Neuropolitics.org Ezine   

The Ghost World of Liberals and Conservatives

            Archives    Please take the new Iraqi Warfare Attitudes Survey        

April 2007 

The Population Biology of Conservatives and Liberals

The dispersal of religious emigrants to new territories: Joseph Smith tries to convert the indigenous population to Mormonism

The Caucasians, over the last 3,000 years, have exhibited a remarkable propensity for successful colonization. This is no ordinary feat, as among vertebrates, the extinction rates for new colonists is very high. Small breeding populations usually mean quick extinctions, and when those small breeding populations move into unfamiliar territories, the probability of extinction is at its highest.

To counteract this tendency of low-density populations, humans have evolved with a strong propensity to organize into tight, cognitively coordinated social groups, one common variation being that of the organized religious group. This has the evolutionary benefit of not only improving survival rates, but also increases the probability for successful colonization of new territories.

Dispersal of Expanding Populations Into New Territories

Dispersal is a very common behavior among animal populations, particularly among young adult males, who frequently live in the outskirts of their natal populations. Animal populations produce a mixture of young adults that adopt opposite dispersal strategies: those that leave the natal group in a determined search to stake out new territory, and those that stay in the natal habitat and wait their turn at reproduction as the population ages.

The male animals that remain in the natal group typically reproduce at a later age than those that disperse. Interestingly, we found this same pattern with Caucasian Liberal males, who were delaying their reproductive years more than Conservative males. Conservative and Liberal females were surprisingly close to each other in their average age of first childbirth, although Conservative females were more likely to have children.

The greater tendency for Conservatives to disperse to the suburbs and their lower age at first childbirth certainly fits the tendencies of the emigrates of most other animal populations quite well. Among most species, emigration is the primary response to increasing population densities.

But these modern day Caucasian mini-emigrations to the suburbs are a far cry from the prehistory of man, where habitats were not prefabricated and competition with native populations was violent.

Modern day Conservatives and Liberals would owe much of the evolution of their cognitive variation to the two most common events resulting in the extinction of animal populations--the formation of new colonies, and when an established population has reached the limit of the carrying capacity of the local habitat.

r/K Selection

In population biology, the variable r is defined as the intrinsic rate of population growth, and defined as the difference between the birth and death rates of a population. r selection was well documented by Robert MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson (the famed author of Sociobiology) in their studies of island habitats and the cycles of plant and animal colonizations and extinctions.

MacArthur and Wilson noted that some species thrived in new, unpopulated environments, and were good at the colonization of virgin island habitats. These species had several common behavioral attributes that facilitated their survival advantage: they discovered new habitats quickly, they reproduced rapidly, and they dispersed quickly when their habitats became depleted. They were r strategists, and the tendency of a habitat to favor this strategy was r selection.

On the opposite end of these r strategists were the K strategists. In population biology, the variable K denotes the maximum population that can be sustained by a given habitat. K strategists are stable species, which maintain population levels at or near the carrying capacity of their habitats.

K strategists would reduce their reproductive rates to match the available supply of energy, which was in shorter supply in crowded habitats. They had the tendency to extend the life of the habitat, which was a premium on crowded islands. K strategists tend to live longer in these habitats, and also tend to have offspring at a later age. As we said before, if Liberal males had children, they tended to have them later in their life cycle than Conservative males.

K strategists in other species also tended to spread out their reproduction over a longer span of time than r strategists, which usually have their offspring over a shorter period of their life-span. K strategists also tend towards greater specialization within their habitats, as this relieves competitive pressures.

r/K Extinction and Altruistic Adaptations

Within a habitat, the greatest probability of population extinctions occur during two periods: during the initial phases of colonization, and, at the point in time when the habitat has reached its maximum carrying capacity. The former event is referred to as an r extinction, and the latter a K extinction.

To counter the danger of population extinction during these two periods, animals have evolved a variety of altruistic behaviors that improve the survival of the population in general. During the initial phases of colonization, animals will engage in mutual defense, cooperative nest building, and foraging.

When the population reaches its maximum for the habitat, opposite behaviors now prevail: animals begin to lower their energy utilization and reduce their birth rates, and the cooperative behaviors of the emerging colony are replaced with a sort of mutual "indifference", very much like that seen in any large human city.

However, some of this behavioral divergence is the result of the fact that small groups of r selected emigrants are more closely related than K selected populations.

Conservatives, Liberals, r and K

Tightly organized religious groups are perfect models for emigration, which is why they are so prevalent in the history of colonization of the world. The high degree of cognitive coordination, group altruism, and mutual defense practiced by small religious groups is an evolutionary upgrade to similar behaviors practiced by the emigrants of other species. The Religious emigrants are particularly successful if they have members that remain in their population of origin and provide support for the colony.

On the other side, Liberalism is an excellent model for large urban populations, as it reduces both the energy requirements and reproductive stresses of dense populations. Their loose cognitive coordination and lower threat assessments towards strangers is perfect for the stability of large and genetically diverse populations.

But with every human behavioral attribute that has an adaptive advantage, there is a corresponding neurological mechanism behind it. What has natural selection used to create this polymorphism of dispersal strategies across the human species? Further, what neural machinery has assisted humans in avoiding the pitfalls of both r and K strategies?

Based on some cognitive evidence we've captured in our most recent survey, we have a theory, and present it in the article below.

______________________________________________________________

The Altruistic Convergence of Religiosity and Liberalism in Stressed Habitats

Humans maintain a sort of "friendly wariness" in most of their social interactions. Their ability to present affiliative attitudes towards people they do not know or trust has some parallels in the world of primates, but no animal can match humans in their ability to feign these attitudes over such a long time.

Continuing with the overall theme of this edition of Neuropolitics.org, which is about the hidden symbiosis of Conservative and Liberal behavior, we've captured some interesting indicators of one of the most important of all human social bonding behaviors--altruism.

Real and feigned altruism towards genetically distant conspecifics is an almost uniquely human attribute, and has helped, along with a number of other factors, to extend human group sizes well beyond the range of 100 members.

While humans have evolved with the ability to feign altruism towards even their greatest enemies, true altruism is rarer, and is usually limited to a manageable number of close relatives and selected friends. That number is small, at least based on the evidence we have gathered.

Trust and Political Affiliation

One indicator of true altruism is trust, which can loosely be defined as the lowest level of "threat" that someone assigns to another, and is the semantic opposite of suspicion. In an earlier survey, Conservatives reported higher levels of suspiciousness towards strangers than did Liberals.

In our most recent survey, the Liberals reported higher levels of trust for non-relatives. When it comes to altruism and natural selection, the distinction between relatives and non-relatives is an important one.

For the 3, 501 respondents to our Iraqi Warfare Attitudes Survey, we computed the average number of non-relatives trusted by political affiliation. These averages are displayed in the graph below.

How many non-relatives do you trust, by Political Affiliation
(F=Female, M=Male) (VL=Very Liberal, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative, VC=Very Conservative)

There are some notable trends on the above graph, foremost being that people maintain fairly low levels of trust for non-relatives. Across political cohorts, the average number of people trusted varies from a low of 2.99 (Libertarian males) to high of 4.02 (Very Liberal males). Interestingly, males have a slightly higher propensity to trust non-relatives than do females.

While Liberals had a higher propensity to trust non-relatives than Conservatives, the Conservatives did not have the lowest trust ratings, as that honor belonged to the Libertarians.

Also interesting was the fact that the Moderates trusted non-relatives slightly more than the regular Liberals, in both genders. However, the Very Liberals reported the highest levels of trust across all political cohorts, in both genders.

The Impact of Religiosity

The correlation between the altruistic indicator of trust and religiosity is quite strong, as shown in the graph below. For this graph, the Very Conservatives were combined in with the regular Conservatives, and the Very Liberals were combined in with the regular Liberals.

How many non-relatives do you trust? The impact of Religiosity
(F=Female, M=Male) (L=Liberal, C=Conservative) (AT=Atheist, AR=Areligious, AG=Agnostic, SP=Spiritual, LR=Little Religious, MR=Moderately Religious, VR=Very Religious)

As can be seen, the Very Religious (VR) in all political-gender cohorts had strong elevations in the numbers of non-relatives that they trust. This Very Religious elevation was also highest among the Liberals, in both genders.

The Spiritual (SP) were also strongly elevated among the Liberals, as Liberals are more likely to describe themselves as Spiritual than Religious. The lowest levels of trust were reported by the Conservative Atheists, in both genders.

Discussion

We have noted the interesting convergence of Liberal and Religious Conservative altruism in another article, The Behavioral Convergence of Moral Divergence: Conservatives, Liberals, and Charity, where the religious Conservatives and secular Liberals were more likely to give to victims of the Tsunami disaster than were the secular Conservatives.

But there appears to be a good evolutionary reason for this interesting altruistic convergence of these two polar opposites, and it involves the two most common events that result in the extinction of animal populations: the formation of a new colony, and second, after an established population has reached the carrying capacity of its local habitat.

As discussed in the article above, the Religious are well organized for the formation of new colonies, and the Liberals are well adapted for reducing their load on the local habitat. Altruistic behaviors are a premium in both these environments, and it is therefore no surprise that human populations generate large numbers of cognitively diverse individuals to handle the wide spectrum of environmental challenges.

But the Religious Conservatives and Secular Liberals have rather different cognitive approaches to morality and altruism, as discussed in Conservatives, Liberals, and Behavioral Inhibition: A Tale of Two Moralities.

Trust and the Dopaminergic and Serotonergic Systems

The higher reported levels of trust and lower rates of suspicion among Liberals seems to have its origin in the serotonergic system, which, like the noradrenergic system, is more instrumental in the behavior of Liberals in general. Serotonin has been demonstrated to reduce the threat assessments of other humans, and we have previously proposed that the serotonergic system also contributes to the Liberal reduction in spatial requirements and greater tolerance for large urban populations.

But what about the religious Conservatives? Their version of "trust" seems to have a slightly different origin, and it involves the dopaminergic system, which we have proposed to be more active in Conservative behavior in general. The neuropeptide oxytocin has received a lot of recent attention in its relationship to promoting "trust", and we believe it might be the primary contributor to the elevated levels reported by the Very Religious.

Oxytocin has also been implicated in elevated rates of monogamous pair bonding, which is a prominent characteristic of the Very Religious. But oxytocin is highly enmeshed with the dopaminergic system's reward processing centers, which makes it the obvious candidate for accounting for the peculiar elevation of "trust" among the Very Religious, who are typically politically Conservative.

 

 

The Secret Symbiosis

Conservatives, Liberals, and the Division of Labor

Art and Oil: Liberals and Conservatives fill different economic niches

Finding symbiotic behaviors between Conservatives and Liberals is not easy. Their antagonism has reached a fever pitch in America, so much so that the long term political solvency of the United States is no longer certain.

Liberals and Conservatives seem ready to form separate sovereign governments and practice their respective lifestyles without mutual interference. If not for the dynamic and integrated American economy, the United States might follow a similar pathway that led to the break up of the former Soviet Union.

Sustained and integrated economic growth reduces a population's tendency to form competitive sub-populations. The economic symbiosis of the northern and southern United States has been a countervailing influence against the natural tendency for cultural divergence, especially among a population as geographically dispersed as America's. This economic symbiosis is founded upon a complex and integrated division of labor.

A division of labor is a socially binding influence on expanding populations, as the number of different roles propagates in proportion to the population size. Indeed, this propagation reduces intragroup competition by an ever intricate division of labor.

In other species, dense animal populations typically lead to specialization in how each individual extracts energy from the habitat. When two different species occupy a habitat and use it in the same way, one of the species is usually driven away. This phenomenon may have led to the extinction of the Neanderthals, who were caught in the unfortunate position of sharing their habitats with modern humans.

So what has all this got to do with Conservatives and Liberals? In February 2006 we proposed a rather wild theory that Conservatives were more likely to displace mass than Liberals, that is, they were more likely to move things around.

This intercalation of Newtonian physics into human political behavior was admittedly a unusual approach, but we went down this pathway for a very good reason--the energy requirements of reproduction.

On average, Caucasian Conservatives have more offspring than Caucasian Liberals, which translates directly into their increased demand for energy, and correspondingly, the greater displacement of objects.

Indeed, our occupational results, despite some obvious misgivings, imply that Conservatives are much more involved with both the production of energy and the manufacturing of products.

In our Iraqi Warfare Attitudes Survey, we asked the 3,501 respondents to select among 25 different industrial and service industries that best described the one where they were currently employed.

In retrospect, our classification system was inadequate, and can be nothing more than a first step in the study of political-religious affiliation and occupation. Occupation is one of the more unreliable statistics given our sampling methodology, but nonetheless, the trends were pronounced.

In the table below, we see the percent of our political cohorts reporting that they are employed in the Manufacturing, Construction, Oil, and Mining industries. We have combined the Very Liberals in with the regular Liberals, and the Very Conservatives in with the regular Conservatives.

