peoples personality

[THanatosX]

I was thinking that our personalities are based on our genetics and enviroment.
So even the best people could be rapists and murderers if had different genes and raised differently.
So do u think it is their fault for being the way they are?
Discuss, and sorry for my bad english.

[Neve]

You've been reading my posts in the 'Do you believe in God' thread =D. Yes, I do believe that - the correct phrase to describe it is 'Determinism' thus the person who believes it is a 'Determinist'.

Every decision you make is based on your personality - on the person you are. If you were to reverse time to before a decision you made, with no knowledge of that reverse in time, you would make that exact decision again every single time. Every single time, the exact same thing would happen. Follow me?

Now, your personality (what you base every decision) is made up of two things: your hereditary constitution, and your experiences. Obviously you cannot change your hereditary constitution, but can you change your experiences?

Sadly, no. From the point you are born you cannot change your experiences. You may argue that you can change your experiences through your decisions, but these decisions are made by you, by your personality, by who you are. This, in turn, is made up of your past experiences, something which you created with decisions you could not change. A murderer is only a personality made up of experiences and genetic constitution and, while we may consider them evil, it is not as if they could have controlled what they grew up to be.

[Rising Phoenix]

The truth is that both are responsible to a degree: Genetics and experiences.

Genetics effect via various hormones. Example: If you have a lot of testosterone you'll be agressive or if your a teenager the various changes that are happening to your body make your character unstable.

Experiences well I don't think I have to explain it. Clear to see to I suppose but impossible to prove since you can never reverse life and take another path.

There have been various speculations/discusions on whic part affects us more and frankly there has been no theory that has been accepted widely.

Cheers.

R.P.

[Neve]

@ RP - I think what thanatos means is can we control any part of our lives? Are we, in fact, responsable for anything, reguardless of the degree to which it is experiences and the degree to which it is genes.

@ Tsukasaa - don't spam

[Tsukasaa]

Confusing!!!!!!!

[Jaran]

Heh, I just had this discussion with my sister the other day.

People are responsible for what they do, because regardless of their genetic heredity or past experiences, everyone can sense whether what they are doing is right or wrong. Granted, many of the things that go on in society today are not inherently right or wrong. However, every murderer, every rapist, has a knowledge that what he is doing is wrong.

Although there is the sidebar discussion of insane individuals who do not realize what they are doing is wrong because of the mere fact that they cannot understand anything. That's a completely different discussion though.

I think that your personality isn't so much resulting from genetics, but the environment that you were raised in. If you were raised by your parents, then yeah, it's going to seem like you "inherited" your personality. But it's not so much that you inherited it, as it is that your parents contributed to it through the way they raised you.

The way I was taught in school about personality development is that you are the sum of the environment you are raised in and all the experiences you have had over the course of your life. Some people believe that no one ever changes, that at their core they are always the same. Untrue. People's thoughts and definitions change all the time, and what are we, if not the sum of our thoughts and feelings?

[Rising Phoenix]

@ RP - I think what thanatos means is can we control any part of our lives? Are we, in fact, responsable for anything, reguardless of the degree to which it is experiences and the degree to which it is genes.


Ouer... That will teach me reading only the first 2 lines and then skimming through the rest of the text. My mistake sorry.

Hmmm now to answer Thanatos(Which in Greek means death. U Greek by any chance Thanatos??) question:

Tricky to be sure for we live in highly interactive and influencing communities and our genes are literly an abyss (we don't know how most of the work).

I'll put it this way then: If you killed a human with a knife. It's you who stabbed him regardless if someone told you to do it(in any way), your genes('cause you think like an animal dew to your genens)or your own free will('cause you're a freakin serial killer sick in the brain).You could always say "no" and don't do it or at least 'try' not to :winking56 .


So what my conclusion is: Yes we are responsible for the things we have control of ,even if partly. For our actions 'helped' that particular strand of time go the way it did.

Remember though that your the one with the 'knife' and in the end it's your choice that really matters. At least that's what I believe and that your experiences and genes are part of you too. It's up to you on how to use them.

