nature or nurture

[im_in_a_band]

do you think nature or nurture that makes you who u are

[LoyalSubject]

ooo i was just talkin about this in social studies. i think its half and half.

[Noblethe3rd]

Well I think its not exactly half and half, I think it varies between people and that each is influenced by one of them more than the other. Completely one or the other seems irrational.

[quitejaded]

nurture > nature, nature can effect what comes of nurture.

I reckon that nurture creates your personality and nature influeces it. To me nurture means your family and close friends during your early years. Nature is something that influences you after you have set your personality.

For example a person who was in a loving familiy was nurtured and had a great personality then something horrible happened like a family members death or them being raped and they turn darker and have a worst personality

[Every Heart]

Your nature depends on how the ppl close to you nurture you

For example, if someone grew up with ppl that didn't love him/her, they will probably get involved in drugs, alcohol, murder, rape, etc.

But if they grew up in a family that loved them, it will be highly unlikely to get involved with things like that.

[quitejaded]

No. They people do not have to be close to you at all.

[LordMune]

Correct answer is: both.
End of discussion.

[quitejaded]

No, not really. You can argue that nature has very little to do with and there's actual evidence to support that we're all just the outcome of our environment. Can you say the same for the nature point of view?

[LordMune]

Originally Posted by quitejaded

No, not really. You can argue that nature has very little to do with and there's actual evidence to support that we're all just the outcome of our environment. Can you say the same for the nature point of view?

You'd be surprised at how many twins are separated at birth, grow up in completely different environments, and turn out while not exactly the same, extremely similar.

But what really boggles the mind is the sheer amount of studies detailing these cases.

[HeartlessOfDoom]

Ya, it can be both. Genetics, aka if a member of your family has a psychological problem, then there is an increased chance of another in the family getting it. However, if one grows up in a good/ bad environment, that will affect them a lot too, so it is both. If one grows up in an alcoholic homocidal household, then they will probably be demented. Then again, if it is good, they might be good, but if the person is bad, then genetics may play a role. So again, both are responsible.

[Alaude Drenxta]

I'm taking AP psychology right now, so I think I've got a pretty good grasp on this. The MOST committing force in this, stands to be nature. Inherited traits and standard human physical, emotional, and psychological development is MOST affected by nature. But in retrospect, you are not who you are without the compilation of both. Behavioral studies have proven that people's mind processes and habits can be easily afflicted, and condition the way a person perceives the world and it's effects.

[Skinwalker]

nature affects how you accept socialisation but socialisation is the dominant factor.

Take for example the proposed "gay gene". People with the gene could still be straight/ not attracted to men/ attracted to women etc., and people without the game could still be gay/ attracted to men etc. -It is more like nature (genetics) can make you more or less 'susceptible' to socialisation and identity.

Here's an essay I wrote examining both sides of the argument.

There are many conflicting views on what influences our behavior and thoughts. Biologists argue that most of our characteristics are determined by our genes; however, some people argue that our non-physical characteristics (such as talents, intelligence and sexuality) are socially acquired from our culture and upbringing (our socialization). In this assignment I will examine some of the perspectives on this debate to try to form a valid conclusion.


Usually in this context, the term ‘Human Nature’ has one of the two following meanings. The term can refer to certain innate biophysical characteristics, for example instincts and other genetic influences on mental and bodily functioning. Biologists and Psychologists often refer to these characteristics to account for specific aspects of human behavior. One example of this is argument would be claiming that because of the biological fact that men are generally physically stronger than women, it is one reason why in most societies, males undertake most of the heavy manual labour.

The second usage of the term is more philosophical- it refers to principles or cultural norms which are considered to define what it is to be human. Therefore, some philosophers claim that altruism is our true nature. Others argue that greed and egoism are more characteristic of being human, and that we are motivated by lust for power and domination. So, the term is basically used for generalisations to try to identify the essential character of the human species.

Biologists argue that humans and animals are born with inherited instincts and so they do not need to learn them through socialization.

For example, Perrott observed that if a yellowhammer or corn bunting bird is reared in complete isolation from other birds of the same species, its first song is exactly the same as other birds of the same species raised in a normal environment. Also, young spiders without any experience are able to weave webs as well constructed as those of experienced spiders. This shows that some animals do have some instincts which are inherited genetically and so ‘normal’ socialization or upbringing is not always necessary.

To summarize, the Nature side of the argument argues that regular upbringing and nurturing is not always necessary because some instincts or behaviors are inherited genetically. This point of view is supported by biologists and some Psychologists and Philosophers.


When Sociology developed as an academic discipline, it challenged the view that behaviour is primarily determined by innate characteristics. In the sociological perspective, human behaviour is mainly social behaviour, shaped by our environment and culture. Social environments which influence our actions and thoughts include the mass media, friends, Churches, colleagues etc.
A common example used by Sociologists to support their argument is ‘feral children’- human children raised in a ‘wild’ environment. They can become almost unrecognizable as humans, and tend to behave like the animals which are believed to have raised them. For example, a Russian girl called Oxanna suffered extreme neglect and was forced to live with Alsatian dogs for a long period of time, during which she began to behave very similar to an Alsatian dog. This emphasizes that a person’s social environment has a great influence on their behaviour.

Sociologists believe that if a person is isolated from humans, and has had little or no contact with them for a long time, it can influence their behaviour and characteristics. For example, in 1938, a five-year old child named Anna was discovered in an isolated farmhouse. She had been kept in solitary confinement for years, and had virtually no contact with humans. When she was found, she could not talk or walk, and had poor physical health. At the age of ten, after learning a very basic level ‘normal’ human behaviour (e.g. feeding herself with a spoon, basic speech), she died. This example and others similar to it confirm that isolation can influence a person’s behaviour by preventing them from learning as they would in a regular social environment.

Many sociologists argue that looking at the culture of different societies helps us to understand how much human behaviour is influenced by nurture not nature. For example, in his study of the Ik tribe in Uganda, Colin Turnbill found that ‘mother love’ does not exist. Due to the conditions of near starvation that many parents suffered in the region, this meant that their children were viewed as competitors for food and treated with dislike by their mothers and fathers. This example illustrates the way different societies view parenthood in different ways and therefore can prove that the culture of a society is more influential on behaviour than biology is.

To conclude, it appears to be evident that a person’s social environment has more of an effect on their behaviour and thoughts than their biological characteristics. Nature is mainly what affects a person’s physical characteristics, although it can also affect behaviour (mainly in the case of animals not humans). In contrast, Nurture plays a large role in a person’s development as a human, on their behaviour, thoughts, beliefs etc. and a small role in their physical characteristics (as these characteristics may change according to their behaviour or culture).

[Phoenix]

People with the gene could still be straight/ not attracted to men/ attracted to women etc., and people without the game could still be gay/ attracted to men etc.

*buzzer* Wrong! Most (if not all) homosexuals have heterosexuals parents. And most children that are raised by a homosexual couple grow up to be heterosexual.

[Skinwalker]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

*buzzer* Wrong! Most (if not all) homosexuals have heterosexuals parents. And most children that are raised by a homosexual couple grow up to be heterosexual.

I never said genetics were a CAUSE, I said they were a POSSIBLE INFLUENCE. I'm fully aware of that, there was no need to say that and I don't really understand why you said it when I only said it was a possibility.