how do we get our persoanlity?

[Macroscopic]

lol

[ramin]

So you don't think' date=' maybe, that if a unique "cache of memories and experience" is what we term "personality", then personality [u']does in fact exist[/u]?

 

 

Not if those memories and experiences are not part of the person.

 

Furthermore, despite the "simplistic beauty" and crowd-pleasing, the definition you've agreed to is not the mainstream definition. So the critiques on this thread are more than apt.

[Sayonara]

I don't believe I have agreed a definition, nor have I pleased a crowd (unless you consider pleased to be the same as entertained, and macroscopic to be a crowd, in which case you must lack perspective.)

 

What I have done is point out that if we label something (read: anything) that exists as "personality", then dismissing personality as non-existant is pretty much unjustifiable, especially if it's only for the purposes of giving it a new label.

[Ophiolite]

I was trying to work out how we get our personalities.. any ideas?

I rent mine from Nerds 'R' Us.

[ramin]

I don't believe I have agreed a definition' date=' nor have I pleased a crowd (unless you consider pleased to be the same as entertained, and macroscopic to be a crowd, in which case you must lack perspective.)

 

What I have done is point out that if we label something (read: anything) that exists as "personality", then dismissing personality as non-existant is pretty much unjustifiable, especially if it's only for the purposes of giving it a new label.[/quote']

 

 

The label of a concept is highly important and should match the nature of the concept itself. The label "personality," as our friend Chatha here accurately pointed out, is an invalid convenience. We needed to refer to our thoughts and memories as ours, but that may be just a starting point to discovering what our thoughts and memories really are, and constructing more precise labels.

 

My point is that labels are important, they change, and should become less misleading and more precise. I really felt Chatha had a really good point that there is no such thing as "personality" as it is usually connotated.

 

Cheers

[Sayonara]

I largely agree with that. But if the question is "where do we get our personality", identifying what it is takes priority over listing what it isn't.

[ramin]

I largely agree with that. But if the question is "where do we get our personality", identifying what it is takes priority over listing what it isn't.

 

How about whether it exists?

[Sayonara]

The fact that you're asking that question implies a preconception on your part that is at odds with the O/P's intentions.

[ramin]

More of an argument than a preconception. Furthermore, before answering "how one gets X," one needs to know what X is, which is the question I've implicitly initiated. How are we going to discuss something when we are actually discussing different things or nothing?

 

Let the opener of the thread explain what s/he means by personality, then the thread will be on track. I think its unfair to simply pin this on selected individuals.

[Mokele]

The label "personality," as our friend Chatha here accurately pointed out, is an invalid convenience. We needed to refer to our thoughts and memories as ours, but that may be just a starting point to discovering what our thoughts and memories really are, and constructing more precise labels.

 

To the best of my knowledge, however, thoughts and memories are *not* personality. From what I understand of it, "personality" refers to how individuals process informations (such as thoughts and memories), rather than the information they are processing. One individual might have a tendency to filter negative experiences through "rose colored glasses", while another might not. The actual experiences, thoughts and memories being filtered aren't the personality, but rather the personality is the presence or absence of the filter (for example).

 

Individuals who have similar experiences will react to them differently and even think about things differently. We can quantify these persistent differences in information processing and test for them, and these *detectable* differences are called "personality".

 

Mokele

[Void]

To the best of my knowledge' date=' however, thoughts and memories are *not* personality. From what I understand of it, "personality" refers to how individuals process informations (such as thoughts and memories), rather than the information they are processing. One individual might have a tendency to filter negative experiences through "rose colored glasses", while another might not. The actual experiences, thoughts and memories being filtered aren't the personality, but rather the personality is the presence or absence of the filter (for example).

 

Individuals who have similar experiences will react to them differently and even think about things differently. We can quantify these persistent differences in information processing and test for them, and these *detectable* differences are called "personality".

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

The only problem with that Mokele, is that often, our past experience helps shape and define those filters.