Hope I make sense. :-)

R.P.

@ Jaran: True. I'll just say that there's no such thing as right or wrong. They're just matters of opinion ;). (Which you said some how in your post if you read it carefuly)

[Jaran]

@ Jaran: True. I'll just say that there's no such thing as right or wrong. They're just matters of opinion. (Which you said some how in your post if you read it carefuly)

So are you saying that murder and rape or kidnapping someone's child isn't wrong and are subject to the opinions of others? Anything that causes harm to another person is wrong. This isn't my opinion, this is an unalienable truth. So if I yell at my sisters or call them sluts, that is wrong.

As for other things, such as cloning or sex before marriage or public nudity, these things are not "right or wrong" with those things it's a matter of opinion. What I have concluded over the course of my life, is that society determining whether these things are right or wrong is baseless and crude. If someone wants to do something, and it doesn't harm anyone, then by God, he should be allowed to do it.

That's kind of off topic though...maybe I should start my own topic about that.

[Rising Phoenix]

@Jaran. In a way yes(not they're right of course). Causing pain is wrong for most of us but unfortunately not all...For example: Canibalism is wrong in our comunities but once upon a time it was the right thing to do in Papua New Guinea. So in our mind it's wrong in theyrs it's right. Same goes for some physcos I suppose but I haven't studied them and I'm not planning doing so.

Sorry 4 deviating the thread,

R.P.

[KT Samurai]

There was a time in history when rape, murder, and theivery was perfectly justifiable under the right conditions. And at the time of these events there was little to no guilt involved -- it was truly all right to perform them.

Any time a village was sacked, a city under siege, or a nation at war at any point in history warriors and nations were able to justify damn near anything. Why? Because of unshakable beliefs and "truths," much like those expressed here. During the Crusades unspeakable actions were executed, all in the name of God. At that time there was nothing wrong with it. Not a single thing. It brought Christians together and gave a feeling of unity.

Now we believe that these things are not okay, not justifiable, and just plain wrong. Why? Because that is the norm of modern society. It is not an unalienable truth, just what modern times and morality dictate. Years from now things could change again. We cannot know.

Genetics govern many aspects of our day to day life. As Phoenix stated, high testosterone makes us violent. What holds that violence in check? Laws and morality, the understanding of others, and the ability to confront the problem with knowledge and reason from both the violent man and the people supporting him. It's a combination of the two, a harmony of balance. When that harmony is disrupted things get out of control, and even in it's most extreme circumstances one can justify it.

Humankind has adopted it's present mode of thinking because it can look back and see what worked and what did not. We maintain our morality because we have learned the consequences of giving in to our genetics, our primal urges, and we're gradually learning that walking together as one brings the most benefit to all.

There is no true "right and wrong." Such things are just notions we all agree upon, and it changes with the times.

[Jaran]

There was a time in history when rape, murder, and theivery was perfectly justifiable under the right conditions. And at the time of these events there was little to no guilt involved -- it was truly all right to perform them.

What conditions would this be? I hope you aren't speaking of this line here:

Any time a village was sacked, a city under siege, or a nation at war at any point in history warriors and nations were able to justify damn near anything. Why? Because of unshakable beliefs and "truths," much like those expressed here.

This is untrue. Yes, it happened, but it wasn't looked upon as being "okay", in fact, if their leaders heard about it, they would most likely scold them, if they were the "Christians" that they said they were.

Over the many centuries that we've existed on this planet, the notions of "right and wrong" pretty much haven't changed, even if they have been skewed at some points. And listen to what you're saying here:

....warriors and nations were able to justify damn near anything.

If they didn't know it was "wrong" in the first place, then why would they need to justify it? Justification is the act of giving an acceptable excuse for something that would otherwise be looked upon as being "wrong".

Genetics govern many aspects of our day to day life. As Phoenix stated, high testosterone makes us violent. What holds that violence in check? Laws and morality, the understanding of others, and the ability to confront the problem with knowledge and reason from both the violent man and the people supporting him. It's a combination of the two, a harmony of balance. When that harmony is disrupted things get out of control, and even in it's most extreme circumstances one can justify it.

