Are we a product of nurture or nature?

It's a combo featurette.

both, emphatically. we are most definitely not a blank slate that nature can 'program' according to our environment/experience, though we are adapted, behaviorlly and epigenetically, BY both.

the biggest example of our 'pre-adaption' is to language. chomsky intuited and then elaborated the reality that our brains are, from birth, pre-wired to acquire languages, that the structure of language is embedded in our neural structures.

the question has long since be answered - there is no real dispute - we are quite definitely a product of both nature and nurture as, for that matter, certainly most/all mammals, many birds. any creature that has a non-trivial memory capacity learns from the environment.

This is the question with NO answer Andy...None of the experts seem to agree

In terms of possible future criminality I think it's a combo in a lot of cases...Some heinous criminals had horrid, confusing childhoods and went on to hurt a bunch of people.
In some cases these types hurt little animals and started fires or burglarized homes as 10-15 year olds and then you've got a bad problem in the community.
Add fetishism and abuse into the mix and you've got a landmine to deal with.
Kemper and Burdos killed at least 15 between them.

Other troubled sorts who go on to self-harm, get depressed, drop out completely, dabble in addiction and can be a danger seem to have had a loving home life but a history of mental illness in the family tree, Jeffery Dahmer being an infamous example

The experts are arguing this ghastly stuff in academic papers as we speak but one thing is certain to a layman like me, treat the children very well or we're just going to raise the next generation of spree-shooters and serial criminals.

The kids that have a shit start but overcome it and do well seem an interesting subject to study

boys exposed to low levels of testosterone in the womb engage in less male-typical behaviour as children.

https://news.psu.edu/story/668119/2021/09/09/research/childhood-gender-nonconformity-boys-linked-early-androgens

"According to Puts, such so called childhood gender role behaviors are among the largest behavioral sex differences. Typically, males will say they were the male character, played with other boys and preferred trucks, while females will say they were the female character, played with other girls and preferred dolls.

However, males with IGD reported more gender non-conforming in these types of behaviors. The researchers report in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, that men with IGD recalled a higher level of childhood gender non-conformity than typical men, while women with IGD did not differ from typical women in childhood gender conformity."

As an adopted kid I've always been fascinated with this debate. I met my biological mother when I was 21 and my biological father when I was 40 and there is definitely nature involved. There are certainly some genetic influence with my skills and in my hobbies. Having as many siblings as I do (16 counting my adopted sibling, and the rest are between bio parents) I can see aspects of myself in almost all of them. But, those of us not raised together are very, very different from the ones who were raised together. I mean we are all different, but there is just more of a difference if that makes sense. The values from different parents has really shaped us in different ways, as well as our experiences. For me it is most certainly a combination of both.

I have seen kids from good families good bad and I have seen kids from bad families do just fine. It does help if you are raised in a stable environment

I can't even fathom how anyone could give a serious answer other than "both." It has to be both.

…a combination of both would be the thing to make most sense…otherwise siblings would be more similar in personalities when brought up in the same environment and same parenting…