Nature Vs. Nurture

It is appropriate to ask the question, are we really born that way? Are we born with the intimacy for art and have the rhythm and skill of dance? Are these characteristics enforced by society? The battle of Nature vs. Nurture has not reached the eight round; both contenders seem to have an equal chance in the battle. It is evident that DNA plays an important role in who we are; however, it is fair to say our life experiences determines how we act in a situation. Are we predetermined to act in ways based on our genetic makeup or does our environment determine who we are solely.

Naturalism can be defined as the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. These natural causes, DNA for example, encode our blood type, hair color and even our skin complexion. However, the nature theory perceives DNA to encompass not only our dimples, but our "abstract" characteristics such as sexuality, patience, personality and aptitude. It is safe to say that if genetics did not play a role in one's self or personality, then siblings, who were raised in the same household with the same conditions, would be similar in the absence of genes. However, a person's genetic disposition does not guarantee a specific behavior; for example, a child whom grows in a home where both parents are alcoholics does not guarantee the child will become an alcoholic. It may represent a more greater chance for the individual to become an alcoholic.

The dictionary defines nurture as " to supply one with what is necessary for life, health and foster development of growth". A significant other, such as a parent, teacher, or role model can help one to foster development. Do we actually learn who we are by interacting with others? As a little child, I loved to watch Michael Jackson's performances; I would mimic his catchy dance moves and even wear the glittery socks. I learned that