 

Personlity can be defined as emergent tendencies of the person through general system form, function and experience.

[ramin]

To the best of my knowledge' date=' however, thoughts and memories are *not* personality. From what I understand of it, "personality" refers to how individuals process informations (such as thoughts and memories), rather than the information they are processing. One individual might have a tendency to filter negative experiences through "rose colored glasses", while another might not. The actual experiences, thoughts and memories being filtered aren't the personality, but rather the personality is the presence or absence of the filter (for example).

 

Individuals who have similar experiences will react to them differently and even think about things differently. We can quantify these persistent differences in information processing and test for them, and these *detectable* differences are called "personality".

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

It's true, that definition is seldom used, though it might be connotated here and there.

 

However, even with that definition, it is highly contestable that "personality" is not an accurate term, especially if the "filter," as you put it, is influenced directly and indirectly by the environment. It is hard to see how it is the person's. Even traits may actually be trends dictated by the environment.

[Mokele]

It's true, that definition is seldom used, though it might be connotated here and there.

 

Seldom used? Um, I pulled that definition from my first-year psychology textbook as the definition of personality.

 

However, even with that definition, it is highly contestable that "personality" is not an accurate term, especially if the "filter," as you put it, is influenced directly and indirectly by the environment. It is hard to see how it is the person's. Even traits may actually be trends dictated by the environment.

 

My body is also influenced by the environment, does that make it not mine? Or not the product of genes? The fact of the matter is that genes and environment interact to produce our bodies and brains. Because there is some environmental input, or some learning, does not mean that the modified aspect does not exist, only that it is mutable.

 

Mokele

[aswokei]

Definition of personality:

 

The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.

 

As long as you don't get all quantum physical, it can be agreed that humans indeed exist. Let me know now if we're not on the same wavelength. If humans exist, then it follows that personalities exist since all humans have traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior. Are there any flaws in my logic?

 

The way a person appears and conducts himself are parts of his personality. Scientific studies strongly indicate that these factors are determined by both nature and nurture, however probably more by nature as shown in identical twin studies.

 

However, I'd still like to hear more about your theory and how you explain identical twins.

 

P.S. What do you mean be external and internal principles? You gotta be more specific and less hazy with your communication. Do you mean external as in nurture and internal as nature?

[ramin]

Seldom used? Um, I pulled that definition from my first-year psychology textbook as the definition of personality.

 

The definition you were going against!

 

 

My body is also influenced by the environment, does that make it not mine? Or not the product of genes?

 

Now that's just gibberish. Honestly take a liguistics course. Your "body is influenced by the environment" and makes it not yours according to my argument? Lol... That's a new one! What in heavens do you, or can you, mean by this funny assertion? If you are talking about nutritional and developmental factors acting on your body, then whichever part of the process is influenced by the environmet is influenced by the environment, and which ever part is influenced via genes is influenced via genes.

 

Personality, implies that the person produces the traits. If this is not so, why imply it?

 

Comon Mokele...

 

The fact of the matter is that genes and environment interact to produce our bodies and brains.

 

Wha? What does this have to do with anything? You're not saying much...

 

Because there is some environmental input, or some learning, does not mean that the modified aspect does not exist, only that it is mutable.

 

Mokele

 

With some exceptions, the environment produces behaviors. Ofcourse, by mediation of genetic endowment.

 

Adios Amigos

[ramin]

Definition of personality:

 

The totality of qualities and traits' date=' as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. [/quote']

 

That's a "peculiar" definition.

 

If humans exist, then it follows that personalities exist since all humans have traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior.

 

What? Now we changed the definition? Well, its all odd and detached definition anyway. The problem is mainly that "traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior" is a stupid sentence. What do we mean by character? This might be an illusory concept in the way its used. Do we mean traits that are produced by the person? I disagree that such a thing exists. And if they are not produced by the person, the label personality is misleading.

 

Are there any flaws in my logic?

 

 

The way a person appears and conducts himself are parts of his personality.

