Nature vs. Nurture, Conservatism vs. Progressivism

[Page]

Does one's belief in whether humans are primarily influenced by nature or nurture correlate with that person's political beliefs?

In my observations of political discourse, I have noticed an apparent trend: Conservatives tend to believe human nature is mainly determined by genetics, and the most extreme reactionaries hold to the most extreme extent of this belief, that we are slaves to our biology, making such statements as:

"White Europeans create more than other races."

"A transgender woman/man can never be a real woman/man."

"Hierarchies are a fact of human nature, the strongest ones always end up on top."

"Criminals should be sterilized so they don't pass on their genes."

On the flip side, I think the belief that nurture is the more important factor corresponds to progressive views. Communists believe that the transition from capitalism to communism represents a higher stage of human development. Anarchists believe that we do not require a state and that we can become masters of our own destiny.

Or in other words, conservatives believe that there are undeniable truths of human nature, that capitalism is natural as human beings are naturally competitive and always want more. Capitalist criticism of communism is rooted in the notion that people will not work and produce without incentive. Progressive thought is rooted in the idea that can be summarized as "We can do better." Conservatives believe that power structures are the glue that holds society together, while progressives tend to think people can thrive if given the opportunity, and that denial of opportunity is the root of such things as poverty and crime.

But does belief in nature/nurture cause one to be conservative/progressive respectfully, or does one adapt their belief in nature/nature because of their political ideology?

I don't have an answer to this chicken or egg question, but I think that these corresponding beliefs continually strengthen one another.

[Kowani]

It’s a bit of the mixture of the two, really. Epigenetics is involved, as well. Although, I believe that nurture is more influential, nature definitely plays a part.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Tbh I think both play a role. That should be an option in the poll: "Both play a role and I'm conservative", "Both play a role and I'm progressive". I'd pick the former.

[Kowani]

Tbh I think both play a role. That should be an option in the poll: "Both play a role and I'm conservative", "Both play a role and I'm progressive". I'd pick the former.

Agreed, but I’d pick the latter.

[The New California Republic]

Does one's belief in whether humans are primarily influenced by nature or nurture correlate with that person's political beliefs?

In my observations of political discourse, I have noticed an apparent trend: Conservatives tend to believe human nature is mainly determined by genetics

Many in the LGBT community say that homosexuality has a significant genetic component to it, but I wouldn't say that LGBT people are predominantly conservative.

[Page]

Does one's belief in whether humans are primarily influenced by nature or nurture correlate with that person's political beliefs?

In my observations of political discourse, I have noticed an apparent trend: Conservatives tend to believe human nature is mainly determined by genetics

Many in the LGBT community say that homosexuality has a significant genetic component to it, but I wouldn't say that LGBT people are predominantly conservative.

Sexual orientation is just one single part of a person. I don't think the belief in genetics being the source of homosexuality is a big factor in determining one's overall stance on nature vs. nurture. We know that sexual orientation isn't a choice and we haven't found any hard evidence of how one is raised affecting their sexual orientation. So by process of elimination, homosexuality is mainly determined by nature, perhaps by genetics and perhaps other factors like how much testosterone and estrogen one is exposed to in vitro.

[Diopolis]

Like everyone else here, it's a mix of both. And, something we're not getting at, it's probably different things. Your genes determine whether you'll be religious. Your upbringing determines whether you express that by doing yoga at five AM or going to church three times a week.

[The New California Republic]

Your genes determine whether you'll be religious.

If you are referring to VMAT2, then that hasn't been conclusively proven.

[Diopolis]

Your genes determine whether you'll be religious.

If you are referring to VMAT2, then that hasn't been conclusively proven.

I'm sure I can come up with another example, although it does seem to have a fair amount of support.

[Bear Stearns]

Most behavioral anthropologists recognize that things such as your personality, potential for success, academic achievement, etc. are about 50% genetic.

