Political Idealogy: Nature or Nurture?

There has long been a debate as to the exact 'process' by which we obtain our personal political beliefs. Some say that our experiences in life shape and mold our opinions; others say that science has a big part in the way we think. We refer to these positions as one of nuture and one of nature.

Nature - Those in the 'Nature' camp argue that everyone is born with certain genetics that determine their political idealogy. This opinion seems to reinforce the fact that political ideals are generally passed down from parent to child and the specific voting patterns of each gender.

Nuture - Those in the 'Nurture' camp argue that everyone is born with a 'blank slate', and that only one's experiences in life determine their idealogy. This opinion seems to reinforce ethnic 'voting blocs' and regional voting patterns.

Personally, I think that in most cases, both apply. For example, there's no denying the clearly evident pattern that a majority of women generally tend to vote Democratic in the United States, whereas a majority of men tend to vote Republican. This is likely due to the general nature of each gender, which is, in most cases, reflected in their political views. On the other hand, the number of women who vote Republican and the number of men who vote Democratic are not terribly different. So, it is highly probable that 'nurture' influences this.

What's your opinion on this?

 

Of course it's Nurture. Your own experiences are going to shape the way you think of things, and the perspective you have on things will influence you. Even the recording of history has taught us this. People made out to be heros in one culture are evil in another culture.

-sb loves john doe

 

I'd have to agree; very few people would argue that it's 100% Nature...but do really you think that it is, in fact, 100% Nurture? I mean, there's gotta be some science behind it, right?

Or are the gender patterns based entirely on 'Nurture' influences?

 

Nature has a much greater influence than many people would feel comfortable acknowledging. I could see if I could find a link to a book written by a scientist on this very debate.

 

Well obviously things like genetics make certain people more intellectual or politically inclined than others... but I would say that your actual opinions are based on your upbringing and circumstances.

-sb loves john doe

 

For me it's NATURE.

My family is on the conservative side (but not very politically active). I am extremely liberal and politically active.

I always wonder where I got it from, because I sure as heck didn't get it from my family.

 

Both, nature being the majority.

 

Silverhill, that would make you on the nurture side of things. Nature refers to your genetic makeup and the DNA you are born with; nurture refers to your environment (upbringing, socioeconomic status, peer pressure, etc.).

I think that both contribute to your ideaology, but nurture has a bit more to do with it. For example, leaning towards liberalism because you realize the only way your grandmother is still alive is because of the social programs she's a part of is more of a likely reason for somebody being liberal than being born with 'liberal genes.'

It's possible that the way you think and interpret things come from your genes, which could in turn influence your views of politics. Still, I think your experiences in the real world are more important than pre-determined factors.

 

Nature? When did they discover the 'political' gene? ?

 

This cracks me up, in the first place the need for government control is of Human design, we were not inherently predisposed in forming a political structure that persecutes and controls the lives of all on this planet.

To state whether we would choose a certain party or political structure inherently would mean that we have completely lost the instinctive nature that we evolved with, and that original though has left the building.

To surrender to political structures willingly without considering all other possibilities is sad to say in the least, could one try to exist without control measures or are we so dependent on government that we have no longer any say in the matter of existence.

It also seems to me that the idea that America is the world and that the world evolves around America, has reared its ugly head again.

Truly have we as people lost the sense of independence and individuality that there are only two choices in life, one being an American or not, two either being a Democrat or Republican.

There is more to life than politics.

Sincerely

Master-Aries
(MA)

 

This cracks me up, in the first place the need for government control is of Human design, we were not inherently predisposed in forming a political structure that persecutes and controls the lives of all on this planet.

Show me one civilization on the planet, past or present that doesn't do this. It IS in our nature to do so. People always form themselves into groups, beginning with the family unit, in order to organize the process of survival. The logical conclusion of doing so results in creating comparative rank. This creates in one form or another, a leadership, a governing body... a political structure of some fashion.

Even animals, especially the higher you go on the intelligence scale, do so. Horses, wolves, lions, primates, etc. Social animals seems to need some form of hierarchy in order to survive and thrive, why should humans be any different?

But born liberal or conservative or socialist or anarchist or whatever? Don't think so. If you were born one way or the other, like sexuality, wouldn't that mean changing would require serious therapy? All I needed to change from liberal to conservative was to re-evaluate facts and ideas about what I believe is important in life and what I wanted to stand for in the world.

It also seems to me that the idea that America is the world and that the world evolves around America, has reared its ugly head again.

I'm sorry...where? ?

 

You know teebee, we existed for around 150,000 years before any so called civilization. Civilization was born out of the agricultural revolution. Our minds genetically speaking have not changed much int the past 10,000 years. Our minds were shaped by millions of years of evolution, so no we did not evolve to live in these highly political structured societies.

 

You know, the minute they find a "political" gene, Republicans will reverse their stance on a number of core issues...

They will be for stem cell research, for abortion, and for euthanasia. That would be the only way they can get rid the liberals.

