That struck me as, then and even now, a useful contribution to the debate.

I find it interesting that I am too young to remember any time when the genetic determinist approach dominated all- and when I look at the literature of the Victorian era, it seems to me that an environmentalist perspective was always there in contention, so I don’t think genetics ever controlled the conversation. OTOH, I remember that in recent decades environmentalism was almost totally dominant, such that some parts of our society had ceased to believe in heredity at all save for the crudest physical appearance factors.

With that in mind, I tend to think heredity’s truths, especially the more obvious ones, still need the effort behind them. THose 3 laws seem reasonable as a hybrid position.

Even so, there’s room for not only environmental factors, but opportunity. Who would think otherwise?

Consider Bonaparte, the 19th century’s favourite example. He seemed to inherit many ambitious and mercurial traits and a taste for intrigue and political/violent adventurism from his father, and sternness and implacability famously from his mother. His siblings got other traits for good and ill, though seemingly some share of those, and Nap got the lion’s share. I’m sure environment played a role. But opportunity was the largest factor. He found himself in a world in chaos. That same man a generation earlier or even later might have risen to colonel and been an aggressive battlefield leader. Still expression of his hereditary and learned traits, just without the wider field.

Stalin himself was probably no Bonaparte- his individual role in setting himself up at the top was less adventurous and personal and more about being a man of system and cunning in a new system he helped set up. Put Stalin and Lenin and Trotsky together, you would have something nearer Bonaparte.

But still, he had been an adventurer, gangster, gunman, revolutionary of even lower social origin, presented with the opportunity of his times. It’s quite true that his son amounted to little, but even then it’s probably not about heredity or even about the impact of his childhood. He could have been a second Stalin in all elements but one- the political circumstances of the 1920s- and he wouldn’t have replicated his father’s career. The system wasn’t organized for that kind of succession, and his father had sucked all the air out of the room anyway.

Sidebar- AS to Svetlana and the possible impact of childhood environment- have you all seen the photo of little Svetlana sitting on the lap of Lavrenti Beria? Jesus. Not many scarier photos. She looks almost as psycho as he does.

Are you going to flavour the Murray love-in with some negative reviews by any chance?

E.g: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RPDAI1GUKU00U

For someone with little to no knowledge on the subject, a mix of views rather than ex-cathedra pronouncements strikes me as the proper approach.

These metaphors occur in every tradition besides the scientific materialism, a radical metaphysical break, perhaps without equal in world history.

It would be funny if everyone else was right.