What is more influential?
Nurture-the way you've been brought up
Some people believe nature is more influential. Got example in the case of the Jim twins. They were separated at birth and around 30 years later they discovered each. It showed that throughout the years they had not known each they had made a lot of similar decisions. Their kids had the same name, the same car and wives were the same. This proves that your genetics play a vital part into the choices you make as you go older.
On the other hand some people nurture plays more of a part in the way we act as we grow older. For example Kamala and Amala. These were children who were brought up my wolves.
Whether our inborn characteristics are more responsible in our resultant personality or any experiences we will make, has been the topic of discussion among scientists under the title of “Nature vs Nurture” for years. Biologists believe that the only factor behind individual’s personality is his genome. In contrast, socio-biologists argue that the environment and experiences that one gains during his life, build his personality. I am inclined to believe that the traits we are born with are more responsible genetically in building human’s personality.
Some cases of children who were left in the wilderness and raised with wild animals indicate the significance of mothering--nurturing. When those isolated children were found, they were unable to speak language, even a word, and their behaviors were not unlike animals'. If they were born with a special 'innate' ability which enables, nativists believe, children to magically acquire everything from language to social manner at ease, why not these wild children failed to acquire the custom of human society?
One tragic experiment conducted by a German king proves that one's language, one type of the intelligence, is not naturally acquired, but learned after years of exposure. The King hoped to find out what language a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document