Many people throughout history have tried to establish why we act the way we do. Is it because we were born this way or has our environment carved us into the person we are today? The nurture vs. nature debate has been a controversial issue that tries to discern if our behaviors are endorsed primarly from our genes or the environment that we are placed into. Early researchers, such as philosopher John Locke, believed that when a child is born the mind is tabula rasa (meaning "blank slate") and our environment was the primary contribution to an individual's mannerisms and characteristics. It wasn't till the later 20th century, due to the contribution of research on twins separated at birth along with adoption studies, that our behavior can also be interlocked with our genes as well (such as intelligence, interests, personality, and mental illness).
This issue has fascinated me ever since I read the novel "Lord of the Flies" in sixth grade. The author, William Golding, places a group of well-behaved boys on a desert island, whereas they are taken out of society's light of strict standards and given no rules. A theme of the story is that naturally we are savages and society is what crafts us into civility, yet it still poses the conflicting idea (due that certain characters in the story remained non-violent) that not all people are naturally born to cause destruction. Thus leaving a reader a mixed review on what shapes our behaviors.
As for me, I walk the line of the equilibrium and believe that both nurture and nature has crafts the personality of individuals. Yet, for those who disagree I am always open for discussion...