Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Political science is far behind the other social science disciplines in incorporating neurobiological concepts, techniques, and theory. In recent years progress has been made in closing this gap but many in the political science mainstream view the movement with concern or even horror. Though a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate and beneficial to the scientific endeavor, negative reactions to viewing politics through a neurobiological lens are often based on fundamental misconceptions regarding both neurobiology and politics. In this Reflections essay, I address ten of these misconceptions, including the beliefs that biology is deterministic, reductionist, unnecessary, irrelevant, normatively dangerous, and ideologically biased. The goal is to encourage a constructive dialogue on the relevance of neurobiology to political life-a dialogue that would in turn improve research in the fledgling subfield and lead to innovations in political science by encouraging new ways of conceptualizing and analyzing the variables at the discipline's core.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)475-489
Number of pages15
JournalPerspectives on Politics
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2013

Fingerprint

neurosciences
political science
politics
dialogue
biology
social science
innovation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics. / Hibbing, John R.

In: Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 01.06.2013, p. 475-489.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9b116dbc1b23470395bcf623846f4220,
title = "Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics",
abstract = "Political science is far behind the other social science disciplines in incorporating neurobiological concepts, techniques, and theory. In recent years progress has been made in closing this gap but many in the political science mainstream view the movement with concern or even horror. Though a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate and beneficial to the scientific endeavor, negative reactions to viewing politics through a neurobiological lens are often based on fundamental misconceptions regarding both neurobiology and politics. In this Reflections essay, I address ten of these misconceptions, including the beliefs that biology is deterministic, reductionist, unnecessary, irrelevant, normatively dangerous, and ideologically biased. The goal is to encourage a constructive dialogue on the relevance of neurobiology to political life-a dialogue that would in turn improve research in the fledgling subfield and lead to innovations in political science by encouraging new ways of conceptualizing and analyzing the variables at the discipline's core.",
author = "Hibbing, {John R}",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S1537592713000923",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "475--489",
journal = "Perspectives on Politics",
issn = "1537-5927",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics

AU - Hibbing, John R

PY - 2013/6/1

Y1 - 2013/6/1

N2 - Political science is far behind the other social science disciplines in incorporating neurobiological concepts, techniques, and theory. In recent years progress has been made in closing this gap but many in the political science mainstream view the movement with concern or even horror. Though a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate and beneficial to the scientific endeavor, negative reactions to viewing politics through a neurobiological lens are often based on fundamental misconceptions regarding both neurobiology and politics. In this Reflections essay, I address ten of these misconceptions, including the beliefs that biology is deterministic, reductionist, unnecessary, irrelevant, normatively dangerous, and ideologically biased. The goal is to encourage a constructive dialogue on the relevance of neurobiology to political life-a dialogue that would in turn improve research in the fledgling subfield and lead to innovations in political science by encouraging new ways of conceptualizing and analyzing the variables at the discipline's core.

AB - Political science is far behind the other social science disciplines in incorporating neurobiological concepts, techniques, and theory. In recent years progress has been made in closing this gap but many in the political science mainstream view the movement with concern or even horror. Though a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate and beneficial to the scientific endeavor, negative reactions to viewing politics through a neurobiological lens are often based on fundamental misconceptions regarding both neurobiology and politics. In this Reflections essay, I address ten of these misconceptions, including the beliefs that biology is deterministic, reductionist, unnecessary, irrelevant, normatively dangerous, and ideologically biased. The goal is to encourage a constructive dialogue on the relevance of neurobiology to political life-a dialogue that would in turn improve research in the fledgling subfield and lead to innovations in political science by encouraging new ways of conceptualizing and analyzing the variables at the discipline's core.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878326898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878326898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1537592713000923

DO - 10.1017/S1537592713000923

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 475

EP - 489

JO - Perspectives on Politics

JF - Perspectives on Politics

SN - 1537-5927

IS - 2

ER -