It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.
It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.
In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.
Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.
I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "
What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.
I interpreted these findings wholly differently, and I completely disagree with you on your view of athiesm, and it's similiarity to monotheism. I will explain.
In my interpretation, these findings actually prove liberals to be more free-thinkers, less dependent on the ignorance needed to sustain less worldly views, less humanistic views, and less controlled views. Are you suggesting that socializing and freedom of informational flow is bad? Your implication is that information is toxic, because it allows the formation of self-formed beliefs based on that information. You state your case as if these liberal beliefs are somehow coerced. This is false. Simply talking with more people allows more appreciable views of different perspectives, learning about others, and thus learning about oneself. Remaining isolated and only using information that is given to you by family is inherent self-sustained merely by it's lack of contact with outside of information, and thus, contained in a bubble, insulated by the family environment, where broad conclusions not based in fact are more easily formulated, unchecked by information out there, and thus more probably errant.
What this article tells me, is that people who are intellectually curious, expose themselves to more information, and therefore have a more educated opinion on things from which to form personal, political, social, and world views. You say it as if it is a bad thing, which no doubt is of interest to you in justifying your own experiences and views. What is most important, is that these people depart from that which they have been taught as a child, by family. In these early experiences, we have no say over what we believe. We believe what our family or whoever tells us. We are impressionable. In high school, we start to break away, and it is this crucial moment that decides whether you will stick with what you have been learned, unchallenged, or seek new information to see that what you have been taught is not necessarily true, and may be arbitrarily based. Not to mention the simple dynamic of not wanting to disappoint one's father or mother, or whoever is important to that person, by presenting to them political views, world, or personal views (such as those on homosexuality, racism, etc...) that contradict their own, such as presenting liberal views to a conservative father who might lose respect for his son were he to adopt such views. Such a dynamic breeds views not out of search for truth, but out of fear, which perhaps is by conservatives use fear so much- their own views are born out of fear. Fear of change, of anything different from what they know. Liberals on the other hand, are able to challenge what they have been taught, and begin anew, seeing things with a fresh perspective. This, I believe is freedom, and the latter is slavery of the mind. If they happen to form conservative views out of it, more power to them, at least they did it on their own.
This study was wildly vindicating for me, and I suspect, can be generalized to explain most conservative thinking and behavior. I already sensed and postulated what this study had said, because I see two very distinct ways in which people view the world politically, and I find it more and more curious. This study answered a lot of questions for me. Thank you for posting it.
Extending the definition of religion to liberalism, which is merely an ideology, and Atheism, which is lack of a belief in a deity, is simply an attempt at defacement and insult, a manifestation of ego, and thus, not representing of truth. Laced within your post are anger and resentment towards the 'other side,' a clear result of ego, although cleverly disguised with my big words, nice rhetoric, and smoothly crafted sentences, as undoubtedly, you are an intellectually capable person. However, I fear that you have bought into the isolationism that has allowed your viewpoints to form and solidify, to the point where they are immovable, which is sad, because of a person of your cognitive ability should be able to see past the views of conservatism, or rather, the need to be partisan at all. I am not against conservatism as it is in political theory, merely what the conservative party now stands for in America, in 2010, which are two completely different ideas.
Athiesm relies on no dogma, no readings, no congregations to muster sentiment toward some other-wordly being, and this is not a commentary on such a process, as I have believe religion can have binding effects on villages, although divise ones between and within societies.
What bothers me about what you said, is that you talk of science as if it has an agenda. There is no agenda. The scientific method doesn't allow for it. Science deals with natural laws of the universe greater than our own will to try and bend them, and as such can not be transformed to fit any agenda. Any attempt to do so will only produce misinformation, as it does in the case of creationists who posit scientific evidence for creationism. It is that simple. I'm not a philosopher, I just have sense, and this is what I have sensed, from what I see, read, and hear.
