[second_sight_kyle]

Which elements of our behaviour we owe to nature and which to nurture is moot; suffice to say that some of our behaviour is hard-wired and some learned, yet deeply ingrained, and that this is far more powerful in shaping our behaviour than our individual dispositions.

I suppose I agree, except that the word behaviour should be replaced by the word personality in that paragraph. Obviously which elements of the environment contribute to our behaviour isn't moot, as shown by Milgram's ethical death-shock experiments.

What it comes down to, if we leave words like "personality" out of it, is that ... well, we're not really in control of our own behaviour to the extent we'd like to think we are.

I think I might be able to put a nail in both our coffins. Let us say that when you originally said we are prisoners of our biology and culture, I took culture to mean something more specific than our worldly environment. And when you used the word personality as the thing being constructed, I took it to mean personality and not behaviour. For reasons I hope I explained well enough, I disagreed when you said that we are prisoners of our biology and culture, with respect to personality.

At the same time I can accept that you meant that we are prisoners of our biology and environment, with respect to our behaviour. And really by mentioning biology and environment, you capture all the variables that influence us, and I guess imprison us. Dude trust me, Kyle is the first to know that semantics can be a bitch. If we could agree that behaviour is the prisoner, and not personality, that'd be great.

I'd still prefer a million of these back-and-forths than one conversation with that blowhard Esthete.

:lol: