Do Our Sociodemographic Positions Influence The Way We View Genetics?

Blue-eyed babies are adorable:  I think this is something most of us can agree on.  However, anyone who passed 9th grade science knows that there aren't a whole lot of blue-eyed babies around.  Blue eyes are a recessive trait and are usually overpowered by the dominant brown eye gene (as depicted by the punnett square below).

[Blue eye gene is b; Brown eye gene is B]

Genes work like this, and not only with eye color.  Biological studies prove that pretty much every natural anatomical feature on an individual is there because of their inherited genetics.  However, the question still remains:  does the same go for non-anatomical characteristics?

In other words, are our personalities and abilities controlled by our inherited genetic code?  Would the same punnett square depicted above work if (for example) patience was B and a short temper was b?  An article I read this week for class explains how and why different people hold different opinions on this issue.

The article was written by Sara Shostak of Brandeis University, Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University, Bruce G. Link, and Jo C. Phelan (both of whom are from Columbia University), and says that research has proved the following hypothesis:

American citizens of a more conservative political position and/or an upper- to middle- class status tend to believe genes are the main cause of one's character and personality.  Those of a more liberal political position and/or a lower- to middle- class status tend to believe the contrary:  that one's personality and character is shaped by his or her experiences in life and among society.

When I first read this article, I was dumbfounded.  How could someone find a correlation between these two things?!  I mean, they're totally unrelated, aren't they?

After a little thinking, however, a light bulb went off in my head.

Those of a liberal democratic political position are strong pushers of the notion that "all men are created equal"...hence the tendency to favor taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Those of a conservative republican political position, however, favor the idea of a capitalistic society as well as that of a "self-made man."

Therefore, if liberals believe all men are created equal, wouldn't this mindset lead to the similar assumption that all babies are born equal and genes have little to do with their natural personalities?  And wouldn't higher-class conservatives have reason to believe themselves to be more naturally advantaged because of a likely genetic history of a good work ethic, an aptitude for learning, and a strong sense of determination that so led to their current state of economic success and high-class social status?

In class, we're learning about how society may or may not shape who we are.  George Herbert Mead's hypothesis of a Social Construction of Self suggests that our personalities and characters are largely influenced by the world in which we live.  Charles Horton Cooley, however, believes in a Looking-Glass Self and thinks that one's view of himself is caused by what he thinks others think of him (...you got that?)  Both these men would most likely be on the side of the liberals when it comes to this argument.  Neither one brings up the idea that genes are why we are who we are (hence why they're sociologists and not geneticists).

As for me, I have to say I agree with the conservative viewpoint.  I have seen in myself many a character trait like one or both of my parents.  I like the same kind of music as my dad and the same foods as my mom, I communicate the same way as my father (my mom's a whole different story), and the same goes for all four of my biological siblings.  Since I'm only 16 and don't really have a fully-developed political position, this is just what I've concluded through personal experience alone.  Therefore, my opinion isn't really one of great contribution to my conclusion above about the article I read.

Still, it's my opinion and I think I'm right.  :)