Imagine two couples. The first couple were married previously. They’re swingers and bisexual. They have an open marriage and routinely have side flings. They have no children and don’t plan to have children. They are both surgically sterile, but if by some miracle the wife gets pregnant accidently the child will be aborted. The second couple met in high school, become a couple, attended college together, and got married shortly after graduation. They were each other’s first sexual partner. They will remain married for their entire lives. The couple has four children. They don’t plan to have more kids, but if the wife becomes pregnant they will have the baby.
Which couple voted for Trump, and which couple voted for Bernie?
The answer is obvious of course, strangely obvious in fact, but it raises a very strange concept. r/K selection theory, as theorized by Anonymous Conservative, is the idea that our political beliefs and sexual practices are not incidentally correlated, but necessarily causal. People who are promiscuous are r-selected. They will want to have more welfare programs to provide for their numerous children. They won’t be consciously aware of this drive. It is an instinct. It’s part of their mating strategy. K-selected people are monogamous, and will want low taxes so they can better provide for their few children.
Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU. His research attempts to find out why people believe things from a psychological perspective instead of focusing on people’s own arguments. What he has found is that Bernie Sanders type liberals are emotionally low disgust/high compassion, libertarians are low disgust/low compassion, conservatives are high disgust/low compassion, and communists are high disgust/high compassion. Having high compassion means that you empathize with the plight others, and thus they want large welfare states, to take in refugees, they’re very concerned with workers’ rights, want to ban guns, etc. Lower compassion people want to lower taxes, simplified regulations, and a general end to systems that they view as harmful to themselves. High disgust means sensitivity to threats, and thus both communists and conservatives are more hawkish and highly concerned with borders. Low disgust results in a love of novelty and curiosity, and so liberals and libertarians love to try exotic food, go to art galleries, etc.
The structures of Republican and Democrats brains are measurably different as well. In a study where participants were asked to make gambling choices, liberals were found to use insula, which is used to monitor feelings. However, Republicans used their right amygdala, which is used to evaluate threats. This test was so accurate that it was correct 82.9% of time. Conservatives and liberals are literally using different parts of the brain to evaluate the same problem. Furthermore, the conservatives have been shown to have larger amygdalae while liberals has larger anterior cingulate cortex. No wonder we don’t understand each other. Our brains are different.
Hormones are another big difference between liberals and conservatives. Testosterone is also a major indicator of political position. Physically stronger men don’t support the welfare state. Men with wider faces, indicating testosterone, are more open with prejudices. High T men support an aggressive foreign policy. There is a specific dopamine gene variant that is associated with liberal ideology. These people get a large dopamine hit when encountering novelty and so they seek out new experiences. So logically these people want to, for instance, travel. If such a person was in Europe they would then be against Brexit because it would limit their ability to travel. Someone like this may also want to go to many different exotic restaurants and so favor a more permissive immigration policy or even want more funding for the arts. An oxytocin nasal spray that was given to students made them more generous with sharing money. Another study showed that the hormone made people simultaneously work better with their in-group and become more xenophobic. Even cortisol has political implications. People with high cortisol levels are less likely to vote as the voting process stresses them out.
All of this means that the person you’re speaking isn’t a passive, logical entity carefully evaluating your arguments. A person you debate politics with always has a dog in the fight. They always have already taken a side genetically. If they are r-selected and you try to convince them to vote against an expansion of welfare you are asking them to vote against their children. If this person is compassion oriented and you argue with them about ending aid to Africa, you are literally debating them on whether they should feel good or not. Next time you’re in an argument with a liberal don’t stress over finding the exactly right combination of words you need to convince them. Instead, sign up to coach kids sports to boost their testosterone. It’ll be more effective for making a better future.