Children do already possess character at birth

[inavalan]

I  was curious about how and when people's character forms, because I had a suspicion that character is more related to the personality's level of evolvement than to the physical framework.

• "[... 3 paragraphs ...]
  
  A potpourri. Heredity plays far less a part in the so-called formation of character than is generally supposed.
  
  For that matter, [the same is true of] environment, as it is usually understood. Your cultural beliefs predispose you to interpret experience in terms of heredity and environment, however, so that you focus primarily upon them as prime causes of behavior. This in turn results in much more structured experience than necessary. You do not concentrate upon the exceptions — the children who do not seem to fit the patterns of their families or environments, so of course no attempts are made to view those kinds of unofficial behavior.
  
  Because of this, large organized patterns behind human activity often escape your notice almost completely. You read constantly of people who seem to have been most affected by fictional characters, for example, or by personalities from the past, or by complete strangers, more than they have been affected by their own families. Such situations are considered oddities.
  
  The human personality is far more open to all kinds of stimuli than is supposed. If information is thought to come to the self only through physical means, then of course heredity and environment must be seen behind human motivation. When you realize that the personality can and does have access to other kinds of information than physical, then you must begin to wonder what effects those data have on the formation of character and individual growth. Children do already possess character at birth, and the entire probable intent of their lives exists then as surely as does the probable plan for the adult body they will later possess."
  
  Consciousness forms the genes, and not the other way around, and the about-to-be-born infant is the agency that adds new material through the chromosomal structure.
  
  —NoME Part Two: Chapter 4: Session 827, March 13, 1978

[Deb]

I believe it.

I've known many families whose children were raised in the same house, with the same parents, and they ended up with completely different characters. Yep.

[inavalan]

I believe it.

I've known many families whose children were raised in the same house, with the same parents, and they ended up with completely different characters. Yep.

This made me wonder about life-blueprints (often discussed on this forum) in relation to people who commit crimes, some of them abominable.

I don't believe that such actions are part of their life-blueprints. I don't think that they agreed to a mission, as some authors suggest, to "help" others pay a "karmic debt", or such.

Those must be failures of the incarnated entity, which probably chose a too ambitious life-blueprint, above its abilities, and next time will have to choose more wisely.

[Deb]

I do wonder about that myself. Like, what's the purpose of a Jeffrey Dahlmer or Ed Gein, etc? Events like 9-11 can be explained by fanaticism and mass events, but there are a lot of horrible things humans do that I cannot understand.

I also wonder how much more Seth could have explained had Jane not died so young.

Those must be failures of the incarnated entity, which probably chose a too ambitious life-blueprint, above its abilities, and next time will have to choose more wisely.

Or just curiosity? I now question whether the entity or even ATI are as  knowing and infallible as I have imagined.

Where is Seth when we have so many questions? (That being the most important one, lol.)