Mostly nurture.
Babies aren't born racist, sexist, and religious.

Yes, I generally categorize those together.

Nurture and nature not nature vs nurture

I think we should nurture nature.

I find that a flawed dichotomy. Personally, I go with a combination of nature, nurture, self, and randomness. For example (and I apologize in advance for its' bleakness), you could hypothetically have a child with four physical problems: an inherited sickle-cell anemia (nature), mental issues from lead in his water (nurture), a broken leg from jumping down a staircase (self), and a bacterially-resistant infection caught durring treatment (randomness).

Arguably, you can call my "random" only nature, too, but when it's a statistically unlikely natural thing, a happenstance, and of high consequence, it's not something very anticipatable. That I prefer to think in a separate class from "nature." Similarly, even children have to face the consequences of their own actions, so I think it important to include the "self" in there, despite the fact that the "self" is deeply built from the sum of the other three. No, the four are not quite separable factors, but I do think the nature/nurture scale is too simplistic.

I think it's a combination of the two. I used to believe it was entirely nurture, until I met my biological family. Holy shit. We all have wolf tattoos. We all scoff at anything that mildly offends us. We all have the same willfullness. A lot of us have the same phobias

I attended a lecture at CalTech given by Nancy Segal about studies of identical twins that were reared apart by (often very) different families. It was obvious from these findings that nature has a HUGE impact! That being said, nurture does as well... as the data of many criminal deviants seems to show they were often abused. It's a bit of a cop out, but I'm tempted to say it's close to 50/50!

I tend to side with the works of Jerome Horwitz. Louis Feinberg and Moses Horwitz: Nature will always trump nurture. Films of their experiments are widely available, and well worth watching.

Google the names and you will see why I respect their conclusions.

Nature + nurture = epigenetics!

Both mega important.
Consider a kid born with above average intellectuual ability.
Without the right upbringing, he may not achieve his full potential
Another kid with all the assistance in teh world may amount to nothing if he does not have the potential.

Nurture just as important as nature. Adopted families are the best evidence.

Depends what you are looking at and you have to add in random events because silly things like a virus infection that is no more than a annoyance to most people can have a catostrophic effect on the few that have a genetic predisposition triggered by it. Triggered genetics can be hard to overcome but horrendous child abuse isn't any easier and then throw congenital defects and random influences into the mix and it is hard to pick it all apart.
Somethings like schizophrenia and alcoholism are highly heritable regardless of upbringing. In the same vein a biological child of non-alcoholic parents raised by alcoholics is the least likely to succumb to that vice. On the opposite side I used to work with a man who had been locked in a cupboard and beaten by his mother for the first 15 years of his life and you better believe that had a major effect. So it isn't vs though it may be additive or moderating.

My late father called id heredity Vs environment. He used to say: If the child looks like the husband, it's heredity. If he looks like the mailman, it's the environment.

I like them both

Do you view natural and nature to be one in the same?

Thanks to all who responded. I enjoyed reading all the comments.

There is a little of both. However,it does seem that a lot mor eof behavior is beign shown to be nature, rather than nurure.

That it is a false dichotomy.

My late husband was the third child of four, and only son of very horrible parents. His father was an abusive, nearly illiterate drunk. His mother was severely mentally ill and kept all of her children arguing and fighting with each other by telling one sister that another said this or that about her. All the sisters spoke to my husband but have nothing to do with each other. But, as the only boy, my husband took the lion's share of the physical abuse from his father. They all married young, probably just to get out of the house. In fact, we married as teenagers. I knew he was the one when we met and I asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said that he had no idea, but he knew he wanted to be the very best husband and father he could be.

All the sisters have mental health problems and have experienced rocky marriages and stayed in them. My husband educated himself to become a psychotherapist who specialized in treating the chemically addicted. Maybe he was drawn to this because he had been unable to help his dad. I don't know.

All I know is that he was the kindest, most gentle man I had ever met. I was so lucky to have met him and to have been able to spend 45 years together (43 married). With his past, he should have become a complete asshole, but he didn't. Maybe he just had more resilience than his sisters.

I was just talking to my daughter about this yesterday. I believe that both aspects play a role. Parts of who she is today is not at all the way I nutured (raised, loved, showed, taught, lead by example) her.

In my opinion, every little thing about ther that is negative (especially her comfort with bald-faced lies) is a direct result of her father's DNA. Not my DNA and not nurture.

That's my belief. And that's what I told her yesterday when she asked. She laughed -- and I was glad to hear it was a bit of a nervous laughter -- like "Wow....my mom thinks I'm a liar." Yup. Love her to the moon and back, but she is not an honest person -- and I hope that is something she will choose to change about herself.

Both. They are intricately intertwined. Many genetic disorders remain dormant until there is an enviornmental trigger. On the flip side is epigenetics where enviornmental influences can change DNA.