I think that the most important thing that I learned in Psychology was why people act the way they do and the most interesting was the idea of Nature vs Nurture because it relates to almost every aspect of human personality. Nature deals with the genetic and biological factors that make up a person an example being, eye color or blood type. Nurture is the environmental factors that go into a person's personality like their religion, culture and language. Both nature and nurture are important in the study of psychology.
ESPN wrote an article, "What if Michael Vick was white," explaining how his circumstances of who his parents were and what race he was born as affected the athlete that he is today. The article takes a nurture approach to his sport ability. The article writes that Michael Vick has an African-American feel to the way in which he plays quarterback in the NFL. The style that he has playing as well as the way in which he moves in many ways is said to have the "Black Athleticism." If he would have been white the path that he took may have not included sports or his style may have been different when he played. The privilege which he may have received is he were white could have also altered the decision to play football.
On the other end of the argument is nature, he could be genetically more athletic and gifted in sports than others making him a star athlete. He could also have a gift for learning at a quicker pace than other or quicker reflexes making him a strong quarterback.
I wonder if there will ever be a way in which we could completely isolate nature and nurture, though there are twin studies and family studies nature and nurture are never completely isolated.