Controversial Topics: Nature Vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture is easily one of the most contested topics within psychology. Both sides care often argued with both supporting and disproving evidence that suggests a combination of both may be true. Nature refers to the traits of an individual and how they are affected or caused by their DNA. If this is true, Humans are predisposed to certain actions or traits and cannot easily resist those traits. Nurture suggests that we all start with a clean slate and a person’s upbringing will form the traits and ideologies they will have in life. It seems to be that both nature and nurture play roles in the traits of people and in turn affect their IQs and ideologies. If both schools of thought were to observe the beliefs and actions of politicians,

Which says god created man and woman and they should “be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it…” The specific wording suggests that man should only be with woman. Further in the bible it states that if a man lies with another man it is an abomination and they should be put to death. Their doctrine suggests that homosexuality is a conscientious decision made by individuals who wish to live amongst a group ostracized by American society. This very specific and extreme reaction sets the expected reaction for gays and, due to the simple worldview, is applied to other people who differ in race, religion, beliefs, etc. (Stevenson, 3) In Our Kind by Marvin Harris, the author states that approximately 20% of American men have had sexual contact with other men. The data suggested in 1989, as does it now, that human sexuality can be determined genetically. Some people do have a predisposition for homosexual behavior, or gender behavior that does not align with their sex, early in childhood before puberty. Clearly these people who often come from normal homes should indicate some sort of genetic variation that could create or affect this behavior and therefore not something they have control over. (Harris,

Liu and Ditto expanded on this theory by posing people of different political parties with moral dilemmas regarding the death penalty, which most liberals oppose, and stem cell research, which many conservatives oppose. Their study showed that when confronted with the costs and benefits of a moral question that they opposed, the person was likely to have less faith in the benefits and believe the costs to be high. This result was found to occur in both parties. However, the three contributing factors that were found to sway beliefs the most were knowledge, the strength of that moral belief, and conservatism. (Collins)
Collins writes that conservatives “score higher on a trait called the need for cognitive closure which is the need to hold a firm belief in the face of uncertainty.” This could likely be due to the structure of their upbringing. When someone is raised to believe that everything in the bible is true, being confronted with uncertainty could explainably create the need for this closure. In order for them to gain this closure I would make sense that conservatives are more willing to twist