Nature vs. Nurture

There is a gift, something inborn, that separates those with simply just skill and those with exceptional talent. One of the popular debates concerning "nature vs. nurture" is that of which whether or not people are born with natural artistic talent or is it something that has to be developed. This paper will prove that exceptional talent that stands out from all others is that of which one is born with.

Nature vs. nurture has been discussed by philosophers in the past and by scientists most recently. Philosophers such as Plato argued that all knowledge was inherited through your parent and when you were told something you didn’t learn it you were just reminded of it. Aristotle however argued that all humans were born with a blank slate and built on it with influence from the environment. In the 1700’s the empiricists and the internalists took over the argument. They fought through letters explaining their point of views and denouncing the others.

This leads to Pavlov coming up with the idea of behaviorism in the early 1900‘s. Behaviorism became the new wave of Psychology and influenced a lean towards the nurture side. It was not effectively argued against until 1928 when Watson published his book. This opened up the floodgates for environmental influences studies. Soon the idea of nurture was the popular excuse for behavior. Studies using animals were the most popular was in which scientists used to prove a theory, or disprove a theory.

The newest studies use human twins to prove nature vs. nurture. If genetics didn't play a part, then fraternal twins, raised under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes. But, while studies show they do more closely look like each other than do non-twin brothers and sisters, they also show...