Testosterone does not make you inherently violent, even when it is extremely high. What it does do is make you extremely emotional and unpredictable, sometimes prone to violent verbal or physical outbursts, when the right buttons are pressed. With everything else you said here, I would agree with you, laws and morality, and the understanding of others are what keeps emotional people in check.

Humankind has adopted it's present mode of thinking because it can look back and see what worked and what did not. We maintain our morality because we have learned the consequences of giving in to our genetics, our primal urges, and we're gradually learning that walking together as one brings the most benefit to all.

There is no true "right and wrong." Such things are just notions we all agree upon, and it changes with the times.

Generally, I would agree with you upon this point. But I can not just shake the idea that there is no right or wrong. I'm sorry, but there are things in this world, horrible, terrible things, that are just wrong. No matter how you slice it, these things are wrong for the mere reason that they do harm to others. Anything that does harm to others should be (and I hope one day will be) looked at as being inherently wrong. As for the conceptual idea of certain things (i.e. pornography, public nudity, masturbation, fornication, adultery) being wrong, and other things (i.e. Christianity, religion of any type, abstinence, modesty) being right, I could not disagree more! Who in their right mind could say that these things are inherently right or wrong and be able to live with their self? You have to have a pretty skewed vision of the world to believe that.

[KT Samurai]

What conditions would this be? I hope you aren't speaking of this line here:
This is untrue. Yes, it happened, but it wasn't looked upon as being "okay", in fact, if their leaders heard about it, they would most likely scold them, if they were the "Christians" that they said they were.

I didn't even give a specific example and you say this is untrue. What about all of the war involving Europeans and the aboriginals of North America? The aboriginals were godless heathens, so killing them off was perfectly fine. Handing out disease-ridden blankets and shooting them on sight totally fine, not to mention sacking their villages and killing women and children. No one was scolded until upwards of 90% of them were wiped out.

Over the many centuries that we've existed on this planet, the notions of "right and wrong" pretty much haven't changed, even if they have been skewed at some point.

This only applies to people seen as equals, not those who were different culturally or spiritually.

And listen to what you're saying here:

If they didn't know it was "wrong" in the first place, then why would they need to justify it? Justification is the act of giving an acceptable excuse for something that would otherwise be looked upon as being "wrong".

It shows that right and wrong are circumstancial. Was it right to attempt to wipe out the Jews in World War II? No, but they justified it, saying the Jewish bankers had screwed the German military over and other garbage. Jews weren't the only ones killed either. Many Germans who appeared to be fine were killed because they were diseased or otherwise severly unhealthy (cancer, diabetes, etc) and Germany is a relatively healthy nation because of it. Sick but true.

Testosterone does not make you inherently violent, even when it is extremely high. What it does do is make you extremely emotional and unpredictable, sometimes prone to violent verbal or physical outbursts, when the right buttons are pressed. With everything else you said here, I would agree with you, laws and morality, and the understanding of others are what keeps emotional people in check.

I love bolding contradtictions. It's like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes.

[b]Generally, I would agree with you upon this point. But I can not just shake the idea that there is no right or wrong. I'm sorry, but there are things in this world, horrible, terrible things, that are just wrong. No matter how you slice it, these things are wrong for the mere reason that they do harm to others. Anything that does harm to others should be (and I hope one day will be) looked at as being inherently wrong.

We know this now, but we didn't know this in the same way in the past. It's what allowed atrocities on a huge scale to happen in the first. Hell, they're still happening. Look at the attempted genecide in Uganda or the massace at Tiananment Square. That stuff happened not all that long ago and was performed by people who felt that there wasn't much wrong with it.

As for the conceptual idea of certain things (i.e. pornography, public nudity, masturbation, fornication, adultery) being wrong, and other things (i.e. Christianity, religion of any type, abstinence, modesty) being right, I could not disagree more! Who in their right mind could say that these things are inherently right or wrong and be able to live with their self? You have to have a pretty skewed vision of the world to believe that.

