Are We Hardwired to Disagree?
Exploring the evolutionary origins of what divides us
In an era of deepening political divides, it's tempting to believe our differences stem solely from the news we watch, our upbringing, or economic circumstances. But what if the roots of our political orientations run much deeper—woven into the very fabric of our biology over millions of years? 8
This is the provocative question at the heart of Avi Tuschman's Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us, a groundbreaking work that explores how evolution has shaped what divides us politically 8 .
Tuschman, an evolutionary anthropologist, draws on an impressive array of disciplines—from genetics and neuroscience to primatology and political science—to build a compelling case that our political personalities are not merely intellectual constructs 9 . Instead, they represent natural dispositions molded by powerful evolutionary forces 2 . His research suggests that being liberal or conservative reflects much deeper tendencies than we're inclined to think, with profound implications for understanding everything from our voting patterns to our choice of mates 2 5 .
This dimension concerns our circle of moral concern—who we consider "us" versus "them." It encompasses attitudes toward ethnicity, nationality, religion, and social belonging 8 . On one end of the spectrum, we find strong group identification and clear boundaries; on the other, more fluid, inclusive social identities.
This cluster revolves around our perceptions of fairness and how we believe resources and power should be distributed 8 . Some personalities naturally accept hierarchy and significant social inequality, while others are driven to reduce disparities and challenge power structures.
This fundamental dimension involves our core beliefs about whether human nature is essentially fixed or malleable, competitive or cooperative 8 . These perceptions powerfully influence our views on punishment, rehabilitation, and social change.
What makes Tuschman's framework particularly compelling is his exploration of the evolutionary origins of these traits. He traces how these personality clusters emerged from "epic biological conflicts" that shaped our species over millennia 9 . For instance, attitudes toward inequality find parallels in primate social structures, where some species exhibit steep dominance hierarchies while others maintain more egalitarian relationships 2 .
While Tuschman's work explores the deep evolutionary roots of political behavior, contemporary research reveals how these dispositions play out in our modern social landscape.
One of the most remarkable studies in this field—a massive experiment on 61 million Facebook users during the 2010 US congressional elections—demonstrates the powerful role of social influence in political mobilization 3 .
The researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial—the gold standard for establishing cause and effect—by subtly varying the political messages users received in their Facebook feeds 3 .
Users were randomly divided into different groups receiving various versions of a political mobilization message encouraging voting.
Some users saw the message alongside photos of Facebook friends who had already clicked an "I Voted" button.
Other users saw only the informational message without social cues, while some received no message at all.
Researchers then measured real-world voting records to assess the actual impact on behavior, moving beyond mere self-reported intentions.
This immense sample size—roughly a quarter of the US voting-age population at the time—gave the study unprecedented statistical power to detect subtle effects that smaller experiments might miss 3 .
The findings revealed fascinating insights about how political behavior spreads through networks:
| Message Condition | Effect on Real-World Voting | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Informational Message Alone | Minimal direct effect | Information alone is insufficient to drive behavior |
| Social Message (with friends' photos) | Significantly increased voting | Social proof powerfully motivates action |
| Indirect Exposure (friends of treated users) | Noticeable spillover effects | Political behavior spreads through networks |
Perhaps the most striking finding was that the effect of social transmission on real-world voting was greater than the direct effect of the messages themselves 3 . Nearly all this transmission occurred between "close friends" who were more likely to have face-to-face relationships, highlighting the continued importance of strong ties even in digital networks 3 .
The study also revealed subtle gender differences in political susceptibility:
| Gender | Susceptibility to Influence | Influence on Others |
|---|---|---|
| Men | Less influenced by social messages | More influential in spreading behavior |
| Women | More responsive to social information | Less influential in network effects |
This diagram illustrates how political behavior spreads through social networks, with stronger connections between close friends facilitating transmission.
This research demonstrates that our political behaviors are not merely individual choices but emerge from complex social systems where influence flows along relational networks 3 . The implications extend beyond get-out-the-vote efforts to how political ideas, misinformation, and polarization might spread through our digital and real-world social architectures.
Understanding the biological roots of political behavior requires innovative methods and tools from diverse fields.
| Research Tool | Primary Function | Key Insights Generated |
|---|---|---|
| Twin Studies | Disentangle genetic and environmental influences | Reveals heritability of political traits by comparing identical and fraternal twins 9 |
| Neuroimaging (fMRI) | Maps brain activity during political tasks | Identifies neural correlates of political thinking; can predict liberal/conservative orientation 9 |
| Genetic Sequencing | Analyzes genetic markers associated with traits | Explores specific genes that may influence political personality characteristics 2 8 |
| Primatology | Studies political behaviors in primates | Reveals evolutionary origins of hierarchy, coalition-building, and conflict resolution 2 |
| Survey Experiments | Tests causal effects of messages on opinions | Measures how narratives and frames shape political beliefs and policy preferences 6 |
| Hormonal Assays | Measures hormone levels (testosterone, oxytocin) | Links endocrine profiles to dominance behavior, empathy, and group attachment 7 |
Each of these tools comes with important limitations and ethical considerations. For instance, while twin studies suggest a heritable component to political orientation, genes are far from deterministic—they interact in complex ways with environment and experience 7 . Similarly, neuroimaging might identify brain patterns associated with political thinking, but these neural pathways are shaped by both biology and experience through neuroplasticity 7 .
The research presented in Our Political Nature and related studies fundamentally challenges how we think about political differences. Rather than viewing our orientations as purely rational choices or products of socialization, we're invited to see them as arising from complex interactions between deep biological tendencies and environmental influences 8 9 .
Genetic predispositions, neurobiological structures, and hormonal influences shape our political temperament.
Cultural context, social networks, and life experiences interact with biological predispositions.
This biological perspective doesn't reduce us to puppets of our genes or brain chemistry. Instead, it highlights how evolution has equipped humans with different social strategies that can be adaptive in various circumstances 7 . As Tuschman notes in his preface, understanding these deep roots may help us "quiet the heart" and make sense of an otherwise perplexing political world 9 .
"Tuschman's ideas left me with a surprising respect for the spectrum of political attitudes."
Perhaps most importantly, this research offers a pathway toward greater political empathy. When we recognize that political differences stem not merely from ignorance or bad faith but from deep-seated variations in human nature, we might approach our political adversaries with greater curiosity and less contempt.
In a world of increasing political polarization, understanding the biological roots of our differences might be the first step toward building bridges across the divide. The evolutionary lenses Tuschman provides don't necessarily resolve our political conflicts, but they do offer a powerful new way to understand them—and perhaps, eventually, to transcend them.