Some of you may have been amused recently by some psychological research out of Brock University which suggested that left-wingers were smarter than right-wingers. This one went globally viral in about six minutes, with front-page treatment in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere.

So, what else might be psychologically determined? How about choice of field of study? Two Princeton scientists, publishing on PLoS One, find the following:

From personality to neuropsychiatric disorders, individual differences in brain function are known to have a strong heritable component. Here we report that between close relatives, a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders covary strongly with intellectual interests. We surveyed an entire class of high-functioning young adults at an elite university for prospective major, familial incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, and demographic and attitudinal questions. Students aspiring to technical majors (science/mathematics/engineering) were more likely than other students to report a sibling with an autism spectrum disorder (p = 0.037). Conversely, students interested in the humanities were more likely to report a family member with major depressive disorder (p = 8.8×10−4), bipolar disorder (p = 0.027), or substance abuse problems (p = 1.9×10−6). A combined Predisposition for Subject Matter score based on these disorders was strongly predictive of subject matter interests (p = 9.6×10−8). Our results suggest that shared genetic (and perhaps environmental) factors may both predispose for heritable neuropsychiatric disorders and influence the development of intellectual interests.

Now, some of this seems like overreach. I would treat the autism result in particular with extreme caution, given that it’s based on only 20 cases. But still, what a great case of science confirming every prejudice we have about those jerks from the other side of campus, right? We’re excited about the possibility of applying these insights to our own studies of student survey data.

On an only vaguely-related note, I wanted to share with all of you a piece which a colleague of mine has described – not without reason – as “the greatest journal article of all time.” It’s from volume 96 of the British Journal of Urology International, and it is entitled “How (not) to communicate new scientific information.” Caution: it is not entirely safe for work.

If any of you can top that one for sheer amusement value, send it in to us at info at higheredstrategy.com – we’ll publish the best.