It’s the Genes, Stupid

Social scientists are stumped. Why do we bother to go to the polls when we know our individual vote has no chance of determining the result of a national election? Variations in turnout — by age, race, income or whatever — are hard to fit into a theory of human conduct that assumes that people are rational. But with time to spare before the November election, molecular biology is coming to the rescue. In the same way that researchers have teased out a role for genes in determining sexual orientation or the propensity to smoke, they are deploying genetics to understand our political choices.

That sounds like a stretch, and it may well be. But there is tempting evidence of a hereditary component to political choices. There is a strong correlation between the partisan choices of parents and children. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest that genes are at work alongside the social and psychological influence of parents. Political scientists at the University of California, San Diego have gone another step, identifying specific genes associated with voter participation and partisanship.

It seems as if people with one variant of the MAOA gene are more likely to vote than those with the other version. Among regular churchgoers, those with one type of the gene that make the 5HTT transporter molecule in the walls of neuron cells (don’t ask) are substantially more likely to vote than those with the other.

According to the researchers, James H. Fowler and Christopher T. Dawes, it works more or less like this: stress causes the release of excess serotonin in the brain, which can kill off neurons if it is not metabolized. People with the right versions of the MAOA gene and 5HTT are better at handling stress because they are better at synthesizing the molecules needed to reabsorb serotonin and break it down. And people who are better at handling stress deal better with the conflicts and strains inherent in forming political opinions and voting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27tue4.html?th&emc=th

That people with more SHiTT in their neurons will vote Republican. :-)

but that's not what the article said.

1) People that are stress-averse are less likely to vote; "stress averse" in this context involves a specific variant of a specific gene. Choosing between candidates involves stress. (One implication is that by making the choice for them, you might get them to vote: think walking money and pre-filled out voter "guides" that many unions produce.)

2) People with a specific allele are more likely to join groups--they're more "social". In political terms, that usually means joining a party and being partisan, putting group boundaries around themselves. It doesn't say which party. Partisan repubs are just as much joiners as partisan dems.

Presumably both variants of each gene conferred some advantage.

Left unstated: Distribution of each allele.

I'm fairly high stress averse; whether it's because of the first gene they discuss or not I can't know. I'm also just as averse--or more averse--to joining and being a good partisan, "my group right or wrong". (Which, of course, invariably means "my group right or wrong, but I can't see how my group could possibly be wrong. After all, the worst of my group is better than the best of their group." And other drivel.)

The death of partisanship is when you get a lot of people who aren't risk averse but aren't joiners (one could claim society would be at risk). True partisanship often involves being risk averse and an ardent joiner: Then you just find somebody to make your decisions for you, and you're in.