The Progressive Need For Nurture

The nature versus nurture battle is scientifically over.

Due to the cornucopia of research pouring out, it has become patently obvious that traits of all sorts are heritable (551 traits analyzed in this study). The study doesn’t just examine the heritability of intelligence, but a myriad of behaviors that constitute human nature. The recent attempt to push epigenetics was a rearguard action admitting the primacy of nature. The best approach the progressives have is denying biology by suppressing research, which is a possibility because progressive elites need nurture.

Human neurological uniformity (HNU) and the corresponding belief that education fixes everything, leveling the life economic outcome playing field, is an important piece to their system. It is why they shun heretics who publicly deviate from HNU immediately, no matter the achievements of champions like Dr. James Watson.

Higher status is correlated to education, which feeds the status game system where the academics (priests) grant status. Consider the nonstop messaging of 2016 that Trump supporters were uneducated. No right thinking person wants to be considered dumb, after all.

The belief in nurture means that schools at lower levels matter, as well. This funnels money to the elementary and secondary school systems, paying off the loyal progressive foot soldiers in local education and the teachers’ unions. Countless studies can show that school spending means better test scores, while ignoring the genetic elephant in the room. The ripple effect is shoveling state and federal money to disadvantaged school districts that always seem to test lower no matter the system they employ.

What nurture and the belief in schools coaching people up become is a focal point for people wanting to invest in their children, which is in itself is a trait that varies across groups. “Good schools” becomes code for more whites. It has to be since freedom of association and neighborhood covenants were destroyed by the federal government and courts. Valuing education becomes the polite, safe way to keep like-minded people around. Since race and IQ are so closely correlated, it becomes the safe way to keep like-minded people via all of the other heritable traits around.

But unfortunately, this messaging eventually pushes minorities into white school districts hoping for the “good schools” nurture effect to come into play.

This is a key overlooked bit in the flow of people around our big cities. An example of the perverse effects of this can be seen in Indianapolis. Indianapolis public schools tanked decades ago, and the creep to the outer IPS schools was complete in the ’90s. Blacks were fearful of “bad whites” on the city’s south side and drifted north. This is clearly evident by The New York Times’ census population graphics. “Good whites” were welcoming to the north. On the north side, Lawrence Township was a slightly cheaper area to live in, and so city kids crept in.

In 2002, a family could move to Lawrence Township for the schools and expect a good system. As the welcoming area took in more city kids, more families gamed the attendance, and eventually Lawrence Township instituted proof of residence rules. This did not work. Lawrence Township steadily bled whites to the brand new communities just north of it in Fishers, Noblesville, and McCordsville. While having a higher economic moat, Washington Township just to Lawrence’s west is undergoing the same process. Washington Township’s high school, North Central, was the basis for Glee!. By 2030, North Central could be the setting for a reboot of Boyz In The Hood. South side townships still have strong white populations due to the worse reputation a generation ago.

Nurture marketing, when combined with the inability to restrict neighborhoods, becomes the economic moat for communities. Sure income and intelligence are correlated, but if you want to live with the in-crowd, you pay a bit more. Combined with some zoning laws, this becomes a way to limit available housing and price out the riff-raff who would love to be able to go to that school if only they could afford a home there. This becomes a payoff to the earliest of land holders in these areas. Their home equity spikes become fictitious wealth with which they can take loans against and scarf up assets, concentrating even more wealth. These towns and cities still need the demand.

The demand then also creates the odd situation where brand new subdivisions that sprout out of forests and cornfields magically all have price points that mimic the price points of suburbs that already have quality schools. The good schools crowd becomes a consumer bloc that maximizes developers’ profits. Ten acres of cornfield that become forty homes around 2200 square feet provide one amazing return on investment for the developer and home builder that got the acreage rezoned by the little municipality.

Those are very expensive. white refugee developments–all for the “good schools” that a few years ago were rural, small school districts.

If nurture were dethroned entirely, demand would subside. New England is an overwhelmingly white region of America, yet you will still hear white parents discuss the merits of one 95% white school over another 95% white school. If parents were to understand that a significant portion of the high school graduates going to Ivies from specific schools were legacy admissions, they could have a more honest appraisal of the situation. They might understand that Jimmy at Natick High will receive just as good of an education as Jimmy at Wellesley High because what mattered was Jimmy, not the money spent per student.

There is a darker reason for pushing nurture that keeps the progressives safe. The progressive coalition is a very diverse coalition with members spanning all averages in test scores. Because no teaching program can close the achievement gap, there is always a financial sop to throw to loyal political allies. There is always cover for the progressive elite to their underclass clients that they are doing all they can to help, “See look, we now spend more per student in your district than ours!” It is far harder for any coalition to explain wide disparities rather than a more homogeneous group with tighter variability.