Manufacturing, Construction, Oil, and Mining

Gender	Political Cohort	Manufac turing	Const ruction	Oil	Mining
Female	NP	2.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Female	L	0.7%	0.2%	0.4%	0.0%
Female	LB	1.9%	1.9%	1.9%	0.0%
Female	M	3.5%	1.8%	0.9%	0.0%
Female	C	1.8%	1.3%	1.8%	0.0%
Male	NP	5.3%	1.9%	0.5%	1.5%
Male	L	2.8%	3.2%	0.2%	0.0%
Male	LB	5.8%	4.7%	1.5%	0.3%
Male	M	3.2%	4.4%	0.6%	0.9%
Male	C	8.3%	6.1%	2.3%	0.5%

Percent Employed in Manufacturing, Construction, Oil, and Mining
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative)

The Conservative males report the highest rates of employment in the Manufacturing, Construction, and Oil industries, and the Liberal males report the lowest.

The Libertarian males were next behind the Conservatives in their propensity to produce energy and products, and the Moderates were behind them.

The female statistics are not reliable for the Nonpolitical, Libertarians, and Moderates, due to their low sample sizes in any of our industrial categories. But like the males, the female Conservatives, Moderates, and Libertarians all reported higher propensities to work in these industries than do the Liberals.

Transportation, Trade, Utilities, and Agriculture

Gender	Political Cohort	Transport ation	Trade	Utilities	Agriculture
Female	NP	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Female	L	0.2%	0.2%	0.2%	0.4%
Female	LB	1.9%	0.0%	3.8%	0.0%
Female	M	1.8%	0.0%	1.8%	0.9%
Female	C	0.5%	1.3%	0.5%	1.8%
Male	NP	3.4%	1.5%	0.0%	1.9%
Male	L	1.6%	0.8%	0.5%	0.7%
Male	LB	2.3%	1.2%	0.9%	0.6%
Male	M	5.6%	2.6%	0.0%	0.9%
Male	C	5.7%	3.0%	0.7%	1.0%

Percent Employed in Transportation, Trade, Utilities, and Agriculture
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative)

Among the males, the Conservatives reported the highest rates of employment in both Transportation and Trade, while Liberals reported the lowest. Among the females, the Liberals weren't as likely as the Conservatives to be employed in these two industries.

Liberals also had a lower tendency to be employed by Utilities or in Agriculture, among both genders. This pattern certainly fits our theory that the Conservatives are more likely to move things around than are Liberals.

Information, Finance, Government, and Military

Gender	Political Cohort	Inform ation	Finance	Govern ment	Military
Female	NP	5.6%	1.4%	2.8%	2.8%
Female	L	5.1%	1.8%	2.9%	0.7%
Female	LB	3.8%	1.9%	1.9%	0.0%
Female	M	4.4%	1.8%	3.5%	3.5%
Female	C	1.3%	2.2%	4.0%	2.2%
Male	NP	13.6%	1.0%	2.9%	2.9%
Male	L	11.2%	1.5%	3.7%	2.4%
Male	LB	15.4%	2.3%	2.3%	3.2%
Male	M	10.0%	3.2%	8.5%	5.0%
Male	C	5.4%	3.4%	6.9%	5.7%

Percent Employed in Information, Finance, Government, and Military
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative)

There are several interesting patterns in the above table. First, the Conservatives have the lowest propensity among all the political cohorts to be employed in the Information industry.

Given our sampling methodology, employment in this industry is likely to be overstated relative to the actual population. However, the relative rates between political cohorts should be a rough estimate of the actual population.

Second, the Conservatives are more likely to employed in both the Financial industry and Government than are the Liberals. The Moderates also had a high propensity for Government. Unfortunately we did not capture the governmental branches, several of which we suspect to be more Conservative (e.g. police).

To no one's surprise, the Conservative males are more likely to be employed by the Military and related industries than any of the other political cohorts, while the Liberal males had the lowest propensity.

Education, Health Care, Professional Services, and Sales

Gender	Political Cohort	Education	Health Care	Profess ional Services	Sales
Female	NP	7.0%	12.7%	5.6%	2.8%
Female	L	20.4%	12.0%	5.6%	4.2%
Female	LB	3.8%	20.8%	3.8%	11.3%
Female	M	15.9%	13.3%	7.1%	5.3%
Female	C	8.9%	9.8%	8.9%	4.5%
Male	NP	5.3%	6.8%	3.9%	2.9%
Male	L	11.0%	7.0%	6.3%	6.3%
Male	LB	5.8%	9.0%	10.2%	3.2%
Male	M	4.4%	6.7%	9.4%	5.9%
Male	C	5.0%	5.7%	5.8%	7.2%

Percent Employed in Education, Health Care, Professional Services, and Sales
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative)

Our web site draws in a lot of people in the field of Education, and these results do not reflect the actual population rates in Education and Health Care (or any other industry, for that matter). However, it does give a rough estimate of the variations between political cohorts.