 

What if they are constituted not in the person, but in the environment, and are intrinsically unstable?

 

Scientific studies strongly indicate that these factors are determined by both nature and nurture, however probably more by nature as shown in identical twin studies.

 

Behavioral Genetics or scientific studies? Let's not be vague. Also, behavioral genetics are riddled with assumptions you probably never even dreamed about, that confound and invalidate their results. However, there is *some* merit to their results. That is, traits are somewhat caused by genetics, and are sometimes stable. But this does not mean genetics is important as a cause. Genetic causes flourish in deficient environments, logically. So a genetic cause might signify the importance of the environment, as opposed to the importance of genetics.

 

Think about that last one.

 

However, I'd still like to hear more about your theory and how you explain identical twins.

 

An identical twin that develops a disorder, can have a twin that does not develop the disorder. (Duh! I know). The key is the conditions that prevented the disorder, not the fact that genes are sometimes involved. If the conditions that prevent the disorder are minimum conditions that are supposed to be in the environment (such as care or good nutrition), the genetics is not as important.

 

P.S. What do you mean be external and internal principles? You gotta be more specific and less hazy with your communication. Do you mean external as in nurture and internal as nature?

 

Haziness is necessary for clarity. Here, I'm still a little hazy myself. However, I stated a working hypothesis that the *self* which does exist by the way, may be constituted by general principles such as implicit acknowledgement of existence (an internal aspect), and the fact that this existing self is situated in an environment and must react to it (an external principle). This self can also be denied.

 

Along those lines...

[aswokei]

That's a "peculiar" definition.

 

When people normally speak about personality ("Oh, he has such a wonderful personality!") this is exactly what is meant. ("He has such wonderful traits and character"). It is not peculiar by any stretch of the imagination. Nope. No way.

 

What? Now we changed the definition? Well, its all odd and detached definition anyway. The problem is mainly that "traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior" is a stupid sentence. What do we mean by character? This might be an illusory concept in the way its used. Do we mean traits that are produced by the person? I disagree that such a thing exists. And if they are not produced by the person, the label personality is misleading.

 

What do we mean by character? You said it pretty well. "Do we mean traits that are produced by the person?"

 

Do we mean traits that are produced by the person? I disagree that such a thing exists.

 

Here is where we disagree and where the heart of the matter resides.

 

Do you disagree that people exist or that traits exist?

 

Both you and I have traits. I have blond hair and blue eyes. I can be hardheaded. Those, my friend, are traits.

 

What if they are constituted not in the person, but in the environment, and are intrinsically unstable?

 

I agree that environment plays a role in our personalities. Whether or not we inherited our personalities, they are still ours.

 

That is, traits are somewhat caused by genetics, and are sometimes stable. But this does not mean genetics is important as a cause. Genetic causes flourish in deficient environments, logically. So a genetic cause might signify the importance of the environment, as opposed to the importance of genetics.

 

Genetics determine to what degree you react to your environment. If you are programmed to conform, it will appear that environment is a greater factor for you than for others and vice versa.

 

Also, if a person with a superior genetic composition flourishes in a deficient environment, that's an indicator of the importance of genetics.

 

If you still think genetics affect us only mildly, read this article very carefully.

 

 

Twins

 

Haziness is necessary for clarity. Here, I'm still a little hazy myself. However, I stated a working hypothesis that the *self* which does exist by the way, may be constituted by general principles such as implicit acknowledgement of existence (an internal aspect), and the fact that this existing self is situated in an environment and must react to it (an external principle). This self can also be denied.

 

A self that does not exist by means of two contradicting principles?

 

I'm just a little curious. Where are you getting your information? Is this stuff you're making up? What have you been reading?

[Mokele]

With some exceptions, the environment produces behaviors. Ofcourse, by mediation of genetic endowment.

 

Actually, unless we're just covering humans, most behaviors are pure instinct. Even in humans, we have more instinct that most people realize.

