Political Neurodiversity and Big Tech: An ADA-based approach to fighting political viewpoint-based discrimination, by Winston Smith

Shielded by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Big Tech actors like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, among others, have been demonetizing, censoring, and banning conservative voices on the internet. Despite President Trump’s occupying the White House and Republican control of the Senate for the past four years, section 230 has survived unchanged, and the right continues to suffer from political viewpoint-based discrimination that is only likely to worsen under a Biden administration.
Since changing section 230 will be even more difficult with a Democrat President, Senate, and House, some have proposed a state-level approach. The idea would be for states with Republican governors and state legislatures to enact laws prohibiting political viewpoint-based discrimination, elevating political viewpoint to the same status as race, religion, sex, age, and disability as illegal bases for discrimination. While this approach may be promising, I am not a lawyer, and I have concerns that such state legislation might run afoul of the constitution’s commerce clause.
There exists another approach to fighting political viewpoint-based discrimination that does not require new federal legislation, and is based upon established antidiscrimination law, namely, that Big Tech companies which engage in political viewpoint-based discrimination should be subject to lawsuit for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
While there is no ironclad relationship between personality and political views, there does seem to be a correlation between certain elements of personality and political viewpoint. This relationship can be detected as early as age 3. A 2005 publication by Block and Block from UC Berkely (https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdfdescribed 128 3-year old nursery school students from the Berkeley area. Each child was evaluated following 7 months of observation by experienced nursery school teachers, with findings encoded into the CCQ, a tool for describing children’s personality, cognitive, and social characteristics. The following year, each child was again evaluated using the same criteria by three additional, independent observers. Twenty years later, as young adults at age 23, 104 of the original subjects were assessed, and data were available for 98. The young adult assessment included self assessment on a 5-point scale from very liberal to very conservative, agreement on 10 issues distinguishing the Democrat from Republican parties, McCloskey’s Dimensions of Political Tolerance scale, the Kerlinger Liberalism Scale, the Kerlinger Conservatism Scale, questions about political activism, and the Political Activism Scale. The results showed that trained observers’ assessments of the personalities of nursery school children correlated with these same subjects’ political views 20 years later. The psychological processes that affect political viewpoint are fundamental enough to be identified in pre-schoolers and to persist for at least 20 years.
These differences in political viewpoint appear to reflect neuroanatomic differences. A 2011 report by Kanai and colleagues from University College – London (https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2) described 90 university students who were asked to self-identify on a 5-point scale from very liberal to very conservative, and then to undergo structural MR brain imaging. They found that increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex correlated with liberalism, while increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala correlated with conservatism, and were able to replicate their findings on an additional sample of 28 persons. The investigators also found that with only these two measurements, they could predict whether a student was “very liberal” or “conservative” (there were no students who self identified as “very conservative”) with 72% accuracy.
Not only are there neuroanatomical differences between liberals and conservatives, there also appear to be differences in brain chemistry, as well. A 2015 report by Ebstein and colleagues from the National University of Singapore  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632631/examined 1,771 Han Chinese university students in Singapore. Political attitudes were measured by self assessment on a 5-point scale from very liberal to very conservative. DNA samples were taken from each particpant, and using PCR, the number of exon III tandem repeats of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) were analyzed. The investigators found a significant correlation between DRD4 genotype and self reported political viewpoint, particularly in female students.
Finally, Bouchard and colleagues (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/ used the Minnesota Twin Study dataset to identify 1,400 monozygotic and fraternal twin pairs raised together in the same home, as well as 88 monozygotic pairs and 44 fraternal pairs raised apart, who were asked to take the Right Wing Authoritarianism political orientation test. Twins raised apart were typically separated at ~6 months of age. While there was a high correlation between the responses of both monozygotic and fraternal twin pairs raised together in the same home, there was no correlation between the responses of fraternal twin pairs raised apart, while the responses of monozygotic twins raised apart correlated as strongly as those of monozygotic twins raised together, implying that political orientation was heritable. In fact, many researchers have estimated the heritability of political viewpoint at ~40-50%.
The correlation between personality as assessed at age 3 and political views 20 years later, the correlation of political viewpoint with neuroanatomy and dopamine receptor genes, and the data from the Minnesota Twin Study dataset, all imply that there exist fundamental, and likely heritable, differences in certain brain function between liberals and conservatives. Since political viewpoint appears to be an inherent component of one’s neuropsychologic makeup, there is a strong argument that political viewpoint discrimination represents a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Some conservatives may bristle at the idea of being labeled “disabled.” I sympathize with this view. However, consider Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Students with ADHD are routinely granted additional time to complete standardized tests like the SAT, MCAT, and LSAT on the basis of the ADA, and yet, people with ADHD can be particularly energetic, creative, and hyperfocused – a benefit in some settings – and most lead happy, successful,and productive lives. Should such individuals be considered disabled, or are they more accurately described as “differently abled?” Consider the Deaf culture among people who cannot hear. Such individuals do not consider themselves disabled, but rather consider themselves members of a distinct culture with its own language, literature and art, and customs, and yet they, too, enjoy protection under the ADA. Based upon the information above, could not individuals with a conservative viewpoint be considered to be in a similar situation, and nowadays subject to even more invidious discrimination than individuals who cannot hear or those with ADHD?
Some might argue that the evidence for a genetic predisposition to a conservative viewpoint is weak – after all, nobody has identified a “conservative gene.” However, nobody has identified a “gay gene,” and yet the left endorses affording homosexuals civil rights protections. Others might argue that the anatomic and biochemical changes described above might be result of, rather than the cause of conservative beliefs – in other words, those darned conservatives brought this on themselves. While the DNA-level findings and measurable differences dating back to early childhood argue against this, suppose it were true? Is an individual who is paraplegic as a result of a motor vehicle accident that he caused while driving drunk entitled to less protection under the ADA than an individual who has been paraplegic from birth due to spina bifida? Not to my knowledge.
I would love to see section 230 amended so that it no longer shielded Big Tech’s political viewpoint-based discrimination from redress. I also wish success to state level legislation to prohibit viewpoint-based discrimination, although this would leave individuals in other states without such laws still unprotected. An ADA-based approach would prevent political viewpoint-based discrimination on a national level, without the need for additional legislation. Furthermore, while amending section 230 would address political viewpoint-based discrimination on the part of Big Tech, it would not affect political viewpoint-based discrimination by educational institutions, financial institutions, or employers. An ADA-based approach to political viewpoint-based discrimination would address discrimination in these settings as well, and indeed in any setting subject to the ADA.
— Winston Smith

