Neuropolitics.org Ezine
The Ghost World of Liberals and Conservatives
Archives Please take the new Sex Survey
June 2007
At World's End?
The Collapse of White Liberal Reproduction
No longer like a virgin: can Madonna's career survive menopause?As the percentage of males that reproduce decreases, the high social value of the reproductive female is increasingly on display. Even the music industry, once the pinnacle of male sexual selection, is falling victim to the progressively more valuable ovum.
Post-menopausal females are noticeably ignored by the media, while the unsolved murder of an attractive, young, and reproductive female might dominate cable news for weeks. While many blame the media for this cruel inequity of human value, the reward categorization system, the brain's neurological rendering of reward values for things such as food types, is genetically wired to assign high reward values to reproductively fit females--and the more attractive the female, the higher that value. Once that female is no longer reproductive, that value plummets.
In most species, the gender that produces the larger gamete is typically put in charge of sexual selection, as this larger gamete requires a greater investment of time and resources by its owner. In most species, other than providing sperm, the males have limited or no reproductive value.
However, the human male has a dramatic impact in supporting female reproduction, and has neutralized the female advantage in sexual selection. Indeed, males have been doing their own sexual selecting, and this reciprocal model of male and female sexual selection is the foundation for social classes (see Surplus Males).
Females are more likely to have offspring than males, and as we will touch on in a future edition, a large number of surplus males correlates with some extreme aspects of male behavior, such as the interesting elevation in "altruistic" suicide.
A Decline of Low-Income Reproductive Males?
Worldwide, reproductive rates are decreasing, as family sizes are smaller, and the percentage of females and males that have no offspring is also increasing. However, we have reason to believe that this trend is impacting males more than females.
Our first piece of evidence comes from our Iraqi Warfare Attitudes Survey, where we asked our 3,501 respondents a variety of questions, including how old they are and how many children they have. In the graph below, we see the percentages, by age and gender cohorts, of those respondents that have one or more children.
Percentage with one or more children, by Age and Gender
(F=Female, M=Male)Our surveys attract a very educated community, and these birth rates are lower than the population averages, particularly in the 25 and under and 26-35 age cohorts. However, they exhibit an interesting trend--the younger the age, the greater the relative difference between reproducing males and females. This trend is better seen in the table below, where we have computed the number of reproductive females per reproductive male by age cohort.
The trend is dramatic. The numbers of reproductive females per reproductive male decreases sharply with age. It is nearly equal, (1.01), in the 50-59 age cohort (those born between 1948 and 1957), and is actually lower (0.86) in the 60+ age group (those born before 1948). But in the younger age cohorts, females have a decided advantage in reproducing. But is this trend just a quirk of the overly-educated, higher-income demographic that take our surveys, or is this an echo of a real phenomenon?
Fortunately, we controlled for total household income, so let's take another look at these numbers. In the graph below, we've collapsed our respondents into one of four income cohorts (based on US dollars): 0-50K, 50-100K, 100-200K, and 200K+.
Percentage with one or more children, by Household Income, Age and Gender
(F=Female, M=Male)In the above graph, there is a general trend for an increase in the percentage of people that have at least one child with an increase in total family income. Also, male reproduction is more dependent on income than female reproduction. This is seen in the table below, where we look at the reproductive females per reproductive male in these same cohorts.
As can be seen in the above table, the reproductive impact of income is greater on males. In the 0-50K income cohort, the females have a distinct advantage, but that advantage declines steadily with age. This trend also occurs with the 50-100K cohort.
But as family incomes pass 100K, this pattern changes, and males have the advantage in the 25 and under age group. However, income in this cohort is more inclusive of parental income, so the reproductive rates of the 25 and under males from wealthier families are actually higher than female reproductive rates. Among the upper income cohorts, the only cohort that females have an advantage is with the highly reproductive 26-35 age group.
How do we interpret these results? On average, females certainly reproduce at a younger age than males, so we would expect a male lag in reproductive age. But by the age of 49, the male and female reproductive rates approach their "final" levels, that is, the number of males and females having their first child after 49 is very small.
This is indeed what we see in the 100-200K and 200K+ income cohorts, by the absence of a downward trend from the 36-49, 50-59, through the 60+ age cohorts in the ratio of reproductive females per reproductive male. However, there is a distinctive downward trend in these three age groups in the 0-50K and 50-100K income cohorts.
This is probable evidence that the percentage of low-income reproductive males is decreasing relative to reproductive females, on average. One way for males to equalize their reproductive rates with females is to produce more income. While there is a general worldwide decrease in reproduction for both males and females, it is impacting males more, and lower income males in particular.
The Decline in Liberal Reproduction
While the lower-income males are feeling their genes being squeezed out of the human gene pool may be a bit of a surprise, no one should be surprised at the sharp decline in white Liberal male and female reproduction. This is to be expected, as Liberals, on average, have lower incomes when compared to Conservatives. However, even when controlling for income, the Liberals are still abandoning reproduction at a faster rate than Conservatives.
In the table below, we see, by gender, political affiliation, and age, the percentage of people with at least one child. We have combined the Very Conservatives with the regular Conservatives, and the Very Liberals with the regular Liberals.
Female Conservative Female Conservative Female Conservative Female Conservative Female Conservative Female Liberal Female Liberal Female Liberal Female Liberal Female Liberal Male Conservative Male Conservative Male Conservative Male Conservative Male Conservative Male Liberal Male Liberal Male Liberal Male Liberal Male Liberal The Collapse of Liberal Reproduction Even though our survey respondents have higher levels of education than the general population, and correspondingly lower birth rates, the trends are very pronounced. The Liberals in the 25 and under and 26-35 cohorts are not keeping pace with the Conservatives, unlike their older counterparts. Even though Liberals are generally less likely to have children--this deficit is magnified in the younger age cohorts.
Discussion
Across many species, control of reproductive rates tends to occur when a species has reached the carrying capacity of its local habitat. The urbanistic Liberals are quite adept at reducing their birth rates, and this trend is evident in the above table. But the reproductive squeeze is also impacting Conservatives--just not to the same extent.
The worldwide decline in birth rates has shifted the balance of power among the two genders, as seen by the squeezing out of the lower income males. Females, in the process of reducing their own birth rates, are shifting more towards higher income males as reproductive partners, and high-income males are having children with more than one partner at a much higher rate than low income males.
The Liberals, regardless of income, follow the behaviors of K selected animal populations (see the Population Biology of Conservatives and Liberals), and are reducing their birth rates substantially. This decline in birth rates is squeezing out the genes of low-income males, Liberal males, and Liberal females at a faster pace than the rest of the population. So what is the long term political impact of higher Conservative birth rates?
As we discussed in Birth Rates, Warfare, Stress Disorders, and the Conservative-Liberal Ratio, political disposition, based on several studies of homozygous and heterozygous twins, has been found to be more dependent on heredity than environment. This would implicate a long term secular increase in Conservatives. However, the overall percentage of Liberals has reached some stability in America due to the influx of immigrants, which tend to be politically more liberal than Caucasian Americans.
Liberalism, in the lower latitudes of the United States, is ever darkening in skin color, as there appears to be an interesting link with the serotonergic system. Serotonin increases the levels of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone, which darkens skin. The serotonergic system appears to be responsible for some distinctly Liberal behaviors, such as tolerance for high population densities.
The indigenous non-white populations of the sun-drenched lower United States have higher birth rates than the white Conservatives, so Conservatism and Liberalism, at least in this region, is becoming ever more defined by race. This emerging racial polarization of political attitudes is serious, as Conservatives and Liberals get along much better if they are of the same race.
1778
The Musical Liberal
Regina Spektor and the Strokes' Julian Casablancas: Why do high testosterone females and low testosterone males write such popular songs?The ability for music to induce emotional states, modulate the autonomic nervous system, and make you tap your foot gives it a unique status among sensory events. No activation of any of the other sensory systems, such as touch, taste, smell, or vision, can leak into the premotor regions of your brain and produce the strong desire to move your body like it does to the beat of your favorite song.
Music engages almost every part of the brain, which has evolved to analyze and respond to different musical components in different neural networks. For example, the phylogenetically ancient cerebellum, sometimes referred to as the reptilian brain, is often associated with the extraction of the beat from a song.
This is interesting, in that the cerebellum maintains gait, or the constancy of timing of walking or running. The curious relationship between motion, emotion, and music has deep roots in the cerebellum, as the cerebellum is closely connected to the amygdala, which is the emotional center of the brain. The evolutionary significance of close connections between neural structures involved in emotion and motion is obvious-- emotional states, such as fear, induce movement, such as running away.
But melody is another matter, and is extracted and analyzed in right cerebral hemisphere, and in particular, the right auditory cortex. This asymmetry in hemispheric function in processing melody is of particular significance with Liberals and Conservatives, as the Liberals, based on our hemisphericity theory, are more likely to adapt right-hemispheric neural networks in sensory processing and cognition.
If the right hemisphere in general, and the right auditory cortex in particular, have the burden of extracting melody from music, then the construction of new melodies, a key component of songwriting, is most likely dependent on the right hemisphere.
As we reported in our April 2007 edition, both male and female Liberals are five times more likely to hold occupations in the Arts than are Conservatives, although we did not differentiate visual from musical arts in this statistic. In a survey we performed in 2005, Liberals reported being more musically inclined than Conservatives, and this difference was more prominent among males than females.
Liberals also have a stronger propensity for musical novelty than do Conservatives. Liberals are more likely to prefer new music over "oldies". In a survey we conducted in 2005, we asked 1,390 respondents whether they would rather listen to a song they had never heard before, or a familiar song that they liked. The results, by political-gender cohorts, are seen the in the graph below.
Musical Novelty: Those that prefer unheard music over "oldies"
(VL=Very Liberal, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, C=Conservative, VC=Very Conservative) (F=Female, M=Male)In general, the more liberal one is, the more likely they will seek out musical novelty, or music they have never heard before. The Very Liberals, both males and females, have very high propensities for new music. Also interesting is that males have a higher propensity for new music than females.
But does this preference for musical novelty correlate with music creativity? Do songwriters write new songs due to their preferences for new music? The elevated preference of males for musical novelty may be an indicator of this phenomenon. In most "singing" species, such as birds, the males are more likely to do the singing. Musical creativity in singing male birds is a reproductive advantage, as females are more likely to mate with the more musically prolific males of their species.
In humans, this phenomenon has also been demonstrated, as females have an elevated preference for musically-creative males (and male creativity in general). It is also interesting to note, that in our lone "music" test, the Conservatives had a slightly higher preference for faster beats than Liberals, although Moderates reported the highest preference among all political cohorts.
The Creative Liberal?
The Liberal propensity for music and musical novelty has contributed disproportionately to the seemingly unlimited supply of new music and new musical styles, and also highlights the worldwide appeal of Western culture. Starting with the liberalism of Dylan, Lennon and McCartney, the radicalism of the early Jagger and Richards, and the anarchy of the Sex Pistols, the pantheon of popular liberal musicians continues to be a thorn in the side of the Conservatives.
Political liberalism and the drive for musical novelty are correlated attributes, and seem to share common neural substrates. This brings an obvious question: are Liberals, on average, more "creative" than Conservatives?
In the case of art and music, "creativity" is certainly in the eye of the beholder. But as we discussed in our article, Religion and Technological Change, the American states that swing toward more liberal candidates have almost twice the rate of new patents granted than states that swing toward conservative candidates. While this does not prove anything, as creativity has many faces across many disciplines, geographic areas with higher percentages of Liberals seem to produce higher rates of technological change, at least in America. The Liberal propensity for musical novelty may indeed spill over into other endeavors.
However, we suspect that the progression of art, music, science, technology, and economic development is optimized by a fairly specific mixture of political phenotypes. Modify the proportions of Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Nonpoliticals, and Libertarians, and you modify their respective rates of development.
_________________________________________________________________
Skin Deep?
Reproductive Fitness Cues and the Face
Aishwarya Rai: symmetrical features, wide set eyes, full lips, lustrous hair, and small pores. How does the brain translate that into reproductive fitness?Why are some faces attractive, and others ugly? Why is the brain creating the pleasurable sensation associated with looking at a "beautiful" face? What possible evolutionary value could the assessment of "beauty" provide? Further, do Conservatives and Liberals apply the same criteria in evaluating "beauty"?
We asked the 3,501 respondents to our most recent survey--what facial feature are you most attracted to? As to be expected, the eyes were the most popular selection for both females and males, although females had a higher preference than males across all political cohorts, as seen in the graph below. For this graph, we combined the Very Liberals into the Liberal cohort, and the Very Conservatives into the Conservative cohort.
Those reporting the eyes are the facial feature most attracted to
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian, C=Conservative)
(F=Female, M=Male)The neurological correlates of "beauty" are particularly interesting, and involve the dopaminergic neurons of the brain involved in reward anticipation--the ventral striatum. Knut Kampe et al scanned the brains of 8 males and 8 females as they were shown a variety of faces and found that the subjective experience of "beauty" did not activate any brain regions in particular, unless they were coupled with eye contact.
When the gazes of beautiful faces were diverted away, the neurological impact was to actually reduce activity in the ventral striatum. In other words, if an attractive person makes eye contact, our reward anticipation networks activate. But if they look away, those same networks turn off.
But Kampe also noted that these results were not gender-specific. That is, activations occurred even when males looked at attractive male faces and females viewed attractive female faces. Kampe did not elaborate on the sexual orientation ramifications of this finding, but this probably indicates that sexual preference is filtered by other neural networks during and after the rewarding response to attractive male and female faces.
When it comes to attraction, no other facial feature comes close to the eyes in universal appeal. The eyes convey more information about emotional states and personality characteristics than any other part of the body. Perhaps this explains the elevation in female preference for the eyes, as females are better at emotional recognition than males, and are more likely to assign personality characteristics to different patterns of eye movement.
The eyes are in a constant state of micro-oscillation, and move back and forth about 60 times each second, refreshing the visual information for the rods and cones that respond only to changes in luminance. While these micro-oscillations are not detectable, slower motions are, and dysfunction of smooth eye movements in tracking objects has been associated with schizoidal and other personality disorders. Unidirectional patterns of eye movement have been more associated personality disorders than bidirectional.
Humans are subconsciously studying the eyes to resolve a large number of emotional and personality traits, but let's take a look at some of the other notable facial features rated by the males and females in our survey. For this table, we've combined the Very Liberals into the regular Liberals and the Very Conservatives in with the regular Conservatives.
Which facial feature are you most attracted to?
(NP=Nonpolitical, L=Liberal, M=Moderate, LB=Libertarian, C=Conservative)We must note that females, on average, were more feature-specific, while males were more likely to be not sure of which facial feature they were attracted to. Males have been shown to be more sensitive to facial symmetry, and our result is certainly consistent with that finding.
But among the individual facial components, there are some distinct trends. The males are more likely to be attracted to the skin and hair: both features are markers for estrogen levels and reproductive fitness in females. Males were also more likely to be attracted to the cheeks, and several studies have indicated a stronger male preference for higher and wider cheekbones, which are indicators of elevated estrogen levels.
The mouth area provides both emotional and reproductive cues, and both males and females selected this area second, after the eyes, although we did not delineate exactly which component of the mouth was significant to our respondents. Based on other research, full lips are an indicator of higher estrogen levels, while white teeth are an indicator of relative health and youthfulness.
Discussion
Oddly enough, in our survey, Liberal females reported stronger feature-specific preferences than Conservative females. while Conservative males reported stronger preferences than Liberal males. Remarkably, except for the mouth area, there was no statistically significant difference between Liberals and Conservatives in their facial feature preferences.
We suspect that Liberals have a greater attraction to facial novelty, but this proposal is based on the tendency for Liberals to prefer novelty in general.
_________________________________________________________________
Charles Brack and X. Zhang, June 2007
Email: Brack@neuropolitics.org
Zhang@neuropolitics.org
