Nature Vs Nurture Conundrum

A majority of the human population that roams this planet, while aware of other races and cultures, is very rarely influenced by global diversity. People’s perceptions of themselves and of the world are for the most part reigned by the culture of their specific nationalities. Per contra, in multiethnic nations like America, or the UK, the dearth of one monotonous ethnology far complicates things. Because a common ethnic background isn’t a unifying factor within such nations, culture is no longer blindly accepted or followed. The wide array of cultures not only clash against each other in ideology and practice, but also put each other in perspective, thus allowing the individual to concede the culture instead of adhering to the norm in other
Amidst all this chaos, it is only too easy to become nescient of the essence of cultural and individual identities. The favored notion that mankind can be holistically apprehended only when viewed as a bipartite entity of culture and individuality, is both inaccurate and oblique. Scientifically, the nature vs. nurture conundrum does indeed indicate the influence that both identity and customs have on a person that is an appendage of a larger conglomerate. However, what it fails to bring across is the central facet of how nature and nurture work against each other and not in accord; the original thesis that this entire discussion bases itself on is the idea that human development is characterized either by a person’s environment or by his/her own thoughts. The prevalence of the aforementioned philosophy regarding the bipartisan approach to the human psyche only adds to the confusion blanketing the comprehension of and the distinction between the two aspects of folkway and individual disposition, in that they are now erroneously perceived to be transposable or capable of
Colonialism, specifically British colonialism, was a major factor in the lingual establishment of a global culture: the spread of the English rhetoric in the post-colonial ages not only contributed to the establishment of a unifying culture but was also responsible for the spread of a more self-serving outlook of the world. (Tanner, W. The Psychosocial Consequence of British Colonialism. 2000). In addition it was also the platform that the anthropological discussion leading to the conviction in the idea that “language, in addition to its syntax, also comes along with a certain outlook on life” was based on (Kumaravaivelu, B. Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. 2012). This theory that language and diction tend to influence individual cognition is of scientific caliber, proven on two separate occasions in the RJM study by Patricia King and Karen Strohm, which established a positive correlation between critical thinking abilities and advanced lingual tendencies (King, P & Strohm, K. Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. 1994), and in the 1940 study by Benjamin Lee Whorf in Arizona, where Whorf concluded that Hopi speakers and English speakers cumulatively