Oh, my! That argument has been going on for hundreds of years and still hasn't been resolved.
Check out some of these sites for information.
I'm practicing writing an essay on this topic for my exam. Do you think this is a good intro?
In this course, we try to find the reasons why people do the things they do. We try to find explanations for why people have different behavioural patterns and why certain people do certain things. One of the explanations biologists have come up with is basically because we were born this way. A person’s genes determine their physical and behavioural traits. This is known as the “nature” theory. Then, we look at a sociologist’s point of view. Most believe that we do certain things because we are taught to do them. They think that people act the way they do because they have learned to be the people they are. This is known as the “nurture” theory.
That looks good! :-)
Was i supposed to write at the end which side of the debate I'm on?
Yes. I think you need to take a position on this question.
Would I say something like this?
I believe that people learn their behavioural patterns mostly from the way they are nurtured.
You could. But I think we are all such a combination of nurturing and nature that it's difficult to separate them. Human behavior is complex.
I agree, I know the answer is both but I am obligated to pick a side. But, in my essay I plan to show how both sides are true, but how one side can make more sense than the other.
OK. Read widely to find arguments to support your position.
You may want to look into studies of identical twins who have been raised apart.
I found a good article in my textbook titled the "giggle twins". They were separated when they were younger, yet they shared many similarities. It says "studies such as these have underlined the importance of nature or genes in determining personality." Does that mean I'd be going against my own opinion?