Have you ever seen the Wall Street Journal commercial where two twins are separated at birth? One reads Fisherman Magazine and the other reads the Wall Street Journal. The one that reads the Fisherman Magazine still lives at home in a dirty house and wears a red checked shirt. The one that reads the Wall Street Journal is a CEO by the time he is 25 and lives in a nice big house and wears a suit. Is there any truth to this? The debate over 'Nature versus Nurture' is one of the most heated and longest-running debates in Psychology. In this paper I will discuss the difference between the 2 theories and then apply them to my life. I will formulate an opinion on the matter and discuss points I feel are important considerations.
             Nature is defined in Webster's dictionary as "the genetically controlled qualities of an organism." The 'Nature' theory is the theory that who we are and who we will be is largely determined by our genetic makeup. That in our genes lie the genetic codes that determine the difficulties or the advantages we have. This theory seems to be gaining a lot of acceptance in scientific circles. However socially it is met with extreme protest. David Jones wrote "...caring left-wing ideologues have it in for Darwin to a man. After all, his theory holds that people differ from one another! Worse, the differences give some people an unfair advantage over others, and these advantages can be inherited by their children – in flat contradiction to the requirements of equality, social justice, and the abolition of hereditary privilege. Such a wicked theory cannot possibly be true, or if it is it shouldn't be." (Jones, 1986.)
             The problem with the Nature theory seems to be it isn't politically correct. If the Nature theory were found to be true, it would mean that many of the problems with our society stem from sub-standard genetic code, if you will. It may...