Nature vs. Nurture

787 Words4 Pages
The Supreme Debate: Nature vs. Nurture Anonymous Western Governors University The Supreme Debate: Nature vs. Nurture The first time most of us recall hearing about the Nature vs. Nurture debate was back in middle school. At least it was for me. I learned about it all over again when I was a nursing student back in 1995. What made this debate so prodigious was that I could understand each side of the argument. Our Nature part, our behaviors, our inborn instincts, which we believe must be genetic, is “what we’re all about”. The Nurture part, begs the question of how our surroundings has shaped us over time. Some scientists fall into the camp of “nature is what makes us what we are”. We are genetically related to our biological parents and siblings, therefore, we should be mini-mes of our family; we should all act and think the same way – or close to it. Some scientists fall into the other camp that it’s the “nurturing that makes us who we are”. Most modern theorists feel that both nature and nurture has an effect on what we’re like. It has been widely known that theorists have used twins for the studies of nature vs. nurture. It was found to be a better study when they analyzed both identical and fraternal twins, either raised together or raised apart. We credit Sir Francis Galton, famous first cousin of Charles Darwin, for this. Fraternal twins or dizygotic (DZ), which are twins that form from two separate ova and two separate sperm. They would comparably share 50% of their genes from their sibling. They’d be no different than siblings born in different years. Identical twins, or monozygotic (MZ) come from one ova and one sperm. The fertilized egg separates and becomes two identical clumps of tissue. Each twin would have a 100% identical gene pool. They are clones. Even though it was largely unethical, but not illegal to split families up

More about Nature vs. Nurture

Open Document