Situational versus genetic causes for personality change

How can a differentiation be made on basis of genetic markers , or, existential qualifiers, when the characteristic personality changes may developmentally change through
natural selection?

Or if, prima facea , such a hypothetical does not suffice, at the prescribed level sought after?

What if, successive generations based on increasingly adopted characteristics, with a demeaned level of increasingly conflated ‘normalcy’ , diffused inquiry on similarly based but previously differentially categorized levels?

To me, this spells an ominous trend, with effects that cause an equally parallel deconstruction of such existential qualifiers: further effecting a relapse of the onus to the genetic markers.

: "The Case of the Midwife Toad, by Arthur Koestler of biologist Arthur Kammer’s presentatuon of a possible conspiratorial act by anti Lamarkians, appears to propose such a prime faciae argument.

Therefore, may evolutionary principles could be shown to lie on such vagrant
politically motivated motivations?

If so, can the entire structural veracity fall into a domino effected chasm?

The basic statement by historians of science, consider only a single lifetime of the road, whereas it would have been more probable for genetic markets to change over multiple lifetimes.

In fact, does the whole idea of heredity can infuse the biological and the psychological into a single trait, a reductive process, excluding minor non determining factors, thereby insufficiently disqualifying the major ones?

On that level, it seems, the base of the argument sets in motion the increasing but mistaken idea of the break in progressive seriality.

Can a subsequent etiology be contrived, purely in terms of such weakly entertained ground?

If yes, or possibly, or even probably, then our current obsession with Tump’s personality within the larger canvas of political expediency, should not be so surprising.

The result is the ultimate political advantage gained by expediency, at the cost of the loss of autonomy.

Autonomy , or the bedrock of personal will to choose, is pretty sacred a value to play marbles with, and can and dies result the loss of it. On the level of a language wrought by mutually exclusive regeneration, of which revision is the psychological equivalent, everything and everybody becomes an arguable commodity.

But with no inference intended good or bad, Such dispossessivd capital should have been moderated after the absurd tulip panic in a country which had modern defined the efficacy of capital accumulation.