TL;DR - The way nature and nurture interact with each other is difficult to judge on anything other than an individual level. - In the context of this debate, nature means the genetic predispositions that are present at birth, and nurture means the influence of the individual's environment. - It's very tricky to judge the balance between the effects of nature and nurture on a broad scale because the way they interact can be so varied. - If you have a genetic predisposition towards being an alcoholic, for example, this will only be realised if you grow up and live in an environment where you are exposed to potential addictions. Not all genetically/biologically predisposed traits are realised. - You could argue that nurture is more important in terms of the expression of personality traits - nature sets them up, nurture indicates whether they will be knocked down. Or you could argue the opposite, because the traits may have originated on a biological level.

**Nature versus nurture** • The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate questions how we develop our different traits - whether they are predestined by our genetic make-up, or influenced by our interactions with others and our surrounding environments. This principle is often applied in discussions of how humans form personality, sense of humour, ethics, politics, gender, talents, skills, likes and dislikes. • Proponents of the nature argument contend that we are born the way we are; that our genes dictate who we will grow into, including our interests, skillsets, and temperament. This is a biological approach which explains human behaviour by our flux of hormones and neuro-chemical reactions. • Proponents of the nurture school of thought argue that we are conditioned and influenced by external factors as we develop, such as our environments and experiences. Our personalities are not pre-wired, but are malleable and form over time. • Others regard nature _and_ nurture as equally important factors in our development. They believe that the combination of our genes and experiences make us who we are.

**TL;DR - Nature and Nurture are both important factors in the development of traits, and comparing their contributions does not lead to one winning over the other.** There are a couple of ways in which we can interpret this claim: _1. Nature is more important than nurture overall, i.e., in determining who and how you are._ - Psychological research has shown that this is simply not true. IQ, a common base in nature-nurture studies, has been [shown to observe a nuanced balance between Nature and Nurture] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511162/). Children and adolescents with a higher IQ observe a higher environmental influence, while those with a lower IQ demonstrate high heritability (a higher influence of Nature). - While nature can define a trait, it cannot guarantee that that trait will manifest itself. An easy example of this is that a version of the _ACTN3_ gene was [shown to be more frequent in elite sprint athletes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/). Though this version (known as the 'R-allele') might enhance your sprinting capability, _you cannot tap into this ability without athletic training_. The gene is indeed an important factor, but without the complementary Nurture, it does not define your 'nature'. _2. Nature is more important than nurture because it determines the most important characteristics._ - You could make the argument that Nature predefines the characteristics that are considered the most important. It has been [shown that Nature is a stronger determinant of fundamental, lasting traits] (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/in-the-nature-nurture-war-nature-wins/). Deciding that baseline traits are more important in defining a person than their evolving personalities, could lead to the conclusion that Nature is, thus, more important than Nurture. However, this is an entirely subjective basis for the claim, and the valuation of traits can easily vary among individuals and communities such that the principles of one may deem Nature more important, and another may place greater significance on Nurture. More specifically, the claim that Nature is more important than Nurture in the light of the interpretation above is contingent on the belief that certain components of our identity are more important than others. Since this belief can differ, this claim cannot be true. If we delve further into the nuances of these studies and acknowledge that psychological research - though it can be conducted scientifically - is not always concrete, we cannot decide which of the two is more important. If we cannot yet decide, it is incorrect to state that any one is more important than the other.