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 such as their 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 suggest 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 characteristics such as emotional attachment, language, and vulnerability to specific illnesses are positively correlated to the degree of stimulation in the environment and on the civilization within which a child is reared. Nature and Nurture cannot exist separately from each other, so they must work together in certain ways. An organism cannot exist without unique DNA that allows each individual to be different from one another. Similarly, human beings cannot live in a vacuum, in which environmental factors play no role in one's evolution. It is essential to look at studies that show both sides working together and then change the question to examine 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 with greater intelligence comes a sense of security and a higher chance of succeeding in life. This belief creates a syllogism that goes like this: intelligent people feel more secure, and Jimmy is intelligent, so therefore Jimmy will feel secure in life. Similarly, another syllogism states: intelligent people get high paying jobs, Jimmy is intelligent, therefore Jimmy will have a high paying job.  If intelligence were genetically inherited, the syllogisms would then assume that people who are not born with a high IQ would 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 with more of an economically supported background (Fancher). 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 to compare variables. In the " Born together-reared apart: The Landmark Minnesota Twin Study," the author Nancy Segal explains " The study's evidence of genetic influence on individual differences in traits such as personality (50 percent) and intelligence (70 percent) overturned controversial ideas about parenting and teaching" (Segal 410). In this study, reared apart twins met forty years after birth only to discover that they shared almost all the same traits including intellectual ability. This study greatly supported the nature theory that intelligence is inherited from an individual's parents.

On the basis of the nurture theory, it was argued that intelligence is influenced by a person's environment. Some of these environmental factors may include education, economic status, nutrition, and the behavior of the individual's parents. Dr. Reuven Feursten, a clinical psychologist in Israel, says, "The human organism is an open system, very plastic. It can be changed and modified. The question is whether educators have the will, the confidence and the instruments to do something" (Feursten qtd. in "About Education Nature Vs. Nurture").   From this short article in The New York Times, a psychiatrist begs for intervention. He, along with many other scientists, believe that kids with the right teachers, commitment, and financial background have a greater chance to learn and become more intelligent. Feursten wrote this article to a large group of people who must rise up together. From the American Value System, He shares a Collectivist point of view where people of a nation need to work together to make this intervention occur. He believes parents have the job of making sure their kids are committed to their studies. Once this is complete, it is in the hands of teachers across the country to teach the information and the school boards to provide financial aid so that an individual, according to Feursten views, will have the best chance to learn. As one can see, this cannot be achieved individually, but if a group of people work together, the nation as a whole will become more intelligent and better suited to change the world.

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 one's 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. In a book series entitled Life and Mind, Philosophical issues in Biology and Psychology, the author John Tabery writes, "If everyone now agrees that human traits arise not from nature or nurture but from the interaction of nature and nurture, why does the "nature versus nurture" debate persist? Tabery examines past episodes in the nature versus nurture debates, offers a contemporary philosophical perspective on them, and considers the future of research on the interaction of nature and nurture" (Tabery). In this quote, the author uses a rhetorical question to support his claim. He wonders why there is still a debate within Nature and Nurture if most of the evidence seen today suggests the idea that one's genes and environment both influence their identity. This question not only shows his confidence, but it also allows the reader to question whether there truly is a debate or if it is more productive in the future to look at how these two work together. As discussed, recently many people have come to the realization that nature and nurture work together in creating ones identity, but there are still many situations that support the idea that either nature or nurture is the dominating factor.

Many articles describe nativist as those who strongly believe in the heredity position that genes are the most influential factor in one's identity (Mcleod). It has been shown 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 built in before we are conceived. Natavist believe that the identity and characteristics of all humans is a product of their genetic makeup. They argue that maturation is proof that the body can switch characteristics in a programmed way (Mcleod). In this article, Mcleod uses incredible diction to support his claims and his credibility. While he explains a very interesting topic, he is able to both simplify it for less experienced readers while still showing how complex the idea is and how well he understands it. By doing this, many readers are not only impressed by his intelligence on the subject at hand, but they also like the way he works to simplify some of the most complex aspects of this topic. Furthermore, the greatest supporting evidence comes in the numerous studies conducted regarding specific characteristics like sexuality and personality and the nature behind them.

One of the most significant 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. Over the past few years, many scientists have found structural differences with certain parts of the brain between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Recently, Simon LeVay, a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, discovered "that the volume of an area of the brain called INAH-3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. INAH-3 is part of the anterior hypothalamus, a region known to regulate sexual behavior in male monkeys" (LeVay qtd. in Kingman). There is no conclusive evidence that genetics is the main cause of homosexuality, but research is coming closer and closer every day to prove this is the case. If this proves true, UCLA's Laura Allen says, "In the United States there is a law that protects people who have immutable characteristics, such as race, from discrimination. So if homosexuality were proved also to be an immutable characteristic, then the law would have to be changed" (Allen qtd. in Kingman). This, at its core, is how pathos can be seen in this debate.  If research proves that homosexuality is genetic, having to "come out" to loved ones and friends will likely be a lot easier and therefore the pressure many homosexuals feel may not be alleviated and the stress associated with those pressures may reduce health related issues.

