One thought

Hi. Here's something that's been going through my mind recently:

1) People's feelings are linked to their biology and to the evolutionary process

2) The way people feel about themselves and the world translates into their beliefs

3) People's beliefs lead to their political views and actions

So, in a sense, you can trace someone's political affiliation and whatnot back to their biological conditions. If we knew more about hormones and neurotransmitters and such, at some point we might be able to say: "this person has high testosterone, so they're likely to think that X is right and vote with this party".

There'd be a correlation between anatomy (and biology) and politics

What do you think? Am I just batshit or stupid?

You're being a biological/neurological reductionist. Human consciousness cannot be reduced to a simple fluctuation of chemicals and neurons in the brain, there isn't a connection between biology and political affiliation at all aside from being born with a mental disease or different kinds of skin color, and even then those only influence a political perspective, not dominate it.

Hey guys, if I disregard that we are social entities endowed with language, we are just a mass of flesh!

OP, I appreciate that you're trying to ask an intelligent question and it has potential, but really this:


Yes we are biologically "determined", but that biology necessarily interacts with an outside world. If you left a baby isolated in a room it wouldn't develop beliefs in the way we do when we socialize.

If you need an analogy, biology is a pile of bricks. A pile of bricks is not a house. Socialization makes us.

Right but the way you interact with the world could also be shaped by biology, right? Someone having an adrenaline rush is seeing things a lot differently than someone who isn't. Plus we know there are certain parts of the brain that deal with different kinds of outside stimuli, including elements of social interaction.

Of course, I'm not saying that testosterone makes you vote republican. I'm saying that biology determines politics in the same way, say, an iron cube would be attracted to a magnet, while a copper wouldn't

Also, that book is the next one on my reading (or listening) list.

History has seen phases of, biologically speaking, rather quick radical changes; and I don't see how one could explain such sudden changes with genetic changes. I'd rather look for technical innovations like the printing press and the steam engine and economical/political changes.

For instance, in 1950s Germany a married woman needed approval of her husband in order to get a driver's license. This is regarded as completely absurd today, it's not a righwing fringe position, it's nothing, it doesn't exist as something somebody proposes. Did the German genes mutate away from seeing this as reasonable? I don't think so.

Okay, yes, biology will determine things at the ultimate root and base of it all - but the differences in our biological make-up are such a minor function of the whole equation.

The fact that we all respond to adrenaline in fairly similar ways is in of itself demonstrative of that fact. Human biology is fairly uniform, really. Most of the differences you find between us in behavior are due to our socialization.

To use the same analogy, biology is a pile of bricks. Whether that becomes a small shack, or the Taj Mahal, is a question of socialization. And we all get basically the same pile of bricks, with a few modifications or mutations here or there.

And yeah, definitely read Engels. That book is great.

I don't think that's the point at all. I don't think anyone claims that genes could make someone have a certain isolated belief. What seems more plausible is that genes have an influence on the way we view the ideological choices presented to us.

I agree to a certain extent. people tend to agree with an ideology that reflects their desires for an optimal life and values traits they have. so in this regard yes, one's biologically determined capabilities should show some correlation to their favored ideology.

Right, that's what I meant with the OP

But we're not biologically similar. Someone's lifestyle choices (what they eat, whether they work out or not, how much sex they have etc.) have long term effects. They could be hormonal, they could be related to the nervous system (brain plasticity -> physiological differences in the brain that then lead to differences in behavior ; neurotransmitters -> again, differences in behavior, decision making etc.)

Yes, you're right. But those biological, neurological differences created by lifestyle differences are nothing compared to the differences in thought, differences in a non-biological sense, created by lifestyle differences and different socialization.

see Engels lecture:

Perhaps an interesting study would be one focusing on how hormones affect political opinions.

Perhaps people undergoing hormone therapy could be studied for this purpose.

Then what part of consciousness is outside of the brain?

I think you misunderstand what he means by "reduced".

Something can be made up of something, but not reducible to it.

A cake is made of flour, eggs and butter, but flour eggs and butter do not together = cake.

so what OP is leaving out is the recipe, the culture that came to create the recipe through a long process of trial and error and perfecting it, the actual cook as a person inside this socio-historical context, his motivations to cook, the person he cooks for, chance, the technology (and dead labor) used to create it, etc.

Kind of yeah, my point was just that what makes the cake a cake is the whole process of how those ingredients are combined, what happens to them during the process, not just the base material properties of it. So all lemon-cakes might have the same ingredients, but not all lemon-cakes taste the same

...

Determinism and reductionism are incompatible thanks to chaos theory.

Some people did… but probably not after some internet argument.

Which means that even tho statement "nobody has ever changed their mind about anything ever" isn't 100% correct, i agree with point of it, because statistically speaking it is correct.

Internet arguments really almost never lead to anywhere.

People who start arguments online are mostly looking to satisfy their own egos, not foster meaningful discussion

It has much more to do with what propaganda they're exposed to. I don't see how that's biological.