formation of the self

It's hard to make sense of the second option. It's not really saying anything because it's an irrefutable claim--no matter how a person turns out, proponents of the second option can always be right. Or, more accurately, the second option is defined as right from the very beginning... and if a theory already has the explanation before looking at any test cases, it hasn't explained anything at all. So if those are the only two options, I'll go with the first one.

IMO, what a person is, is a combination of nature/nuture. Nature provides the predispositions...................newborns in a hospital nursery have distinct personalities. Nature will also determine your health predispositions, your looks, and your intelligence.

All this can be modified through the environment. The way that your significant others relate to you can have a profound effect on your development as an individual.

It's interesting to note how we pre-dominantly treat each other though. We're summed up in snap judgements through our actions and words rather than any nature/nurture argument (generally speaking). I can't help thinking about the search in behavioural genetics for murder, homosexuality and disorder genes, about how yes, I'm a product of a whole host of different things, but about how I'm also "lucky"? (Nurture comes into this as well of course).

P.S (I'm not saying I'm lucky to be a hetero...given the above wording I just wanted to make that clear )

Phoenix said it perfectly.

It's not nature vs. nurture, but rather nature and nurture. We are complex beings who can't seem to be fit into our own boxes.

I don't like to to equate a person's personality with the person (if that's what is meant by "self"). One of the reasons is that people's personalities may change over time. Some traits may remain, but yet others may not.

In terms of nature vs. nature of personalities, I agree with both Phoenix and flush'd in that it is a combination of nature and nurture.