Spread the love
                

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: NC Scout

NC Scout is the nom de guerre of a former Infantry Scout and Sergeant in one of the Army’s best Reconnaissance Units. He has combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He teaches a series of courses focusing on small unit skills rarely if ever taught anywhere else in the prepping and survival field, including his RTO Course which focuses on small unit communications. In his free time he is an avid hunter, bushcrafter, writer, long range shooter, prepper, amateur radio operator and Libertarian activist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or via his blog at brushbeater.wordpress.com .

18 Comments

  1. James Carpenter aka "Felix" January 23, 2021 at 08:43

    Following the science, it is explained why some people are stupid, some crazy, some both stupid and crazy. Having scientifically established the “how” and “why” of “stupid is as stupid does”, can we explore the future ramifications of such discovery?
    In a changing world, I’d like to know what (if any) survival advantages might accrue to the “Conservatively Disabled”.

    • Luke January 23, 2021 at 13:17

      “Conservatively Disabled” maybe I can get the Doc to prescribe me beer, guns, and ammo. Perhaps my damn insurance would pay for it. 😁

      • oughtsix January 23, 2021 at 21:02

        Sorry, Luke, but “conservatively disabled” as well as the general interpretation likely to accrue to the author’s pov above, is that those so “afflicted” are a danger to themselves and others and in need of “treatment” of some kind. Limited only by the imagination….
        If we can’t trust the courts to even look at the mountains of evidence of major election fraud, how do you suppose the PTB will “follow the science” as described above?

