Good Example Of Nature Vs. Nurture Question & Answer

One of the greatest philosophical debates of all times has had to do with how one obtains one’s identity. In the present day, the two main currents are known as nature and nurture. The first of these contemplates an intrinsic source, usually biological in nature, that determines one’s actions. On the other hand, those who are on the nurture side of the debate believe that the contingencies that may happen during a person’s life are the ones that cause who one is in the future, and what choices he or she will take. Even though they both have important and plausible arguments and evidence, I believe that nurture is more important than nature, and that the former can even modify the latter to a great degree.
Obviously, this does not mean that I believe nurture is all there is, or that it can completely modify and transcend nurture. The division would probably be around 70 percent versus 30 percent. In this sense, about three quarters of a person’s life, personality, decisions, social interaction, etc., would be guided by the experiences that the person has had, especially as a child. Meanwhile, nature would also be important, in three out of every ten cases, in order to determine human development.
It is true that the area of development is important to take into account when considering the nature versus nature debate. For example, the physical development of a person has to do more with nature than with nurture. This would be due to the fact that one is a human, and that biological and genetic factors determine one’s body. For instance, people have two arms, two legs, one nose, and their body changes during puberty; these are all facts that one cannot dismiss as being linked to nurture, as they have a near universal prevalence, and are due to the many biological factors that influence a person.
However, there are many other areas, such as intelligence, social interaction and emotional development, that do depend much more on the contingencies of one’s upbringing than on the anatomical and chemical composition of one’s body. In this sense, how parents treat a person, the academic opportunities that he or she has as a child, and the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation that he or she receives are all important factors that one should take into account when attempting to understand and explain those less biological areas of human development that are also important.
In my case, I believe that I am much more like my father than my siblings. Even though they are more like him in a physical sense, I believe that I have his way of interacting with others and dealing with emotions. We are both very good at managing stress, something that I believe I own to him. This would be due to nurture, because I saw him as a role model while growing up, while my siblings did not see him as such.
In terms of my mother, I believe that my siblings are much more like her in terms of emotional and social qualities due to nurture. However, I do not display these characteristics, but do have her intelligence, something that I am not quite sure if it is due to nature or nurture. I know that she helped me a lot during schoolwork and reasoning, so it could be due to nurture. However, she helped my siblings as well, so there might be an important nature component at hand.
In conclusion, the nature versus nurture debate is still very interesting. Even though there are some areas in which one’s biological components are more important, especially in terms of physical characteristics, nurture seems to be more important in social and emotional ones. I believe that this tension will continue, as there is a structural difficulty or even impossibility in seeing which one is more dominant. However, it is ethically important to consider and take sides on the issue, because it is a very important debate at hand and changes the way one considers humans as a whole.