A guy was involved with a push poll in a publically funded medium in Canada (currently heading to the polls), by which just about everyone comes out a “Liberal”:
Here’s the first experiment. It only takes a minute. Go through the survey and answer every question with “no opinion” as your answer. Of course, skip the part where it asks you to choose parties or leaders (that would be taking an opinion). Surprise! The CBC push-poll says you’re a Liberal.
Even though you gave absolutely no legitimate reason to be pegged as a Liberal. Like I say; Loewen and friends rigged the system.
Now try a completely different approach. Go through the survey again and simply alternate clicking “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree”. Again, skip the section where it asks you to rate the party leaders or parties themselves — but answer the 30 policy questions with alternating extreme agreement and disagreement. Surprise! The CBC push-poll says you’re a Liberal.
About him we also learn:“He’s part of an American team studying genetic influences on human political behaviour.”
The party he opposes is currently leading. Perhaps not nearly enough Canadians believe in Darwin.
3 Replies to “And you thought that Darwinism makes no difference to politics …”
Just registered and this is my first post after 5 years of lurking!
“He’s part of an American team studying genetic influences on human political behaviour.”
…evidently he inherited the lying and cheating politician gene!
I am concerning the origins debate just a novice/layman. I have an undergraduate degree in horticulture. When the opportunity strikes I find myself writing to the editors of local papers and on line where ever I find an opportunity. I have much interest in knowing how instinctive behavior is inherited.
So just saying hello !!!
I am really struggling with the logic of this post!
As I understand it your argument is:
Someone who is part of a team studying genetic influences on human behaviour is also associated with a dodgy political poll. Therefore, Darwinism makes a difference to politics.
1) Whatever your views on evolution you would have to be crazy to deny that our genes have some effect on our behaviour.
2) The fact that he was part of this team doesn’t mean that the study caused him to produce a shoddy poll. Correlation is not causation.
mfrank at 2, nice to hear from you.
Darwinism is the only point of view under which genetic drivers of voting would make any sense.
So the relationship between the push poll and Darwinism is that a true Darwin believer seems to have fronted the poll. I wonder if no one would have noticed if he had been a Mormon or a Chiese communist …
Here is a look at actual drivers of voting, which are quite enough to account for most election results. Some people may confuse the tendency of families to vote alike with genetics (“Liberalism is in my blood … “); it is in fact sociology.
Has anyone other than John West explored the relationship between Darwinism and the demand that societies be run by elites, for the serfs’ benefit?
It all comes of not accepting the reality of the mind. One is condemned to accept only mechanistic explanations.