Don't know why you're getting downvoted. I was always a big believer in humans being programmed by our environment but after having kids I realized how false that is. We all have our own personality from the get go.
I guess there's a little bit of a misunderstanding here.
The maternal womb is also considered an environmental factor, so by the time they are born the offspring has already been affected, greatly, by the environment. And that's precisely one of the major hypotheses of this paper.
Of course, genetics also influences our personalities greatly, but as seen in this paper with genetically identical fish; even in this case there is shown to be individuality. Now, this paper doesn't say anything about how much of one's personality is genetics or how much is influenced by the environment. What it says is that in genetically identical individuals that grow in (pretty much) identical conditions there is already individuality that's present at the time of birth which is possibly mediated by the pre-natal environment.
Interesting all of the nature-first feedback, because I have 3 kids and their personalities, interests and behaviors have changed significantly over the years. Maybe these life arcs are instilled at birth, but for me as I look back I notice their friends and major life events influencing them.
I also look at my own life and imagine I was born in a different country with different hardships. I can only imagine that some of my personality traits would have expressed themselves differently based on different survival necessities.
As a tech analogy, varying your training data will vary your outputs, even if the model parameters remain consistent.
This is obvious. But I do think that the way environment is experienced and interpreted is guided by original personality traits, however it is popular to deny that nature has any effect and nurture is everything. Also have noticed this point of view when it comes to dogs ... especially pit bulls or other violent dogs.
It really is. It is very bizarre when I see people absolute flip out because someone points out that a dog that was bred to be violent ... actually becomes violent. And of course I know it isn't just pits that will attack (I'm looking at you chihuahuas!) but they combine that instinct with power and size and now you have a real problem.
It's hard for people to understand because it's not all-or-nothing. There are plenty of "bred to be violent" dogs that will go their entire lives without doing so. People see that as proof that there's no increased risk, but that's not how statistics works.
> There are plenty of "bred to be violent" dogs that will go their entire lives without doing so.
Most dogs spend almost their entire lives docile. Those bread to be violent are ones that have high odds of a moment or two of uncontrollable violence.
(And if you look, it's almost always because they have a chihuahua or pinscher ancestor.)
Same here. I was very much nurture first until i had kids and then it was absolutely crystal clear to me by the end of the first year that the truth is nature first. Nurture matters, but nature is the more powerful force. My first born was as much herself on the first day she was born as she is now at 7yo. The same for my son.
I audited some embryology, neuropsychology classes in college. Still seems like a miracle, how the kids arrive...
(I won't argue about the magic moment of person-hood, if any. Life in squishy bodies on Planet Earth, we do our best. I'm glad for the chance.)