Political disagreement isn't primarily about facts or intelligence — it's about values. People with different political views often aren't working from different information; they're weighing competing values differently. This essay describes the research that informs how we think about political identity, and how the assessment translates that research into a reading you can act on.
Why good people disagree
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s work demonstrates that moral and political intuitions come first, and reasoning follows. We don’t reason our way to political conclusions — we intuit them based on deep-seated values, then construct arguments to justify what we already feel. This isn’t a flaw; it’s how human moral psychology works.
If you really want to open your mind, open your heart first. If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the ‘other’ group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind
Understanding this changes how we approach political disagreement. Your opponents aren’t stupid or evil — they’re likely prioritizing different values than you are. A productive conversation requires understanding which values they’re prioritizing, not just which policies they support.
This is why Political DNA maps your position across multiple dimensions rather than placing you on a single left–right line. Different combinations of values produce different political worldviews — thirty-two distinct strains in our framework — that can’t be reduced to “liberal” or “conservative.”
Beyond left vs. right
The simple left–right spectrum has dominated political discussion for over two centuries. But research consistently shows this single dimension fails to capture how people actually think about politics.
A unidimensional model of ideology provides an incomplete basis for the study of political ideology. Two dimensions — economic and social ideology — are the minimum needed to account for domestic policy preferences. More importantly, the determinants of these two ideological dimensions are vastly different. Feldman & Johnston, Political Psychology, 2014
Factor analysis of political attitudes consistently reveals that economic views (taxes, regulation, redistribution) and social views (religion, gender, tradition) are separate dimensions. You can be economically left but socially right, or vice versa — and millions of people are.
Taken together, this body of research points to the same conclusion: political identity can’t be captured on one line. The economic cleavage, the social/cultural cleavage, and the globalization cleavage are distinct and don’t reliably move together. That is why our model measures four dimensions — personal liberty, economic system, national versus global, and cultural values — rather than the usual two. Because each is largely independent, traditional labels like “liberal” and “conservative” obscure more than they reveal.
For exactly what each dimension scores you on and how your answers become a strain, see how the assessment works.
How political beliefs hang together
In 1964, political scientist Philip Converse published a landmark study showing that most citizens don’t have highly structured ideological belief systems. Unlike political elites, ordinary people often hold views that seem inconsistent from an ideological perspective.
Large portions of an electorate simply do not have meaningful beliefs, even on issues that have formed the basis for intense political controversy among elites for substantial periods of time. Philip Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” 1964
This finding has been replicated many times. Most people don’t reason from abstract principles to specific policies. Instead, they form attitudes on each issue somewhat independently, based on group loyalties, personal experiences, and how issues are framed.
That said, beliefs aren’t random. Research shows that attitudes cluster in predictable ways based on underlying values and psychological predispositions. Our thirty-two political strains represent distinct patterns of belief that actually occur in modern democracies.
Personality and political orientation
Research consistently finds correlations between basic personality traits and political views. Two traits from the “Big Five” personality model show the strongest relationships:
- Openness to Experience. People high in openness — who enjoy novelty, variety, and unconventional ideas — tend to hold more liberal views. Those lower in openness, who prefer familiarity and tradition, tend toward conservatism. This is one of the most robust findings in political psychology.
- Conscientiousness. People high in conscientiousness — organized, dutiful, and rule-following — tend to be more conservative, particularly on social issues. The relationship is weaker than with openness but still significant across studies.
Important caveat: these are statistical tendencies, not deterministic rules. Personality creates predispositions, not destinies. Many highly open people are conservative, and many conscientious people are liberal.
Where political beliefs come from
Political beliefs emerge from a complex mix of factors. Research points to several key influences:
- Family socialization. Parents transmit political values to children, though the effect weakens as children encounter diverse perspectives in adulthood.
- Life experiences. Education, economic circumstances, geographic mobility, and personal relationships all shape political views.
- Group identity. People often adopt political views associated with groups they identify with — religious communities, professional circles, regional cultures.
- Historical context. The same personality might lead to different politics in different eras. A novelty-seeker in 1960 and 2026 would encounter very different “established orders” to challenge.
- Media environment. The information sources people consume shape which issues they care about and how they understand them.
Twin studies suggest that genetics play some role — identical twins raised apart show more similar political views than fraternal twins. But this doesn’t mean there’s a “liberal gene” or “conservative gene.” Rather, genes influence personality traits and cognitive styles that then interact with environment to produce political attitudes.
Does it actually fit?
A model can be well-grounded in research and still miss you. So the question that matters most isn’t whether the framework cites the right papers — it’s whether the reading lands when a real person sees their result. We treat that as something to measure, not assume.
