History Main / NatureVersusNurture

-->'''Brock''': Our parents may have died together, but you had your precious aunt and uncle. We had no one, we've always been alone... until now.

* ''Film/{{Pearl}}'': Does [[spoiler:Ruth (Pearl's mother)]] correctly identify that there is something intrinsically wrong with [[spoiler:Pearl]] since birth, thereby necessitating [[spoiler:her to keep Pearl within the boundaries of the farm]] as much as possible? Does [[spoiler:Ruth]]'s constant put-downs of [[spoiler:Pearl]]'s dreams, which at least partially stems from the former's bitterness over [[spoiler:her]] own unrealized full and vibrant life, manage to infect the latter with [[spoiler:generational]] trauma/ill thoughts, only [[spoiler:fatal]] to others on top? Or is [[spoiler:Pearl]]'s transformation from slightly odd [[spoiler:young woman]] to full-blown [[spoiler:unrepentant serial killer]] a function of both inputs?

* ''WesternAnimation/HarleyQuinn2019'': The episode "Being Harley Quinn" delves into Harley's life before becoming the Joker's henchwoman and brings into question just how much her villainy is a result of nurture. It's all but stated that young Harleen had an unhappy childhood with an extremely dysfunctional family. However, it's heavily implied her AxCrazy impulses are nature. Her attempts at playing with dolls involved a wife murdering a husband for cheating, she stalked her CelebCrush to the point legal actions needed to be taken, and she [[NoodleIncident may have]] killed a girl at her camp for spreading humiliating rumors about her. Harley believed she became a villain only because of the Joker [[spoiler:to the point she convinced herself he pushed her into the bath of chemicals when she had jumped willingly]], but towards the end of the episode, she fully realizes that she always had a choice. At most, one could interpret that the Joker only brought out her dark side to its fullest.

* Crops up in the episode "Dragon Quest" of ''WesternAnimation/MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic'', where Spike tries to learn more about being a dragon, but he learns that by nature, dragons are [[AlwaysChaoticEvil destructive and greedy]]. He then learns to embrace being raised by ponies as he has not become like them.
* ''WesternAnimation/RickAndMorty'': Beth and Rick get into an argument about whether or not Beth's sociopathic behavior as a child was caused by Rick's terrible parenting. Beth believes that she was acting out to get attention and while Rick admits he is a terrible parent he insists that Beth was born evil, and it is left ambiguous who is right.

[[folder:Universal Media]]
* Inevitably brought up in stories involving:
** CloneAngst and {{Evil Twin}}s.
** TimeTravel stories invoking WhatIf and ButterflyOfDoom.
[[/folder]]

** TimeTravel stories invoking ForWantOfANail and ButterflyOfDoom.

** Anime/DragonBallSuperBroly delves into this theme again showing that the Saiyan civilization is a lot more stable than we were lead to believe. And while many Saiyans are AffablyEvil at best? It is shown they aren't necessarily inherently cruel. As shown with the Saiyan Beets who clearly isn't a combative Saiyan and is rather meek. This is further expanded with Broly himself having been raised by a father out for the blood of Vegeta via SinsOfTheFather after the King banished them. In spite of basically being raised to be a weapon for revenge, Broly is a very kind and empathetic individual; compared to his AxCrazy BloodKnight counterpart from the {{Non Serial Movie}}s.

** In his ''ComicBook/New52'' incarnation, Superboy starts flat out amoral. The group that cloned him outright questions whether his lack of human empathy is due to [[CloningBlues being a clone]], being half alien, or lacking Superman's overall upbringing. He slowly starts to learn empathy and compassion.

** CloningBlues and {{Evil Twin}}s.

* StockholmSyndrome

[[folder:Comics]]
* Brought up in most depictions of ''Franchise/{{Superman}}'': Superman is [[HumanAliens Kryptonian]], but was raised by kindly old adoptive parents. In older stories, it was usually implied that his superior Kryptonian heritage and abilities were the cause of his strict moral compass, but in latter stories (especially after other, villainous Kryptonians, were introduced), it's outright stated that Superman's upbringing is responsible for creating who he is.