 

Personality, implies that the person produces the traits. If this is not so, why imply it?

 

I never said they weren't. I merely said that there is an interaction between the traits and the environment that can alter the expresion of those traits. This does *not* mean that the traits are not produced inherent in the person, only that they are malleable. This is supported by the fact that heritability studies have shown that many personality traits are *highly* heritable between parents and offspring, even when adopted kids are used as the sample.

 

Mokele

[ramin]

When people normally speak about personality ("Oh, he has such a wonderful personality!") this is exactly[/i'] what is meant. ("He has such wonderful traits and character"). It is not peculiar by any stretch of the imagination. Nope. No way.

 

So now you're supporting an everyday connotation as a scientific definition? That's very weak, and not even an argument.

 

 

 

Here is where we disagree and where the heart of the matter resides.

 

Do you disagree that people exist or that traits exist?

 

Both you and I have traits. I have blond hair and blue eyes. I can be hardheaded. Those, my friend, are traits.

 

No, those are not psychological traits. They are reactions to a given environment. Traits imply stable things produced by the person.

 

This is very clear. If you're going to run away from the clear point, don't bother trying to argue.

 

 

 

I agree that environment plays a role in our personalities. Whether or not we inherited our personalities, they are still ours.

 

Have you heard of the User Illusion?

 

 

 

Genetics determine to what degree you react to your environment. If you are programmed to conform, it will appear that environment is a greater factor for you than for others and vice versa.

 

That's called determinism. You will regret being a determinist: it makes little sense and is oppressive.

 

It is very clear that genes do NOT determine the degree you react to your environment, but that the environment does. I'll give you an example. Respond to this example if you want to continue.

 

Child X and Y are two different kids. Let's assume an unfounded assumption that Child X's genes make her a bit more "passive" while Child Y's genes make her a bit less "passive." However, what do we mean by passive? Passive to what? In environment X, where let's say there is an abusive party, Child X becomes passive and depressed, what they call "learned helplessness" if you've heard of it. Child Y gets aggressive. Determinists such as yourself would say that the genes contribute to the difference. I say the environment contributes to it, and is the only important causal factor. Because in Environment Y, where there is no abusive party, Child X and Y essentially react the same way.

 

Also, if a person with a superior genetic composition flourishes in a deficient environment, that's an indicator of the importance of genetics.

 

No, you're playing with the semantics of "importance." What do you mean? Important in terms of existent causes, or important in terms of important? Sure, let's ASSUME genes allowed someone to resist a deficient environment, an assumption that has minor evidence to support it in the first place. But let's assume it, as I agree that it has some minor merit. Genetic composition X allowed person X to resist better. This is only important in the sense that genes existed as a causal factor, not that they are important as a causal factor. Since in environment Y, which is not deficient, person X and Y are equal, the environment is what matters.

 

If you still think genetics affect us only mildly, read this article very carefully.

 

Twins

 

 

I'll make sure to read this, but it better not be riddled with assumptions and be fully irrelevant to the argument, like other articles I've read. I'm pretty sure I've responded fully above, but I will for sure give you a chance and read the article as well followed by a comment.

 

 

I'm just a little curious. Where are you getting your information? Is this stuff you're making up? What have you been reading?

 

Cognitive Science has showed all of what I've said already, and found the holes in psychology ideology. But many others, such as some imminent biologists, anthropologists and environmental scientists, have more or less realized the above as well, though it is less integrated as it could be (such as above). That's what I do, I integrate facts.

 

Two Cognitive Science books: Natural Born Cyborgs by Andy Clarke (don't be distracted by the name)

The User Illusion by Noretranders

 

A book I'm not sure I would recommend, but that I'm enjoying so far is in the biological view and seems well intergrated and enlightened: Not by genes alone.

 

You should be able to tell that I'm not some closed-minded fool, though you might discriminate me as such by the "looks of it." Let me guess, you live in the US? I've had experiences like this from Americans a lot, unfortunately.

