In the content of "The End of Nature verses Nurture" it is stated that political
conservatives have sometimes favored genetic explanations of behavior and
example of genetics would be a mother bird that removes the eggshells from the
nest after the chicks have hatched. The mother bird does this because the outside of the eggshell is camouflaged and once hatched the inside is revealed which is not camouflaged. The broken eggshells will be seen by predators and will endanger the entire nest. Throwing out the broken pieces is an automatic response favored by natural selection because birds that practice this behavior have more surviving offspring's. "Scientific America (December 1999), page 5, Frans B. M. deWaal "
Liberals view behavior as the product of trial-and-error learning. An example of this would be a rat that normally links actions with effects, but only if the two immediately follow one another. It would be very hard for the rat to learn to press the lever if his reward followed hours or even minutes later. Although if the food that the rat was given made him sick the rat would decline the food even if the rat was starving. "Scientific America (December 1999), page 5, Frans B. M. deWaal"
Also in the content of "The End of Nature versus Nurture" it asks why deWaal contends that "suppressed categories of people, such as minorities and women" should feel threat both from biological determinism and from an environmentalism that denies basic biological needs and tendencies? In the course of the article deWaal basically says that suppressed categories of people should feel threatened because the superior people will not lend a helping hand. The minorities will not be aided in their struggle for existence, so the natural order will not be upset. As long as people have political agendas they will remain self involved, leavi
...