Similarly, the personality of an individual is also a very important factor in one's identity.Recent studies have shown that one's personality may be with them from the start of life. One study suggests, " Genetic factors contribute to around 40-50% of the variation of personality disorders. The effect of shared environments however is very small or non-existent" (Torgersen). The research from these studies express the large amount of logos found within this debate. While it is easy to have an opinion about any debate, the reasoning behind one's claims is essential. Within this paragraph, Torgersen uses specific data to help support his reasoning behind his claim. He uses specific ranges (40-50%) found from the results of his experiment to better support his argument. While Torgersen and others nativist like LeVay and Allen believe nature may be considered the most significant factor in determining one's identity, the environment is also highly capable of having an enormous influence on one's 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 everyone's mind at birth is a "tabula rasa," or blank slate, and that it is filled up throughout time as a result of learning and experience. They believe it is how one is brought up that governs the psychologically significant aspect of a child's development (Mcleod). 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 ability to gain 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). To put this theory to the test, he put little Albert through a series of conditioning in order for him to learn an association between nonthreatening stimuli and dangerous stimuli. Michael Fanselow, a psychologist at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), supports Watson when he says, "The first lab demonstration of fear conditioning is the famous "Little Albert" study... learned fear to an initially innocuous stimulus has been replicated in many species under rigorously controlled conditions"(Fanselow 25). Both these men (Watson and Fanselow) are able to convince people to support their claims through the use of ethos. Most individuals tend to believe and listen to authors with authority and credibility. Some of Watson's many achievements include teaching at John Hopkins University, serving as President of the American Psychological Association, and publishing many books including: Behaviorism, Psychological Care of Infant and Child, and Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (psychology.about.com). Similarly, Fanselow is also a credible psychologist at one of the top universities in the country. With the many achievements among the two, this paragraph has powerful ethos to allow the reader to feel confident that their beliefs are supported. Watson along with many other empiricists believe everyone starts fresh at birth and through conditioning and exercises, one's personality can be molded throughout time.

Similarly, the impact of an environment can be seen in abandoned and isolated children. One of these cases was in the late 1970's with a girl named Genie. Throughout her early childhood, Genie was raised in an environment that was severed completely from society. Her primary human interaction was with her abusive father who did not speak to her, but rather "barked and growled at her" ("Case Study"). Many Scientist followed Genie's progress after she was removed from her horrific environment to see if she would begin to learn, but due to the trauma of her early years she never fully recovered. For Genie, it is assumed that her mother was never really there for her after birth, and her cruel father never cared for her causing her to live years in abuse. By using this study, the author is able to create a strong amount of pathos without intending to. While so many people care about frivolous things like how they look and how much money they make, some people like Genie would most likely give anything just to live a normal life. With this said, a man named David Rigler set out to care for Genie so that through development therapy she might acquire normal human attachment. ("Case Study"). After years of being cared for, many tests were conducted to evaluate her mental capabilities and unfortunately they suggested she suffered from a form of retardation which could have been due to the horrific environment in which she had spent her early years. 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 the pressure of society causes young African Americans to feel as though they have to choose between an education and their masculinity. As most of Young's examples were individuals from "the hood," they grew up in an environment where being a successful student was to lose some of their manhood. This is a prime example of how the unsuitableness of the environment may affects one's ability to become successful (Young). With a poor education, someone might never have the chance to reach their full biological potential and therefore the environment would have a major role in influencing someone's intelligence and identity. This again is an example of a Collectivist group that must work together to reach their full potential. Instead of disapproving of an individual for choosing to work on their studies, they need to support them. They also need the help of the government to provide aid for them that they might not have in the environment in which they are born. By working together and reaching their full potential, they might be able to challenge many stereotypes and change the way the world thinks of them as a group. Also, from the "Case Study"" on Genie, the author uses pathos to gain support from his or her viewers. Genie's study involved a young innocent girl who unfortunately lived a life of misery. From the day she was brought into this world, she lived in isolation and suffered from the side effects of it throughout her whole life. While the author doesn't directly state his use of pathos, it is inferred that all viewers felt some feeling of sadness for Genie, which influenced his or her opinion of the actual argument. While empiricists and many others believe that evolution and the environment impact one's identity the most, it is hard to determine which factors truly have the greatest influence.

The controversy between Nature and Nurture has endured for decades and it will continue to command debate for years to come. In the early stages of this deliberation, many people like Plato, believed the genetic makeup of an individual was the deciding factor in determining one's identity. It wasn't until the early 1890's when Charles Darwin created the theory of evolution that people began to think about the possibility that a group over thousands of years may be shaped into people completely different from their ancestors. 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. This will be a big decision in my future papers, as I have just determined the most logical conclusion is that both Nature and Nurture play a role in defining a person. Also, the discoveries scientists have made in regards to homosexuality are very interesting to me because they may significantly influence the world's perspective on homosexuals.
