Nature vs. Nurture?

It seems like this question seems to come up nearly every day in psychology and it iritates me. For the past four weeks I haven't been able to explain my iritation with it to the class, or to myself for that matter. I couldn't even work it out in my head and have it make sense, but yesterday I finally figured out why its such an irritating concept, because your only given two choices and to some extent their both right and both wrong. I don't think the question of nature vs. nurture even matters anymore. Clearly their has been enough studying to show that they both have an effect on people. Genetics and environment both take a role in developing who we are. So the whole nature vs. nurture thing is kind of dead but I'm neither a behaviorist nor a humanist. I think their both asking the wrong question, Its not nature vs. nurture, its agency vs. nature or nurture. Just because we have a pre-disposition to be violent, or we were raised in a violent home does not mean that we areselves have to be violent. Maybe with dogs, we can ask nature vs. nurture, but being human we have moral accountability and choice, we can't blame our short commings on our upbringing or our unfortunate genetic heredity.

I think the reason psychologists have focused so much on this nature vs. nurture concept is because as humans we want to be able to blame anybody but ourselves for our actions. It's extreamly difficult for one to take responsibilty for the mistakes they've made and then not only to correct them, but to know that you'll have to take responsibilty for all other actions in the future. I think the Locus of Control plays a much bigger role on how we react and who we are, it shapes our personality more then nature vs. nurture ever could. Do you think you are in control of your life, or do you think that others have the control in your life? Thats the more important question.