My claim is actually fairly mild, it's not "abject speculation" to say that there's nontrivial biological causes behind political belief. The introduction just summarized five decades of peer reviewed research claiming to show that it plays such a role.
That this evidence hasn't (yet) been subsumed into the theories of social scientists doesn't suddenly make it invalid for me to come to the rather mild conclusion that I've come to.
What is abject speculation is when you specifically assert as fact that 25 percent variation is high. This is a positive claim requiring its own burden of proof, and which contradicts some tentative evidence from twin studies.
The only positive claim I intended on making here is that you've put all your eggs into a highly speculative and niche area of psychology that has little institutional backing, and is far from well understood right now.
Anything else I've said was to counter your own positive claims. If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize.
And while now you may have backed into a more reasonable stance, we started this conversation with you comparing "improving your ability to change and grow" to "gay conversion therapy" which is laughably wrong.
The only positive claim I've made is that there's nontrivial biological causes, for which there's a substantial and growing body of evidence. I haven't moderated or changed my claim since we started this conversation.
You can see the evidence reflected in twin studies, in personality studies, in FMRI studies, and so on. I get that Social Science TM hasn't adopted it in their theories yet (which are always going to lag empirical reality), but I'm not exactly looking for this institutional mandate before I form my worldview, either. I've done academic research in the social sciences (albeit not in psych) myself and feel satisfied enough to come to the tentative conclusion I've come to given what I've read.
Am I 100 percent certain? No, but I'm certain enough (say,
95 percent) to operate as if it is true.
Regarding the gay conversion therapy thing - I was interpreting your comment to mean that people can change their political views/orientation after being given feedback etc. If that wasn't the intention/meaning of your comment, then I'm sorry for that.
You continue to obfuscate, misrepresent, and outright lie about what you said and the claims you've made. The history is right above us, it's clear to me and anyone who is reading this what you've really done.
This conversation is pointless, you're not willing to be honest or engage with legitimacy. It is a fact that people are capable of changing their political views, your own citations demonstrate that quite clearly, and your "95 percent" certainty that they cannot is a consequence of your own failure to understand what you've read.
My initial claim: "political belief is caused by personality traits (e.g. orderliness) and brain structure (e.g. amygdala size)".
Which is the same as all other representations I've made. I never said this was an exhaustive list of causes, which would obviously be a ridiculous claim to make. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that I'm changing my view, maybe you can point that out if it's true?
""95 percent" certainty that they cannot"
It's deeply ironic that you're accusing me of misrepresentation when you're throwing out these strawmen.
I never said that I'm 95 percent certain that people can't change their political views. That's a straw man. I said I'm 95 percent certain in my conclusion that there are nontrivial biological causes to political orientation and belief.
I think you're right that we should leave it here.
That this evidence hasn't (yet) been subsumed into the theories of social scientists doesn't suddenly make it invalid for me to come to the rather mild conclusion that I've come to.
What is abject speculation is when you specifically assert as fact that 25 percent variation is high. This is a positive claim requiring its own burden of proof, and which contradicts some tentative evidence from twin studies.