When explaining why some are gifted and others are not, nature and nurture are invariably mentioned. Is Jason gifted because of his inherited genes, his home environment, or a combination of the two? Researchers and laypersons have debated this for decades. They have conducted research, created tests, written editorials, influenced legislation, and almost come to blows over the matter. This lengthy period is even catalogued in histories, usually written by nature or nurture proponents. Here, they inform the reader how the nature-nurture debate "really" happened. Naturally, there are large discrepancies between their historical accounts. This article will describe some of these major discrepancies, observing how psychologists have written two distinct histories. The nature-centric history stresses the themes of scientific progress early in the 20th century and personal and professional persecution later on. The nurture-centric history stresses the themes of the immorality in early 20th century research, but the eventual triumph of justice. These distinct historical accounts demonstrate how scientific research can be divisively subjective, a fact that researchers and practitioners should remember when considering the field's present state.