Nature Vs. Nurture In Truman Capote's In Cold Blood

Nature versus Nurture has been a topic debated in all kinds of settings all over the world.

To sum it up, a person either believes that an individual becomes the way they are through

obtaining certain hereditary factors or being around people who act a particular way. To fully

understand the arguments, one must first analyze examples of these circumstances. The

character’s Richard Hickock (Dick) and Perry Smith, the murderers of the Clutter family in

Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, are perfect examples of both nature and nurture. Although there

are several logical arguments for both sides, it is up to the individual to determine what kind of

person they want to be.

Nature can be referred to as “all of the genes and hereditary factors

In Capotes book, African Americans are portrayed extremely poorly by the two murders

(Capote 111). The criminals, who are low-life’s themselves, judge black travelers and

roommates without any consideration that the people they are against are actually the ladder

(Capote 109). Homosexuals are also a great example. Numerous religious and conservative

supporters believe that being gay is wrong and causes someone to be unworthy of normality. It

was not their choice to be born the way they were, and they should not be diverted away from

their aspirations based off of their individualities. Psychological elements and inherited traits

accompany the Nature side of the argument, but of course every quarrel is two-sided.

The other end of the debate, (if it is not obvious enough) is Nurture. Nurture refers “to

your childhood, or how you were brought up” (Diffen), meaning the atmosphere and conditions

of how someone was raised. It is obvious that environmental factors can have an effect on a

person. But does it explain how that person became who they are? For instance, if a person

grows up around the ocean, they will probably choose to travel to the beach instead of

Which was a more important factor in

determining what kind of person he became, nature or nurture? Neither. They both were just two

insignificant factors. Combined with his experiences, thoughts, reactions, etc., nature and nurture

all were thrown into the concoction that created his individual persona. Dick was raised in a

well-rounded, responsible family. He had healthy genes and no apparent physical limitations.

Yet, he ended up being a cold-blooded murderer. How do either nature or nurture explain this?

They simply cannot. His own choices and adventures turned him into a criminal.

In conclusion, nature and nurture are both irrelevant when determining who someone is.

Nature, or hereditary factors that a person is composed of, does not explain how someone who

has limitations or lack thereof becomes who they are. Nurture, or the environment someone was

raised around does not control who they are. Both Dick and Perry became savage criminals by

choice. No one can blame either nature or nurture for involuntary creating who they are. A

person develops through personal experiences and