First off, to understand the analogy one must remember that the width and height of a square is always equal. With that said, the analogy is saying that it is difficult to say whether nature and nurture both contribute to the way humans are, or if one conquers the other. The width and height are always the same length, so it is impossible to say which contributes more to the area, since they are both the same number every single time. Furthermore, the either/or position explains how only one side of the nature vs. nurture argument is right. For example, people on the nature side would give facts on how “behavioral genes” inhabit our bodies and that’s what make us do what we do. In the article entitled “Nature and Nurture debate” the author explains how “aggressive behavior causing abuse can be justified by the "behavioral genes" once the researchers have proven their existence” …show more content…
I think both are important and that it’s difficult to say that one is more “right” than the other. For example, imagine this scenario. There was a set of identical twins, and their parents divorced and one went to with their mother, while the other went to go live with their father. The one that grew up with her mother lived a quiet lifestyle in a quiet neighborhood. She ended up growing up with a laidback personality and was pretty content. However, her twin sister grew up in a bad neighborhood with a high crime rate, and ended up being in and out of jail frequently, but both show similar dislikes in food or clothing. That can show that both nature and nurture can influence who they are. I believe nurture has influenced me because I have a shy personality that neither of my parents have, and that is because I was teased a lot for speaking up in class, so I developed a shy personality. However, I do have an emotional problem where I get really sad a lot, just like my mother. That shows that nature and nurture has had a say in how I am as a