One important concept in Psychology is the never-ending debate of Nature versus Nurture. It poses the idea of whether our behaviors are a result of our genes (nature) or our rearing environments (nurture). Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior. However, some have considered this debate dead, because everyone now agrees that our behaviors, personality, intelligence, and so forth are both results of biology and our surroundings. Yet to what extent nature or nurture contributes to different behaviors are still debated and unknown today. For example Thomas Bouchard’s study of twins, who were separated at birth, and later studied for the purpose of this debate. He concluded that the findings could be interpreted as strong support for genetic influences on personality. Another example if that of The Boggle Family who are a prime illustration of the complexity of this concept. Many of the members of the family have been either in jail or prison, but is this due to the violent environment they were in, or the biological makeup of their genes. Obviously, both contribute to their behavior, but the extent to which they contribute are debatable. Personally, I feel that nature is more prominent than nurture because your surrounding can vary but your personality, intelligence, and traits are dependent on your biological makeup. My sister and I are in the same exact environment, but our personality and interests are completely opposite, she is interested in subjects such as humanities, while I prefer the “hard sciences” like biology or chemistry. Hence, our genes would be the reason why our interests are so opposite, rather than our surroundings.
