Nature V/S Nurture

Nature vs. Nurture
The route through childhood is shaped by many forces, and it differs for each of us. Our biological inheritance, the temperament with which we are born, the care we receive, our family relationships, the place where we grow up, the schools we attend, the culture in which we participate, and the historical period in which we live: all these affect the paths we take through childhood and condition the remainder of our lives.–Robert H. Wozniak
I may have my mother’s face and my father’s height yet I stand as a diverse individual different from them in a myriad of aspects. I, for example, don’t seem to share my father’s passion for World History or my mother’s expertise in cooking. In fact, my interests are at complete polar opposites to those of my parents ranging from music to public speaking and even gaming. This is where the infamous Nature v/s Nurture debate comes in to focus.
Referring to this topic through an anthropological perspective, we find that opposing views exist originating from Margaret Mead’s studies and those of Derek Freeman. The former presented the view that it is ‘not in our genes but in our culture’ through which an individual’s personality is determined, i.e. she supported nurture and not nature. Freeman, however, was of the opinion that nature has a significant role to play as well and not just nurture.
Personally I am of the opinion that it is nurture above nature that determines what an individual will turn out to be like. In today’s world, it is not uncommon to hear stories of a child being raised in an abusive, violent household yet the child still grows up to become a strong and educated person that stands against everything that one or both of his parents represented. To put it simply, a rapist’s child will not necessarily choose the same path as that of his parent nor is there any guarantee that the son of an influential, humanitarian leader will grow up to be just as admirable.
Let’s suppose two brothers who...