ㆍSeo Moon│Inherited Conflict

Chapter 1: Uncomfortable Companionship

Dynamics of Conflict┃Politics and Science┃The Spectrum of Ideology┃Think Probabilistically┃Leibniz's Nonsense┃The Truth Revealed┃Is Fighting the Only Answer?

Chapter 2: What Controls Our Thoughts?

Political Inbreeding┃Political Fluidity┃The Dominance of Universality┃Ideology is 'Us'

Chapter 3: What determines normality?

Diversity and Irrationality┃The Trend of the Assumption of Unity┃The Trap of Locke and Gladwell┃The Age of Dichotomy is Over┃The Biology of Behavior┃The World of Difference

Chapter 4: The Politics of Preference

Taste is ideological┃Authoritarian political tendencies┃Personality that determines taste┃Receptor of moral sense┃Correlation between politics and personality┃Humans are political animals

Chapter 5: Conflicting Views

Gaze and Social Response┃The Standard for Conceiving the World┃The Answer Lies in Focus┃Where the Eyes Linger┃The Difference in Perception┃Acquisition and Utilization of Information┃The Created Reality

Chapter 6│Is Our Nature Our Destiny?

The Human Body's Information Processing System┃Politics and the Brain┃Physics That Make You Sweaty┃Imprinted Hatred and Outgroups┃The Politics Behind the Face┃Negativity Bias and Conservatism┃The Roots of Political Difference

Chapter 7│Is the environment ultimately meaningless?

The Power of Genes | Is Political Inclination Inherited? | Twins' Political Inclinations | Genetic Variation in Political Beliefs | Epigenetic Changes | Inconvenient Truths | Evolving Conventional Wisdom

Chapter 8: The History of Eruption

Conditions for Survival┃What Are You Trying to Deny?┃Genetic Variation According to Environment┃Group Selection and Genetic Diversity┃Selective Pressure and Political Tendency┃Antagonistic Symbiosis┃Genes Are Not Everything┃Evolution's Chaos

Chapter 9: How far have we come?

The Heritability of Political Tendency┃The Sociobiology Debate and Genetic Identity┃A Tale of Two Cities┃Fallen by Illusion┃Let's Acknowledge Differences┃Language that Persuades Differences┃Let's Embrace Our Innate Tendencies┃What is a Desirable Political System?

Conclusion│Under different realities

A Word to Progressives┃A Word to Conservatives┃Change Continues

ㆍAppendix│Political Tendency Diagnostic Test

ㆍReferences

Fate and will: what separates conservatives from progressives?
Crossing the border between two irreconcilable camps
Talking about conservatism and progressivism with modern science

Our appearance, which is woven with complete ‘self’,
Is it genetic planning or environmental influence?
Dissecting the "Political Animal" Through Nature and Nurture

The golden age of 'splitting'

There is a saying that has become a buzzword in relation to political issues.
It is called 'galachigi', and although the exact etymology is different, it refers to a strategy in Baduk to disperse forces by preventing the opponent from making a house.
In a similar vein, division has become a common sentiment in each social group, causing hatred and conflict across various social classes, including gender, generation, religion, economic status, occupation, and political orientation, within the community.
This kind of culture has long been established as a new social problem, as discrimination arising from differences expands into hatred.
Conflicts between men and women, rich and poor, businesses and workers, and the young and the middle-aged have existed since ancient times, but the conflict between conservatives and progressives has a history so deep that it encompasses all of these conflicts.

According to philosopher Martha Nussbaum, disgust stems from a primal defense mechanism that protects us from things as dirty as excrement.
In other words, disgust can be said to be an emotion that avoids infection and contamination from something that threatens oneself.
The challenge is to extend these feelings to the societal level.
As a result, 'projective disgust' occurs, in which an object inferior to oneself is identified with the object of one's primal disgust, even though it is not actually dangerous.
Political philosopher Hannah Arendt says that the soil of hatred that feeds on fear is formed by problems in social structure as well as personal moral issues.
Accordingly, we live a life where hatred is taken for granted.

