Rhetorical situation:

The journal “The practice paradigm: do three Hungarian sisters settle the nature-nurture debate?” by Paul Voosen discusses the psychological phenomenon of nature vs nurture. In this journal, he tells of three hungarian sisters, who were raised by their father to be amazing chess players. All three sisters grew to be some of the top chess players in the world. Vossen uses this story to question how much of their success was due to nature and nurture by comparing similarities and differences between the sisters.

In the magazine, “There’s no such thing as Etonian”, it discusses how despite people growing up in similar environments they will become different people. He makes the argument that nature has a much larger impact on who we are than nurture which is a sharp contrast with the first source   

In the newspaper article “Scientists see twins as the perfect laboratory to examine the impact of nature vs. nurture”, rather than talking about which is more important, nature or nurture, like in the first two sources, this source discusses how scientists use twins to study the debate of nature vs nurture. The reason why twins are important is because they have the same exact genetics which means they can study how nurture affects their personality since the nature part is considered a control.

The fourth source is the article “Nature vs Nurture in Psychology” which was written by Saul McLeod. McLeod discusses the debate of nature vs nurture from a psychological perspective, which is a different perspective from the other three sources. He does this by providing research and data evidence from a psychological perspective

Author and Audience:

The journal “The practice paradigm: do three Hungarian sisters settle the nature-nurture debate?” was written by Paul Voosen, a reporter for The Chronicle, to the intended audience of anyone anyone reading The Chronicle because that is where the journal is found. The audience can also be anyone interested in this topic because of the title,”The practice paradigm: do three Hungarian sisters settle the nature-nurture debate?”, which grabs your attention if your interested in the topic.

The author of the magazine is Maya Wakefield, which she wrote on oct. 11 2014. The publisher is The Spectator Ltd which is station at the United Kingdom. Her audience is people who read the The Spectator because that’s where this article was published.

The author of the third source is Sarah Elizabeth Richard. She is a journalist for the Washington post. The audience is the readers of the washington post because that is where this article was published. The audience may also be anyone interested in the topic because the title “Scientists see twins as the perfect laboratory to examine the impact of nature vs. nurture” makes clear as to what the article is going to be about.

The author is Saul Mcleod is a psychologist, which is unlike the author of the other three sources authors. His audience is the readers of simplypsycology which means they’re most likely students of psychology or people interested in the field. This contrasts the other sources because other sources are published by newspapers and magazines, which covers a wide variety of topics unlike this website which specifically talks about psychology.    

Tone and purpose:

The purpose of the first source is to add onto the discussion of nature vs nurture. This is seen through the way Voosen doesn’t answer the question, but rather is constantly asking it. He asks his audience “Does success depend more on the accidents of genetics or the decisions of upbringing? Nature or Nurture?” revealing that he doesn’t have an answer but wants to explore the topic. Furthermore, the tone of this piece is informative which can be seen with her use of great detail. While discussing the three sisters, she even included their play styles and how they compared. Vossen says “Judit’s ascension was clear. She was a risk taker, an overpowering attacker; Susan was more defensive, while Sofia, also aggressive, was distracted by a blossoming interest in art and design”. This reveals Voosen putting in as much detail as possible even though it might not directly relate to the nature vs nurture debate. 

In contrast to the first source, the tone of the second source is argumentative. This is shown by the first sentence where she says “Finally, just in the last few years I’d say, we’ve all begun to accept the role of nature in the great nature/nurture debate.”This conveys an argumentative tone because she is starting the article with her argument. Moreover, unlike the first article which purpose was to inform the reader of both sides of the argument, the purpose of this magazine is to prove to the reader that nature is the dominating factor in the nature vs nurture debate. She says “But as it turns out, in study after study, sharing an environment–a family, a school or a socio-economic group–does not make children more alike. Any similarities between siblings are almost entirely the result of their shared genes. Though they grow up together, play together, share parents, grandparents and friends, they would be as alike or not alike in most measurable personality traits had they been separated at birth.” This quote shows Wakefield intends to prove to the audience that nature is superior.

