If Nature is the “War of All against All”, as Hobbes would attest, then immediate Defense of one’s Psyche ought to be the first and foremost concern for all intelligent species and persons. As such this tends to be the case for Philosophers and Philosophical Cynicism / Skepticism. Any philosophical intention, to seek ‘Truth’, anywhere in Existence, would first require defense against all the assaults of a lifetime, all those who sought to Control / Manipulate a mind, before it had a chance to develop. Here, “Nurture over Nature” takes a radical turn.
Who has an infant, child, or teenager’s “best interest in mind”?
A biological father?
A biological mother?
A sibling?
A step-parent?
Extended family?
Complete strangers?
Different races entirely?
Different species??
Advanced organism species experience ‘Imprinting’, by which a female (or male) becomes the ‘Mother’ to a newborn, baby, or infant animal:
Lorenz’s little geese are the most well-known example of cross-species imprinting, but it can occur between other species, too. Any animal born relatively independent—not entirely relying on a parent to provide food or protection, so-called precocial species—needs to be able to discriminate between its parents and other members of its (or other) species, lest they get lost or attacked. A gosling, or other precocial animal, accomplishes this with an instinct to approach and follow a moving target after birth as well as a vague preference for objects that have particular features, such as a head and neck. In the wild, this guides a gosling to favor its mother.
In the absence of an appropriate stimulus, however, practically any object can become a source of comfort to the newborn. After one to two hours of exposure to the target, a gosling will have formed a strong preference, avoiding novel objects and showing signs of distress when the “imprinted” object is removed.
No explicit reward, such as food or warmth, is needed. In fact, some research suggests that aspects of the object itself—its shape or movements, for example—may have the capacity to stimulate endogenous opioid (endorphin) production in a newborn’s brain: hence, instant comfort.
“There have been a lot of questions about whether [precocial birds] actually do have a naive preference for their own species,” explains Utrecht University zoologist Johan Bolhuis. “They probably don’t.”
The above is the epitome and apex of Liberal-Leftist ideology, attempting to supplant an organism’s intellect/psyche/imagination with its own ‘imprint’ or “stamp”. This is what they mean by “Nurture Over Nature”, as-if a Great Mother implemented a type of parental Surrogacy over all others–all other species, all other races, and all other organic forms of life. However, this ignores the specific, biological mother of the progeny. It presumes the death of, absence of, or pilfering away from, the biological mother who actually gave birth to the offspring.
If, by genetic implication, all organisms and life are ‘owed’ instead to their biological mothers, then Nurture Over Nature would only have relevance insofar as a Surrogate parent is involved. If the biological mother is involved, then there is no “Nurturing” (from outside influence), but rather the birth, care, and imprinting are only “Natural”. As such, any psychic “Defense” would also be “Natural”. An organism ought not have need, nor desire, to ‘resist’ or ‘defend’ against the natural imprinting of a mother.
All this is to say is that Biological nurturing is categorically different than Societal or Surrogate nurturing. The former, people automatically presume as most ‘Natural’, or the passing of ‘Nature’, while the latter is not. Therefore, to conclude, Biological parenting is from whence psychological or mental defenses first arise, and likely are most beneficial to the particular, individual organism / intelligent mind.
