So says this interesting article.
This this idea has any traction?
Those evolutionary psychologists sure love their “Just So stories.” I’m sure it’s oversimplified, but even then I bet the article plays loose with correlation v. causation.
Well, see, those who don’t love just-so stories…
It stands or falls on whether conservatives do indeed have more babies than liberals, and later in life. I’d be surprised if either were true.
Actually Conservatives do have more children on average among white people:
Nonetheless, the article linked to in the OP is obviously hogwash. I and everyone I know chose my political and religious beliefs based on what I think is right, not because of anything related to having children. Even if we hypothesize that an individual would switch political and religious beliefs for that reason, it wouldn’t work because no one individual has an effect on national political decisions or social trends. Psychology Today is widely viewed as a joke by serious researchers in the field precisely because of articles like this.
This is a typical “X is correlated with Y, so X must cause Y” argument. Perhaps so, or perhaps Y causes X. Or perhaps they are both caused by something else. There are lots of theories about the difference between conservatives and liberals. There’s George Lakoff’s theory that the difference really depends on their model of parenting and the family:
You know, astro, you seem to read a lot of things and immediately get interested in the theories espoused. You then rush to the SDMB and tell us about the theories. It’s good that you want to talk with other people about the things you read, but I hope that you’re learning that you can’t completely trust anything you read (including things you read on the SDMB) and you need to slow down and think for yourself about the things you read.
I don’t think you can biologically inherit a political perspective, but for the sake of argument let’s assume the political perspective is merely an expression of the mating strategy and that the mating strategy is inherited.
Now explain changes in affiliation.
It is unlikely that politics are related to genetics, yes. A few studies have suggested a genetic predisposition to being attracted to particular political philosophies, but I haven’t seen anything definite.
I am guessing that people are generally of the same political persuasion and religion as their parents due to environment. Sure there are some notable exceptions (All in the Family or whatever), and it is perhaps more likely for young people to become more liberal rather than more conservative. The same is probably true for parenting/breeding styles. Nevertheless, it is way too premature to suggest any cause and effect, and it is equally wrong to assume an evolutionary perspective.
Changes in affiliation can be easily explained in that model because genetics rarely means that things are certain for behavioral traits. You would inherit a predisposition to that political outlook, not a certainty. There is also the effect of environment, and not all of that relates to your parents.
Well unless they’re embracing Lamarckianism, the environmentally-induced changes in your parents would not be passed along to your kids; they’d inherit the original biological predisposition.
So a good test would be to see if people whose great-grandparents were “liberal strategy” people, but who themselves as parents displayed a “conservative strategy” reproductive (and political) pattern, are significantly more likely to have “liberal strategy” pattern children than otherwise similar parents whose great-grandparents were “conservative strategy” people themselves.
Ah, I see that might be doable. Even then, you’d have many confounds to worry about. You’d have to look at both parents. Are conservative fathers any more likely to stay with the family? Would having more single-parent families in one group skew results?
Besides, if you used southern conservatives as a group then they would be a big confound, as the mother and father would share many of the same genes. 
He did acknowledge it’s a theory. So does the article. It’s a provocative hypothesis. No need to attack anybody.
Very interesting articles. Intelligent people usually put off having children and ignorant people can’t have enough, soon enough.
So intelligent people are conservative and wait to procreate and liberals do whatever they want damn the consequences. Somebody will pay for it. Throw in religion and it changes everything. Then it doesn’t matter how smart you are. Your religion dictates when you will have children and not your education or lack of because you will not be as smart.
Then there are the parents and how we tend to follow their example. My grandparents were religious liberals, eduated. My parents were religous conservatives, educated. I am religious and conservative, educated. My kids are religious and are neither conservative or liberal, they vote for who they like, educated. They also are single and childless because of their education or their religion?
I’d like to think it is because I drummed it in their heads that boyfriends and girlfriends may come and go but babies are forever. That it costs 200,000 dollars to raise a child. That child support is mandatory. One third of your paycheck for 18 years. It was most likely their religious upbringing more then my lectures…
I’m confused… 
bup, it wasn’t an attack. It was an observation.
I think that’s backwards - conservatives have more children and have them earlier.
It kind of stands to reason that the correlation exists; conservatives are more likely to oppose family planning (both birth control and abortion) and hence are less likely to utilize family planning methods.
I’m highly doubtful that it has anything to do with mating strategy, though; I know elderly childless couples who are pro-life, and another who are pro-choice.
You shouldn’t bring up Lakoff.
Not that he’s controversial. In fact, quite the reverse. No one - liberal, conservative, anywhere in between - wants to talk about him at all. I know of no quicker way to kill a discussion.
I don’t understand what you’re saying, Beware of Doug. Why do you think that no one wants to talk about Lakoff?
Because he touches on truths that make people - on both sides - uncomfortable. What if being nurturing isn’t any more effective than being strict?
There have been a number of public discussions of Lakoff’s theories. Liberals don’t seem to have any problem discussing them. I can’t offhand find any conservatives discussing his theories. I suspect that most conservatives who bother to read anything by Lakoff say to themselves, “He’s basically just another liberal who uses some obscure academic theory to buttress his arguments. Who cares what he thinks?” So it appears to me that Lakoff doesn’t make anybody uncomfortable. They just aren’t convinced by his theories. Probably a lot of people are bored by the attempt to understand his theories. You made it sound like some people are so incensed by his theories that they have deliberately tried to force everyone else to quit discussing them. That doesn’t seem to be true.
Incidentally, Weeden’s theories in the link in the OP are an example of what are called “cognitive dissonance” theories:
These are theories that the reasons that people take some particular position on an issue have less to do with logical reasoning and more to do with trying to fit themselves into their environment.
In any case, I find both Lakoff’s and Weeden’s theories interesting but not particularly convincing.
:rolleyes:
Saying “among white people” is equivalent to saying “if we ignore the majority of liberals who would have many children”.