0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"The study of Fowler and Dawes is wrong," Charney said. "Two genes do not predict turnout. We reran the study using all of their assumptions, equations, and data and found that their results were based upon errors they made. When we corrected the errors, there was no longer any association between these two genes and voter turnout."Charney and English also document how the same two genes that Fowler and Dawes claimed would predict voter turnout are also said to predict, according to other recently published studies, alcoholism, Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, depression, epilepsy, extraversion, insomnia, migraines, narcolepsy, obesity, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, Parkinson's disease, postpartum depression, restless legs syndrome, premature ejaculation, schizophrenia, smoking, success by professional Wall Street traders, sudden infant death syndrome, suicide, Tourette syndrome, and several hundred other behaviors. They point to a number of studies that attempted to confirm these findings and could not.
That said, I've stopped trying to anticipate what people around here want a while ago, I've found it makes things smoother.
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps: I was thirsty, and ye demanded payment for the privilege of thine urine: I was a stranger, and ye deported me: naked, and ye arrested me for indecency.
Thank you for posting this, Shane.
I could see genetics playing a role in political beliefs through differences in intelligence, aggression, potential for empathy, etc., but using genes -- and only two of them, at that -- in an effort to predict a person's leanings strikes me as overly simplistic.
That may be the single gayest thing I have ever read on this board. Or the old one.
Wait, people were saying two genes were causes political outlook? Seriously?
Do you need a gene transplant of some sort in order to change your political stance?
