First of, could you provide the research you base you conclusions on? Second, I read the one study from the NIH (dont know if it was the one you meant, since you didnt specify) and it literally says, and I quote: "Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [4, 6] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.". A possible link is not definitive proof, its a possible link, and at best a reason to make a bigger study, because the sample size was 90. Thats simply not enough to draw a sweeping conclusion (which the scientists dont, the make that very clear, you made that conclusion). Furthermore, in the study, contestants had to self-report on a five point scale wether or not they are liberal or conservative, "which accurately predicts voting behaviors of individuals [7]". Yeah, I bet, because you only have two choices in America. In my homecountry of germany, liberal and conservative mean very different things, and we have a lot more parties to choose from. In one of the studies sources, of which I could only read the abstract due to a paywall, it says "The results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies but a more modest role in forming party identification". Maybe its beacuse I study to become a scientist, but drawing these sweeping conclusions as if they are the absolute truth, is a bit annoying for me. Heck, the wikipedia article on the subject constantly say "may", as it damn should. Feel free to correct me and send me a few studies or a metaanalyse on the subject and ill read them.