Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:50:03.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neurobiology and Politics: A Response to Commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2013

John R. Hibbing
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let me begin by thanking editor Jeff Isaac for inspiring and bringing to fruition this exchange. Securing the participation of nine academics and then cajoling us to meet deadlines and follow instructions is a remarkable accomplishment and I can only hope the finished product approaches his hopes for the enterprise. I would also like to thank the eight scholars who provided commentaries on my target essay. I am truly fortunate that such an all-star cast was willing to spend time pondering the role of neurobiology and politics. They assisted me in better understanding my own positions, and who can ask for more than that? I do not have the space here to offer the point-by-point response that their comments deserve, so I will instead concentrate on the two concerns that were raised most frequently: first, whether biological approaches can answer the kinds of questions political scientists should be asking, and second, whether, regardless of their value in answering questions, applying biological techniques to social behaviors leads to normatively unpalatable conclusions. Before addressing these two important matters, however, it is worth a moment to mention several areas of agreement.

Type
Author Response
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 520 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dodd, Michael D., Balzer, Amanda, Jacobs, Carly M., Gruszczynski, Michael W., Smith, Kevin B., and Hibbing, John R.. 2012. “The Political Left Rolls with the Good; The Political Right Confronts the Bad.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 367(1589): 640–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2013. Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Difference. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Inbar, Yoel, Pizarro, David A., and Bloom, Paul. 2009. “Conservatives Are More Easily Disgusted Than Liberals.” Cognition and Emotion 23(4): 714–25.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1999. “Bounded Rationality.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47(2): 363–91.Google Scholar
Madsen, Douglas. 1985. “A Biochemical Property Relating to Power Seeking in Humans.” American Political Science Review 79(2): 448–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1957. Models of Man. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., Oxley, Douglas R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 2011. “Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-right Political Orientations.” PLoS ONE 6(10): e25552.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Peterson, Steven A.. 1998. “Biopolitics after Three Decades—A Balance Sheet. British Journal of Political Science 28(3): 559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard T. 1992. The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar