6 ms·

Could Patriotism Be Genetic?

19 points by BIackSwan 11y ago

sanxiyn 11y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines failed, because the answer is yes. All of Big Five personality traits are heritable, with about 50% heritability. So this is pretty much expected result, not a surprising result.
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  It's surprising to the mainstream left, which is as ignorant of current behavioral genetics research as the mainstream right is of climate change research. Edit: downvoters, I'm not trying to be explicitly political here. I'm really just making a broader point that the uncritical embrace of the blank slate hypothesis is the reason this is surprising, in the same way that confirmation of AGW would be surprising to a climate change denier.
  - facetube 11y ago
    You're being downvoted because you're being overbroad IMO. To claim the entire "mainstream left" is ignorant of behavioural genetics research is demonstrably false and may be viewed as being politically motivated.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - crusso 11y ago
      Notice that you had to add "entire" to vox's statement to make your point. Vox's point was a bit of a generalization, but your argument used an unfair exaggeration.
      - facetube 11y ago
        Was he talking about only a portion of the "mainstream left"? These are individual American citizens with a variety of competencies and experience; it's unclear to me why there'd be a connection between this and one's political beliefs.
        crusso 11y ago
        Even the modifier "mainstream" suggests a subset of some larger "left". If you understood his similar comment about the "mainstream right", that should give you an idea of how he drew the connection for the "mainstream left".
    - vixen99 11y ago
      There is an identifiable mainstream left and we know exactly what they think about behavioural genetics research? Or at least we know enough to claim it is demonstrably false? So who is being overbroad here?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > It's surprising to the mainstream left, which is as ignorant of current behavioral genetics research as the mainstream right is of climate change research. Ignorant and without foundation. > I'm really just making a broader point that the uncritical embrace of the blank slate hypothesis No, you're trying to label the left as ignorant of an entire field of study because it makes you think you're superior to them, never mind that your assertion is not true.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Has this heritability been established as genetic, rather than environmental? Also, do you have a good reference for someone unfamiliar with these big five traits (neutral source like Wikipedia or a university preferred)?
  - sanxiyn 11y ago
    For Big Five, Wikipedia has a good page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
ris 11y ago
Hold on, are we talking about patriotism or nationalism? There's a difference.
- perakojotgenije 11y ago
  Not really, one can easily lead to another.
- dang 11y ago
  The article goes into this distinction in detail.
- lsc 11y ago
  > Hold on, are we talking about patriotism or nationalism? There's a difference. I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just that the difference is not immediately obvious. You need some links, citations, things of that nature to make the difference clear to people who have used the two as synonyms with different connotations. edit: okay, as another poster pointed out, the article gave definitions "Mina Cikara, a psychologist who runs the Harvard Intergroup Neuroscience Lab, says there is an important distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism, she notes, is “ingroup love”: We sacrifice out of love for the greater good. Nationalism is about “outgroup hate”: We punish those not like us. “Nationalism is more like ‘We’re better than everybody else,’ as opposed to patriotism, which is ‘We’re great,’ ” Cikara says. “One is just really about being prideful of your group, and the other is about being oriented specifically toward superiority over other countries. That’s why people think nationalism is gross and typically associate it with Nazi Germany. Whereas patriotism is something everyone should possess as a virtue.” That still sounds like two sides of the same coin to me, but I... am pretty far removed from most of the groups we're talking about here. Nothing gives me an experience of "the other" quite like witnessing a sports game.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vijayr 11y ago
genuine question - why should anyone feel patriotic at all? shouldn't we love/like the whole planet? what is the point in getting attached to a place just because we were born there?
- Xcelerate 11y ago
  This is something I've often wondered. I've never understand why people in other countries count for "less" than people in one's own country.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    It doesn't make much sense in today's world, both practically and theoretically. We share more today than ever (food, music, culture, products, software, ideas and so on). There is no way a country can survive on it's own - people travel so much across the world for work and pleasure, marry across cultures/religions/nationalities etc. If anything, we should look at the world as one entity.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Do you understand why people in other companies count for "less" than people in one's company? To the extend that they want their startup to succeed over the other's in the market? Or why people in one's family count to them for more than people in other people's families? Similar thing. The same reason we take care of our own, but we don't go out of our way to help a stranger in need. It's not that we consider them "less human" or that they actually count for "less" in abstract, but people do have (a) limited resources (so can't help everyone) (b) limited horizon of acquaintences and direct experiences (so can't know everyone) (c) preferences and alliances (so can't care for everyone).
- bovermyer 11y ago
  The article explains this, to a degree. The short version is that we naturally identify with people similar to us. Geographic separation is an influencer in this. As such, a person will identify more closely with those around him than with those hundreds of miles away. An ingroup and an outgroup are thus formed. Per the article, such a distinction can then lead to either patriotic (pro-ingroup) or nationalist (anti-outgroup) behavior, depending on how strong one's ties to one's own group are. This is why the only way to unify the planet as you suggest is to introduce an extraterrestrial threat strong enough to make our entire species an ingroup. Which is, if you'll forgive the comics nerd moment, exactly what Ozymandias does in the Watchmen.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

