Quote:
Originally Posted by questor
Modest...
Excerpts from the article you quoted:
[...]
Is there something here that has escaped your grasp?
|
I looked up the source that the paper uses (the one I recommended you use google scholar to look up). I did use google scholar to look it up and this is it:
Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
This is the source used for the comment you quote and interpret above. Now, this probably doesn't look familiar to you, so I'll remind you. This is the study with the twins - that I posted in the last brain wiring thread. Remember? My previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Anyone who’s seen Star Trek knows your clone is always evil and sometimes has an evil goatee.
Study of political attitudes of identical twins:
Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
Abstract:
Quote:
|
We test the possibility that political attitudes and behaviors are the result of both environmental and genetic factors. Employing standard methodological approaches in behavioral genetics—–specifically, comparisons of the differential correlations of the attitudes of monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins—–we analyze data drawn from a large sample of twins in the United States, supplemented with findings from twins in Australia. The results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies but a more modest role in forming party identification; as such, they call for finer distinctions in theorizing about the sources of political attitudes. We conclude by urging political scientists to incorporate genetic influences, specifically interactions between genetic heritability and social environment, into models of political attitude formation.
|
Counter points to study:
Why Twin Studies Are Problematic for the Study of Political Ideology:
Rethinking Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
Abstract:
Quote:
|
We argue that many of the arguments presented, and methods used, by Alford, Funk, and Hibbing in “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” (APSR 2005) are flawed. Our critical discussion has three parts. We begin with a general discussion of the heritability statistic (h2); we explain why the statistic is not an estimate of the extent to which political attitudes are genetically inherited, as well as why the authors are wrong to extrapolate their findings to the American population. Next, we describe problems with the “twin study” method that cause us to doubt the “heritability” and “environment” statistics it generates. We then discuss several politically relevant “genetic” theoretical claims made by the authors that are either not tested or not supported by their data analyses. Upon concluding these critical discussions, we provide an alternate research agenda for the exploration of the origins of political orientations and attitudes. First, we discuss findings from the political socialization literature that suggest a very important role for social transmission in attitude formation. Second, we provide a theoretical framework for analyzing the contribution of genes and the environment to political orientations that takes into account the complex, interacting relationship of these two influences.
|
-modest |
So, this really is nothing new. You've found a passing comment in the introduction of a paper that refers to something I already pointed out to you months ago. As I've already gone three rounds with you over the twin study, I'd rather not start that conversation over again. Like I said, there is a reason that thread got closed.
But, there it is for anyone interested in questor's argument. The top article abstracted above is questor's best evidence for what he's saying (minus the left brain / right brain claim). The article abstracted below it are the problems people had with the study (the counter points).
~modest
