Nature Vs. Nurture

Nature Vs. Nurture has been a theory debated since the beginning of sociology and psychology. Are we born with our personality and our knowledge of language? Or are we only influenced by the people and culture around us, the ones who nurture us? I personally believe it is a mixture of both, and the vast majority of people seem to agree with me. But besides my personal opinion on the matter there is a large amount of evidence to support my claim that both nature and nurture shape and mold a person into who they become. Although there are no direct experiments to support my theory, there have been many experiments that disprove either of the options on there own. And since there are only 3 possible answers to the question to is it nature or nurture which molds a person and neither of those are correct, it must be the answer in between. The main examples I am going to use are the experiments conducted on feral children as well as the family in born a boy raised a girl. The main evidence that refutes the idea of humans naturally have the ability for language and knowledge is the example of feral children. If nature was the only cause or reason for humans being able to comprehend and use language in a meaningful and useful manner, these feral children would be able to speak without significant human interaction. As we know children who are past a certain age that have never been introduced to language or culture do not posses the ability to speak. Many leading experts believe that the human brain develops in stages. Once the child passes a certain age the ability of that individual to learn the complex process of language diminishes and the said individual can not learn language. Now by language I do not mean words, or one's vocabulary. When I say language I am referring to the ability to communicate with other people in a complex or meaningful manner. So if nature was the only cause for the human ability of language and society, then these feral children would be able to be reintroduced into society without a problem. This is unfortunately not the case. Because nature is not the only reason as to why we can comprehend and use language these children are unable to be proactive members of society. There by proving that nature is not the only force that molds and shapes the human mind. Now that we have determined that nature is not the only force that makes us "human" we have two possible theories as to what makes us human. I refute the idea that nurture is the only factor that makes us human, or who we are. The best case I can think of that refutes the claim that nurture is the only factor that effects us, is the case of David Reimer. David Reimer was a born a boy, who had an identical twin. His penis was burned off in a circumcision gone bad. In a desperate attempt to salvage their young boys life, the Reimers went to Dr. Money to see if raising David as a girl (then A.K.A. Brenda) if he would live a successful life. As the study proved, Brenda (David) did not want to be a girl. As a girl he was awkward, bullied, and was uninterested in female activities. If nurture was the only factor in determining how we identify ourselves and determine we are human, then David would have grown up fine as a girl, as his brother grew up fine as a boy. But as we know, he did not. This case proves that nurture is not the only factor in child development, but it does play a major role. Considering that David can read, write, talk and is a perfectly well educated person. So since we have multiple cases proving that nature is not the only factor in human development, we can safely say that nature is not the reason we can talk, write, and use language. And since the ability to use language makes us human, nature is not the only cause. We also have cases proving that nurture does not solely develop us into who we are. And since we have evidence refuting both claims, we have only one theory left. That both nature and nurture influence who we are as individuals and as a intelligent species as a whole. We know that no person can learn language without influence from society or another human, and that nurture does not make us into an individual either. There is a certain percentage given to each category. Some people are about 50/50. Half influenced by nurture half by nature. While others people may be 60/40 or 70/30 or visa verse, Neither force has the complete capability to mold us into active members of society.

gallup polls

When I first looked at the gallup page I noticed the polls at the top. Polls like economic outlook 39% say it is looking better and 56% say it is getting worse. And Economic conditions, which 10% said excellent/ good and 48% said poor. Those polls did not surprise me. A poll that surprised me was the Obama job approval poll. In which 54% approved and 40% disapproved. I was surprised by this poll because the majority of major news stations do not show disapproving stories about Obama. The only major news company which does is FOX news. Now if only one of several news stations is showing doubt of the President you would think the news would be reported according to what the national opinion is. But yet only 1 news station is showing the views of 40% of the country. I find that rather interesting. Another rather interesting poll is one concerning sending more troops to Afghanistan. According to the poll "Americans are now divided on sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan: 48% say they would favor President Obama’s deciding to send more troops and 45% say they would oppose his doing so. Two weeks ago, Americans were more likely to oppose than favor increasing the U.S. troop presence there." I find it interesting that in a few weeks public opinion can change so much. Personally I Believe that this drastic change and changes like it are due to the fact that the American public is far to lazy to make an informed decision on their own, as a result they rely on the major news companies to tell them what to think. Another interesting poll I found is also relating to Afghanistan. It was a poll on the opinions of the Afghan people and sending more U.S. troops there. The poll says "As President Barack Obama mulls whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan, a Gallup survey during the troop buildup earlier this year found nearly half of Afghans (49%) saying additional troops would help stabilize the security situation in the southern provinces. Thirty-two percent said they would not." I found this interesting not only because I had a debate on the subject this weekend at a debate tournament and I was told that according to CNN and MSNBC a poll they conducted (with 70 participants might I add) said the 83% would oppose more U.S. troops. Now how can their be such different results? Well obviously the news companies set up polls to make it seem that their opinions were supported by the Afghan people. The one thing I have learned from this assignment is to make sure I double check sources and polls for now on. 

fenger high school

Once again we hear of another student killed due to gang violence. We hear this almost everyday "gang shooting killed 13 year old by-stander". Gang violence is all around us. It may seem far away from the safety of Barrington, but it is a real threat to hundreds of kids and families everyday in Chicago. But what made this most recent murder at Fenger High School different? Kids from Chicago schools die almost every other week. It's not an uncommon occurrence. What made it different this time was that it was video recorded. People saw what happened, they just didn't hear about it or read about it, they saw it. Most people make connections through visual memory, especially when it comes to major events. A great example of this is where were you on September 11th 2001? What was in the room? Who was with you? The vast majority of people can clearly remember where they were and who they were with when it comes to tragic events. Even more people remember when they saw pictures or videos of the event occurring. When people hear about a kid dying in a gang shooting on the radio or read about it in the paper they go "that's horrible" and then go back to eating their dinner or they flip to the sports page. The reason people do this is that they can't make the same connection that they make when they see something. People make strong connections with visual inputs. So when people connected Derrion Albert's face to the story of his death they took greater notice than usual. So now that we know why people took notice to this particular case we can begin to explore the many sociological reasons behind his death. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson said "You can't solve it, your system caused it." What does this show? It shows that the environment that the schools provide is not healthy or safe, and that the schools should have been trying much harder to prevent this from happening. Lets look at some sociological factors, such as social class. Derrion was from a bad neighborhood, the Altgeld gardens public housing complex A.K.A Ghetto is a low income area. A particularly low income area. Crime festers and multiplies in these areas, much like bacteria in an open wound or fungus in a dark damp cellar. Ghettos are a criminals best friend, a great number of poor people that are desperate for drugs or money in a concentrated area. That creates enough crime to keep the police from patrolling the area. When you grow up in an area like that you are likely to get mixed up in some sort of criminal activity whether you are a law abiding citizen or not. Derrion got caught up in the middle of a gang fight, which occur rather often. Different gangs are always competing for control over certain neighborhoods. Which is based on the next sociological reason for his death, poverty. The reason there are gangs is due to poverty. When people are desperate they turn to crime. It was poverty that was the core reason behind Derrion's death. It was poverty that caused the gangs that killed him, it was poverty that caused him to live in a bad neighborhood, it was poverty that caused his school to not be able to provide him with safe transport to and from school. Now poverty is a never ending problem that will never be fixed and there are many sociological problems behind Derrion's death. I have only skimmed the surface of the many possible reasons as to why Derrion died, but i have vaguely identified some of the main factors.