Being yourself, being who you are. When you hear those two lines you may think they mean the same thing but do they? Think about it, you were born into this world a tiny little baby with no ideas, or preferences, but as you grew you developed a personal identity, but did it really develop or was it in you to begin with. Such questions are what leads to the great debate of nature vs nurture. If you believe you were born already with a personality, then you take the side of nature. on the other hand if you believe that your personality developed based on influences in your life beginning when you were a child then you believe in nurture. Two totally different theories, both which are believed to make us who we are.

Nature, the more scientific theory of the two, is the belief that hereditary traits found in our genes make us who we are, believable but not very convincing when we consider the theory of nurture. Human beings learn new things everyday, as soon as we come in to the world, our learning process begins. As a newborn baby, we slowly learn and adapt in order to survive in a new environment which is unlike that of our mothers wombs, our first environment in which we first grew, adapted to and developed in. The home environment parents and siblings play a huge role in determining personality. Influences from outside the family are also very important to the development of ones personality. But everything starts at home.

One can't enjoy snowboarding or claim to like it, until one tries it, without the experience its impossible to say you enjoyed it. Correct? Or do you think its already embedded in you're genes that you'll like snowboarding. Unlikely right? Exactly, experiences and influences are what make us who we are. On the other hand think about it, what if you went snowboarding for the first time and broke your arm; deciding then that you hated snowboarding. Well then it couldn't have been embedded in your genes that you'd like it.

Scientists make a good point about genes but I believe physical aspects come through genetics, but that personality development is shaped based solely on how a person has been nurtured through their lives. All children are bad at one time in their lives; consider this, a 4 year old girl throws a book at her brother, and is punished she is put in the corner. Of course she doesn't like being made to stay in the corner but she should be able to put two and two together and learn that throwing books is wrong. Circumstances like so represent to us how easily children learn and are influenced by other people. This shows us the process in which humans learn, bringing us back to the theory of nurture learning things is what makes people who they are.

As we grow older, we are projected to the outside world, media and friends bring us new theories, which can again change who we are. We may have been brought up being told by our parents that stealing was bad or that being an average weight was okay. But the media could easily change that belief, or friends could convince one that stealing is okay. This represents that humans are constantly changing and easily influenced. Proving that nothing about who we are is a fixed fact, the theory of nature doesn't work.

In conclusion, it's obvious that the theory of nurture makes more sense then that or nature. Without influences from the world around us where would we be. We'd lack all basic skill's, we'd be unable to talk, or walk, we'd be completely different people. One's personal identity must develop through the environment it is what makes us who we are.