I think that there is no right answer to the nature v. nurture conundrum. Picking any side of the debate seems wrong and too radical. Believing that my path in life is predetermined by my genes and the environment that I was born into deprives me of any self-agency. I choose to believe that every human has free will but a varying degree of consciousness, which eventually determines their life outcome. Personally, I have seen enough proof to know that one can overcome one “essence.” For instance, I know people who lived through quite traumatic life events during their childhood years, but who had enough self-awareness and determination to overcome the emotional damage. As a result, they have transformed themselves into better versions of themselves by putting in work and making a conscious effort. This example alone defies the deterministic role of the environment.
At the same time, the existentialist take on the nature v. nurture issue does not seem any more convincing. As I mentioned earlier, a person cannot think a physical trait into existence, no matter how hard they try. Besides, some diseases are inheritable, and their severity may influence each and every aspect of life, thus, determining its quality and direction. Existentialism seems somewhat more applicable when it comes to psychological traits. However, recent research has shown that even the human psyche is subject to determinism. For example, Lo et al. have shown that the so-called Big Five personality traits (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness) can be deciphered from the human genome. In summation, I think that to some degree, a person’s personality and behavior are predetermined, but as a person becomes more mature, they can make independent choices and be in charge of their life.