Human Nature And Development Of Personality

The nature vs nurture issue has been a controversial argument among psychologist for decades. This argument exposes two different views. One of them emphasizes that our personality depends solely on genetics (nature). On the other hand, the second view suggests that humans “develop through experience” (Myers 2013, SG 6) (nurture).

Personality and its development from an Adlerian perspective derives from both nature and nurture. Every individual is responsible for their actions and has the power to be

Avoidant attachment of a male present in a romantic relationship (Male super ego and madonna-whore complex)

Environment determines to some extent the personality of a person. There are numerous factors in the environment which could determine variations in the personalities of different individuals. There are factors which are inherent to the environment and there are those determined by the manner by which individuals enter into a particular environment. In much the same way, how an infants entrance into the world determines in large part how parents and others will respond. In this paper particular view will be taken on the matter of timing that an infant is born.

As many people have begun to pay attention to formation of personality, the debate over nature vs. nurture has raged for a long time and this issue is still controversial. However, as shown the

The study of temperament can be used to understand the role of heredity in development. Infants show a variety of temperament in their first week of life. Some infants are irritable, difficult and unpredictable while others are easy, cheerful and relaxed.These inborn traits tend to persist in throughout their lives. The emotionally reactive newborns tend to be most reactive 9 months old, exceptionally shy children were most often the shy 13 year old and emotionally intense preschoolers tend to be emotionally active adults. Additionally, the identical twins have similar temperament compared to the fraternal twins.

Personality theories include a wide range of thoughts and it is hard to narrow them down to a choice of how and why individuals are their identity. These complex thoughts must be examined and gone over certainly before one can decide whether an individual meets the characterized significance of the hypothesis. An example would need to be set up with the person before they could be said to have a specific identity quality. To what extent should an individual take after an example of conduct before they can be named with that kind of identity and why? Who among us has that privilege?

In this paper I will try to elucidate how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs shows the extent to which growth needs influence personality formation, also put into words how biological factors influence the formation of personality. Observe the relationship of biological factors to Maslow’s theory as well as explain the basic aspects of humanistic theory that are incompatible with biological explanations of personality.

Each one of us has his or her judgment about different issues that affect us on a daily basis. It is because we have different genes that result in different traits to thereby resulting in different reactions to different situations. While some people are profoundly affected by the death of a family member, some are strong and gather the courage to move on with life. Personality allows us to express our emotions differently. In this case, our gene composition will enable us to be in a position to react to different stimuli influencing daily decisions. The purpose of this paper will be to define personality at a deeper level while focusing on various personalities domain and how they apply to different personality theories.

In psychology the question of what factor affecting personality most has been constantly debated with many theories around the conclusion. The two factors concerning nurture or nature have been picked apart and compared and contrasted to see what might be a dominant factor. It still seems that one is not more overpowering than the other but the question still remains of what is the leading trait in personality? Personality is how we interact to the world around us and our behaviors we express. The underlying causes although and why each and every person is uniquely different with a personality all their own is from the nature and nurture perspective. Personality in a technical sense is described as the visible aspect of ones character and the

Allport defines personality as ‘the dynamic organisation within the individual of those psychological systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment’ (Allport, 1937). An individual’s unique personality traits and attributes are a powerful indicator of how he/she will interact with the work environment. The difference between average and outstanding employees can often be solely personality related. As the employee is the most valuable asset to the company, ‘selecting the right employee during the process is critical’ (Carbery and Cross, 2013, pp. 41-53)

This paper is a comparison of three different viewpoints on the subject of personality. Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, and Carl Rogers all had very different outlooks on what defined someone’s personality. As an added feature I have included myself as a theorist because my views are also different from the previous mentioned theorists. This paper will also look briefly into the background of each theorist because their views on life began in their childhood. Amazingly you will notice the all had similar backgrounds, but came up with completely different ways of looking at life.

This essay will give a description of Personality before critically analysing the biological basis of personality approach. The biological basis approach tries to account for the mechanisms between genes and personality by looking at various different brain structures whilst the biochemical approach looks at the impact of hormones and neurotransmitters. The majority of our understanding of personality from a biological perspective focuses on the three main behavioural systems; the reward system, the motivation system and the punishment system. Within this essay I will be discussing the three main theories that have come from these ideas, Eyenck’s three-factor model, Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) and Cloningers model of personality.

The study of personality traits is beneficial in identifying the many variables that exist from human to human; the combinations of these variables provide us with a true level of individuality and uniqueness. In the field of psychology, trait theory is considered to be a key approach to the study of human personality (Crowne, 2007; Burton, Westen & Kowalski, 2009). This paper aims to identify a number of significant contributors who have played crucial roles in both the development and application of trait theory. This paper then moves focus to these theorists, outlining their theory and analysing both the strengths and weaknesses of those theories. An illustration of the methods used in trait measurement is given and includes the

Adlerian theory, also referred to as individual psychology, stresses the need to understand individuals within their social context (Mosak & Maniacci, 2014). Interestingly, Alfred Adler gave his theoretical framework the name, Individual Psychology, which derives from the Latin term individuum. The meaning of individuum translates to “indivisible” and represents the holistic foundation of Adlerian theory (Mosak & Maniacci, 2014). Adlerians assume that every behavior has a purpose, causing them to focus on clients’ “style of life”, or consistent themes that occur throughout their life. Mosak and Maniacci (2014) describe Adler’s “style of life” as, “bias apperceptions about self, others, and the world from a self-consistent cognitive and attitudinal set which organizes and directs movement toward the goal” (p. 12). Accordingly, Adlerian concepts revolve around achieving the main tasks of life through cooperation rather than competition, in work, friendship, love, self-task, and spiritual task (Mosak & Maniacci, 2014). Furthermore, this theory focuses on influences that might encourage the development of exaggerated inferiority, and how these feelings can push people to better themselves in guiding the self-ideal and altering the way they strive toward success, such as through choices and level of responsibility.