In “NDT” and “YDIYM” I offered a new view of personality in contravention to the prevailing consensus of learning theory, i.e. that reinforcements and instincts are enough to account for the complexities of how a dogs’ behavior changes over time. I discovered that two dogs living together and treated exactly the same (even were this 100% possible) nevertheless gravitate toward different emotional polarities so that they become their equal and yet opposites. My theory is wholly consistent with the finding described in the NYT article linked above. In contrast, owners, behaviorists, biologist, ethologists, trainers have ascribed this variability in behavior, learning style and overall disposition, to the dog’s personalities and genetically encoded instincts. Furthermore this pattern of variation, one aspect of it being the phenomena of personality, is indicative of an underlying template that organizes all acts of learning and any instance of behavior changing over time. I predict that the mainstream will invoke epigenetics to account for new findings such as these, but this will not prove to be an adequate explanation since it is predicated on a faulty foundation, i.e. the random variability of genes. An immediate-moment analysis of behavior reveals that genes subscribe to this underlying template as well. In fact the very phenomenon of sociability is a manifestation of this template. The first traits of organisms (in service to interactions with other organisms) are the predator and prey polarities, and then in response to resistance these traits evolve into male and female in higher organisms, and then an infinite gradient of Active–Reactive—Direct—Indirect, encoding for what we have traditionally recognized as personalities. These are increasingly complex elaborations of the first traits, prey/predator, each the emotional counterbalance to the other.