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.