Psychology is a serious player in terms of its ability to identify social problems from observations and then predict what the consequences of this behavior will be from analysis .Then subsequently generalize this to the vast population . Admittedly this is done with the support of loud evidence , however when it comes to some psychologists views of the effect of childhood on our adult well being it is hard not to find the related articles incredibly reductionist and one sided. Is it fair to argue that because a child experiences bad parenting or maybe even no parenting that when they mature into adulthood they will experience emotional suppression and sensitive responses to stress due to emotional neglect in infancy ( Gerhardt 2009 ).Gerhardt who is a psychoanalytic psychotherapist , makes many arguments on the value of early infant experiences in relation to our personalities and mental well being in adulthood , these arguments are based on the concept that the orbitofrontal cortex the area of the brain responsible for emotional intelligence , which allows one to recognise social cues and identify feelings develops almost exclusively in infancy . Gerhardt then goes onto argue the nuturist approach, that this part of the brain develops from experience of interactions with care givers and that this experience brings with it emotional regulation.
The nature nurture debate has come along way since its birth , the question has transformed from which aspect ( nature or nurture ) are are personalities soley products of , it is a more a question of which one is more predominant in certain areas.The degree of genetic determination vary s from dimension to another , such as the colour of our eyes and hair , that has been determined by genetics but other subtler questions such as will i suffer from depression because of my genes are harder to answer .The grey area in this type of research is separating the two variables : hereditory predisposition and the enviroment.This is because most research into the impact of our genes on our personalities has to be conducted within families , and families usually share the same enviroment so it is hard to decipher what is influencing what , we can only really do this when there are cases of identical twins which have been separated at birth and this is very rare .Lets be honest sister act the film isn’t an everyday occurrence and to conduct an experiment whereby twins are separated at birth is pretty heinous. So what we are left with is this conundrum , where does nature begin and the environment stop ?
References
Rachel Altamirano 2009 evaluation and summary of
Sue Gerhardt, Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes
a Baby’s Brain (2009)
estherroseburt 
The diathesis- stress model attempts to keep both sides of this debate happy, this approach states that those with a genetic vunerability which is then triggered by the environment are likely to be susceptable to certain disorders such as depression and schizophrenia.
This approach shows that to point the finger at one factor such as genes would be reductionist, we as humans are complex beings and its unlikely there is one cause for disorders and I believe it is the same with personality. There are some things that we can find one cause for, such as simple appearance such as eye colour and hair colour, however we can change this with contact lenses and hair dye/ sunlight. Also the environment can never completely overcome genes, some aspects of personality we cannot control, twin studies of separated indentical twins show concordance rates are still high despite being raised differently in different environments for some disorders such as drug abuse but not others (Grove et al, 1990)
Grove, W.M., Eckert, E.D., Heston, L,. Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N., Lykken, D.T., Heritability of substance abuse and antisocial behavior: A study of monozygotic twins reared apart, Biological Psychiatry, Volume 27, Issue 12, 15 June 1990, Pages 1293-1304, ISSN 0006-3223, 10.1016/0006-3223(90)90500-2.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006322390905002)
It has pretty much been accepted in psychology that neither environment nor genetics are soley responsible for a person’s behaviour; but rather an interaction between the two..
Plomin et. al. (1997) suggested that genes can indirectly affect the environment. One way in which this might happen is through ‘reactive influence’. This refers to the way in which genetics can be involved in the shaping of an infant’s ‘microenvironment. For example, an infant with a genetic disposition to aggression may be rejected by peers; creating a more hostile environment than would normally be experienced. This in turn could affect the infant’s development.
I think the phrase should be nature and nurture, rather than or. The general consensus within psychology is that neither can be held solely responsible when explaining the development and actions of an individual. Psychology has developed too far for us to narrow it down to nature or nurture, with cross links between multiple approaches which dip in both nature and nurture offering the most popular and well regarded explanations today.