II. Biology & Politics
General:
1.
Why
have political scientists seemed so reluctant to study the biological bases of
social & political behavior?
Practical, moral, historical issues? Are we reopening a moral can of
worms that Is better left untouched?
2.
Why
should political scientists care about biology?
What kinds of useful scientific or philosophical insights might a
greater knowledge of biology provide political scientists?
3.
How
might your own research benefit from the study of genetics and politics?
Genetics
Research: John R. Alford,
Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005, 2008; Charney.
2008.; Fowler & Dawes 2008. JOP.
4.
Why
focus on genetics? What are the findings
of Alford et al about the degree to which heredity versus the environment
explains individual variation in political & social attitudes? Which attitudes have a high heredity
component & which do not?
5.
What
are the implications for AFH’s findings for the study of political
behavior—e.g., environmental determinism, the properties of heritable
attitudes, political ideologies, human nature & rational choice theories?
6.
Why
use twin studies? What are the potential
strengths and weaknesses of twin studies? Of AFH’s methodology, broadly
speaking?
7.
How
would you “score” the debate between Charney &
AFH? In what important ways has the
position of AFH in response to Charney shifted from
their 05 article?
8.
In
another “Comment,” by AFH, score the authors’ response to Beckwith &
Morris, in the December 2008 issue of Perspectives
on Politics, with respect to two issues:
a. “whether widespread acceptance of the fact that genetics plays an influential role in accounting for variations in human behavior will make the world a better or worse place” (p. 796).
b. and some of the limitations of their methodology raised by Beckwith & Morris and point to some ways of improving inferences based on various methods (employed by Fowler et al and AFH’s own ongoing [unreported] research). How well does Fowler et al’s research address these issues?
9.
How
do Fowler & Dawes contribute to the interactionist perspective in their
research? How would you explain their
findings to an undergraduate class?
Should future genetics researchers be required to use a similar
methodology? Why or why not?
Evolutionary
Psychology: Kanazawa. 2009; McDermott et al, 2008.
10. What are some of the
major assumptions underlying the perspective of evolutionary psychology,
according to Kanazawa, and what kinds of evidence is it based on? What do you see as some of the major
strengths and weaknesses of this perspective?
In your view, how important is it likely to be for political scientists,
especially those studying political behavior? Why?
11. What, in brief, is
Prospect Theory, and how does evolutionary psychology help to flesh out
testable hypotheses about political decision making in different environments,
according to McDermott et al? Is
evolutionary psychology necessary or just a useful heuristic here? What more
would you like to see done?
.