Nature Vs Nurture Summary

Young states that the Creature’s awareness of his lack of nurturing environment and the “constant degradation” that he is subjected to is what “fuels the Creature’s symbolic fire and causes his ill deeds.” Only knowing and experiencing the negative actions of the people he has been met with, the Creature begins to return the favour.

She states that “much like an abused animal, the Creature lashes out at those around him, killing and harming fellow human beings because he is constantly met with anger and violence himself.” With this particular statement, Young is trying to show that if the nurturing environment had been different, perhaps the creature would have been as well. I partially agree with this statement as a different nurturing environment would have changed the way that the Creature turned out. Although unlikely, if Frankenstein were to stay with his creation and raise it as if it were a normal

Nurture: Parental guidance boosts child’s strengths, shapes development.” Based on the research provided by George W. Holden, a professor of psychology at the Southern Methodist University of Dallas, this article creates a contradictory argument that both supports and rejects the debate. The arguments that the critic makes throughout the article relates to my hypothesis as it contains information regarding the nature vs. nurture debate. It also offers a different perspective to the other critiques by rejecting and accepting both sides of the argument at the same time, it also creates an entirely new side of the argument that both approves and disproves my hypothesis. This new side of the argument disproves my hypothesis as it mentions that it is nature that plays a big role in how a person will turn out. It also approves my hypothesis as it talks about how nurture and the actions of the parents is mostly responsible for the way that a person turns out in the