[ramin]

 

Twins

 

 

Goodness, what a waste! I thought you were going to show me something scientific, not media! And to think that people like you go around acting like they know stuff!

 

Just to elaborate on at least one core mistake in the twin study, which any sensible researcher will recognize, both kids lived in the same ****ing environment! Well that doesn't say much now does it if both environments are deficient! Lol...what a joke!

[ramin]

Actually, unless we're just covering humans, most behaviors are pure instinct. Even in humans, we have more instinct that most people realize.

 

And instincts have nothing to do with the environment right Mokele?

 

Lol...

 

 

I never said they weren't. I merely said that there is an interaction between the traits and the environment that can alter the expresion of those traits.

 

The definition of personality is stable traits. If you're talking inherently unstable traits, then we are in agreement, and there is no such thing as personality.

 

This does *not* mean that the traits are not produced inherent in the person, only that they are malleable.

 

A "trait" that is malleable is a contradiciton in terms. Now, the so-called "trait," which is stable, is 1- stable due to the environment, supporting the notion that personality does not exist. 2- What do you mean traits are produced inherently in the person? Give an example or something...

 

This is supported by the fact that heritability studies have shown that many personality traits are *highly* heritable between parents and offspring, even when adopted kids are used as the sample.

 

Do you know anything about the assumptions of Behavioral Genetics research, especially the results of their studies? Name me one. You seem to be highly misusing the data. Your idea of malleability is a bit sophisticated though, and I agree with that. But you realize that personality is supposed to be an inherently stable characteristic, right? That's the definition in psychology, and it seems that you are agreeing with me that it should be discarded.

 

Ra-min

[YT2095]

since genetics has a large say in our brain make-up and predispositions, and sections of ones personality can be removed from the brain with a scalpel, it would seem by extension that genetics plays a large part in personality and the Mind and the Self, no matter HOW you wrap it up

[aswokei]

So now you're supporting an everyday connotation as a scientific definition? That's very weak, and not even an argument.

 

It's not connotation. It's denotation. That is the definition of personality you would find in any dictionary.

 

I looked up the acronym DNA in the same dictionary and got this:

 

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics.

 

Anything unscientific about that? You seem very reluctant to give information about your own "ideas" ie., if you find my definition of personality unsatisfying, why not correct me and show me yours. This is a matter of learning and enlightenment, not a display of who's smarter than whom.

 

No, those are not psychological traits. They are reactions to a given environment. Traits imply stable things produced by the person.

 

This is very clear. If you're going to run away from the clear point, don't bother trying to argue.

 

Hardheadedness isn't a pyschological trait? Are you sure you want to argue that? Don't cop out on me. Give me some psychological traits if hardheadedness is not one.

 

You're employing fallacious reasoning. As if you can't have you can't have stable traits that are reactions to environment. If a girl gets angry every single time someone takes candy from her, that's a trait (indignance) which is also a reaction to environmental happenstance (someone taking away the candy) You're implying that it can only be one or the other when in fact, it's always the two together. (Genetics determine how you react to stimulus)

 

How do you think infants know how to suck nipples so well without having done it before?

 

Have you heard of the User Illusion?

 

No.

 

That's called determinism. You will regret being a determinist: it makes little sense and is oppressive.

 

It is very clear that genes do NOT determine the degree you react to your environment, but that the environment does. I'll give you an example. Respond to this example if you want to continue.

 

Child X and Y are two different kids. Let's assume an unfounded assumption that Child X's genes make her a bit more "passive" while Child Y's genes make her a bit less "passive." However, what do we mean by passive? Passive to what? In environment X, where let's say there is an abusive party, Child X becomes passive and depressed, what they call "learned helplessness" if you've heard of it. Child Y gets aggressive. Determinists such as yourself would say that the genes contribute to the difference. I say the environment contributes to it, and is the only important causal factor. Because in Environment Y, where there is no abusive party, Child X and Y essentially react the same way.