You're more than free to share your opinion but give us some facts other than "who in their right mind..." and "You have to have a pretty skewed vision of the world to believe that."

[Neve]

This has gone way off topic. Anyways, what is right and wrong doesn't matter, because ideas of right and wrong are gained just like everything else - through experiences. Nobody is born knowing that murder is bad - you gain that impression from society around you, and from what you are taught by influential beings such as parents and teachers. Every single idea that you have, every single piece of knowledge can be traced back to genetic constitution or experiences. It is impossible that there is any piece of knowledge that you simply know from the point you are born.

[Jaran]

I didn't even give a specific example and you say this is untrue. What about all of the war involving Europeans and the aboriginals of North America? The aboriginals were godless heathens, so killing them off was perfectly fine. Handing out disease-ridden blankets and shooting them on sight totally fine, not to mention sacking their villages and killing women and children. No one was scolded until upwards of 90% of them were wiped out.

When we were discussing this point last time, you had given a slight example of the Crusades, and I responded as such. If we are moving along to the French and Indian War, then very well. The Americans of that time believed that the Indians would kill them if they were not killed first, so, it's a lot like the "War on Terrorism" today.

Still though, the people that participated in the genocide of the tribes were not just "okay" with it. There was emotional scarring, mental trauma, all things that go along with doing something that is "wrong" repeatedly. And if you will recall, this discussion was about people's personality at first, and it moved into a discussion of right or wrong.

If those soldiers thought that it was all perfectly good and fine, then they wouldn't have felt so horrible about doing it after they had done it. So even back then, even though it was "necessary", they still knew what they were doing was inherently wrong.

It shows that right and wrong are circumstancial. Was it right to attempt to wipe out the Jews in World War II? No, but they justified it, saying the Jewish bankers had screwed the German military over and other garbage. Jews weren't the only ones killed either. Many Germans who appeared to be fine were killed because they were diseased or otherwise severly unhealthy (cancer, diabetes, etc) and Germany is a relatively healthy nation because of it. Sick but true.



I love bolding contradtictions. It's like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes.

Those weren't contradictions. Being inherently violent and being prone to violent outbursts are different things. If you are inherently violent, then you will take any reason whatsoever in order to do violence on others. If you are prone to violent outbursts, then you will do violence on other more quickly than a normal person. It still takes someone saying something to rile you up if you are merely prone to violence. Do you understand what I'm saying? Being a violent person and being prone to violence are different.

We know this now, but we didn't know this in the same way in the past. It's what allowed atrocities on a huge scale to happen in the first. Hell, they're still happening. Look at the attempted genecide in Uganda or the massace at Tiananment Square. That stuff happened not all that long ago and was performed by people who felt that there wasn't much wrong with it.

I'm not going to touch this, because I feel that I explained it earlier with the little bit about the French and Indian War. I'm sure that not all of the people involved thought that they were doing what was right. All they did was follow orders, and tried not to think too much about it. Just like every other soldier that has ever served their country.

You're more than free to share your opinion but give us some facts other than "who in their right mind..." and "You have to have a pretty skewed vision of the world to believe that."

What facts do I need to give to rail against conceptual morals that society has forced upon us? Other than taking Christian morals into consideration, there is no reason for quite a few of the laws that bind us. In order to believe that pornography is wrong, you must believe that the act of sex is inherently wrong as well! In order to believe that public nudity is wrong, you have to believe that a man or woman's body is a wrongness too! In order to believe that adultery or fornication are wrong, then you have to believe in the sanctity of marriage, which is a Christian institution. However, under our current mindset, it hurts your marriage partner when you engage in intercourse with someone other than him/her, so it is "technically" wrong. With the opposites of each of these, you must also believe in the things that I have given as examples.

So, if you want me to give facts, then have the government tell us why it's wrong to be naked in public. Have them give us some supportive evidence as to why it is wrong to make recordings of individuals engaging in sexual relations. I want to know why these things are so wrong, and I don't want any moralistic jargon thrown in my lap either. It's not hurting anyone, it's just catering to those involved in the religious sector of society, who are too prudish to understand that there is beauty in all of these things, and make men and women ashamed to admire that beauty.

