Nature and disposition and character and action

I am weary of foggy meanings.

I am a scientist. For the honor of truth I must admit that most of what I’ve done for the past several years has been programming and code maintenance, but I’m a scientist still.

So, can you say that this is my nature?

I wouldn’t. I think this breakdown is clearer:

• Nature is those aspects of me that I share with other humans; the things that make me human and not (for example) feline. "Form," if you want to get all Greek about it. For example, I need to be with other people—humans are social. (True, I also need to be alone sometimes, but this is also part of human rhythms.)
• Disposition is the set of distinctive aspects I came with. I’m diffident. I’m a quick thinker; good at spotting key features in things. I was born with a strong and healthy body.
• Character is what I made of these: with training I became good at analysis, and at figuring out which things were measurable and running the numbers; cross checking with a disrespect for pronouncements. In other words I’m a scientist. I’m also the one standing at the side in the party. And because I liked reading more than active play, that "healthy body" is overweight and I’m no good at sports.
• I discovered over the years that people weren’t always interested in hearing someone run the numbers on their blue-sky ideas or point out the logical flaws underpinning their political fashions. So I don’t always apply my training and my characteristic inclinations. Sometimes I even strike up a conversation with a stranger at a party—if the %*# band isn’t overamped. So my actions don’t always represent my character.

So: sometimes I act like a scientist. My character and habits are those of a scientist. I am disposed for analytical thinking—but I could have been something else besides a scientist. And my nature is like yours.