No. You said if he had no personality then he would not have had the reactions he had. You're unequivocally linking his reactions to him having a personality. So in essence you are saying reactions make personality.
No, that is not what "I am saying essentially". You lack the correct logical derivation there. The reactions Broly has - not to mention that mentioning "reactions" were simply an example; you very skillfully ignored the obvious fact that just because I use the word "reactions" but there is more than just reactions alone - require him having a personality in the first place. The way he acts and reacts to things is the direct result of Broly's organismic experience and the way he copes, the way he adapts/responds/et cetera to that. What you say with "so in essence you say reactions make personality" is flat out wrong because it would mean I said "reactions <=> personality" and I never said that (even though it is not 100% wrong either) but that you can conclude he has one from his reactions alone. I have not made a biconditional statement about "making personality" and if you understood that you were clearly misinterpreting. Deriving that he has one because I watch him act and react is not the same thing as saying "because he reacts like that he establishes
that personality from those things
" as you claimed with the "make personality" part. Don't even try to twist my words because it was not what I essentially said. You are forcing some disturbance of communication here. Also I strongly dislike how you purposely focussed on me mentioning reactions alone. I should not need to tell you there is more than that. On top of that, I am not merely talking about behaviourism, treating the brain as a black box but actually also talking about cognitive psychology as well.
People can right characters that react to situations, that doesn't mean that character has to have any semblance of a personality.
No, it does not mean that and if you would have any knowledge about psychology you would know that it is literally impossible for a person to have no personality. It starts with the dynamics of personality that every person has - every person - and then you start compiling more and more characteristics that make you the person that you are with this of course being a continous process. A person can say about a piece of fiction that a shallow written character has no personality to express that personis extremely shallow but there is still the requirement of personality existing for anything that happens with that person. "Person x has no personality" is a hyperbolic statement the same way when I say "Dragon Ball has no story" just because it is very, very shallow. If you think there is 0 personality, or want to use it like that, then no, you are as a matter of fact wrong. What you say has no foundation, just as it is normal in this forum. And when you even try to argue science with me, a science you do not understand and have never learned, just for the sake of it, it is getting ridiculous (and why should I not be allowed to say that already thinking about what you have said about me in the lower quote?). It just emphasizes an incredibly inflexible self-concept. And if the "replying" sign from 30 minutes ago was for a reply at me this is just another sign that you are readying a post that only once more reflects polemical intentions without background knowledge that is better off not existing as it does not serve an actual productive exchange of knowledge.
I'd also rather not bring degrees into this because it means nothing. I don't know how you lived your life but just because you have a degree in something doesn't automatically make you right or make your opinion any more valid than anybody else's.
While it is interesting that you try to get personal by half-veiled insults along the line of "you probably suck at what you have learned" yes, it gives me and other people who are also knowledgable in their own area of expertise a lot more credibility. In no way that means people are infallible and that was never part of my statement. You are just once more trying to get off the actual point. That you start off by thinking a person literally can have no personality at all and surely have not even heard of half the stuff I could roll out because of that but won't because you just would not accept it anyway and probably counter with some stuff like "you know-it-all, I already told you I don't agree with you and that you can be wrong etc" shows me this already is wasted time. And yes, very obviously my experience about that helps a lot because you clearly have no knowledge here and come to wrong conclusions, purposely twist what I say by making false statements like I said something about biconditional logic. Now of course the probabilities are high and this does not phase you at all because you once more write for the argument alone instead of a chance of coming to an agreement but whatever - I won't waste my time for that. You are clearly struggling with the axioms of communication just for polemical purposes and nothing that could be a part of your future response with this stance and way of thinking is gonna help anything at all.
EDIT: And of course you have replied. As I said. Inflexible self-concept. It will not change scientific truth, no matter how often you respond to it. It is already ridiculous discussing with you Dragon Ball at times but now this - this is a new high. Disregarding such a thing - wow. I already had you on my ignore but now you have completely disqualified yourself for any future arguments. This is beyond reason.