** In his ''ComicBook/{{New 52}}'' incarnation, Superboy starts flat out amoral. The group that cloned him outright questions whether his lack of human empathy is due to [[CloningBlues being a clone]], being half alien, or lacking Superman's overall upbringing. He slowly starts to learn empathy and compassion.

* Some ''Franchise/XMen'' fans have considered this debate when comparing the characters of Cable and Nate Grey, as each are essentially the same character in terms of their genetic heritage- being the 'child' of Scott Summers and Jean Grey, even if Nate was created in a lab using DNA samples stolen from his 'parents' while Cable was the naturally-conceived child of Scott Summers with Jean's clone- but experienced vastly different upbringings, with Cable a soldier dedicated to his chosen mission while Nate was intended as a weapon and resent others' attempts to use him. There are notable differences (Cable tends to be a bit more grounded), but they're surprisingly similar. The general rule of thumb is that Nate's a bit more heart on his sleeve than Cable is, and if he's playing Mutant Messiah, it's not always part of a scheme.

* ''Film/{{Pearl}}'' (2022): Does [[spoiler:Ruth (Pearl's mother)]] correctly identify that there is something intrinsically wrong with [[spoiler:Pearl]] since birth, thereby necessitating [[spoiler:her to keep Pearl within the boundaries of the farm]] as much as possible? Does [[spoiler:Ruth's]] constant put-downs of [[spoiler:Pearl's]] dreams, which at least partially stems from the former's bitterness over [[spoiler:her]] own unrealised full and vibrant life, manage to infect the latter with [[spoiler:generational]] trauma/ill thoughts, only [[spoiler:fatal]] to others on top? Or is [[spoiler:Pearl's]] transformation from slightly odd [[spoiler:young woman]] to full-blown [[spoiler:unrepentant serial killer]] a function of both inputs?

* In ''Webcomic/{{Sinfest}}'', [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2711 Slick blames his upbringing, and then concludes that doesn't change his character.]]

* ''Anime/FullmetalAlchemist'' is vague on whether homunculi are naturally malicious or if they're simply not raised well.

** Anime/DragonBallSuperBroly delves into this theme again showing that the Saiyan civilization is a lot more stable than we were lead to believe. And while many Saiyans are AffablyEvil at best? It is shown they aren't necessarily inherently cruel. As shown with the Saiyan Beets who clearly isn't a combative Saiyan and is rather meek. This is further expanded with Broly himself having been raised by a father out for the blood of Vegeta via SinsOfTheFather after the King banished them. In spite of basically being raised to be a weapon for revenge, Broly is a very kind and empathetic individual; compared to his AxCrazy BloodKnight counterpart from the {{Non-Serial Movie}}s

* In ''Manga/ElfenLied'', a point is made about whether or not the diclonii really are malicious, or if their cruelty is a byproduct of how they were raised. Lucy appears to be the latter; Mariko appears to be the former. Note that neither side is plausible in the manga. The manga implies that all diclonii are some degree of aggressive toward humans no matter how they're raised.

* In the Franchise/SherlockHolmes spin-off novel "The Spider's Web" by Philip Purser-Hallard, Holmes and Watson find out that this issue was part of the plan behind the apparent abandonment (really abduction) of the young Ernest Moncrieff (''Theatre/TheImportanceOfBeingEarnest''); [[spoiler:a sergeant with a vendetta against Colonel Moncrieff attempted to abduct the infant Ernest and switch him with the sergeant's own son, intending to reveal the switch later on in life to prove that family history didn't define nobility. However, by the time Holmes has deduced this, the man who may have been the sergeant's son or the "real" Ernest Moncrieff has been killed as part of another conspiracy, and he and Watson conclude that it isn't worth trying to work out if the man currently known as Ernest Moncrieff is the "original" Ernest or the sergeant's son, as nobody would benefit from such a revelation]].