One of psychology's principal arguments, to which the answer remains a mystery, is whether nature or nurture plays a larger role in developing one's character. One's identity includes many important characteristics including his or her personality, intelligence, sexuality, habits, health, and behavior. Many studies throughout the years have attempted to determine whether biological components or their environment contributes more to the way a person develops. This controversy has endured throughout the ages and is a constant debatable matter. The Greek philosopher Plato believed that knowledge and behavior were due to innate characteristics of an individual, not the culture in which the individual was raised. However, many philosophers like John Locke and Aristotle believed in the theory of "tabula rasa." This concept theorized all people are born with a clean slate upon which experiences and knowledge allow one to gain a unique identity and point of view. While the longstanding controversy will likely never reach a conclusive universal understanding, it is important not only to look at both opposing sides of the argument, but also to attempt to understand how they might work in tandem to shape individuals in a distinctive way.

Although this controversy has been called Nature vs. Nurture, recent studies have suggested that the phrase should be changed to Nature and Nurture. As many have discovered, there are simply too many facts on both sides of the argument that are inconsistent with an "all or nothing" view. Certain physical characteristics like the color of one's eyes, the curliness of one's hair, and certain genetic diseases such as Huntingdon's chorea are all functions of the genes we inherit. Other physical characteristics such as attachment, language, and vulnerability to specific illnesses are positively correlated to the degree of stimulation in the environment and on the civilization within which the child is reared. Nature and Nurture cannot exist separately from each other, so they must work together in some ways. An organism cannot exist without DNA, ciphered by unique genes, which cause the differentiation of cells even before birth. Similarly, human beings cannot live in a vacuum, where no environmental factors would be present to evolve each individual. It is essential to look at studies that show both sides working together and then potentially change the question to how much of one's identity is determined by nature or by nurture.

One of the most important aspects to one's identity is his or her intelligence. It is believed that greater intelligence comes security and a greater chance of a successful life. The syllogism: intelligent people feel more secure, and Jimmy is intelligent, so therefore Jimmy will feel secure in life is seen in many situations throughout life. If intelligence is genetically inherited, the syllogism would then assume that people who are not born with a high IQ will never truly feel secure and have a chance at a successful life. On the other hand, those who are born with a high IQ, based on this syllogism, will always be successful and will always feel some since of security. To test this theory, Francis Galton first framed this question about intelligence in the Nature vs. Nurture argument in the late 19th century. Galton was torn between the facts that intellectual ability ran in the family and also that intelligence was seen more in individuals who came from a family of a natural superiority. The nature theory is able to test the belief that certain traits like intelligence are passed down from an individual's parents by using monozygotic twins, which are born from the same cell. As monozygotic twins share 100 percent of their genes, it allows psychologists like Galton to compare variables. It has been seen before that monozygotic twins reared apart still have a higher correlation of IQ scores than dizygotic, or fraternal, twins reared together (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). This study greatly supported the nature theory that intelligence is inherited by an individuals parents.

On the basis of the nurture theory, it was argued that intelligence is caused by a person's environment. Some of these environmental factors may include education, socioeconomics status, nutrition, or the behavior of individual's parents. One study on interracial adoption showed that African American children adopted by white middle class families who were tested before and later had a significant improvement of average scores (IQ 83 to IQ 103), a twenty point more increase over their biological mother (Williams, 1997). Logos is a key device used within many essays dealing with scientific studies. As we have just seen, many scientists like Williams conduct experiments and then use the data they collect in the form of logos to better support their theory that intelligence is gained through experience and interactions. Looking at all this research covered, there is significant evidence that proves both nature and nurture have a great influence on a person's intelligence. Both sides work together complementing each other in impacting ones intelligence. A new interactionalist perspective has come about that argues both nature and nurture work together, that neither nature nor nurture alone is capable of explaining intelligence entirely. A person is born with their own specific DNA sequence, and as they grow and experience life, the environment shapes and teaches that person how to use the intelligence with which they have been gifted. A person's environment must require certain social interactions and possibilities to learn in order to reach their biological potential already built in from birth. As we have seen, many people recently have come to the realization that nature and nurture work together in creating ones identity, but there are still many situations that solely support either nature or nurture.

It has been known that one's genes directly influence hair color, skin color, and many other traits. It has also been shown that height, weight, and hair loss in men are positively correlated between genetically related individuals. These facts have led many to speculate whether psychological characteristics such as behavior tendencies, personality attributes and mental abilities are also wired in.  before we are conceived. Those who strongly believe in the hereditary position are known as nativists. They believe that the identity and characteristics of all humans is a product of their genetic makeup. The earlier an ability is seen in development, the more likely it is due to their genetic code. To argue with characteristics that emerge later in life, they believe in maturation. That is to say that all organisms have an inner "biological clock" which switches on types of behaviors in a unique, programmed way. Furthermore, the greatest supporting evidence comes in the many studies of certain characteristics like sexuality and personality and the nature behind them.

