Research has shown differences between individuals in making choices about what is right or good is biased by differences in their inherited DNA (genetic propensities) and the interplay of those propensities with environmental conditions (see Reference List below).

This means conflicts over resource distribution aren’t just “disagreements” … they reflect real differences based on the interplay of a person’s DNA differences and environmental conditions.

Whether these conflicts are over resource distribution or political beliefs, they have mechanistic roots in how genetic variation interacts with environmental variation to produce neural systems that literally compute different optimal strategies.

It all begins here: DNA creates proteins–without DNA there are no proteins. No proteins means no neurons. No neurons, no neural circuits. No neural circuits, no brain functions. No prefrontal cortex and amygdala. No colors, tones, tastes and smells. No language, art, science, political beliefs, economic systems, innovations or inventions.

REFERENCE LIST

Genetics of Prosocial Behavior and Morality

Israel, S., Hasenfratz, L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). The genetics of morality and prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 55-59.

Twin Studies Establishing Heritability of Moral Foundations

Zakharin, M., Bell, E., Aitken, Z., Coventry, W. L., Wetherell, G., & Bates, T. C. (2023). Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations. Political Psychology, 44(2), 387-406.

Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2022). Polygenic scores: Prediction versus explanation. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 49-52.

Political Attitudes and Behavior

Hatemi, P. K., Gillespie, N. A., Eaves, L. J., Maher, B. S., Webb, B. T., Heath, A. C., … & Martin, N. G. (2011). A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 271-285.

Gene-Environment Interaction in Development

Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27(2), 138-149.

Specific Genetic Variants

Karlsson Linnér, R., Biroli, P., Kong, E., et al. (2021). Genome-wide association analyses of risk tolerance and risky behaviors in over 1 million individuals identify hundreds of loci and shared genetic influences. Nature Genetics, 53(4), 481-493.

Consumer and Economic Preferences

Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 809-842.

Sleep and Chronotype Preferences

Lane, J. M., Vlasac, I., Anderson, S. G., Kyle, S. D., Dixon, W. G., Bechtold, D. A., Gill, S., Little, M. A., Luik, A., Loudon, A., Emsley, R., Scheer, F. A. J. L., Lawlor, D. A., Redline, S., Ray, D. W., Rutter, M. K., & Saxena, R. (2016). Genome-wide association analysis identifies novel loci for chronotype in 100,420 individuals from the UK Biobank. Nature Communications, 7, 10889.

Leisure and Physical Activity Preferences

Huppertz, C., Bartels, M., Jansen, I. E., Boomsma, D. I., Willemsen, G., de Moor, M. H., & de Geus, E. J. (2014). A twin-sibling study on the relationship between exercise attitudes and exercise behavior. Behavior Genetics, 44(1), 45-55.

Substance Use Preferences and Addictive Behaviors

Dick, D. M., & Kendler, K. S. (2012). The impact of gene–environment interaction on alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 34(3), 318-324.

Food Preferences and Taste Perception

Fildes, A., van Jaarsveld, C. H., Llewellyn, C. H., Fisher, A., Cooke, L., & Wardle, J. (2014). Nature and nurture in children’s food preferences. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(4), 911-917.

Aesthetic and Entertainment Preferences

Mosing, M. A., Verweij, K. J., Madison, G., Pedersen, N. L., Zietsch, B. P., & Ullén, F. (2015). Did sexual selection shape human music? Testing predictions from the sexual selection hypothesis of music evolution using a large genetically informative sample of over 10,000 twins. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 359-366.