to think children should be randomly reallocated at birth?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I think this would solve a lot of problems.

For instance, I have a tendency to experience anxiety. My DC therefore both inherit my anxiety genes and also learn from my anxious behaviours (even if I try to minimise this) - a double whammy. If they had been reallocated to someone else, and I had been allocated someone else's biological DC (perhaps with a genetic tendency to feel angry, say; something I suffer less often), this might potentially all get ironed out.

OK, so there are some potential problems with the scheme. But AIBU to think it might have its advantages?

I haven't rtft so sorry if someone already said this - but in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (and earlier), this is basically what happened. Wealthy families farmed those kids out until they were 2-4 yrs old and then had them back. Jane Austen's disabled brother was left with his other family permanently.

That's interesting, nags. I suspect it may have been different from the systematic, random, universal reallocation we need for our scheme to work though....

And his conclusion on each factor was that genetics was the majority of the story and parenting style made only the tiniest or no difference.

Well a glaring issue there is that you seem to be ignoring all the other factors besides genetics and parenting style! To extend my citation above:

'[G]enetic factors accounted for approximately 40 to 50 per cent of the variance among people in [personality] trait scores. In contrast, the degree of resemblance did not differ much whether the twin pairs were reared together or apart, showing that general features of the family environment, such as its emotional climate and degree of affluence, accounted for little variance in any of the traits. However, this does not mean that experience is not important. Rather than the family environment, it was the individual's unique environmental experiences, such as his or her school experiences and interactions with peers, that accounted for considerable personality variance. Even within the same family, individual children have different experiences while growing up. Indeed, as well as outside the home, these may be environmental inside the home, as parents may treat their children differently. It is these unique experiences that help shape personality development.'

Nags it happened a lot in Irish rural areas too. My granny was doled out to a wealth(ier) bachelor uncle at about 3 for a number of years in the hope she would be left his farm. She wasn't. I think it's creepy as hell but she sees it as fairly normal (as you might expect).

Smilia Oh yes, the other factors were also discussed. Like I said, peers had a lot of influence. And he also talked about personal choices and individual experiences, exactly as you say. But I just have the impression that the genetic component was higher than 40/50 percent.

Snap! My father and his siblings were all split up when their mum died (also in Ireland). The girls went to a well-to-do uncle, and the boys stayed with their violent alcoholic dad. Guess which cohort did better...