After people complete the Scan, we ask two things: whether the archetype genuinely resonates with how they see themselves, and whether the political family it places them in matches the identities they already claim. Most people tell us it fits, and the family-level classification lines up closely with their own self-description. We use that feedback to refine the assessment over time rather than treating any single version as final.
The moral foundations layer
The DNA Scan measures where you land politically. DNA Origins measures why — the moral intuitions upstream of your positions. Its framework adapts Moral Foundations Theory, the research program of Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, and colleagues showing that political differences track a small set of moral intuitions that people weigh differently: care for the vulnerable, fairness, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and a sense of the sacred.
We score seven foundations rather than the original five, following two well-documented refinements: fairness splits into Equality (no one treated as lesser) and Proportionality (reward should track contribution), which pull in opposite political directions; and Liberty — resentment of domination and coercion — is scored as its own foundation, following the research on libertarian moral psychology (Iyer and colleagues, 2012). The result named by your leading foundation is your moral type; a plain-language walk-through of the instrument lives at how DNA Origins works.
The item bank carries several safeguards: every foundation competes in exactly four trade-offs on a balanced pairing graph; each foundation appears twice on each side of the slider, so lateral response habits cancel instead of accumulating; question order is randomized per session; sliders must be touched before advancing, so an untouched midpoint can never be silently recorded; and each submission carries engagement flags (speed, completion) that exclude low-quality responses from research analysis.
The suite also measures institutional trust — how far you extend good faith to government, business, and civil society, each probed by a balanced pair of statements. It lives in DNA Dynamics, the temperament leg of the suite, and is deliberately reported as context, never folded into a moral type or moral-route verdict: it doesn’t change those results. We measure it because trust direction — which institutions get your benefit of the doubt — often decides which solutions feel safe to a person long after their values are set, and because it is measurably distinct from the foundations themselves.
Frequently asked questions
Does this mean my political views are predetermined?
No. Research shows that personality and other factors create tendencies, not destinies. People change their political views throughout life based on experiences, relationships, and reflection. The science explains why change can be difficult, not why it’s impossible.
Why do I sometimes agree with “the other side”?
Because most people aren’t pure ideologues. Research shows that political attitudes are multidimensional — you might be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Our thirty-two strains are designed to capture these mixed profiles that single-axis models miss.
Are liberals or conservatives more rational?
Neither. Research shows that motivated reasoning — bending evidence to fit preexisting beliefs — affects people across the political spectrum equally. We’re all prone to confirmation bias when our identities and values are at stake.
Can understanding this science reduce political conflict?
Potentially. Understanding that your opponents are prioritizing different values — not ignoring evidence or acting in bad faith — can make productive conversation more possible. Whether this actually reduces conflict at scale is an open empirical question.
How does Political DNA relate to academic research?
Our four-dimensional model draws on established research in political science and psychology, particularly work on multidimensional ideology (Feldman, Treier & Hillygus), the globalization cleavage (Kriesi), and the GAL–TAN framework from European politics research (Hooghe, Marks). We aim to make these academic insights accessible and personally relevant.
How does Political DNA relate to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz?
Political DNA was created by the same person who leads The Advocates for Self-Government, the organization behind the WSPQ — though it is an independent project, separate from that organization. The WSPQ is built on the Nolan Chart, a two-axis model with libertarian-movement origins; Political DNA extends the core insight — that political identity has more than one dimension — while deliberately departing from that framing: four dimensions instead of two, thirty-two archetypes across eight families in which the libertarian family is one branch among many, and items calibrated so no family is the default destination.
Further reading
If you want to explore the research behind political psychology and ideology:
The Righteous Mind
The most accessible introduction to moral psychology and why we’re divided by politics. Essential reading for understanding how intuitions drive reasoning.
Neither Liberal nor Conservative
Academic but readable exploration of how Americans’ political views don’t fit neatly into ideological categories.
Predisposed
Explores the biological and psychological roots of political differences — why liberals and conservatives seem to experience the world differently.
Open versus Closed
How personality — especially openness to experience — shapes political identity in the modern era.
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
A foundational text on how people form and change political opinions based on information flow and predispositions.
Democracy for Realists
A challenging but important book on how citizens actually make political decisions — spoiler: it’s not primarily through rational issue evaluation.
Academic references
Multidimensional ideology
- Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.
- Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703.
- Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Globalization & new cleavages
- Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space. European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), 921–956.
- Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Wilson, C. J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965–989.
Moral & political psychology
- Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage Books.
- Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
- Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
- Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42366.
- Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
- Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Belief systems & public opinion
- Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. Free Press.
- Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.
- Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. University of Chicago Press.
Values & voting
- Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting. Political Psychology, 31(3), 421–452.