Probably more than anything else in the world. I wouldn't be close to where I am, or who I am, without mine, and that's an observation that I can extend to pretty much everyone I know well.
You have an abstract theory, partially supported by some observations you haven't detailed, and which you haven't argued for or clearly stated.
I don't need to argue for my observations. I experienced them and quite enjoyed growing up with them.
You don't need to argue, but if you want to find the truth of the matter, then it might help to argue. Through arguing, but not through asserting, we can sometimes learn that we have mistaken ideas and change our minds.
Once upon a time I talked to this guy, and he runs a group of Objectivists, and says he's a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and how much her books influenced him. And he talked a bit about his life. And you know what? He had lived it roughly in the opposite way to what one of Rand's heros would have done. He played it safe, didn't stand up for his values, settled for less, cared what others thought of him, didn't have the drive to pursue difficult goals, etc
He thought he was strongly influenced by something, and lived his life by it, and he'd failed to notice how little he acted on that influence.
Such stories are common. I have no idea if your interpretation of what influenced you is correct or not, but I do know that people often are mistaken about these things.
Suppose you were genetically programmed, and part of that programming made you think your parents were important. Couldn't that account for your experiences too? (I think it could not, but only due to some philosophical arguments. I think your experiences don't contradict the genetic theory.)
Presenting the alternative theory requires evidence to support it, otherwise it too is nothing but an abstract theory.
I am more concerned with the quality of arguments than with whether I agree with their conclusion.
ps, Someone upvote parent please: I accidentally downvoted thismat.