> It seems possible to me that it would be advantageous for there to be randomness baked into personality There is also a question of possibility. Do we really

> It seems possible to me that it would be advantageous for there to be randomness baked into personality There is also a question of possibility. Do we really understand how few hundred megabytes of information driving a soup of self-replicating peptides could encode the details of large, complex organisms, completely with all their behaviors, regardless of environment and random flukes? It's a miracle that this stuff works even as far as we can observe it working. And on a somewhat tangential note: People discovered genes and sorta jumped to conclusion that there must be genes for every adjective they have ever come up with to describe organisms. They used genetics to justify various eugenics movements. 100 years later, we still have trouble finding genes responsible for complex features. I somewhat trollishly call it "intelligent design" or, more specifically, "anthropomorphically-intelligent design" because it really is an assumption that life is a sort of machinery designed in the same way the current generation of humans would go about engineering that kind of stuff, i.e. describe the "features" we think organisms have and figure out ways to "implement" them using biological processes we assume to be possible. I'm not saying that I know a better way. I'm just not really surprised when science delivers less than people hope and hype.