[Kzimask]

I dont think personality comes from genetics, only reason kids are acting like their parents is, all they see is how they parent act and do so kids learn from them. But maybe 'some' people's personality are actualy came from their parent's dna? :P **total X-file**

[Dekuben]

Aparentlly, there is a correlation between blood type and personality.

This is an old Japanese idea:

The Rh factor plays no role in the blood type/personality idea:
Type O:
Type O's are outgoing, and very social. They are initiators, although they don't always finish what they start. Creative and popular, they love to be the center of attention and appear very self confident.
Type A:
While outwardly calm, they have such high standards (perfectionists) that they tend to be balls of nerves on the inside. Type A's are the most artistic of the blood groups. They can be shy, are conscientious, trustworthy, and sensitive.
Type B:
Goal oriented and strong minded, type B's will start a task and continue it until completed, and completed well. Type B's are the individualists of the blood group categories and find their own way in life.
Type AB:
Type AB's are the split personalities of the blood groups. They can be both outgoing and shy, confident and timid. While responsible, too much responsibility will cause a problem. They are trustworthy and like to help others.
Compatability by Blood Groups:
A is most compatible with A and AB
B is most compatible with B and AB
AB is most compatible with AB, B, A and O
O is most compatible with O, and AB

[AznPoi]

I don't think people's personality are based on their blood type.

[Jaran]

Well, I already put my view on that earlier on, if you want to scroll up a bit. Still, I agree with you. People's personality is determined by the environment they are raised in and the people they are raised with.

[Sanzora]

Genetics may play a part on who we are, but more on a cchemical level than anything else… People know that chemical depression is hereditary, and diabetes can lead to mood swings depending on sugar shortages/intake/etc. But our environment can also have a huge part in it… obviously a child in a happy family is going to have less issues as an adult than the person who had a miserable childhood.

But I think that one factor is overlooked: Personal choice. A person has a lot of say in who they choose to be. I know one girl who, despite having a bad childhood, chose throughout her life what she didn’t want to be like, and thus molded her own personality into someone she is proud to be today.

[Dekuben]

I don't think people's personality are based on their blood type.

I'd like to remind you that this is the debate section, you'll have to try harder than that if you want your argument to be treated as valid.

[Jaran]

Aparentlly, there is a correlation between blood type and personality.
This is an old Japanese idea:
The Rh factor plays no role in the blood type/personality idea:
Type O:
Type O's are outgoing, and very social. They are initiators, although they don't always finish what they start. Creative and popular, they love to be the center of attention and appear very self confident.
Type A:
While outwardly calm, they have such high standards (perfectionists) that they tend to be balls of nerves on the inside. Type A's are the most artistic of the blood groups. They can be shy, are conscientious, trustworthy, and sensitive.
Type B:
Goal oriented and strong minded, type B's will start a task and continue it until completed, and completed well. Type B's are the individualists of the blood group categories and find their own way in life.
Type AB:
Type AB's are the split personalities of the blood groups. They can be both outgoing and shy, confident and timid. While responsible, too much responsibility will cause a problem. They are trustworthy and like to help others.
Compatability by Blood Groups:
A is most compatible with A and AB
B is most compatible with B and AB
AB is most compatible with AB, B, A and O
O is most compatible with O, and AB

You know what's funny? I always suspected that it might have something to do with that. Every type O I ever met in the military tended to be the ones who were the "hardasses" and all the A's were the ones who were laid back and cool, the guys who just wanted to chill out.

I guess a study has been done now...lol. Still, I don't think that it all has to do with blood types or genetics. Environment, individual choices, and outside influences are what I believe are the main determinator in the growth and development of somebody's personality.

[Captain Hitsugaya]

Personality is developed as thou self chronicle living and how their surroundings shape their mind, forming their own philosophy about the world. Human reasoning self judgment from right and wrong.