19 points by BIackSwan 11y ago

Betteridge's law of headlines failed, because the answer is yes. All of Big Five personality traits are heritable, with about 50% heritability. So this is pretty much expected result, not a surprising result.

vox_mollis 11y ago
It's surprising to the mainstream left, which is as ignorant of current behavioral genetics research as the mainstream right is of climate change research. Edit: downvoters, I'm not trying to be explicitly political here. I'm really just making a broader point that the uncritical embrace of the blank slate hypothesis is the reason this is surprising, in the same way that confirmation of AGW would be surprising to a climate change denier.
- facetube 11y ago
  You're being downvoted because you're being overbroad IMO. To claim the entire "mainstream left" is ignorant of behavioural genetics research is demonstrably false and may be viewed as being politically motivated.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - crusso 11y ago
    Notice that you had to add "entire" to vox's statement to make your point. Vox's point was a bit of a generalization, but your argument used an unfair exaggeration.
    - facetube 11y ago
      Was he talking about only a portion of the "mainstream left"? These are individual American citizens with a variety of competencies and experience; it's unclear to me why there'd be a connection between this and one's political beliefs.
      - crusso 11y ago
        Even the modifier "mainstream" suggests a subset of some larger "left". If you understood his similar comment about the "mainstream right", that should give you an idea of how he drew the connection for the "mainstream left".
  - vixen99 11y ago
    There is an identifiable mainstream left and we know exactly what they think about behavioural genetics research? Or at least we know enough to claim it is demonstrably false? So who is being overbroad here?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > It's surprising to the mainstream left, which is as ignorant of current behavioral genetics research as the mainstream right is of climate change research. Ignorant and without foundation. > I'm really just making a broader point that the uncritical embrace of the blank slate hypothesis No, you're trying to label the left as ignorant of an entire field of study because it makes you think you're superior to them, never mind that your assertion is not true.
nitrogen 11y ago
Has this heritability been established as genetic, rather than environmental? Also, do you have a good reference for someone unfamiliar with these big five traits (neutral source like Wikipedia or a university preferred)?
- sanxiyn 11y ago
  For Big Five, Wikipedia has a good page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

ris 11y ago

Hold on, are we talking about patriotism or nationalism? There's a difference.

perakojotgenije 11y ago
Not really, one can easily lead to another.
dang 11y ago
The article goes into this distinction in detail.
lsc 11y ago
> Hold on, are we talking about patriotism or nationalism? There's a difference. I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just that the difference is not immediately obvious. You need some links, citations, things of that nature to make the difference clear to people who have used the two as synonyms with different connotations. edit: okay, as another poster pointed out, the article gave definitions "Mina Cikara, a psychologist who runs the Harvard Intergroup Neuroscience Lab, says there is an important distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism, she notes, is “ingroup love”: We sacrifice out of love for the greater good. Nationalism is about “outgroup hate”: We punish those not like us. “Nationalism is more like ‘We’re better than everybody else,’ as opposed to patriotism, which is ‘We’re great,’ ” Cikara says. “One is just really about being prideful of your group, and the other is about being oriented specifically toward superiority over other countries. That’s why people think nationalism is gross and typically associate it with Nazi Germany. Whereas patriotism is something everyone should possess as a virtue.” That still sounds like two sides of the same coin to me, but I... am pretty far removed from most of the groups we're talking about here. Nothing gives me an experience of "the other" quite like witnessing a sports game.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vijayr 11y ago

genuine question - why should anyone feel patriotic at all? shouldn't we love/like the whole planet? what is the point in getting attached to a place just because we were born there?

Xcelerate 11y ago
This is something I've often wondered. I've never understand why people in other countries count for "less" than people in one's own country.
- vijayr 11y ago
  It doesn't make much sense in today's world, both practically and theoretically. We share more today than ever (food, music, culture, products, software, ideas and so on). There is no way a country can survive on it's own - people travel so much across the world for work and pleasure, marry across cultures/religions/nationalities etc. If anything, we should look at the world as one entity.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Do you understand why people in other companies count for "less" than people in one's company? To the extend that they want their startup to succeed over the other's in the market? Or why people in one's family count to them for more than people in other people's families? Similar thing. The same reason we take care of our own, but we don't go out of our way to help a stranger in need. It's not that we consider them "less human" or that they actually count for "less" in abstract, but people do have (a) limited resources (so can't help everyone) (b) limited horizon of acquaintences and direct experiences (so can't know everyone) (c) preferences and alliances (so can't care for everyone).
bovermyer 11y ago
The article explains this, to a degree. The short version is that we naturally identify with people similar to us. Geographic separation is an influencer in this. As such, a person will identify more closely with those around him than with those hundreds of miles away. An ingroup and an outgroup are thus formed. Per the article, such a distinction can then lead to either patriotic (pro-ingroup) or nationalist (anti-outgroup) behavior, depending on how strong one's ties to one's own group are. This is why the only way to unify the planet as you suggest is to introduce an extraterrestrial threat strong enough to make our entire species an ingroup. Which is, if you'll forgive the comics nerd moment, exactly what Ozymandias does in the Watchmen.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]