People are also generally different as a whole due to their class, where they stand in society. Children will have different upbringings due to the privileges they have and opportunities available to them. For example, a working class family is unlikely to be able to offer the chance of a place at a school such as Eton, whereas an upper class child may be offered this. The working class child isn’t so likely to be pushed as hard to succeed as the upper class child would. One of the reasons being is that schools such as Eton have a reputation to uphold and want their pupils to do well, whereas the working class child’s school will not be so keen to be well known and may not have such high standards.
People will also have different values, which they have leaned from their families, friends, schools and other environments they are faced with such as religion. Not every family will teach their child the same values and beliefs as another because of certain religions. For example, one family may be strict Roman Catholics, and another may be atheists. The Roman Catholic child will learn to worship God and believe in certain religious rules such as no sexual relationships before marriage. The atheist child will not learn this as a result of religion, so it will result in two different people who have different ideas bout how to behave towards relationships and what they expect of other people as a result of the type of nurture they received religiously as a child.
Other evidence to support this theory is case studies of deprived children. For example, Kamala was a girl who was found at the age of eight in the wild. She had been “raised” by a pack of wolves all her life. When found, she would run around on all fours and would snarl at people. During time she learnt to eat cooked food, prefer the day to night and be friendly towards people. This shows that an individual will develop according to what they know and see as familiar and “normal”. Kamala learnt that behaving as wolves do was the norm, but when faced with a totally different environment she adapted and behaved accordingly.
However, the nature theory argues a totally different case. This is the belief that it is our genetic make up that makes us who we are and determines how we behave, as everyone is unique.
In certain aspects this statement is true, each person’s hair colour, eye colour and skin colour will be determined by genes, this is something that cannot be learned in any way. Also, natural abilities are genetic, but these will not necessarily shape the people we are but will in some ways determine how we are. For example, there may be two people who both have natural abilities at sport. If one is given equipment and training and the other does not have their talent encouraged and helped to develop it is likely that the individual given support will succeed further.
The individual’s preferences to situations are due to our makeup. For example, one person may enjoy reading and another may enjoy being outside being more active. The person who enjoys reading is unlikely to meet the person who enjoys the outdoors in a library, so in this case what we naturally prefer will determine who we meet, but again the people we meet will change us, so it is back to the nurture theory.
Evidence to support the nature theory is the case study of the Jim Twins. These were two men who were separated at birth and meet later in life as adults. When they met they found that they had both married women with the same name and had a son by this woman, and had both named their sons the same. Both men then divorced these women and again married two women of the same name. They also had a dog called Toy, had built white fences around trees in their gardens and bit their nails.
People who agreed with the nature argument would say that this is due to them having exactly the same genes. However, this may be contested by the nurture theory on the basis that none of the similarities mentioned, although rare, are not about behaviour. The women they married may have had popular names such as Claire or Katie; this is the same with their son’s names. It is unlikely that they married women of the same name because of their genes.
This is a rare occurrence to be so similar having never met, but as it is rare it is more likely strengthen the nurture theory. There are many twins who have never met for one reason or another, if they all were this similar it would not be such shocking news, and as the nature argument says that who we are is in our genes all the twins should be the same. This is not the case and so one case study will not complete the argument.
In conclusion, there is much more evidence to support the nurture theory and it is also stronger evidence. The nature evidence can be easily disproved so leads one to believe in nurture over nature.
