« Assorted links | Main | The environmental cost of flying »
Very good sentences
Liberals tend to believe that sexual orientation is determined by genetics but that gender-difference in behavior is not, whereas conservatives tend to believe the reverse.
That's Matt Yglesias.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 17, 2008 at 04:40 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
And people who believe in natural selection tend to do things that will stop it, while people of faith seem more inclined to favor "survival of the fittest".
Posted by: aaron at Jun 17, 2008 4:47:13 PM
technically, that's only one sentence
Posted by: ryan at Jun 17, 2008 4:54:36 PM
More importantly (by far): what do scientists believe, who have actually studied these questions?
The truth is not always found equidistant between two opposing opinions. Sometimes one side is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Bellingman at Jun 17, 2008 5:04:53 PM
Stephen Pinker pointed that out in one of his books (Blank Slate?), and if I remember correctly that wasn't an original quote but from someone else.
Posted by: Micke at Jun 17, 2008 5:11:10 PM
Yeah, this has been around for a while.
Posted by: Kieran at Jun 17, 2008 5:21:49 PM
One scientist who pushes neither the genetic nor nurturist line is Greg Cochran, who instead thinks it is caused by pathogens. Some of his writings on the subject are available here. His forte is rocket science and evolution/anthropology though. A scientist that has done more professional study of the subject wrote a book called "The Men Who Would be Queen" that caused a good bit of controversy (Deirdre McCloskey was among those who had a negative opinion of it) discussed at Seth Robert's blog. A recent study done on the heritability of homosexuality found the largest factor to be non-shared environment, with genes substantially behind and shared environment not contributing at all.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 17, 2008 5:24:19 PM
Science is always going to come down on the side of determinism, because understanding deterministic mechanisms is what science is all about. What would scientific evidence that some observed phenomenon represents a choice even look like? At most, a scientist could say that the mechanism behind an observed phenomemon is not yet understood.
But the morality of some behavior (or its enforcement) is an entirely seperate question from the deterministic mechanisms underlying it. Even if the sexes have biologically determined predelictions toward different professions, it's wrong to legally enforce that segregation. And if homosexual acts are abominations in the eyes of God -- I don't believe they are, but that's a perfectly consistent belief for someone to have -- then the fact that some people are geneticly predisposed to homosexual behavior doesn't make it right. Almost certainly, predelictions toward violent criminal behavior are inborn -- we even know some of the genes. The existence of that deterministic mechanism doesn't make violent criminal behavior acceptable.
Posted by: David Wright at Jun 17, 2008 6:08:26 PM
It is likely that both sentences are wrong, at several levels. I personally think that Cochran's idea is more likely correct, in that male homosexuality appears to be a developmental disorder possibly mediated by viruses or other pathogens preventing the development of normal circuits in the male brain for the selection of mating partners.
Indeed, at some level, all 'gender' issues are developmental disorders. This is not rocket science and Cochran's argument are very cogent. Heterosexuality is the norm and individuals whose genes allow them to be confused about which individuals are appropriate sexual partners do not pass on their genes, with very high reliability.
Posted by: Some Dude ... at Jun 17, 2008 6:12:32 PM
Glibness and clever wordplay may make a good sentence, but they don't necessarily yield any insight or truth. This one certainly doesn't.
Posted by: Grundlepuck at Jun 17, 2008 6:30:19 PM
"Heterosexuality is the norm and individuals whose genes allow them to be confused about which individuals are appropriate sexual partners do not pass on their genes, with very high reliability."
Someone posted here in the comments recently about how the female relatives of male homosexuals statistically have more sex, earlier, with more parters, thus leading to a theory that there could be a "man-loving" gene. When women inherit this gene, it increases their likelihood of having offspring, but when men inherit it it makes them gay.
Ah, I found the article they were talking about:
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4578.html
Excerpt:
"The homosexuals' mothers and aunts had had between three and four times as many sexual partners. They seemed to really like having sex with men."
There are several other possible biological explanations in that article as well.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jun 17, 2008 8:21:26 PM
Tyler left out "except conservatives with gay children".
Posted by: adam at Jun 17, 2008 9:19:04 PM
aaron,
Liberals only pretend to believe in natural selection.
Also, liberals do not favor policies that will stop natural selection. Rather, they favor policies that will stop some suffering in the short run but which will cause dysgenesis. We are DEVO. D-E-V-O.
