As a psychology major, it amazes me how the nature vs. nurture argument goes unnoticed even though it relates to every human being. No one necessarily thinks about this question of how they are who they are and how their personality came about. This question has been asked for as long as psychology has been explored and it is still being debated today. The subject of psychology is interesting in itself because there are endless amounts of questions to our existence and the way that our brains work. 

There are controversies when it comes to the subject of how humans learn and how we come about. Similar to the argument of how our world came to be. It is an argument of religion vs. science. This may not infringe on my beliefs but it may to others. I believe that we behave the way we do because of a mixture of our genes and the way we grew up. Social status, gender, race, family involvement, and location can all affect our behavior and how we as humans obtain a certain behavior. Scientists tend to look for a certain behavior in people with the same genes to determine the answer to the question of nature vs. nurture.

The first source's central claim is that due to one's genetic makeup and experience it makes them more susceptible to outside influences. The article compared dandelions to orchids which both flowers have a different genetic makeup. The orchid is more prone to depress and rise up based on the external conditions whereas a dandelion remains steady due to its genetic variation (Angier). The experiment explained in the article consists of children who were at risk of aggression and were tested to see if they had a dopamine gene on the inside of their cheeks. The children who had the gene (dopamine) were more willing to deal with parents changed behavior than the others. The major values are whether or not a child who is more aggressive can change based on their environment. The interests at stake were that of the child because they were the ones being experimented on. This source seems to be credible since it is from the Wall Street Journal and the author regularly writes for Wall Street and has a focus in health. This is bias because it is on the side of nurture since the article is about how your environment influences a person with a certain genetic makeup.

My second article is about identical twins and their differences in their exercise routines. Although the research of the importance of exercise may seem irrelevant, the study proves that health is not genetic, in this case. It has to be worked toward and can be altered based on one's environment and exercise habits. In summary, one twin works out regularly while the other twin does not ("One Twin Exercises, the Other Doesn't"). The main claim is that the differences in their exercise habits are the reason for the difference in their bodies. The interests at stake are the interests of people who care about their fitness and the health benefits. This article proves that exercise is beneficial to one's health compared to someone with the same genetics who does not exercise. The source is credible because it comes from New York Times and quotes several doctors throughout. The study has also been published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise which is in the National Library of Medicine. The bias of this article is that the experiment is not randomized and the twins were selected because if it were randomized it would infringe on the rights of the subjects. 

The main claim in the third article is that our DNA does not tell scientists anything about behavior and genes are influenced by our environment. Our DNA is mainly just our looks while our genes deal with our behaviors and personality (Rockhoff). The article gives plenty of experiments with animals such as ducks and chimpanzees. The major evidence is the amount of experiments and data used to support the main claim. The major values and interests at stake are the interests of the general public who are interested in this subject. The values are whether or not one believes in the environment affecting the role of genes.  This article is credible because it is from New York Times and it also quotes plenty of well-known doctors that have a degree in the subject. The article references many books and articles that the doctors have written as well. 

My research question is arguable because there are 3 sides to the argument. One opinion can be that our genes are what determines our behavior. Another opinion can be that our environment only affects our behavior and development. The last opinion is that both genetics and the environment shape us as human beings. I need to narrow my range of research because my research question as of right now is too broad. I need to focus in on a specific disease or character trait that can be argued is because of genetics or the environment. The different perspectives of the articles are generally similar to my views. There are not many articles arguing for one side or the other. I am also considering writing my paper on whether or not our IQ comes from our genetics or our environment. Writing my paper on the IQ subject helps me narrow my ideas and is an easier argument in general. 

