Tristan Trim on Knowingless

Is it really 50/50 for personality? I focus on CS and math, not psych or bio, so I'm not sure how much I'd need to learn, but how do you even measure that? As for crazy speculation about ways that poly-monog would split between nurture and nature... I feel like the nature would be like the "raw material" you have to work with: Your inbuilt feelings and desires. The nurture would be socializing and learning to introspect and form abstract models of your own feelings and rationalize about other peoples feelings. The work of learning that stuff would be easier or harder depending on your natural disposition. Afaik, women have an easier time getting more skilled with language from a younger age and I wonder if the statistical difference in disposition and motivation between boys and girls plays a role there or if it's something more to do with the language acquisition structure of the brain itself. A complication is the fact that, iirc, and I think this is what you mean by personality being 50/50, is that the feelings and desires are not static when you are born, rather there are systems for "imprinting" feelings and desires at appropriate times, such as during puberty, but also as trivially as whether we are hungry or not. Like we have meta-selves that continually reprogram our conscious selves. But with the simplified model of a "desire core" and then abstract modelling of and around that desire core. From a first approximation it seems like the modelling could try to plan contexts to most please the desire core, and so if the desire core isn't strongly specifying poly or monog as desireable than the modelling, if sufficiently skilled, could fit either the context of poly or monog to work well for the core of desires. Considering the other possible extreme, it is possible that a persons desire core would specify a definite preference for one or the other. I would guess a desire for poly would be more popular because of human drive for novelty and big happy friend groups and stuff, but that might be my own bias. But that does get into the complication that probably the core of desires doesn't specify terms for poly or monog specifically, but instead specifies things that are upstream like (for example) lust and jealousy, and so then the abstract modelling is trying to resolve the opposing desires to have lots of partners VS the desire to jealously guard your partners. How the abstract modelling resolves it (if it even does) would depend on the structure of the desire core and the skill and techniques of the abstract modelling (which itself is both nature and nurture). And I don't think we really have the tools or techniques yet for being able to really study and analyze that kind of thing. Please say if I'm wrong on that! Plus I don't think the actual structure of peoples desire cores can be understood very accurately with cumbersome umbrella words like "lust" or "jealousy". Probably the actual structure is much more complicated and nuanced. The question then is how much that complication and nuance matters for analysis, and I would guess it matters quite a bit. Does it seem like I am thinking things that people are researching, or just spinning uninterpretable nonsense? Lol.