      • James Carpenter aka "Felix" January 23, 2021 at 22:04

        Don’t get you hopes up about the free beer just yet, Luke.
        But remember, handsome is as handsome does and “Progressives” lack depth on the “doers” bench. Conservative “disabilities” will impart survival advantages beyond anything the “liberals” can hope for.

  2. Anonymous January 23, 2021 at 09:22

    0.5

  3. CORD7 January 23, 2021 at 09:57

    Interesting idea. But how on earth has any legislation (read: another law) ever made anyone more free?

    • Mike January 23, 2021 at 12:38

      Bingo. Get this man a beer.

  4. Theodore January 23, 2021 at 20:00

    Great article. The Right is being artificially watered down and the Left strengthened by the “political viewpoint-based discrimination” of big tech and the media. Most conservatives and their children are still constantly bombarded by left wing propaganda from all angles, which has a powerful environmental effect even if people have the right kind of grey matter. The result is a lot of RINO/centrist politicians that fold under pressure and are afraid to advocate conservative positions. Meanwhile, we don’t get the chance to peel off many Democrats as they’re fully encapsulated in their cultural bubble world and never get exposed to our beliefs, even if they have a conservative brain makeup. An activist federal judge could expand the ADA to include political orientation, but Republican judges tend towards originalism and judicial restraint, so it’s even less likely than getting section 230 amended. State legislation would be nullified by the Nutty Ninth.

  5. Anonymous January 23, 2021 at 20:08

    5

  6. JB January 23, 2021 at 20:33

    Wanna bet the communists enact a law requiring the testing every embryo for the”conservative” marker so that abortions can be ordered. This way they secure a master race of liberals.
    American Patriots need to head this off now, by any and all means necessary.

  7. Chris January 23, 2021 at 23:23

    That’s some next level lawfare weaponry right there.
    Thanks for the find Scout!

  8. Another Nobody January 24, 2021 at 01:07

    I can’t stop smiling…
    Lawfare, mimetic warfare, the most epic trolling western society has ever seen!
    The next few years are shaping up to be either an ankle-deep bloodbath, or one helluva good time.
    Most likely, both. ;)
    Good find, NC!

  9. Jay January 24, 2021 at 06:35

    Great idea. Get a political viewpoint labeled as a disability. Now conservatism is considered a disease or genetic abnormality. Good thinking!

    • NC Scout January 24, 2021 at 07:44

      It already is.

    • Mack The Knife January 24, 2021 at 12:34

      Back in the 1960’s & even well before, the commies were attempting to get conservatives, traditionalists & yes, even anti-communists labeled as “mentally ill” (whatever that diagnosis means) & therefore a threat to the state & “world peace”, no shit! Their solutions were everything from electro shock therapy to imprisonment to even extermination. I remember reading all of this well over a half century ago in both pro & anti communist literature. They did manage to get a hell of lot of control over the psychiatric profession during that era. Look at all the degenerative behavior that is now considered “normal” in the 21st century.

  10. Mike January 24, 2021 at 08:48

    I was once labeled a Neanderthal by one of my relatives. I took that as a badge of honor. Neanderthals had to live by the spear. Eat or be eaten. I doubt there were any progressive, or liberal Neanderthals, they would have been eaten. Only conservative genes were passed on.

  11. TallBawls January 24, 2021 at 13:01

    I find this very disturbing that TPTB use science to manipulate the legal system to target individuals based on their genetic make up when “We are all created equal by God” and should only be judged by our actions. This just continues to prove that the “Rule of Law” is dead and will continue to remain so until good men STAND UP and call out the so called elected officials.. on wait they were not elected but bought into office under the guise of an election before the people. Isn’t this what is called TREASON.

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love