argument's sake

This is an argument between my friend and me.

how much do previous experiences affect behaviour?

Experiences mould behaviour.  Are experiences totally necessary?

Experiences are inevitable in formation of behaviour. But that should mean that particular experiences are necessary for a particular behaviour, shouldn't that?

How can it be? The same experience may affect a different personality type in a different way. Then that follows that personality types are more important than experiences.

Personality types are people. If the same type of people get different experiences, they grow differently. But for a particular behaviour, the personality type is dominant over experience.

What is personality type? A person's inherent behaviour(genes), which includes his tastes, and a collection of other traits which occur together in him consistently.

Then there must be as many personality types as there are people. Awful-strictly speaking, yes. But if it were, they wouldn't be called 'types'.

Can you validate your view 'personality type is dominant over experience'? The example of Srinivasa Ramanujam is sufficient, isn't it? The 'experiences', or the circumstances for him to grow as a mathematician was practically nil. He had almost no formal training in pure mathematics. Still, before he died at the age of 32, he had already done enough to become one of the greatest names in world mathematics. Maybe this is called 'vasana'(propensity).

That is not an example of personality type. That is only an exception among personalities. But doesnt that show that experience is not necessary when it comes to pure propensity?

If people become something according to their 'propensity', then you say that people become who they are according to their propensity. Don't you think that at least in some  cases, experience overpowers propensity and distorts it? Cant negate that. Experience and inclination works hand in hand for the development of a personality.

Then doesn't that follow that experience dominates propensity then?  One's inclination or one's bent may use any experience for its development. But when there are unfavourable circumstances, they may remain dormant. Anyway you are talking about distortion, aren't you?

Can't experiences create an inclination? Means one steals first, approves the act and then becomes a habitual thief?

Do you think that people are born thieves owing to propensity? Maybe.

So you think people become thieves and policemen and army men according to their propensities, dont you? I certainly wont say that, but I say some people may have a born inclination to steal, or to fight, or be morally upright.


But you just accepted the fact that sometimes experience may be the most determinant factor in behaviour formation. So what? Fuck you!

Fuck you too!! 

(to be continued)