Jonathan Barazzutti

Much of contemporary discussion surrounding opposition to one’s own political belief concerns the irrationality of those who may disagree with oneself. This is not unique to one political side or another. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon. To a liberal, liberalism appears natural and rational, and conservatism appears backward and silly. To a conservative, conservatism appears natural and rational, and liberalism appears backward and silly. How do we address this dilemma?

To those curious about which side is in fact rational, if either at all, the logical step would be to examine each side’s argumentation to justify their assertions and assess its validity and soundness. This would be effective in helping one understand which set of beliefs is the most rational, but it doesn’t by itself get to the underlying reasons why the belief difference emerged in the first place. One interpretation of differences in belief may be that they are due to differences in people’s rationality and that those on the more correct side are more rational. This may explain the difference with some people, but it seems unlikely for many. The reasons why people have differences in political belief generally don’t come from people sitting back and rationally considering the options but from a whole host of other reasons unrelated to a good-faith assessment of information utilizing one’s cognitive faculties.

One major factor driving differences in belief is genetics, and this article will discuss the evidence for such a claim and how it helps us understand political belief. In particular, I assert that a genetic explanation for political belief increases empathy towards one’s political opponents and hence, contrary to the knee-jerk reactions of some, increases overall tolerance for others.

Over the past few decades, research has consistently found that a person’s political ideology is between 40-60% heritable. But what does heritability mean? Heritability is a measure of the degree to which variation in a trait within a population is due to variation in genes within the population. Political views being 40-60% heritable means that approximately half of the variation in political views in a population is due to genetic variation within the population.

A heritability of approximately 50% is quite significant. It isn’t as high as that of a trait such as intelligence, which is as high as 80% heritable, but it is still substantial. 

But why does this heritability exist? It is first worth noting that psychological traits being heritable should not be considered surprising. There is extensive literature documenting the genetic origins of a whole host of psychological characteristics, from intelligence as previously mentioned, to psychiatric disorders and personality. There is no reason to automatically believe a substantial heritability wouldn’t also exist for traits such as political belief.

In fact, a mechanism that can help explain the heritability of political views is personality. Personality is commonly measured using the big-five model, which posits that five distinct constructs make up an individual’s personality. They are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Sibley et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 73 studies examining the relationship between political ideology and personality. They found that personality traits openness to experience and conscientiousness correlated with a person’s political orientation. More specifically, conscientiousness correlates with political conservatism at 0.10, and openness to experience correlates with political conservatism at -0.18. As Verhulst et al. (2013) has pointed out, this correlation is a function of an innate genetic factor, pointing to a genetic link between personality and political views.

Both of these correlations between personality and political orientation are weak. Suppose you were asked to guess out of two random people who was the more politically conservative person. The only piece of information you were given was their openness to experience. If you guessed that the person lower in openness to experience was the more politically conservative person, you might get it correct about 55-60% of the time. Better than random, but only slightly so. Personality cannot explain the entirety of the heritability of political views, but it can explain some of it.

The notion that a person’s personality may mediate the link between political orientation and a person’s genetics makes intuitive sense. We can take the example of the personality trait of openness to experience. People high in openness to experience tend to be more creative and open to trying or experiencing new things. These psychological traits would naturally be more common amongst those with a more left-leaning political orientation, who tend to be more cosmopolitan and more likely to challenge established traditions and norms. On the other hand, people with low openness to experience tend to be more insular and less open to trying or experiencing new things. This would naturally be something more common amongst those who are more conservative, who tend to be more nationalistic and traditionalist. From a biological perspective, a person’s political views can thus be seen as being in part an extension of their underlying psychological predispositions.

Thus far, I have discussed how on average genetics explains the differences in people’s political beliefs about as much as the environment does. But what about apolitical people or people who do not know much about politics? It seems probable that these people, who generally wouldn’t care as much about political affairs, may have half-formed political views derived more from external social influences or singular pieces of information they happened to have seen on the internet. Or perhaps being apolitical is itself driven by underlying psychological predispositions, so those who are more apolitical will still have a similar heritability of their political views.

Kalmoe & Johnson (2021) attempted to analyze this issue empirically. They utilized a twin study and examined how the level of political knowledge a person has, referred to in the paper as “political sophistication”, affects how much their political views are affected by genetics or environment. They found that those in the lowest fifth of political sophistication have a heritability of political views of 29%. This is substantially lower than the mean heritability of political views, which has been consistently estimated to be between 40-60%. What about those in the highest fifth of political sophistication? For them, it’s 74%. This means that for those with a high amount of political knowledge, their genetics play approximately a three times stronger role in determining their political orientation than their environment!

The high heritability of political views for those with high political knowledge is quite a surprise, but it fits perfectly with the notion that political views are, to some extent, an extension of a person’s underlying psychological predispositions. Having more political knowledge allows one to select whichever political ideology best fits their underlying genetic predispositions.

