no one buys the concept ****.

[DaShi]

Why the **** is this guy so concerned about genes. We get it, you're a racialist. Nobody cares.

Racialist is a term coined by racists to try to cover the fact that they are racists. It's like how Intelligent design is really Creationism.

[Heraclitus]

Why the **** is this guy so concerned about genes. We get it, you're a racialist. Nobody cares.

This really dosen't have anything to do with race. Differences between the sexes perhaps but not race.