You can't escape from natural selection. Some alleles are always getting selected for and others are getting selected against. Currently alleles for intelligence and restraint are getting selected against. Liberals are helping this.
Tyler,
Greg Cochran believes homosexuality is probably caused by infections in pregnancy. He does't see how it could get selected for and the frequency of homosexuality is too high for it to be genetically based unless it was selected for.
If gender difference behavior is genetically based then your condemnation of Roissy amounts to a condemnation of some selected for outcomes of natural selection.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Jun 17, 2008 9:42:28 PM
In the present state of Constitutional interpretation, an argument based on choice (what I do in private with consenting adults is my own business) has significantly more mileage than one based on innate difference (I really am different, and you must accommodate my difference). It is mildly surprising that the latter argument is much more popular among those to whom it matters the most.
Posted by: Cyrus at Jun 17, 2008 10:04:54 PM
And if you believe that both are potentially caused by at least partly genetics, you get run out of town like Lawrence Summers by free-speech-loving liberals.
Posted by: LZ at Jun 17, 2008 10:27:29 PM
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex.
Posted by: loki on the run at Jun 17, 2008 10:40:20 PM
It seems to me this quote holds up the most when it is applied to ordinary people who base their opinions on knee-jerk reactions without ever critically examining their beliefs or looking for evidence to back up their beliefs.
I would imagine if one were to survey actual scientists, one would find more of a correlation between belief in genetic causes for both homosexuality and behavioral differences between sexes. Similarly, if one were to survey various "cultural studies" professors, one might find similar correlations with most tending to deny genetics in both cases.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jun 18, 2008 12:04:15 AM
Liberals tend to believe that sexual orientation is often determined by genetics but that gender-difference in behavior is sometimes not, whereas conservatives tend to believe that love is a sin if it involves someone of the same gender, or hasn't been rubber stamped by a pedophile in a dress, imaginary people in the sky watch while you poop, that a serial killer who's sorry will receive eternal bliss, while the billions of innocent souls who never knew of the existence of god, will spend an eternity in damnation, and that stronger nuclear armament is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
My version is almost as annoying, but has a lot more truth in it.
Posted by: Scootah at Jun 18, 2008 12:06:56 AM
“Liberals only pretend to believe in natural selection.”
I take it you’re at least partly basing this incredibly insightful axiom on the objection by some of us “liberals” to the notion, as seemingly embraced by most MR contributors, that blacks and Hispanics in the United States score lower on IQ tests due to inborn genetic differences, and are thus less capable, on average, of being useful things like engineers and heart surgeons.
It’s possible you’re merely referring to a perceived liberal distaste for laissez-faire economic philosophy, but that doesn’t really follow because one’s aversion to an unregulated economy does not mean one does not believe in natural selection.
No, I’m pretty sure your platitude about liberals not believing in natural selection relates to the popular and disturbing rhetorical strategy employed by some conservative bloggers to label those who reject “The Bell Curve” as the last word on human biodiversity as “liberal creationists.”
Posted by: kevin at Jun 18, 2008 12:35:17 AM
Hey kevin, great email address you have there:
kissmyberkeleyliberal@ssyouracistwingnuts.net
However, if you are trying to inflame conservatives you need to make your comments more prominent.
Posted by: loki on the run at Jun 18, 2008 1:02:25 AM
The "liberals" in my life have not claimed that sexual orientation is genetic for a long time. There was a time when "we can't help it, we were born this way" was the party line for queer liberation, but frankly, I don't need to make excuses. Sexual orientation, like all human behaviour, is likely part biology and part socialization, and that's just fine.
Posted by: Allison at Jun 18, 2008 1:45:12 AM
Do libertarians believe that genetics have an effect on both sexual orientation AND gender-different behavior (cuz I do)?
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Jun 18, 2008 2:29:02 AM
To cite a concrete example of where this supposes division between liberals and conservatives doesn't hold, look at some of the controversy regarding J. Michael Bailey's study of bisexual men.
He tested sexual arousal of self-identified bisexuals and found that three-quarters of them were aroused by pornographic images of men but not of women. For the other quarter, the reverse was true. This research actually supports the notion that sexual orientation is biological since it suggests that at least for men, everyone is wired to respond sexually to either women or to men and that which sex we respond to really isn't under our control. But the research was criticized by left-leaning gay organizations and activists.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jun 18, 2008 2:39:42 AM
1) Realists tend to believe that many observed sex differences, orientation differences, and race differences are all inborn to some extent, for various related and unrelated reasons.
