Feeling like a political loser? You probably have low testosterone.
DURHAM, N.C. -- Young men who voted for Republican John McCain or Libertarian candidate Robert Barr in the 2008 presidential election suffered an immediate drop in testosterone when the election results were announced, according to a study by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan.
I'm setting aside 2 seconds while I write this sentence to feel sympathy for guys who become so invested in a political candidate that their testosterone drops if their candidate loses. Really, you should focus on achieving for yourself, not depend on political candidates to give you a feeling of power. Though for lobbyists and or people with prospects of getting appointments or contracts from the winner the testosterone reaction is more rational.
Men who voted for Obama only had stable testosterone as a result. No boost in testosterone? What's with these guys?
In contrast, men who voted for the winner, Democrat Barack Obama, had stable testosterone levels immediately after the outcome.
Female study participants showed no significant change in their testosterone levels before and after the returns came in.
The men who participated in the study would normally show a slight night-time drop in testosterone levels anyway. But on this night, they showed a dramatic divergence: The Obama voters' levels didn't fall as they should, and the McCain and Barr voters lost more than would have been expected.
"This is a pretty powerful result," said Duke neuroscientist Kevin LaBar. "Voters are physiologically affected by having their candidate win or lose an election."
If you can't separate your feeling of well-being from outcomes of political elections then consider using testosterone replacement therapy after a loss. Heck, that might even make sense when losing in other ways. Lost money in the stock market? Take some T. Girlfriend dumped you? Time for T.
By some (though not all) measures, people who feel more easily disgusted are more conservative.
In the first study, published in the journal Cognition & Emotion (Vol.23: No.4), Pizarro and co-authors Yoel Inbar of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and Paul Bloom of Yale University surveyed 181 U.S. adults from politically mixed "swing states." They subjected these adults to two indexes: the Disgust Sensitivity Scale (DSS), which offers various scenarios to assess disgust sensitivity, and a political ideology scale. From this they found a correlation between being more easily disgusted and political conservatism.
To test whether disgust sensitivity is linked to specific conservative attitudes, the researchers then surveyed 91 Cornell undergraduates with the DSS, as well as with questions about their positions on issues including gay marriage, abortion, gun control, labor unions, tax cuts and affirmative action.
Participants who rated higher in disgust sensitivity were more likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion, issues that are related to notions of morality or purity. The researchers also found a weak correlation between disgust sensitivity and support for tax cuts, but no link between disgust sensitivity and the other issues.
I expect scientists will continue to discover more connections between genetically caused and congenital characteristics of the brain on the one hand, and political leanings, moral beliefs, and social behaviors on the other. Ditto for economic behaviors such as one's willingness to save for the future or gamble.
These discoveries about innate causes of beliefs and behavior will have opposing effects on political debate. On the one hand some might introspect and decide not to put as much stock in their feelings about what is right. Why believe something just because you were born with a propensity to believe it? On the other hand, a lot of people will think their political beliefs are rational and sensible but the opposing side is obviously wrong due to that opposing side being born mentally defect and prone to being wrong and even evil.
Take the study above for example. I can hear some liberals thinking "See, this shows that conservatives are wrong on gay marriage because they have irrational reactions to the thought of it". Evidence of a behavior's inherited cause can easily be seen as evidence that some group is defective. If you just do not happen to have the same genetic leanings as they do then you are genetically blessed with the ability to see the world accurately - unlike the hell spawn on the opposing side.
Another study released back in July 2008 found genes influence the odds one will vote or engage in political activities.
The decision to vote is partly genetic, according to a new study published in the American Political Science Review. The research, by James H. Fowler and Christopher T. Dawes, of the University of California, San Diego and Laura A. Baker, of the University of Southern California, is the first to show that genes influence participation in elections and in a wide range of political activities. See the full study here.
Fowler and Dawes have followed this work with research just published in the July issue of the Journal of Politics in which they identify a link between two specific genes and political participation. They show that individuals with a variant of the MAOA gene are significantly more likely to have voted in the 2000 presidential election. Their research also demonstrates a connection between a variant of the 5HTT gene and voter turnout, which is moderated by religious attendance. These are the first results ever to link specific genes to political behavior. The published study will be online July 1, but a pre-publication PDF is linked here.
Other aspects of political behavior appear to have genetic influences as well.