Nature vs. nurture is a long debated topic that derives from the question of whether people are more greatly affected by biology or their upbringing (Rockoff, 2013).
Another example in the question of Nature and nurture is Pinker’s consideration that learning itself must be accomplished by innate circuitry, and what is innate is not a set of rigid instructions for behavior but rather programs that take in information from the senses and give rise to new thoughts and actions. From this, it can be argued that nature and nurture have a clear role in learning (Pinker, 2004). As Pinker emphasizes, hypotheses that pit nature against nurture as a dichotomy or that correlate genes or environment with behavior without looking at the intervening brain, will only turn out to be simplistic or wrong (Pinker, 2004).
Personally and professionally speaking, I am a bit surprised that there is still a question or debate regarding the question of nature vs. nurture. It seems that research, such as those included within this discussion, suggests that both have a role, and the significance of the role depends from one individual or circumstance to the next. Rockoff (2012) suggests that much is still unknown about the mechanics behind people's environmental susceptibility. Rather, it is likely that most people aren't either an orchid or a dandelion, but have the qualities of each to varying degrees (Rockoff, 2013). Childhood experiences can shape how people turn out later in life, and those that are developmentally malleable through genetics can be at an advantage, which points to the significance of both nature and nurture within the environment (Rockoff, 2013).
Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Human learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Pinker, S. (2004). Why nature & nurture won't go away. Daedalus, 1-13.
Rockoff, J. (2013, September 17). Nature vs. nurture: New science stirs debate. Wall Street Journal. p. D2.