The Liberals have a very strong attraction to the field of Education, and the females, in general, have higher preferences than males. Also note the sharp elevation in the Liberal male preference for Education.

The Conservative complaint that higher educational institutions are more liberal is certainly supported by these results. However, this is not conspiratorial, rather, it is neurobiological.

Also, our selection of "Professional Services" as a category was unfortunate, as it does not capture the wide variety of such services, from plumbing to accounting. Interesting to note that Conservatives and Liberals reported comparable percentages in the Sales fields.

Food Service, Legal, Journalism, and the Arts

Gender	Political Cohort	Food Service	Legal	Journalism	The Arts
Female	NP	4.2%	1.4%	1.4%	12.7%
Female	L	1.8%	2.7%	2.2%	7.3%
Female	LB	0.0%	0.0%	3.8%	13.2%
Female	M	0.9%	2.7%	0.0%	2.7%
Female	C	0.9%	2.7%	0.0%	1.3%
Male	NP	2.9%	1.0%	0.5%	7.3%
Male	L	1.9%	1.3%	5.8%	4.0%
Male	LB	0.9%	1.2%	2.6%	3.2%
Male	M	1.8%	1.5%	1.5%	3.8%
Male	C	1.4%	1.6%	1.1%	0.7%

Percent Employed in Food Service, Legal, Journalism, and the Arts
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian,C=Conservative)

The Liberals reported a slightly higher tendency to be in the restaurant industry than the Conservatives, but the Nonpoliticals had them beat by quite a margin, although the Nonpolitical females had a low and unreliable sample size.

The Conservatives reported a slightly higher tendency than the Liberals to be in the Legal industry, although these statistics probably include lawyers, paralegals, judges, police, etc.

The Liberals are more likely to be Journalists, especially the Liberal males, as has been a common complaint of the Conservatives. Again, the Liberal propensity for Journalism is neurophysiological, and not conspiratorial. Ann Coulter notwithstanding, Conservative females in this field are rarer than Liberal females.

And lastly, the Conservatives have the lowest propensity for the Arts, in contrast to the Liberals. Interesting to note, the Nonpoliticals and the female Libertarians had very high propensities for the Arts. Again, the female Nonpoliticals and Libertarians had low sample sizes, and are not reliable statistics.

Discussion

Given our sampling methodology, gathering occupation statistics representative of the entire American population is impossible. However, the occupational variances between Conservatives and Liberals are much more reliable statistics.

Even though our classification system left a lot to be desired, there are some very interesting asymmetries in the industries that Conservatives and Liberals gravitate to.

The Conservatives, especially the Conservative males, are much more likely to be in the Manufacturing, Energy, Construction, Transportation, and Trade industries, while the Liberals gravitate towards Education, Information Processing, Health Care, Journalism, and the Arts.

The Conservatives are more likely to be in industries that produce energy and products. This is also more evidence to support our rather wild hypothesis that Conservatives are more likely to displace mass, that is, move things around, which is ultimately founded upon the energy demands of reproduction.

The Liberals indeed seem to be in occupations that leave the smallest footprints on the habitat. The Conservatives are also the most likely to manage intergroup competition, as evident by their elevated presence in the Military.

But not to be lost here is that the Conservatives and Liberals seem to be the two most symbiotic political cohorts when it comes to filling the diverse economic niches. They do a very good job of niche-partitioning, by dividing up their economic roles, and forming a diverse division of labor.

Their diverse cognitive styles support this economic symbiosis and niche-partitioning quite well. Conservatives and Liberals are also the most geographically isolated political cohorts.

They even seem to have slightly different diurnal activity levels. The Liberals are more nocturnal, on average. The urbanistic tendencies of Liberals also minimize their physical contact with the rural and suburbanized Conservatives.

So there we have it, the two most economically diverse and geographically isolated political cohorts, Conservatives and Liberals, also just happen to be the two cohorts engaged in the highest rates of political conflict.

What are the odds of that?

_________________________________________________________________

Charles Brack and Xi Zhang, April 2007

Email: Brack@neuropolitics.org
           Zhang@neuropolitics.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1266