[Bear Stearns]

Like everyone else here, it's a mix of both. And, something we're not getting at, it's probably different things. Your genes determine whether you'll be religious. Your upbringing determines whether you express that by doing yoga at five AM or going to church three times a week.

Your genes determine your likelihood to become religious given the circumstances.

[Grapasia]

hard nature and I believe in progress the other way round
it's legit

[The New California Republic]

If you are referring to VMAT2, then that hasn't been conclusively proven.

I'm sure I can come up with another example, although it does seem to have a fair amount of support.

Just as a short summary to the problems of it, shamelessly poached off of Wikipedia:

In the brain, VMAT2 proteins are located on synaptic vesicles. VMAT2 transports monoamine neurotransmitters from the cytosol of monoamine neurons into vesicles. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"[3]

Carl Zimmer claimed that VMAT2 can be characterized as a gene that accounts for less than one percent of the variance of self-transcendence scores. These, Zimmer says, can signify anything from belonging to the Green Party to believing in ESP. Zimmer also points out that the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study.[4] However Hamer notes that the importance of the VMAT2 finding is not that it explains all spiritual or religious feelings, but rather that it points the way toward one neurobiological pathway that may be important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene# ... c_response

[Bear Stearns]

It seems really dumb to say that genes play no role at all when humans are animals and the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary processes. Things such as your awareness towards danger, your ability to discern friend or foe, your time preference, your impulse control and temperament, and the speed of your neural synapses are almost entirely genetic.

Humans are not independent from nature, they are part of nature and governed by its rules.

Also twin studies have proven the blank slate idea to be demonstrably false.

[Bear Stearns]

I'm sure I can come up with another example, although it does seem to have a fair amount of support.

Just as a short summary to the problems of it, shamelessly poached off of Wikipedia:

In the brain, VMAT2 proteins are located on synaptic vesicles. VMAT2 transports monoamine neurotransmitters from the cytosol of monoamine neurons into vesicles. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"[3]

Carl Zimmer claimed that VMAT2 can be characterized as a gene that accounts for less than one percent of the variance of self-transcendence scores. These, Zimmer says, can signify anything from belonging to the Green Party to believing in ESP. Zimmer also points out that the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study.[4] However Hamer notes that the importance of the VMAT2 finding is not that it explains all spiritual or religious feelings, but rather that it points the way toward one neurobiological pathway that may be important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene# ... c_response

This is because there likely isn't a single "God gene", but rather a combination of various genes that leads to an increased likelihood in the belief in God.

Most geneticists know that traits are hardly ever determined by a single gene.

[Hatterleigh]

conservatives believe that there are undeniable truths of human nature, that capitalism is natural as human beings are naturally competitive and always want more. Capitalist criticism of communism is rooted in the notion that people will not work and produce without incentive.

This has nothing to do with conservatism. You can be socially conservative and be a communist, you can be a socially progressive and a capitalist.

[Kowani]

Just as a short summary to the problems of it, shamelessly poached off of Wikipedia:

This is because there likely isn't a single "God gene", but rather a combination of various genes that leads to an increased likelihood in the belief in God.

Most geneticists know that traits are hardly ever determined by a single gene.

Case in point, FOXP2.

[The New California Republic]

Just as a short summary to the problems of it, shamelessly poached off of Wikipedia:

This is because there likely isn't a single "God gene", but rather a combination of various genes that leads to an increased likelihood in the belief in God.

Most geneticists know that traits are hardly ever determined by a single gene.

Indeed. I was just using it as an example to point out that the research related to genetic links to religiousness is a developing field that is far from conclusive as of yet.

[Mojave Confederation]

I think nurture play more part into it rather than genetics/nature. The situation when you are growing as a person in the end matter much more than the genetic code you carried.

[Bear Stearns]

I think nurture play more part into it rather than genetics/nature. The situation when you are growing as a person in the end matter much more than the genetic code you carried.

Your genetics determine how you will respond to your situation. They are both equally important.