Three political scientists recently made some research suggestions for the political science discipline based on their analysis of twin studies. Dr. John Alford, Dr. John Hibbing, and Dr. Caroline Funk of Virginia Commonwealth University derived their ideas about the genetic components of political views by reanalyzing two twin studies. They published their research in the American Political Science Review. The New York Times summarized their research. The 'scientists' "combed" the two research studies for indications that political instincts and party affiliations are genetic. Based on political analysis, they found that political instincts have genetic components. Based on their ideas they "urg[e] political scientists to incorporate genetic influences, specifically interactions between genetic heritability and social environment, into models of political attitude formation."
Based on their study, they make wide ranging suggestions, like:
It has long been known that certain political issues seem "hard"to people, and others seem "easy," presumably because some issues trigger "gut responses" while others do not(Carmines and Stimson 1980, 79), but no explanation has yet been offered for why given issues do or do not elicit gut responses. Why do social, more than economic, issues tend to hit people in the gut, even though both constitute ongoing and equally complex societal concerns? In light of the new findings, one distinct possibility is that easy "gut" issues tend to be those that are more heritable.
and...
...admitting that genetics influences political attitudes could actually help to mute societal divisions...As frustrating as it may be to debate with someone who holds such different orientations, value exists in recognizing that intransigence is not the result of willful bullheadedness but, rather, genetically driven differences in orientation...The exciting next step is to understand the reason such distinct orientations have evolved and lasted.
With the facile agility of political scientists to pogo stick over all scientific reasoning whatsoever in order to adapt convenient conclusions, who needs scientists?
