Some of this research is fascinating and nuanced, but I'm skeptical of the idea of the "biology of political differences" or claims that "ideological orientations are genetically produced" or the "politicization of human nature."/1
nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opi…
nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opi…
Part of the problem is that so many of the categories described as having biological roots are socially constructed, mutable, and contested, including the very terms "liberal" and "conservative." /2
And I'm really confused by statements like "even if economic attitudes are not genetically constrained to go with cultural attitudes." /3
This research evokes the "ethnocultural" interpretation of American political history that was influential in the 1960s & 1970s. Those scholars made a similar point about partisan loyalty as a marker of identity and group loyalty without, as far as I'm aware, invoking genetics./4
I haven't read the paper on "moral foundations" & I'm sure that these terms are carefully defined, but it strikes me that the binaries of "care/harm; fairness/cheating; loyalty/betrayal; authority/subversion; and sanctity/degradation" are open to a variety of interpretations. /5
