What is the nature vs nurture debate and which one is the right answer?
In: 0
Striped down I’d say it’s essentially the idea that you have certain predetermined qualities (Genetics/Nature) and you have environmental factors (External influence/Nurture) which both play against one another to form the individual.
While most literature comes to the anticlimactic result of a 50/50 split between the two, I’ve always felt that was a lackluster answer.
It seems to me that nurture (external influence) is a far greater influence on the individual. I was born with the genetics of my parents, both alcoholics and other genetically relevant personality traits. For a long time this was the pattern I followed, but through conscious shifting of my environment and the content I allowed into my subconscious I have shifted away from the negative patterns built into their genes (of course this has “nurture” qualities as well seeing as the culture and their parents before them supported these actions.) Perhaps Nature could be more a powerful guide in the early years of development( and due to the first 7 years of life having major pattern setting potential this helps boost the support for nature’s continued involvement in our lives.) however, with the unsettling research into gene engineering we see rapidly picking up we could see this aspect of life also shift.
Additional support for nurture being a superior force in shaping our everyday lives: I would point to the effects of exercise, diet and substance use on our hormonal systems as well as their ability to literally re-write our genes.
You might have been given your hand in poker by Nature, but Nurture could be equated to your ability to bluff what you’re holding, analyze yourself against other players, and play the game as if you had a pair of A’s instead of a 2 and a 3.
Latest Answers