Similar to the first source, the tone of the third source is informative. She says “In one of the purest twins experiments ever designed, Mason was part of the team that compared the effects of a year spent in space on 52-year-old astronaut Scott Kelly with the Earth-based experience of his identical twin, Mark.” This displays her tone as informative because she is giving examples of how scientists are studying nature vs nurture. Moreover, compared to the first two sources where they intend to discuss the actual debate of nature vs nurture, this source purpose is to have her readers up to date on what science is looking at to study this debate. She says “‘Twins are nature’s experiment,’ says Australian neuropsychiatrist Perminder Sachdev, who runs the Older Australian Twins Study, which was started 10 years ago and has recruited more that 300 pairs of twins older than 65 to analyze how physical activity, psychological trauma, alcohol use and nutrition affects their brains, psyches, metabolisms and hearts.” which shows that Richard, in this article, is exploring how scientists are studying the debate.

Similar to the first and third source, the tone of this article is informative. Mcleod states “Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.” This shows him being informative because he gives definition to different terms and explains it. Furthermore, the purpose of this article is to discuss the debate of nurture vs nature and present information of what psychologists know up to this point. This is revealed when Mcleod states “The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.”This shows him telling the reader how both nature and nurture influence different aspects of human functions which can be used to garner more information of how both aspects contribute to a person’s identity. 

Genre and medium:

The first source is a scientific journal because the publisher is Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. The medium is a journal posted on the internet.

The second source genre is a magazine article. The medium is a magazine on The Spectator Ltd which is a UK magazine 

The genre of the third source is a newspaper article. The medium is a newspaper. It is also an article that can be found on the Washington Post website.

The genre of this source is an article. The medium is the website called simplypsycology.org.

Stance and language:

The stance of the author in the first source is mutual because he argues both sides of the argument. He says “Ericsson had demonstrated the remarkable way people can train their memory to recall more than 100 consecutive digits. This made him wonder: While many liked to chalk up success to innate talent–especially intelligence, however you define it–perhaps pure practice was more important?”. This reveals him taking account of both sides of the argument. He takes this stance by using the type of language that is articulate and formal. He says” By their first meeting, a dinner and walk around Budapest in 1965, Laszlo told Klara, his future bride, how his kids’ education would go. He had studied the lives of geniuses and divined a pattern: an adult singularly focused on the child’s success.” which shows him giving context of the story in a concise and meaningful use of language.    

In contrast to the first article, the stance of the second source is that nature is the dominating factor in nature vs nurture debate which is seen by the way she argues for it, with scientific and anecdotal evidence, throughout the article as seen when she says ”…An adopted child ends up in adulthood in many ways no more like his or her adoptive parents than they are like a random person on the street.” She does this by using personal language, also unlike the first article. After stating evidence to prove her argument she says “But as one who’s tried, I have to tell you, the evidence is hard to hide from.” This shows her talking directly to the reader and using personal language. 

Similar to the first source and unlike the second source, Richard doesn’t necessarily take a stance in the nature vs nurture debate. She says “Still, the debate is far from over, experts say, because genetic and environmental influences change over time” which reveals that she thinks the debate still continues and there is no clear answer yet. She takes this stance by using formal language, also similar to the first source. In the article, she states “Despite a consensus on the value of twins studies, there’s disagreement over where research dollars should be focused.” Here she is making a statement but is articulating it in a formal manner.

The stance of the author is similar to that of the first and third source which is that he is mutual on the debate. This is seen by him arguing both sides of the debate when he states ”In practice, hardly anyone today accepts either of the extreme positions.  There are simply too many “facts” on both sides of the argument which are inconsistent with an ‘all or nothing’ view.” The language used is scientific terminology “Examples of an extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).” Here the author is using scientific terminology to discuss different psychological theories which may contribute to the debate.

Work cited

1. Voosen, Paul. “The practice paradigm: do three Hungarian sisters settle the nature-nurture debate?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 Nov. 2015, p. B6+. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A435633259/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=69b01dfd. Accessed 11 Sept. 2019.    
2. Wakefield, Mary. “There’s no such thing as an Etonian.” Spectator, 11 Oct. 2014, p. 29. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A385407015/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=34215eaf. Accessed 18 Sept. 2019.
3. Richards, Sarah Elizabeth. “Scientists see twins as the perfect laboratory to examine the impact of nature vs. nurture.” Washington Post, 29 Sept. 2018. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A556245920/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=6df85b99. Accessed 18 Sept. 2019.
4. McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 20). Nature vs nurture in psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html