It is generally known that hatred toward out-groups is most pronounced among conservatives.
Because conservatives place more weight on the stability of the group.
In contrast, the perception that progressives pursue openness to newness and diversity has been ingrained for quite some time.
However, even liberals who are tolerant of outgroups are quick to criticize and slander conservatives when they meet them.
This conflict shows no signs of abating as it escalates into 'polarization', or political polarization.
In an age of hatred fueled by conflicting emotions, "How Are Political Tendencies Determined?" presents a way to understand one another through the lens of science.

Genetic Copies and 'Nature vs. Nurture'

Naturally, we are all genetic copies of someone else.
This book says that our personality, tastes, and even political leanings are genetic.
So what about identical twins, whose genetic similarity between siblings is striking? The lives of identical twins Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, adopted into separate families just four weeks after birth, were remarkably similar.
They were all similar in their preferred cigarettes, beers, car brands, vacation spots, and even their favorite and least favorite subjects, hobbies, and chronic illnesses during their school days.
There was no need to mention occupation, IQ, personality, or job aptitude.
The case of identical twins who grew up in such different environments clearly demonstrates the influence of genes.
Similarly, twin studies conducted by the authors show that identical twins are generally more similar in their positions on political issues than fraternal twins.

Meanwhile, the case of children who were raised with different parents at birth shows even more interesting facts.
This is the case of Kay Lynn Reed and Deanne Angel.
Kay Lynn Reed, unlike her conservative father, considers herself a centrist, but she says she is progressive on gender equality issues.
Of course, we cannot be certain of her biological parents' political leanings, as she added that her somewhat progressive tendencies stemmed from her college years.
But this case flies in the face of the common belief that our environment determines everything about us.
In conclusion, the hypothesis that even our internal realms, including our tastes, are already set at the genetic level is gaining ground.
This suggests that there is a realm of ‘nature’ within us that cannot be changed even through ‘parenting.’

Does this mean the influence of the environment is irrelevant? The authors argue that once established, political leanings remain unchanged, and that conspiracy theories peddled by the American far-right, claiming that media and education brainwash children and youth into adopting certain tendencies, are false.
This underscores the undesirability of downplaying the role of heredity while ignoring the mounting evidence that there are innate tendencies that shape our thinking.
However, they also urge us not to forget that small differences inherent in genes, including epigenetics, can be amplified by environmental factors.
Political inclinations are generally considered to be largely acquired, as they are established in adulthood.
But the truth is that genes are at the heart of it, and the environment plays a role in amplifying the initial limited genetic variation.

ㆍEvolution of the political animal

'Man is by nature a political animal.' This is Aristotle's famous proposition.
The essential human characteristics of possessing language, communicating with others, and maintaining community serve as the source of politics and the basis for its propositions.
From primitive society to modern society, "How Are Political Tendencies Determined?" portrays humans as so-called "political animals" from the perspective of selective pressure.
Ultimately, the history of conservatism and progressivism is not limited to the French Revolution of the late 18th century.
This book explains that the history of political orientation begins even earlier, in the Pleistocene era.
In the harsh world of nature, primitive humans lived in a world fraught with danger in acquiring and distributing resources to achieve their goal of survival.
In modern times, as factors that threaten human life, such as disease and war, have noticeably decreased, humanity has expanded the scope of its ethical concerns from the individual to the entire planet.
As we travel through this historical path, humanity has been divided into conservatives who value the stability of their own group and progressives who pursue innovation and diversity.
However, they have been enemies for a long time due to differences in opinions.
Ultimately, the authors argue that it is better to acknowledge the present by calling people belonging to the two tendencies subspecies, and that it is more realistic to find solutions in the current situation rather than in an ideal.

As such, "How Are Political Tendencies Determined?" illuminates the reality of conservatism and progressivism, which have long maintained a symbiotic, hostile relationship, from a balanced perspective.
This book critically examines existing research on the human mind, including behavioral psychology, evolutionary psychology, social psychology, and classical microeconomics.
At the same time, it explores the biological basis of political beliefs based on various scientific fields such as brain science, neuroscience, genetics and epigenetics, and evolutionary theory.
By recognizing the existence of innate tendencies that cannot be changed by environment alone, we will be able to view humanity and politics from a more open perspective.
This book will serve as a cornerstone for a better future for our community by helping us understand each other's characteristics and principles of behavior at a time when political conflict is intensifying.