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,

Nature supporters would suggest that their ideas were rooted in their genetics. Nurture supporters would instead point to the politician’s social class and life experiences as the root causes for their standpoints and beliefs.
Although the issue is polarizing with the arguments usually leaning completely to one side or the other, the data suggests that both play into human behavior and the actuality of the debate should be much less black and white than it has been. Research shows that Personality, learning ability, and social skills are greatly affected by genetics. (Collins) While the actual ideas we hold are often influenced greatly by nurture. By recognizing this, a meaningful dialogue addressing the issues of racism and prejudice can begin and progress can be made. (Fausto-Sterling, 8)
Studies recently have shown that Conservatives on average have lower IQs than liberals. This has contributed to a simplified worldview and a predisposition to racism and prejudice. Children with low intelligence lean towards conservative beliefs, which apply to multiple situations due to a simplistic view of those situations and the reactions that tend to apply to multiple situations. These people of lower IQ were also found to have less social contact with other races, beliefs or sexual orientations. Additionally, many of those beliefs promote resistance to change and promote indoctrination of the new generation of children. Their belief that “people I don’t know are threats and the world is a dangerous place” is a much more dangerous mindset than the world they are isolating themselves from. (Pappas)
Part of the core reason for right wing intolerance can be associated to their interpretation of the bible.

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,

236)
A problem with humans is their nature is generally good. An example of this comes from the Confucianism saying that “human nature is like a willow in that, as the willow must be bent to form bowls, human nature is bent to form morality”. Mencius answered that “for that to be true as the willow must be mutilated and forced, human nature must be forced and beaten into morality, which would lead to a future unraveling of morality.” There is another saying that “human nature is like water in that it gives no preference as to what way it will flow. The way water will flow east or west depending on where an outlet is, human nature doesn’t show a preference for good or bad”. Mencius said that although it does not prefer east or west, water always flows down unless forced upon in the same way that all people are inherently good until forced by their nurture. (Stevenson, 23)
In much the same way right-wingers naturally, although misguided, believe they are good. In their view of the world they are doing the right thing as they’ve been taught as children. In the narrative they have been taught since they were born, the hierarchy must be followed, traditions must be observed and authority must be respected. This leads to a cycle of believing they are doing the right thing and being good people when they act that way because they have been conditioned with those beliefs.
It seems as though conservatives generally have backgrounds as upper class, lower class, or middle class business owners many of whom live in the south. As such, they are usually isolated with other conservatives and are resistant to changes in ideas not traditionally associated with their party. As children their main influences through socialization are their parent or caregivers or their peers. They are often isolated from other ideas and viewpoints and often reject ideas from the left without consideration. The isolation of the left also seems to contribute heavily to their prejudice and racism.
In contrast we see many liberals are raised in homes in which believe in diversity, open mindedness, and equal opportunity. They grow up to hold these ideas because often their families and peers have these same ideas. Through socialization in the early stages of life, impressionable children are taught viewpoints that are often much healthier and conducive to a progressive social dialogue later in life.
In addition to their prejudice against people with differing race, orientation, and ideas, many of the extreme right wing exhibit a blatant disregard of scientific fact in order to maintain their Christian narrative. In 2012 Representative Todd Akin of Missouri became a prime example of this when he publicly claimed that in the case of a “real rape” women’s bodies have a defense mechanism to prevent pregnancy. Other right-wingers have made such claims as “same sex parenting hurts kids, you can choose to be gay, and abortions cause cancer and mental disorders.” These so called facts are, as Collins puts it, “contorted to justify their deep seated beliefs or moral systems.” Although both sides of the political spectrum twist facts, it seems as though conservatives do this more often and to a greater degree than liberals. (Collins)
Hadits theory of “moral institutionism” suggests that instead of being rational thinkers, like scientists, we act on gut emotions when confronted with a moral dilemma and then twist facts like lawyers to fit our beliefs.

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

facts.
In conclusion, both nature and nurture play roles in the prejudice of the right-wing. The studies, although controversial, seem to show a strong correlation between low intelligence, prejudice and conservatism. Intelligence, normally associated to genetics, would show how nature is partially to blame for prejudice. Research also shows that due to their upbringing and often strict belief system, conservatives are much more likely to distort facts to suit their own moral beliefs. These moral beliefs are deeply seated because of their nurture, which includes a heavy influence of parents and like-minded peers.