The consequences of admitting nature rules will keep progressive elites, academics, and pundits clinging to and defending it at all costs. They will only let go when they can say they have always believed nature over nurture during the media campaign to celebrate the FDA approval of gene editing procedures.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. My family in Dallas area tells me of a similar situation as Indianapolis. Good God, Dallas used to be like 90% white Protestant pre 90s. The Telecom boom brought the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans to build the former two’s homes. The only hope is the Asians giving diversity cover to the whites to be ruthless towards the Mexicans and legacy blacks.

  2. What shocked me is how tightly the vote in Boston’s white suburbs correlated to average income. Trump won the least prosperous white suburbs, while Hillary scored up to 80% in the wealthiest burbs. And they say Republicans are the party of the rich.

    I think people deserve to get what they vote for, so Wellesley, Weston, Wayland et al. are due for some high-rise Section 8 housing projects.

  3. Laguna Beach Fogey November 27, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    Did you hear that Richard Spencer’s old prep school, St Mark’s in Dallas, has officially denounced him and is retaliating by raising funds to import more third world ‘refugees’ to Dallas?

    You can’t make this sh*t up.

  4. As a non diverse male in Amerika with no children, this has become one of my peeves of having to pay for a failing school that can negatively impact my property value. The school district in the small south Texas town I live in has to advertise it met standards. Other rural schools are also failing with the state threatening to shut them down. Yet, no one looks at the causes which starts with the parents who like a discount babysitting service followed by an overpaid ‘managerial state’ administration and then the teachers. I went to one of the better ones in the region, but even it is in decline.

  5. The made-up concept of ‘gender’ is a weird mix of nature and nurture. The progs are trying to get the benefit or stability of nature while still allowing the self-definition of nurture. For some reason you can’t say “born that way” about intelligence, though.

    They really don’t care about nature vs. nurture as a debate about the nature of reality. It’s just adopting the language of people they hate and adding a veneer of seriousness to gather power. Politically, “it’s not your fault, it’s someone else’s, so vote for me” is pretty effective, so whichever of the two is easiest to blame will be blamed. A failure to nurture will be blamed about education, while a disrespect for nature will be blamed when a woman doesn’t want to share a bathroom with a man.

  6. This is one of the reasons why there should be a push for Universities to study and teach how our differences in biology effect our prosperity….Human Biodiversity courses if you will. The science that would lead to society being more fiscally conservative and funds directed to more efficient areas is held back by a social taboo.

    This makes our Universities pushing a more “progressive” view in improving society. It’s lack of outlook into our biology and nature leads to a faith like over-emphasis on nurture. Opening up the dialogue would redefine the political divisions and encourage us to look at the world more realistically.

  7. Nurture matters insofar as education is concerned, but only relatively speaking in relation to genetics. Even then, the nurture received at home, and in the immediate social culture of a student, is FAR more important than the measly 40 minutes a day I see them in a classroom; I say this as a teacher.

    If people genuinely wanted to “fix” education, and by proxy many societal ills, they’d do the following, in descending order of importance:

    1. Stop. Destroying. Families. Also known as, “Single Mothers Need Not Apply.”

    This is of course itself symptomatic of deeper maladies, but I’m trying to stay on topic. In terms of the Educational apparatus ITSELF:

    2. Education is no longer mandatory or state enforced.
    3. Schools are gender segregated after a certain age (5th grade seems about right)
    4. Re-institute Corporal Punishment
    5. Uniforms are mandatory and strictly enforced for all, teachers included.

    I thoroughly enjoyed the articles on this site promoting the wholesale transfer of educational responsibilities to the Catholic Church, and found them quite compelling.

    1. I swear I know you.

      1. Possible, though many of the positions I’ve articulated here are actually fairly common among more Traditional Teachers, though you’ll never get many to ever admit it face to face.

        The education industry, and it is an industry, is run by dyed in the wool leftists, useful idiots and God haters.

        You ever been to Western New York?

        1. >The education industry, and it is an industry, is run by dyed in the wool leftists, useful idiots

          This is what I sense as well. I was watching some of Harvard’s GSE youtube vids, perused their site, and came away with a social justice theme. I suppose this how they want to market themselves, giving the spotlight to the more SJW-esque students (two black students, one a masters and the other a doctoral candidate, both did a slam poetry piece touching upon racism and education), and inviting guest speakers on topics with a hard “progressive” lean.

          There was little talk about curriculum in terms of crafting a student’s sharpness, effective teaching methods to those who have learning disabilities or the financial aspect of education, both funding and payment of teachers and staff.

          I said to myself, “Is this truly the education department of Harvard? Good grief.”

          Also check out the department’s twitter page, with a tweet about students’ “global citizenship.”

  8. “nurture vs nature” seems an apt fit in the evolutionary psychology theories championed by anonymous conservative: r/K selection has created a vast warren of “rabbits” (r-selected) wherein any change in the nurturing narrative of approval results in literal “triggering” of amygdala in the liberals. helter-skelter, they run to some place “safe”. Mr. Frogg has some excellent suggestions in re education; as the K-selected return to power, perhaps some needful changes may be possible.

Comments are closed.