Position Paper: Nature vs. Nurture

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 823
  • Published : October 8, 1999
Open Document
Text Preview
Position Paper: Nature vs. Nurture

The controversy of nature vs. nurture has been going on for many years, and a

decision has not yet been reached in which one is the most affective. Using the results of

the countless tests done, everyday situations, and the twins experiment, I will prove that

nature is a larger contributor to the outcome of our personalities than nurture.

Firstly, many psychologists and Universities, such as Harvard, conducted countless

test to determined which traits of our personalities seemed to be inherited, and which

seemed to be developed from our own life experiences. For most of the traits measured,

more than half the variation was found to be due to heredity. Among these traits were

things such as leadership abilities, traditionalism, obedience or lack of, and surprisingly

enough, the strict enforcement of rules. An not all the things tested were based on stature

and parental ways. Some that tested out at least 50% due to heredity included a sense of

well-being, zest for life; alienation; vulnerability or resistance to stress and fearfulness or

risk-seeking. All these factors have to do directly with our personality. Our goals for

achieving and future were another thing that tested out to be largely due to heredity and

genes. The need to achieve, including ambition and inclination to work hard towards goals

is an example of that. All these points simply prove that there are very many traits in our

personality that are due solely to heredity, others only 50%, but either way, genes take a

big role in our development.

Secondly, we can see just by observing ourselves just how much our parents genes

affect our decisions. No matter how much we fight it, our reactions to certain situations

are very much like our parents, it can even explain our differences from other people. I am

a perfect example. I am growing up in world were smoking and drinking aren't a "cool"

thing to do, they are just done. Everybody does it, sometimes without even giving it a

thought. It has become routine. Both my parents grew up in Christian homes and had

values and morals coming out their ears. Neither one of them ever even tried smoking or

drinking once. They had next to no friends who did these things, so that also made it

easier for them to deal with the pressure. I have been born into a world where 95% of my

friends smoke, drink, or both, I am exposed to it all day constantly, and yet I find that I

have not the slightest desire to even try it. I have no problem with my friends doing it, I

just wouldn't do it myself. I have asked myself a million times why I am so against it, but I

can not come up with any idea except that my parents beliefs and morals have been passed

to me through my genes, which I received from them. This would prove that my

personality is mainly formed from heredity, not from my surroundings or nurture as I

should put it.

Thirdly, a large experiment was done with twins to test the effect of growing up in

different environments. The test found that even though the identical twins were raised

apart, and therefor should have different personalities, they had very similar reactions and

attitudes. This would prove that their personalities would be mainly contrived by

nature/heredity, and that nurture/ their living environment had very little effect on them.

The argument that nurture is the main effecting thing is decent, but weak. One of

the proofs that David Suzuki gave us was that of the fruit fly experiment. He said that the

fly's mutated in different heats/ temperature levels, thus proving nurture is more effective.

I personally think that comparing human beings to feeble fruit-fly's is not a decent,

convincing way to show that nurture is the dominant. To prove this he would need a much

stronger argument!

In conclusion, the three main...
tracking img