Liberals and conservatives are two different species?

Well, not quite… but the cover story of this week’s issue of New Scientist brings up an issue I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind for a couple of years. It’s the idea that our political persuasions are linked to our personality types which are largely determined by our genes.

"Are political leanings all in the genes?" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726411.800-are-political-leanings-all-in-the-genes.html

There is a substantial and growing amount of evidence that conservatism and liberalism are strongly correlated with personality traits such as openness, extroversion, and conscientiousness. Liberals are more open, tolerant, and more extroverted; conservatives are more honest, dutiful, and conscientious (organized, self-disciplined, and responsible). Xenophobia and stronger fear of death are also correlated with conservatism. Liberals are less troubled by conflicting sources of information, and tend to be more open to new ideas. All of this data comes from psychological testing and studies involving heredity, including identical twin studies (as well as common sense).

I suspect that there are other genetically determined factors at play. I think that libertarians value their personal freedom above all else, and are more likely to recoil from someone else telling them what to do. They are independent, risk takers, and they value freedom and possibilities more than equality and safety. Liberals and socialists are more risk-averse and don’t mind someone else being in charge of their lives, as long as they are taken care of and don’t have to worry about the future. They value equality more than freedom and opportunity for growth. These characteristics are probably genetically linked as well.

What is the implication of this? The best political/economic system is the one under which people are happiest. But if people are fundamentally different in what makes them happy, then there may not be any single best political or economic system. Perhaps there should be different systems that people can choose from, either by moving or by opting into our out of certain programs. This also supports the idea of federalism: that the states should be free to control their own policies and politics, and should only be loosely bound together by the federal government, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all top-down system which the US has been moving toward for the last several decades. But perhaps we can go even farther – perhaps we can find a way to accommodate both types within the same system by giving people options, so that they can live together in peace.

The closing paragraph of the New Scientist article reads:

So the guy at the bar may never agree with you, but perhaps realising that can be liberating. "We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side," says Alford. We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that, Alford points out. Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view.