Amongst contentious ideas that have been a perennial specter of philosophy, science, politics and even folk wisdom is that of human nature and, more specifically, a dualistic question it seems to elicit: is human nature fundamentally a product of inborn characteristics (nature) or culturally learned (nurture)?

In an age when both sociologists and behavioral geneticists somewhat coexist, it would seem the age old argument could finally be put to rest and settled with some good old dispassionate, empirical data. This, however, has proven not the case, notably within academia where the sheer number of fundamentally differing opinions and fiery, high brow retorts between departments has occasionally lead me to question if we’re all observing the same reality.

John Locke famously declared man tabula rasa, that is, born a blank slate, a philosophical axiom that has had profound political consequence and is generally seen as a bedrock idea for nurturists. Early anthropologists championed cultural determinism as a recant to nineteenth century social Darwinism, which was often used to justify human inequality. Margaret Mead went so far as to declare that culture and personality were inseparable. Modern academics like cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker have, in turn, argued that the social sciences are in denial about the degree to which inheritance drives human behavior.

The truth, it would seem, lies in neither extreme and in the fact that we are all products of both nature and nurture, that which goes on in utero and in the midst of living. The human mind, however, tends to prefer absolutes and, moreover, the nature vs. nurture debate is not another dry quandary of the natural world that can be settled without contest, like the circumference of the sun. It is a categorical division that the mind has created, predicated on deeply held moral and political beliefs.

Perhaps the most interesting example of this argument is not that which goes on behind university walls but as it has played out in the American political landscape. Ideas and emotions surrounding nature and nurture are so politically charged that psychologists have devised fairly accurate questionnaires predicting individual, political association based on seemingly non-political preferences, one of which is a choice simply between nature or nurture. For those comfortable with choosing between two vague abstractions on a gut hunch, people who choose nature tend more likely be conservative and nurture preferences suggest progressive leanings. This might seem an arbitrary correlation but I believe the idea of either abstract notion, whether consciously rationalized or not, implies to us a certain consequence. Specifically, nature justifies the practical desire to preserve the status quo and nurture gives credence to the idea that cultural change is possible.

Based on the stances of American conservatives and progressives, its not hard to fathom why these ideas would correlate in the way they do, however, its noteworthy that there are a few popular exceptions-to-the-rule where progressives lean on nature based arguments, specifically with regards to LGBTQ identity. Lady Gaga’s “Born this Way” may well be the nature-based-argument-anthem of the LGBTQ movement. It’s a highly syncopated rebuttal to Christian conservative nurture arguments that state homosexuality is a product of culture and upbringing. Why are Christian conservatives so invested in a nurture cause in this one particular case? Well, it might partly be due to the fact that even conservatives typically know and love someone who happens to be gay and a nurture argument promises the possibility that the person can be “changed” or, at least, a culture can be created to prevent it in the future.

So, practically speaking, what does this all mean? Well, it’s a political weaponization of two extremes to justify an ends or perhaps, in more innocuous terms, an overstatement to get people to see the other side of the coin. It’s a realization that people often draw naturalistic fallacies when faced solely with nature based causes. It’s the recognition of the uncritical complicity with which some derive hasty or immmoral conclusions from evolutionary psychology or Darwinian theory.

The degree to which nature or nurture play a role in any given aspect of human behavior is ultimately irrelevant when it comes down to the morality of an issue. Homosexuality, hypothetically, could largely be due to culture and upbringing (something I don’t believe), however, it wouldn’t justify discrimination against LGBTQ people or even imply that the culture and child rearing which caused it is, in itself, bad. The side we focus on, more likely, dictates our underlying moral attitudes towards an aspect of culture.

It is both interesting and even instructive to know our nature, that is, where we came from in terms of cognitive and biological inheritance. It is this which allows us to spot our anachronistic biases and not perpetuate them into the future. In this light, nature is not a justification of the status quo but a history from which to learn and develop. It is equally important to never downplay the role of nurture. We humans are the most culturally adaptive species on earth. We come into the world relatively helpless and hugely neuroplastic. We are, in many ways, a product of our cultures, a culture that, unlike biological evolution, can change in the time span of a revolution.