Nature vs. Nurture
Nature vs. nurture is one of the many debates that have been contemplated and rebutted for many years. This debate is very controversial because even though the genetic makeup has a major role in the development of a person, the nurture and the environment in which the person is brought up in is an equally important factor. In my opinion, I believe that the nurturing of a person, is the predominant factor. The evidence which supported nurture over nature made me believe that athletic ability and criminal behaviour are a result of the way a person is nurtured.
To begin with, I believe that nurture is the predominant factor in the development of a person. I believe this because, athletic ability is not a skill that a person is born with; rather, athletic skill is developed and improved. For example, Reggie Miller a basketball player, wasn't born with the ability to shoot well; instead, he had to practice and shoot hundreds of times. In fact, as a child his sister was much better than him, so in order to improve his skills, he would keep on playing, until he could finally beat her. If Reggie Miller's ability was natural, then he would not have to train continuously in order for him to beat his sister, this proves that athletic ability is not a natural ability, but a skill which is enhanced and brought out. Michael Jordan is another example of an athlete who trained to become what he is today (Darrel, 2004). Michael Jordan, who many claim of being the greatest basketball player of all time, got cut from his high school team in his sophomore year. Instead of giving up, he used this as a motivation and trained even harder (Darrel, 2004). This is another evidence that the way you are nurtured decides the amount of skill you will have in athletics.
Another reason why I think that nurture is the prime factor in the formation in a person`s personality is because of the evidence compiled which supports that criminal behaviour is influenced by the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document