 

This shouldn't even be a debate since most biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists (etc) will agree that is is a combination of BOTH. I haven't heard of anyone being in either "camp" since the late 60s/70s when sociobiology (Dawkins, Wilson, etc) first cropped up. If anything, genes lay the foundation upon which the house (experience) of behavior gets built upon.

 

Nurture. We place to much emphasis on nature for humans. Like a computer program the more complex a species is, the less it comes "hard wired" with info and leanings. The weaker a species is when it's born, the longer the developement period, the more things are learned rather than "preprogramed". The input determins the output.

 

Even animals, especially the higher you go on the intelligence scale, do so. Horses, wolves, lions, primates, etc. Social animals seems to need some form of hierarchy in order to survive and thrive, why should humans be any different?

Precisely but these hierarchal structures are in place to confirm the continued existence of the particular group. Politics on the other hand has on several occasions inflamed if not instigated situations that have lead to the possible annihilation of groups. It is seen as the protection of one at the expense of another, if one studies nature as a whole conflict is the last resort, when two competing groups of a particular species conflict, the contest is won not through violence but numbers and the perceived sense of strength.

Man looks for strength as do all social animals, but planned conquest and control of all the species has to this day has been man?s doing. Even solitary animals have a sense of social etiquette. Social standing and social wellbeing for the good of the community has been in place to continue mans survival. Now with man taking control of his environment these structures have fallen away. Hence Politics, but instead of the wild being mans threat it is now other groups, true man has never lived in peace with fellow man or with nature, but politics seems to have no boundaries where does it end, must we wipe out other groups to see which is the strongest of the species I thought we had evolved beyond this point.

There now should be an alternative to politics it has been around for a few thousand years and on many occasions done more harm than good.

So the way I see it politics seems to be the norm because no alternative has been implemented. Moreover the reason for my saying that we have become so reliant on politics that we fear any alternative even to the point of a political revolution.

Sincerely

Master-Aries

 

I'm still just floored that someone would try to argue that political affiliation is somehow genetic and not only genetic, but apparently carried on the X chromosome. Ah yes, Republicanism, the recessive gene.

{genetic analysis done with complete sarcasm}


{Actually, I'm still in shock that people think that dinosaurs and humans lived in the same time frame in some other thread. What the heck is passing for science education these days?}

 

In a sense we are gentically "programmed" to learn from our environment and form a synthesis of the two.

 

Nuture. For one reason. People have changed their political beliefs.

Imagine Bush if someone discovered a Republican gene...so much for the ban on cloning research.

 

{Actually, I'm still in shock that people think that dinosaurs and humans lived in the same time frame in some other thread. What the heck is passing for science education these days?}

Just how many science classrooms have you heard this advocated in?

[sarcasm]Oh no! The fundamentalists are at it again to subvert science![/sarcasm]

 

For example, there's no denying the clearly evident pattern that a majority of women generally tend to vote Democratic in the United States, whereas a majority of men tend to vote Republican.

Nature has nothing to do with that. Women vote Democrat beause the party tells them what they want to hear ("we care about women") and men vote Republican because the party tells them what they want to hear ("we'll protect your money"). And obviously, both parties have members of both genders. It has nothing to do with genetics. It's all about which party's lies sound better.

 

Well, technically, that's still nature, in some respects. The way most women think is different than the way most men think, and therefore they find those lies more appealing. It is nuture to some extent, but the basics of it are not.

 

The way most women think is different than the way most men think, and therefore they find those lies more appealing.

That doesn't mean they lean liberal/conservative; it just means that the parties know how they think and are manipulating them. I also have to wonder whether the way women think vs. the way men think is a product of nurture as well...

 

Shakespeare analyses this in The Tempest and comes to a (predictably) vague conclusion. But IMO, it has to be a balance. Cleary political views are primarily nurture, people vote based upon their background, beliefs or parental bias and whilst opinions are similar, there must be some element of nature in our personalities.

Nobody turns out like their parents, their parents didn't turn out like their grandparents etc etc. Personalities are primarily influenced by our parents in early life, but conditioned by the environment. Despite this, very few people have flexible personalities by the time they are part of a "social" environment (ie school). Even little children have personal elements that their parents cant change, some are more adventurous, others prefer different methods of physical and mental stimulation. Because of this, it must be determined that personality is just as inherited as it is influenced.

Despite this, we have physical traits which we inherit from parents. Thus, there must be some elements of our nature (ie mental structure) which are conditioned by inherited elements as well. It is no fluke that we are like our parents (even if we've never met them), thus there must be some sense of nature and nurture balanced in our views and opinions.

 

Just how many science classrooms have you heard this advocated in?

None, but then again, I have a strong background in the sciences. My astonishment comes from the fact that obviously people are not getting what should be a 3rd grade education. By the time I was 8 (if not earlier), I knew that dinosaurs died out long before humans existed. Now why don't people on this board know this as well? Normally, I would consider this common knowledge, but apparantly it isn't and THAT is VERY SAD IMO.

Secondly, where did mention anything about religious fundamentalists? Religious fundamentalism has nothing to do with education unless you are referring to the small minority that home schools their children.

My question still stands, what is passing for scientific education these days?