How genetics and environment shape our political views in an intricate dance between nature and nurture
For centuries, philosophers and scientists have pondered what shapes human nature. Are we blank slates written on by experience, or are our destinies pre-written in our genes? This is the famous 'nature versus nurture' debate. But what if this entire framework is wrong? Modern science has reached a startling consensus: it's not a contest between two rivals, but a constant, intricate dance between them 6 7 . Nowhere is this dance more fascinating—or more controversial—than in the realm of our political beliefs. From your stance on taxes to your view of gender roles, the emerging science of biopolitics suggests that our genes and our environment are co-conspirators in shaping who we are and what we vote for.
The old question pitting nature against nurture has been officially retired by science. The new, more compelling question is: How does the interplay of biology and experience shape our brains and make us who we are? 7 The key word is "interplay."
This represents a fundamental shift from a static model to a dynamic one. We now know that the brain is not hardwired at birth and then slowly declines. Instead, it is highly plastic, constantly reshaping itself in response to experience throughout our lives 7 . These experiences don't just change abstract thoughts; they change the physical structure of the brain, strengthening frequently used neural connections and pruning unused ones 7 .
Conversely, this plasticity itself is a genetic gift. Our DNA contains the instructions for building a brain designed to learn and adapt. As one researcher noted, "Plasticity is a characteristic that has been selected for, so there must be genes for plasticity" 7 . This creates a continuous feedback loop: genes build a malleable brain, experiences sculpt that brain, and the resulting changes influence how we interact with future experiences.
Click to explore how experiences physically reshape our neural connections
InteractiveA major source of controversy in applying biology to human behavior is the naturalistic fallacy—the mistaken idea that if something is "natural," it is therefore "good" 1 . Evolutionary psychology, which explores how our minds have been shaped by evolution, often runs afoul of this fear.
Discovering an average biological difference between groups does not mean that difference is immutable, nor does it justify it as a moral or political ideal 1 . As psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams points out, many sex differences are quite modest, with a "ton of overlap" between groups 1 .
Science can describe what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. Separating the descriptive from the prescriptive is crucial for having a sane conversation about biology and politics.
So, how does this complex gene-environment interplay express itself in our political lives? Research reveals a surprising pattern: people's political ideologies often predict which traits they believe are shaped by genes.
Conservatives and liberals systematically differ in the genetic explanations they find appealing 3 . This is not because one side is more "scientific" than the other, but because genetic attributions can be used to bolster different policy positions 3 .
| Trait or Domain | Typical Ideological Leaning | Underlying Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Race/Class Differences (e.g., intelligence, drive) | More common among conservatives 3 | Naturalizes existing social hierarchies, can justify laissez-faire policies and resistance to government intervention 3 . |
| Sexual Orientation | More common among liberals 3 | Reduces blame/personal responsibility, evokes sympathy, and is used to argue for LGBT rights and protections 3 . |
| Individual Differences (in intelligence, etc.) | Weaker or No Clear Ideological Link 3 | Lacks the same direct relevance to specific group-based policy debates. |
This pattern suggests that "motivated reasoning" is at play 3 . We are often drawn to scientific explanations that naturally support our pre-existing worldviews and policy preferences. For conservatives, genetic explanations for socioeconomic inequality can justify a more limited role for government in creating equality. For liberals, a genetic explanation for sexual orientation helps argue that being gay is not a "choice" and therefore deserves legal protection 3 .
Untangling the threads of nature and nurture requires ingenious scientific methods. Researchers have developed powerful tools to peer into this dynamic interplay.
Compares the similarity of traits between identical twins (who share 100% of DNA) and fraternal twins (who share ~50%) 5 .
What it reveals: If identical twins are more similar on a trait (like political orientation) than fraternal twins, it suggests a genetic influence.
Examines children who were adopted and compares them to both their biological and their adoptive relatives 5 .
What it reveals: Helps separate genetic influences (shared with biological parents) from environmental influences (provided by adoptive family).
Uses DNA data to identify specific genetic variants (SNPs) associated with traits across the genome 8 .
What it reveals: Moves beyond inference to pinpoint specific areas of the genome linked to complex behaviors, though each variant has a tiny effect.
One of the most important concepts revealed by these methods is "genetic nurture" 9 . This refers to the fact that our parents' genes shape our environment, which in turn influences us. For example, a parent genetically predisposed to be more educated might create a home environment rich in books and learning, which benefits their child. The child's own academic success isn't just due to the genes they inherited, but also to the "nurture" created by their parents' genes 9 . This perfectly illustrates the impossibility of completely separating nature and nurture.
To understand a key experiment, let's look at the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. This groundbreaking research followed over 130 pairs of identical and fraternal twins who were separated early in life and raised in different families 6 .
Researchers identified twins separated in infancy through adoption records.
Both members of each twin pair were brought to the University of Minnesota for a week of intensive psychological and medical testing.
They completed personality inventories, intelligence tests, and extensive interviews about their life experiences, beliefs, and interests.
Scientists then compared the similarity of the separated identical twins to that of separated fraternal twins, as well as to twins who were raised together 6 .
The core finding was staggering: identical twins reared apart were often about as similar as identical twins who grew up together 6 . This was true for a range of traits, from fundamental personality dimensions to social attitudes and even certain political leanings.
The scientific importance of this result is profound. It provides powerful evidence that genetics plays a significant role in shaping complex psychological traits, including those related to politics. It doesn't mean upbringing is irrelevant, but it shows that even radically different environments do not completely overwrite our genetic predispositions. The study was a cornerstone in proving that nature and nurture are not opposing forces, but collaborative partners.
What are the essential tools that enable this research? The following table details key "reagents"—both biological and methodological—used in this field.
| Research Reagent / Tool | Function in Research |
|---|---|
| DNA Microarrays | A tool used to genotype hundreds of thousands of genetic variants (SNPs) across an individual's entire genome, providing the raw data for genetic association studies 9 . |
| Polygenic Scores (PGS) | A calculated score that aggregates the effects of many thousands of genetic variants to estimate an individual's genetic predisposition for a specific trait, such as educational attainment or political orientation 9 . |
| Heritability Coefficient | A statistical measure (from 0 to 1) that estimates the proportion of observed differences in a trait among individuals that can be attributed to genetic differences within a specific population 5 . |
| fMRI (Functional MRI) | A brain imaging technology that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow, allowing researchers to see if political stimuli activate different brain regions in liberals and conservatives 4 . |
| Standardized Personality & Political Inventories | Validated questionnaires (e.g., measuring the "Big Five" personality traits or political orientation on a spectrum) that ensure consistent measurement across thousands of research participants 5 . |
The quest to understand the biological underpinnings of politics is not about reducing our beliefs to a simple genetic blueprint. Nor is it an attempt to justify the status quo. Instead, it is about embracing a more complex, dynamic, and ultimately more human truth: we are the product of a constant conversation between our biology and our experiences.
Understanding that our political opponents may be influenced by deep-seated biological and psychological factors can, perhaps, foster a degree of humility and empathy. It suggests that disagreement is not always a failure of reason or morality.
Recognizing the biological implausibility of the nature-nurture dichotomy 2 allows us to move beyond simplistic debates and focus on the real task: understanding the intricate feedback loops that make us who we are. In the end, this knowledge doesn't lock us into a predetermined fate; it empowers us with a deeper self-awareness to consciously shape our world and our political future.
Nature and nurture work together in a continuous feedback loop, not as opposing forces.
Our experiences physically reshape our brains throughout our lives.
Our ideologies shape which genetic explanations we find compelling.