Proof isn't always possible

Choices in behavior are more pronounced when they result in pain from consequence (mental anguish) or corporal discipline (physical pain response.) I asserted that this results in a binary tree of possible characters in any individual. However, some choices are not strictly binary, resulting from a list instead.  Machiavelli's book, "The Prince," is authoritative for it's use of binary logic. However, the necessity of "Discourses On Livy," points out that The (unabridged) Prince is not exhaustive of all government.  I theorize the omissions are the result of dichotomies based on lists, which are divided into a single major choice contrasted against all others in the list. Information not in The Prince would be found in subsections treating on list headings abbreviated under an umbrella choice that is contrasted to a single opposing option. I hasten to admit that speaking authoritatively on these would be challenging, but also erudite and worthwhile. However,...

In my book "Ethan And Emma Teach Dating," I asserted that choice has more influence in forming character than genetics (nature,) OR environment and stimuli (nurture.) Extant research on Nature v Nurture has focused on identical twins in disparate environments. (Identical nature in differing environments.)  To improve this, I suggest studying identical twins raised in IDENTICAL ENVIRONMENTS. We commonly observe is that, while (identical) twins exhibit an observable closeness that ordinary siblings do not, they are RARELY IDENTICAL in Character (behavior in response to identical stimuli.)  This should lead us to argue that neither Nature NOR Nurture is uniquely dominating in the formation of character - that force of mind that drives behavior.