Such a hypothesis could be further tested with a research study to see if a stronger correlation exists between a person’s personality and political orientation amongst those with higher political knowledge. I am unaware of any study that investigates this issue, so there is room for further scholarship on the issue. I would potentially be interested in conducting this study, so if anyone reading this is also interested in conducting such a study, feel free to contact me.

There is a common tendency to see a single variable as explaining the entirety of a phenomenon. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I do not wish to claim that genetics explains the entirety of people’s political beliefs, especially throughout history. Overall, the degree to which political belief is genetic will almost certainly be a lot smaller than what I have given the impression of here. A fuller discussion of this is needed to properly articulate my view on this question, but a quick contemporary example can be shown to undermine the genetic determinist view of political belief. 

Since the October 7 attacks on Israel, the question of how the Israel-Palestine conflict should be resolved has come into popular discussion. With this, the Angus Reid Institute conducted extensive polling to see how Canadians view the conflict. What is notable is how the sympathy of Canadians for the Israelis versus the Palestinians has changed over time. In November of 2023, 28% of Canadians said their sympathies rested more with the Israelis, while 18% said their sympathies rested more with the Palestinians. The rest said their sympathies were about equal between the two sides or said “Not sure/Can’t say”. So of those with a stronger sympathy for one side or the other, it appears to be about a 60-40 split between those who sympathize more with Israelis versus those who sympathize more with Palestinians.

The institute then did the same survey three months later in February of 2024, to see if public opinion had changed. Now, about 25% of Canadians said their sympathies rested more with the Israelis, while 23% of Canadians said their sympathies rested more with the Palestinians. It changed to be about a 50-50 split between those who sympathize more with Israelis versus those who sympathize more with Palestinians. For a span of three months, this is a significant shift in public opinion on the conflict and one which could not occur due to genetic changes within the Canadian population within that period, which would’ve been essentially static.

Plenty of other examples can be imagined in which public opinion can change massively on a particular issue in response to factors which are clearly external to genetics. How is this reconciled with the view that there is a high heritability of political belief? The short answer to this, which will not be expanded on for brevity, is that heritability estimates look at the population variances of genetics and environment and how they contribute to the population variance in a particular trait. A change in environment without a change in the variance of the environment can lead to an environmental change in a trait without a corresponding change in the trait’s heritability. Hence, you can still have significant population-wide environmental effects that change a trait even if the trait is highly heritable. An example of this would be if you exposed the entirety of a population to a particular piece of information which changed people’s beliefs about a particular issue. This can cause changes in a trait even if the high heritability may imply that individual-level environmental effects, such as a persuasive argument in a one-on-one conversation, may not change the trait.

What are the ethical implications of this research? I would assert that seeing differences in political belief as mechanistic and predetermined can increase people’s tolerance for those who differ in political belief. It allows us to get away from moral attributions to other people’s behavior, labeling them “good” or “evil,” and also allows us to look within ourselves to ask if we may have particular biases which cloud our thinking on a particular issue. There are numerous examples of genetic attributions for behavior being used in movements to push for the tolerance of particular groups. One can just look at how the “born this way” narrative has been used to argue for the tolerance of sexual minorities, or how the idea of “male” or “female” brains has been used to further the pro-trans narrative that many transgender people were “born in the wrong body”.

The relationship between genetic attributions and people’s attitudes has been examined empirically by Schneider et al. (2018). They investigated whether accepting genetic influences is associated with prejudice and intolerance. They found, among other things, that genetic attributions are associated with higher and not lower levels of tolerance for vulnerable individuals. And so we see no evidence that genetic attributions for behavior would result in more intolerance of others. If anything, reducing differences between people to innate factors, even in areas with as much fire and fury as political belief, can increase our tolerance for one another.

I do not say this to argue that we should always attribute differences in traits between people to genetics even when there is no evidence to support such an attribution. Our commitment should always be to the truth first and foremost. However, it does indicate that the fear that genetic attributions will lead to a world of intolerance and division is unfounded.

The study of the genetic basis of political behavior and attitudes, known as “genopolitics,” is a relatively underappreciated field with a dearth of scholarship. However, as our understanding of population genetics continues to advance, I believe the field will gain more traction in academia and the mainstream in the future. 

Marxist philosophy distinguished between idealism and materialism as methodologies to explain society. Idealism seeks to explain societies in terms of mental processes or ideas. Materialism seeks to explain the world in terms of the broader environment or material conditions within a society. Marxists believe that the rejection of idealism necessitates the acceptance of materialism, and from that the broader conclusions that Marxists make about historical development. But it’s a false dichotomy. It ignores the mediator between our internal thoughts and the external world: us. As we progress our understanding of humanity and make our study of the social world more scientific, our models will become less unidimensional. Instead, our models will embrace the multiplicity of factors that explain society, its past, its present, and its future.