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

 

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!

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Ps Ramin.

I just instinctively guessed that your picture logon and topic all intersected with the holy book of the Zoroastrians.. the book of potions I think it’s called.

My bad.

Close! My avator is Persian, but not Zoroastrian. Furthermore, he is known as the best Persian Scientist (Abu-Ali Sina, or Avicenna, go look him up), though he may be one of the best, or the best, Persian doctor and philosopher. I believe he started the ethanol treatment.

So when I come here I come with a science orientation, but well aware of the flaws of science, especially with regard to my own specialty, Psychology.

If you are saying the difference lies in the environment' date=' and that part of the environment is the torture itself, then you cannot verify relative changes in your variables.

 

[u']Certainly not[/u] in any way that will allow you to rule out factors you don't want to consider.

 

It's problems with simple experimental method, coupled with a lack of proper hypotheses.

I'm using "environment" to mean what is in the external environment in relation to the subjective agent. In my example, torture is part of the external environment. Genes, are the inherited internal environment. Just because some genes don't mix well with irrational, controllable, and preventable acts such as torture, it doesn't mean that these genes are causally important.

I'm really not sure if you're following this. Maybe it's more simple that you first assumed.

That's all well and good' date=' but not relevant to this thread, where the O/P asks a question which explicitly requires personality exists as a condition of the discussion.

 

What you need is a new thread.[/quote']

 

 

Really? I would think that if someone asks something about X, and I believe they are making a mistake and talking about Y, or I believe that X does not even exist, I would think that my thoughts are highly, if not the most, relevant.

 

Interesting though. Interesting experience.

It's not an analysis. As I said' date=' it's merely my observation.

 

Having said that, the observations have been consistent between all people I have ever known who regularly smoke cannabis for recreation. They all have self-serving tendencies - and little interest in the needs or feelings of others - when compared to non-users.[/quote']

 

 

Odd observation. Are you sure its not a "confirmation bias" or "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

 

Its been my observation that people who smoke marijuana are the smartest and most morally considerate people in comparison to non-smokers.

I don't dispute that. Never mind the "self" thing - I'm ignoring the fact that Ramin wants to have his cake and eat it' date=' and am continuing the discussion about [b']personality[/b], which is the subject of the thread.

 

Either Ramin's reasoning is horribly flawed or he is completely off-topic.

Ok, now I catch ya.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as personality and personality is just an illusion. The idea is that the self is the only thing that exists, and the brain operations the self allows are what we think is personality, eventhough these are made by the environment and can be retracted by the self at any time.

In the case of Down's Syndrome, the same thing applies. Brain processes and behavior are influenced by the environment, and do not (in my opinion) constitute personality, while the self is the definition I gave in the previous post.

Does your opinion include "special exceptions" for genetically-rooted conditions that impair the faculties of the brain, such as Down's Syndrome?

So you're saying Down's Syndrome people don't have a self? I personally think their self, as well as animal selves etc., is constituted by the same principles as healthy human selves. But that doesn't mean they have the same self.

For example, the self could be the agent's existence and orientation in their environment. All agents exist differently and are oriented differently in their environment, yet the same principle constructs the self each time.

It has been my observation that (in general) people who are dependent on pot are more actively antisocial and insular than the average person. The only people they seem to be genuinely interested in socialising with are people with whom they might exchange pot.

 

That seems like the opposite of being shunned to me.

Well, your analysis (if serious) is confounded by, the fact being shunned would cause social withdrawal. So it supports the idea of stigma.

In other words, you're in the chicken-egg mode. Its clear to me, however, which came first.

that's exactly correct.

 

but I think Ramin is an exception.

 

His logon name is from a particular part of the world where there is an integration between culture religion and that particular plant.

They hardly have marijuana from where my name comes from (West Asia). They have hashish.

It has been my observation that (in general) people who are dependent on pot are more actively antisocial and insular than the average person. The only people they seem to be genuinely interested in socialising with are people with whom they might exchange pot.

 

 

yeah because everyone else seems not to be enjoyable to be around when high' date=' like they have a problem of some kind. Well it's only natural to fear what we don't understand I guess. Like a drunk but not.[/quote']

 

 

Bravo!

It seems that by classifying the torture as "environment" (which it isn't' date=' in terms of how nurture/nature inter-relate) you are basically saying "different torture = different results".

 

Which is (a) hardly revolutionary thinking, and (b) tells you [u']nothing[/u] about genetic involvement.

Maybe the problem is that my argument can be taken in different ways. No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that in that scenario, torture is in the environment of the two people, and the so-called "nature" of two groups of people (and herein lies the problem) interacts with this torture so that only one group develop mental illness.

This is the "sense" I'm speaking in. From the argument I gave it follows that the "nature" of the situation is not as important to the "nurture." The sense of "importance" I'm talking about is the sense of "cause" and "relief."

Occam might not agree with you.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

 

Are you ok?

Let's just say that they didn't reach their full potential because they were distracted.

Distracted by what? And why were they distracted?

These are the questions I ask myself, and the picture becomes clear. It is the effect of the comparative superiority-inferiority complexes of the enviornment, via certain information and norms, that causes all the problems, such as mental disorders. People who become dependent to pot, I'll guarantee it that they've been shunned in some way. That is, who they are is not as accepted, and they do not have the resources (belief-systems, environments, and/or rights) to combat this issue.

I think that's the normal reaction.

I have been watching the long term effects in some of my old school friends.

I'm sad for them.

Thanks for the clarification.

Effects of marijuana?

What do you mean exactly?

I feel ya AnxietyZone. Just don't forget that your anxiety is in reaction to your environment and you have to change your environment (and not blame yourself) to feel better.

Actually, I went through anxiety disorder and social phobia for a while, and currently am trying to avert a deep depression. I sought friends, and when I found that even one person cares for me I became much more confident. Furthermore, I became more active in things I was interested, and was confident in myself. I did not listen to when people thought I had a problem. They were wrong. Difference does not mean disorder in any way.

It seems that you "admit" your problem, as seen in your name. I just wouldn't go too far with that so that it becomes a label and self-fulfilling prophecy, even a little.

p.s. I'm not a clinician (yet), just a psychology researcher currently.

I did deserve that.

 

But just because I like to sit on the sand' date=' what makes you think I cant swim in the ocean?

(Metaphorical)

 

sorry, back to THC and it's effect on attention. [/quote']

 

 

I don't think so! You might be the wisest person around. I have a vendetta against modern determinism and this will be felt in reaction to deterministic comments, even if the person is not a determinist. It's like a virus in the environment.