 

This is a really messy hypothetical situation, but here goes. If both child X and Y react differently to a similar environment, that's an indicator of the importance of environment how? If environment is the only important causal factor, in environment X, both of the children should have learned to react the SAME WAY because they were in the SAME ENVIRONMENT. You contradicted yourself. Do you see? You're tripping all over yourself.

 

Also, you imply that I'm a determinist. That I believe genes determine how a person is. But you say that environment is the primary force in personality. I don't see how that's not determinism either. That describes a person who just reacts and does not have free will.

 

No, you're playing with the semantics of "importance." What do you mean? Important in terms of existent causes, or important in terms of important? Sure, let's ASSUME genes allowed someone to resist a deficient environment, an assumption that has minor evidence to support it in the first place. But let's assume it, as I agree that it has some minor merit. Genetic composition X allowed person X to resist better. This is only important in the sense that genes existed as a causal factor, not that they are important as a causal factor. Since in environment Y, which is not deficient, person X and Y are equal, the environment is what matters.

 

Actually, you were the first one to 'play with the semantics of "importance"'.

So a genetic cause might signify the importance of the environment, as opposed to the importance of genetics.

 

You're right though. I really shouldn't stoop to your level.

 

Goodness, what a waste! I thought you were going to show me something scientific, not media! And to think that people like you go around acting like they know stuff!

 

Just to elaborate on at least one core mistake in the twin study, which any sensible researcher will recognize, both kids lived in the same ****ing environment! Well that doesn't say much now does it if both environments are deficient! Lol...what a joke!

 

I thought you said you were openminded. I guess only when information serves your own purposes. How do you explain this? And do not cop out on me.

 

The only things the twins really had in common is that they grew up in white, middle class, blue collar homes. But they were different homes with different families whose habits and traditions probably vary just as much as ordinary folk. That is does not mean they lived 'in the same **** environment!'.

 

And despite having never known about each other's existence, they had all of these facts in common:

 

 

1. Both were named Jim by their adoptive parents.

 

2. Each had married two times, the first to women named Linda and the second to women named Betty.

 

3. Jim Springer named his son James Allen, while Jim Lewis chose James Alan.

 

4. Both had dogs named Toy.

 

5. The two drank Miller Lite, smoked Salems and drove Chevrolets.

 

6. Both shared carpentry as a hobby and had built identical benches around trees in their backyard

 

7. They hated baseball and loved stock car racing.

 

8. They chewed their fingernails obsessively.

 

9. They both spent time as sheriff's deputies

 

10. Each was an average-to-poor student in high school.

 

11. They had voted for the same candidate in the past three presidential elections.

 

12. Each Jim doted on his wife by leaving love notes for her around the house.

 

13. Both had had a vasectomy.

 

 

I've read about this story in other places too. It turns out the twins also scored identically in IQ and personality tests.

 

 

Environment does not explain Jim. They lived separately in different houses and with different families with different ideals, philosphies, politics like you and I. According to the logic you used, it shouldn't be odd for my brothers and I to share traits the way the two Jims do. But we know that's not true. More faulty reasoning. Do you ever stop?

[Void]

Goodness' date=' what a waste! I thought you were going to show me something scientific, not media! And to think that people like you go around acting like they know stuff!

 

Just to elaborate on at least one core mistake in the twin study, which any sensible researcher will recognize, both kids lived in the same ****ing environment! Well that doesn't say much now does it if both environments are deficient! Lol...what a joke![/quote']

 

Doesn't that just say something about the effects of shared environment? And it still might be argued that although two individiuals are raised in the same household, they still experience it differently.

 

BTW, Bravo Aswokei!

[Kygron]

It looks to me like there are two different definitions of personality being used here.

1) Observed behavior set

2) Philosophical self

 

The words "observed" and "philosophical" probably sound like illusions to the alternate point of view, and are ignored. Attempting to debate while ignoring the other's viewpoint doesn't usually lead anywhere, which is exactly where I see this thread going.