It's in the blood, of all places!

Although a large body of research exists concerning connections between personality traits and blood types, no studies can be found within the literature on the links between morality and one’s blood type. We have conducted research examining whether blood type has any impact on the degree to which moral foundations, according to Haidt (Science 316:998–1002, 2007), are observable in an individual. Our study focused on 240 adult male and female subjects, with an average age of 43.47 years; each group was based on the ABO blood type system and consisted of 60 subjects in total. Based on the data obtained, we can conclude that there is a connection between the Harm and Purity moral foundations and blood group.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... OCjournals

Gee we're making some remarkable strides in science!

Though you mock, it sounds like you're not familiar with Jonathan Haidt et. al. moral foundations theory? It's pretty interesting stuff.

"Haidt and his colleagues offer the Moral Foundations Theory, the implications of which, suggest that this divide is a result of a moral relativism of sorts – whereas one’s moral composition essentially drives one’s political affiliation. Despite the perspective from each of the polar extremes, individuals in the opposite group are not in fact amoral, instead, Haidt et al., (2009) claim that they have different valuations of five universal morals. According to Haidt, the five universal morals include: (a) harm/care (strong empathy for those that are suffering and care for the most vulnerable); (b) fairness/reciprocity (life liberty and justice for all); (c) ingroup/loyalty – (tribalism, patriotism, nationalism); (d) authority/respect (“mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates” Haidt, 2008); and (e) purity/sanctity (“related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble” Haidt, 2008)."

The theory suggests (to me at least) that people have a sort of political orientation based on these five universal moral sets and that such political orientations are, to some extent, biological. Without going into the article, it would seem that blood type might predict one's political orientation. That would have fantastic implications for claims to knowledge that are actually largely based on these orientations.

(Orientation is my word, by the way).

http://geraldguild.com/blog/index.php?s ... ons+theory

geo wrote:Though you mock, it sounds like you're not familiar with Jonathan Haidt et. al. moral foundations theory? It's pretty interesting stuff.

"Haidt and his colleagues offer the Moral Foundations Theory, the implications of which, suggest that this divide is a result of a moral relativism of sorts – whereas one’s moral composition essentially drives one’s political affiliation. Despite the perspective from each of the polar extremes, individuals in the opposite group are not in fact amoral, instead, Haidt et al., (2009) claim that they have different valuations of five universal morals. According to Haidt, the five universal morals include: (a) harm/care (strong empathy for those that are suffering and care for the most vulnerable); (b) fairness/reciprocity (life liberty and justice for all); (c) ingroup/loyalty – (tribalism, patriotism, nationalism); (d) authority/respect (“mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates” Haidt, 2008); and (e) purity/sanctity (“related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble” Haidt, 2008)."

The theory suggests (to me at least) that people have a sort of political orientation based on these five universal moral sets and that such political orientations are, to some extent, biological. Without going into the article, it would seem that blood type might predict one's political orientation. That would have fantastic implications for claims to knowledge that are actually largely based on these orientations.

(Orientation is my word, by the way).

http://geraldguild.com/blog/index.php?s ... ons+theory

He's on my list. I've listened to his TEdX presentations. They're very good. I like his delivery.
Do you think our moral foundations can actually be seen in our blood?
Is so, why?

ant wrote:He's on my list. I've listened to his TEdX presentations. They're very good. I like his delivery.
Do you think our moral foundations can actually be seen in our blood?
Is so, why?

I haven't read the article that you posted. Actually what you posted is only the abstract. But what I assumed was that blood type would only be an indicator of certain personality traits the way that finger length—ratio of ring finger to index finger—can reveal certain aspects of personality. For example, there is an established correlation between testosterone and finger length in men. On its own it's of limited value, perhaps, but this kind of data may eventually contribute to greater understanding of human behavior and physical traits that increasingly look to be linked to biology—the nature in the nature-nurture dichotomy.

The moral foundations theory is remarkable, I think, because it shows that political orientations are at least somewhat determined by biology. In other words, we are born seeing the world a certain way. Our world is so polarized these days because everyone believes they are right and those who think differently are wrong. We hold many political beliefs as truth, but in reality they are only feelings. Granted, I'm probably reading more into Haidt's theory than is really there.

geo wrote: The moral foundations theory is remarkable, I think, because it shows that political orientations are at least somewhat determined by biology.

I don't recall Haidt making a case for biology causing specific moral positions such as political orientation. We have an innate emotional response to moral questions, but culture determines where on the spectrum your positions are going to be. I don't think anyone is prepared to argue that you're genetically a Republican or Democrat, or having non-Western attitudes toward morality.

At the same time, I don't think anyone would rule out something like testosterone having an effect either. But I don't know what the literature says on such evidence.

I read Haidt's book, but my memory is terrible so not sure if he covered anything like that.

Thanks, Dexter. I must be conflating something I read somewhere. I'll see if I can figure out the source of my confusion.

Moral "orientation" is probably a mixture of nature/nurture, but I think both Richard Carrier and Robert Wright have suggested that biology is increasingly seen as more influential than previously thought. I'll look it up when I get back from this month-long vacation . . .

Here's an interesting article that suggests that political affiliation is more innate than previously believed. Haidt's work figures prominently.

An excerpt:

". . . the differences in how people process politics may be more innate than we’ve thought, is becoming the default assumption in research labs worldwide. There, over the last decade or so, scientists have been extending to politics the imperious insights of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology that have so shaken other social sciences.

At the vanguard of this movement is Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist whose best-selling new book, The Righteous Mind, collects his own experiments—testing biases, prejudices, and ­preferences—and the work of like-minded colleagues to unmask much of our political “thinking” as moral instinct papered over, post facto, with ideological rationalization. We may tell ourselves that we believe welfare is just or that abortion violates the sanctity of life, but we’re really using borrowed language to express much more visceral attitudes, oriented around one of six moral dials—harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, liberty, and sanctity. Much of what passes for the daily scrum of electoral politics, he says, is merely an effort to find language that can help citizens justify these instincts. “Once people join a political team, they get ensnared in its moral matrix,” Haidt writes. “They see confirmation of their grand narrative everywhere.”

http://nymag.com/news/features/liberals ... es-2012-4/