Editing Systematic ideology (section)

== Criticism ==
Historically, systematic ideology has been unable to produce a [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] and causal model for what it is that influences some people and not others to gravitate towards a particular ideology.

Walsby's early version of the theory was clearly [[hierarchical]] (with those understanding the theory being the smallest group of all, metaphorically positioned at the apex of a pyramid, just above the SPGB) and it lent itself to criticism on the grounds that it was merely a particularly convoluted type of [[human nature]] argument. This was essentially the response outlined in the ''Socialist Standard''’s April 1949 review of Walsby's book called ''The Domain of Sterilities''.

Twin studies have shown that genetics have a strong effect on both attitude formation, and receptivity to ideological affiliation. This may provide some answer to the criticism that systematic ideology lacks a causal model. According to one study:
:We found that political attitudes are influenced much more heavily by genetics than by parental socialization. For the overall index of political conservatism, genetics accounts for approximately half the variance in ideology while shared environment (including parental socialization) accounts for only 11 percent.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Alford|first1=John|last2=Funk|first2=Carolyn|last3=Hibbing|first3=John|title=Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=99|issue=2|pages=153–167|date=May 2005|url=http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/GeneticsAPSR0505.pdf|accessdate=26 May 2011|doi=10.1017/s0003055405051579|citeseerx=10.1.1.622.476|s2cid=3820911 }}</ref>