Environmental affect greatly upon one self’s personality.

[goldengrl]

people are born with an enneagram. there are 9 types.
it is said that in psychology people are born as one type and will always remain that same type but sometimes stress levels or pressure can make a person show asspects of another enneagram but still inside they are that type.

Types 1:Reformer-they think that they do everything the right way
they must always live up to the standards of other people, this type of person may feel burdened by too much responsibility, has high morals

Type 2: Helper-these people find that they must always help others
no matter how bad the other person is this type of person finds that they must always help. this type of person had low self esteem and is unable to say no. they usually supress there feelings alot.

Type 3: Motivator-needs success
these people always have the fear of not being able to succeed, work and success is the first thing on their minds, they are nopt easily set back and can recover quickly

Type 4: Romantic-they have to be unique
they love plenty of complements, admire what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. are creative and original, they expect too much from themselves and life.

Type 5: Thinker-needs to understand the world
these people may think deeply into every behaviour or thing that happens. e.g. if your too friendly they start doubting your sincerity. they don't like to repeat themselves. these people are often very independant and need alot of time alone to process the thoughts and feelings

Type 6: skeptic-affectionate and skeptical
these people like directness and clearness also to be listened too. they always have a fear of failure. They are direct and assertive and confronts danger bravely. they worry about everything and often exhausts themselves with their own fears of danger or failure.

Type 7: Enthusiast-am happy and open to new things
Always stays optimistic, have the guts to take risks and to try exciting adventures and are action oriented and adventuresome. they love the freedom.

Type 8: Leader-must be strong
they are confident strong and direct. They are independent and self-reliant
they are able to take charge and meet challenges head on. courageous, straightforward, and honest. they believe in living life to the fullest. make it their responsibility to support, empower, and protect those close to them.
they may though scare others with their personality and bluntness.

Type 9: Peacemake-are at peace
they are always relaxed and think of themselves as being one with the universe. they are nonjudgemental and accepting. they are often confused with what they want but have the ability to see both sides af a situation and are perfect mediators.

humans are born with one certain type even though they may show asspects of another. pressure and stress may cause some changes or different developments in the personality but inside a person will always remain the same. so it is was you are born with that creates the base of your personality.

[chiking1]

:eek: holy crap thats alot that you typed!!
im pretty sure that goldengrl is right... because it makes alot of sense that people are born with a personality, but change because of the environment.

[izza]

I was thinking that our personalities are based on our genetics and enviroment.
So even the best people could be rapists and murderers if had different genes and raised differently.
So do u think it is their fault for being the way they are?
Discuss, and sorry for my bad english.
I partially agree with you because with does affect a big portion on the personality of most criminals.
Though with the genetics part I'm not so sure. Weren't Australians originally criminals casted off from Britain? (no offense)

Anyone ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? (or however you spell it)
Well on A&E they showed some clips of him when he was younger and he was a completely normal kid. O_O... well except for the disecting crabs part.

[~black butterfly~]

okay...nothing is really proven yet....so there are theories...one could be genetics..a test on fraternal and identical twins showed that identical twins have bigger possibilities.... plus, in some mental illnesses, if one has a family history of mental illness then most likely, another member of the family becomes mentally ill...well, i think that goes for the personality as well...
aside from genetics, there is environmental/social...some behaviors and attitudes are learned from family and the society...

[Kurai-chan]

i also think that our personality is based on our genetics and environment. our parents were the ones who first taught us what things are right and what are wrong so we can say that to some extent, their attitudes somewhat managed to rub in to us. the same goes with those people who are surrounding us. if they will manage to influence us, then we will also do the things that they are doing and how they act would also be reflected in our acts.

also, our personal experiences from childhood up to the present contributes to our personality. for example, a very close friend of mine betrayed me when i was 6 years old. then, surely after that, i'd be careful in choosing who i'm going to trust to avoid that thing from happening again. i'd be paranoid about my friends, etc.

so, overall, i do think that genetics, environment, and personal experiences greatly contributes in shaping our personality.

[rukia723]

ehh... this is soo confusing..