Some people believe that a person's culture is defined by their country of origin, while others believe that has only a minor influence.

If we define culture as shared beliefs, values, attitude and shared behaviours, it is logical that a person's country has an impact inside their culture. The question is until what point is it the influence define or is only one of the play facts? Personally, I would say that both arguments have value, but I would prefer the last one. It is simple to understand the argument about " define influence". If someone born and grow up in a place will be influenced by it. Psychologies talk about this as the "growing up argument" when you are a result of your environment. For example, if the gastronomy kitchen in your country uses some ingredients, your palate gets familiar with these kinds of ingredients, but could be possible to have problems with other familiar flavours. If your country has traditional music styles, such as reggae or rock, everyone would be exposed to that and, as a result, is much probably they liked it. On the other view, we'd consider the globalization effects, the majority of the population has access and diary exposition with other cultures. The evidence is around us: restaurants, cinemas, and oversea business are ubiquitous, One of the globalization benefits is offering multiple culture selections to choose. it has low probabilities to find some citizen in a determinate country that does not have preferences to provide outside of the origin country, in addition, every time more people are working, studying and travelling more overseas. Inevitable they will influence for new experiences. My own opinion is that we are influenced fro our own nationality in this globalized world, one's origin country is just an aspect of our origin country from our collective culture. Everyone adopts elements from other cultures diary, unconsously or according to our preferences and experiences, in my opinion, this makes the world more interesting.