2) Scientists who research one of these categories and believe it is inborn, largely tend to believe the other two are as well. They either start as or become Realists. Most Realists are scientists researching these topics or are nonscientists that are actively interested in what science has to say about these topics. (and therefore more readily sense where the weight of evidence falls in that field of study)
3) The scientists that believe their research category is inborn have the most fruitful and persuasive research paradigms in their respective category (with e.g. longer bibliographies). This could be because their beliefs are more correct, or simply because these beliefs are more conducive to "normal science" (see David Wright's comment above).
4) Realists tend to be hated by both liberals and conservatives.
5) Realist beliefs usually do not predict party affiliation.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jun 18, 2008 3:54:00 AM
Generally speaking, gay men prefer the idea that homosexuality is biologically determined, while lesbians prefer social constructionist explanations for homosexuality.
As I wrote in National Review in 1994:
"The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, and the newsweeklies have been trumpeting, despite the highly preliminary nature of the findings, evidence that homosexuality has biological roots. Generally overlooked, however, is that most of the research was performed on gay male subjects by gay male scientists and then hyped by gay male publicists. Going largely unreported is the lesbian population's profound ambivalence about this half-scientific, half-political crusade. (For example, an attack on the theory that lesbianism has biological causes is one of the main themes of Lillian Faderman's fine history of American lesbians, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers.) This media reticence is noteworthy, considering that the press otherwise so assiduously keeps us informed of the views of the lesbian-dominated National Organization for Women's on child-rearing, marriage, beauty, men and, of course, What the Women of America Want -- subjects upon which lesbians might be presumed to have rather less expertise to offer than on the question of why they are lesbians.
"Many lesbian-feminists deny that their sexual orientation is biologically rooted, attributing it instead to what they perceive as our culture's decision to socialize males to be domineering. They may claim this simply to avoid contradicting feminist theory, which is, well, "biophobic." (Yes, I know that this trendy practice of insinuating that those who disagree with you politically must suffer from a mental disorder is reminiscent of the imprisoning of Soviet dissidents in psychiatric hospitals, but, hey, once you get the hang of it, it's kind of fun.) On the other hand, the lesbian-feminists might be right and the gay researcher/activists wrong about the nature of homosexuality. Or, homosexuality might not have a single nature: at minimum, there could be a fundamental difference between lesbians and gays.
"We would all profit from hearing this question openly hashed out."
http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 18, 2008 4:39:10 AM
Generally speaking, gay men prefer the idea that homosexuality is biologically determined, while lesbians prefer social constructionist explanations for homosexuality.
As I wrote in National Review in 1994:
"The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, and the newsweeklies have been trumpeting, despite the highly preliminary nature of the findings, evidence that homosexuality has biological roots. Generally overlooked, however, is that most of the research was performed on gay male subjects by gay male scientists and then hyped by gay male publicists. Going largely unreported is the lesbian population's profound ambivalence about this half-scientific, half-political crusade. (For example, an attack on the theory that lesbianism has biological causes is one of the main themes of Lillian Faderman's fine history of American lesbians, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers.) This media reticence is noteworthy, considering that the press otherwise so assiduously keeps us informed of the views of the lesbian-dominated National Organization for Women's on child-rearing, marriage, beauty, men and, of course, What the Women of America Want -- subjects upon which lesbians might be presumed to have rather less expertise to offer than on the question of why they are lesbians.
"Many lesbian-feminists deny that their sexual orientation is biologically rooted, attributing it instead to what they perceive as our culture's decision to socialize males to be domineering. They may claim this simply to avoid contradicting feminist theory, which is, well, "biophobic." (Yes, I know that this trendy practice of insinuating that those who disagree with you politically must suffer from a mental disorder is reminiscent of the imprisoning of Soviet dissidents in psychiatric hospitals, but, hey, once you get the hang of it, it's kind of fun.) On the other hand, the lesbian-feminists might be right and the gay researcher/activists wrong about the nature of homosexuality. Or, homosexuality might not have a single nature: at minimum, there could be a fundamental difference between lesbians and gays.
"We would all profit from hearing this question openly hashed out."
http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 18, 2008 4:41:37 AM
