Clean slate or genetically determined?

The debate of Nature vs. Nurture is a question that people are curious about, but, at the same time, could be troublesome if answered. In the 1960s, identical twins born in New York City, Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein, were separated at birth as part of a Nature vs. Nurture study. The study followed the twins until it ended in 1980. A year later, New York City required that adoption agencies keep siblings together. Peter Neubauer, a child psychiatrist who headed the study, felt that a majority of the public opinion would be against the study. Thus, he decided not to publish the findings, but, instead, locked it away at Yale University until 2066.

The results of a single study, that is very unlikely to ever be replicated again, but may shed some insight on the Nature vs. Nurture debate, lies in waiting for another 55 years. I would like to mention that this is only one case study that is very difficult to replicate. As much as people's curiosity hunger for an answer about what determines who they are, the reliability of this one study may not be a fitting generalization to the rest of the world. Also, some questions are sometimes best left unanswered.

The reason why answering the Nature vs. Nurture question could be troublesome is if it leaned more to one side than the other. Depending on which side is more dominant, people would either have to come to the realization that they must deal with the cards they are dealt, good or bad--nature--or that they have complete responsibility for who they become--nurture.

I would like to attribute some, not all, of my good qualities as hereditary from my parents, because I also have two other brothers and would be comforted to know we are not all destined to have the same strengths and weaknesses. Instead, I would prefer being mostly unique from each other in traits and capabilities.