One of the greatest factors in describing someone's identity is their sexuality and personality. New studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology. To test this, researchers are looking for genes associated with homosexuality in families that have many homosexual members and also looking at the brains of homosexuals to identify how they are different from those of heterosexuals. In 1990, Professor Dick Swaab found a structural difference between the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men. The difference was in an area of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which is involved in regulating the "biological clock" that controls sleep and some sexual stimuli. There are also many other studies that have been conducted recently that have shown a difference in the hypothalamus between homosexual men and heterosexual men. The hypothalamus is a very important structure of the brain that has many functions including the regulation of sexual behavior. This concept of homosexuality is a very "touchy" subject that appeals to many people's emotions. For individuals who have a homosexual family member, this research can either allow them to feel comfort that it is not a choice to become homosexual. The pathos within this concept of sexuality is extremely significant within determining which factor contributes most to ones identity.

Similarly, the personality of an individual is also a very important factor in ones identity. Recent studies have showed that someone's personality may be with them from the start of life. This belief, known as Neuro-personality, says a countless amount of biochemical influence the way we act, and control our reactions to stimulating activity. As professor of psychology Bernardo Carducci said, "Introverts tend to have a more sensitive nervous system, and because they react stronger they withdraw to minimize stimulation" (Carducci). Although there are ways to modify one's natural reactions, gene makeup predisposes how one will respond to the environment in which they grow, and has a considerable impact on behavioral traits. The ethos seen within this paragraph comes from the credibility of Professor Carducci. Carducci is a professor of Psychology at Indiana University who has been teaching in this field for over thirty years. While Carducci and others believe nature may be considered the most significant factor in determining identity, the environment is also highly capable of having an enormous influence on ones character.

At the other end of the spectrum, empiricists are those who believe the most influential factor on one's personality is the environment. Their basic assumption is that at birth the human mind is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and that this is gradually filled as a result of learning and experience. They believe it is how one is brought up that governs the psychologically significant aspect of child development. It wasn't until 1859, the date of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, that the nurture side gained credibility. Many attempts have now been made to apply the insights of evolutionary biology to the study of humans. American psychologist John Watson, using a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning. He said, "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select... regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors" (Watson). Watson believes that he will be able to take random individuals and teach them to become someone who they might not have ever been able to become. For example, even if someone might like science and math, Watson believes that he could teach them to become an humanities' major like an English teacher.

Similarly, the impact of an environment can be seen in feral children, who grew up abandoned and abused with no human interaction. One of these cases was in the late 1970's with a girl named Genie. Until she was thirteen, she had never learned to speak and was the size of a six year old. When she was recovered from her abusive father, she was thought to be autistic because of her severe disability with social interactions. Once again, this story is both moving and it really brings out the emotions in every reader. The sadness and sympathy that is felt within the viewers show that pathos is essential in creating an emotional appeal in the reader and therefore potentially swaying the opinion of the person who encounters a story like the one about Genie. Although both of these examples may seem extreme, many can see the effects of one's environment on certain individuals in the present day. In Vershawn Young's essay, "Your Average Nigga," he explains that black males must choose between an education and their masculinity. As most of them were from "the hood," they grew up in an environment where being a successful student was to lose their manhood. Not only did this affect some individuals, but also the poorness of the environment affects ones ability to become successful. With a poor education, someone might never have the chance to reach their full biological potential and therefore the environment had a major role in influencing someone's intelligence and identity. While empiricists and many others believe that evolution and the environment impact ones identity the most, it is hard to determine which factors truly are the most important.

The controversy between Nature and Nurture has been going on for many decades and it will continue to stir up debate for years to come. In the early stages of this deliberation, many people like Plato, believed the genetic makeup of individuals was the deciding factor in determining ones identity. It wasn't until the early 1890's when Charles Darwin created the theory of evolution that people began to believe that the environment was essential in shaping one's personality. Today, the majority of experts argue that the identity of an individual is influenced by both nature and nurture. Although one may inherit the "genius" gene from his or her parent, without the ability to go to school and become educated, they may never reach their biological potential. Ideally, in the future the two sides of the nature-nurture issue will be able to reconcile their differences, and combine their theories in order to reach a greater understanding of how personal identities are developed.
