Does Personality Actually Exist?

[Da Blob]

Actually it does not in a scientific sense, at least not yet.

Personality has yet to be defined as a variable or set of variables that can be measured on a standardized scale.

There are no objective units of personality.

But then again, science is a poor god, for observation of the phenomena we have labeled personality has been documented for thousands of years.

Personally, I would suggest that the best POV could be provided by examining the literal meaning of the word, the actor's mask.

However, whatever personality may be, it is something that evolves over time and the variables that define personality must be identified in childhood.

In any event, Personality is a multivariate phenomena and perhaps it would be worthwhile to prepare a list of the variables: continuous or discrete, confounded or extraneous, dependent or independent etc. that contribute as components to the dynamic system that is personality?

 

[own8ge]

You ignorant bastard. (...)
Personality does exist in a sense that any literal perception would exist. (!)
That your knowledge lacks on the matter, doesn't make it justified to call it nonexistent. (!)

for being a dumb fool, I will translate it for you in this post.
What you can sense, is in objective terms: existent. Personality (types) is something you can literally sense. Thus it must exist.

If you would, have posted this in Philosophy, I would have given it more thought.

 

[BigApplePi]

Actually it does not in a scientific sense, at least not yet.

Personality has yet to be defined as a variable or set of variables that can be measured on a standardized scale.

There are no objective units of personality.

But then again, science is a poor god, for observation of the phenomena we have labeled personality has been documented for thousands of years.

Personally, I would suggest that the best POV could be provided by examining the literal meaning of the word, the actor's mask.

However, whatever personality may be, it is something that evolves over time and the variables that define personality must be identified in childhood.

In any event, Personality is a multivariate phenomena and perhaps it would be worthwhile to prepare a list of the variables: continuous or discrete, confounded or extraneous, dependent or independent etc. that contribute as components to the dynamic system that is personality?

I like this question as an example where a word has a "soft" or broad meaning. "Temperament" has already been worked on as in the 16 behavioral types including INTP. It has a meaning more firm.

One approach in the process is to look for samples (data collection process) and see if we can identify ANY personalities. Anyone know anyone that has a personality? ... and what is it? Persona's?

I did a google and came up with these words: honest, responsible, adaptible, driven, patient, loyal, and so on.

Examples of personality traits All these traits appear within a normal social context for that person. Other things happen under stress.
____________________________________

In psychology, there are five factors that determine different personality types. The big five factors are:

1. Openness is appreciation for a variety of experience.
2. Conscientiousness is planning ahead rather than being spontaneous.
3. Extraversion involves going out with friends and being energetic.
4. Agreeableness is, as it says, being agreeable.
5. Neuroticism refers to worrying or being vulnerable

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-personality-traits.html

Add: 6. Introversion - traits held close to the self.

Also one could look at the eight cognitive functons and generalize them to include below consciousness, as being active versus passive.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Not in the way that we hypothesize it.

 

[BigApplePi]

I think of personality as having one odd characteristic: it doesn't exist in solitude. We do not make any judgments of this about ourselves. How strange! It only seems to exist in a social context yet it is we who are firmly embedded in this social context. The context defines the personality. This means we might look at social contexts.

Examples:

Generosity - who is going to be that way in all social situations?
Dependable - who is going to be that way in all social situations?
Observant - who is going to be that way in all social situations?
Impartial - who is going to be that way in all social situations?

We can reverse the question: what social situations bring out generosity? Dependability? Observation? Impartiality?
______________________

Perhaps a personality/ persona is like an overcoat. We put on the one that fits the situation. One person might have a heavy overcoat; another lots of sweaters; anyone can don a sweater; some always wear one. This makes personailty like fashion..

 

[Nezaros]

Personality just suffers from the same problem as the rest of psychology / sociology; it is inherently subjective and thus scientific principles are difficult to apply. Otherwise, it's a similar argument to any other aspect of consciousness. Pain, for example.

 

[TriflinThomas]

Your personality is the mirror that society holds up to you. At least, that's what my sociology teacher taught us. "Personality" does exist, but not in the way that everyone thinks.

 

[TriflinThomas]

science is a poor god, for observation of the phenomena we have labeled personality has been documented for thousands of years.

You never pass up an opportunity to degrade science and elevate religion

 

[Da Blob]

Science is already 'degraded". It is simply not as all encompassing as most nonscientists want to believe it is. In this case, those who study personality can't even agree on an operational definition of the phenomena, much less devise a means of measuring it.

Does the phenomena exist?

Intuition says yes, but if so, in a realm currently inaccessible to scientific methodology because it can not be measured on a standardized scale.

A persona is a theatrical mask. IMO, our personality is the costume we wear when we are required to performed. Children in our society are expected to mask emotions at a fairly young age. There seems to be a variety of means to do so, one of which is a type of thought that dominates the expression of feeling. Another means is to avoid sensing in the moment and gaining a temporal perspective instead. A third means is to withdraw instead of approaching and a forth means that could develop later is a combination of withdrawal and gaining a temporal perspective.

EDIT:Personality has its foundations in temperament. Some good points in Lenore's article, but temperament does have genetic correlations. (See Temperament below)

Different meanings of Temperament

When I say "classic neurobiological terms," what I mean is that the word "temperament," as it's ordinarily understood, is concerned with matters of innate chemistry: reactivity, adaptability, mood, distractibility, persistence, attention span, sensory sensitivity, and the like. These are bona fide aspects of the personality, and Jung did acknowledge their influence on functional development. But this is not what Temperament Theory is talking about.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

^You already said it, but i think the only reason it hasn't been a major part of the main stream science is it's difficulty to measure. It also is constantly changing and developing, which further complicates the process. I also don't believe there is much motivation among scientists to tackle the issue (i.e. there's far more grant money available in other realms). It's also virtually impossible to control for scientifically.

My opinion is that as they gather more info/data on developmental neurological disorders, they'll realize the personality phenomenon develops in much the same way. A combination of genetic and environmental circumstances leading to a variety of common symptoms, behaviors and traits.



This is kind of an interesting attempt if you have some spare time.
[

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

 

[Katy]

Taking it one step further, personality could be liken to a chameleon effect. For most, it's learnt behaviour that either conforms or repels aspect of societal peers within the boundaries of personal temperament.

To how we define the word when we hear it, well, that's different again. We interpret language (in this case the word, 'personality') to mean a type (happy personality instead of disposition)... but that's language degradation.

 

[BigApplePi]

^You already said it, but i think the only reason it hasn't been a major part of the main stream science is it's difficulty to measure.

If it could be measured, what would that measuring look like?

 

[Katy]

If it could be measured, what would that measuring look like?

... astrology...?

 

[snafupants]

Any half-competent historical overview will reveal that science's arrogance usually outstrips its explicative competencies. I understand that some scientists are more egoless than others.

Actually it does not in a scientific sense, at least not yet.

Personality has yet to be defined as a variable or set of variables that can be measured on a standardized scale.

I find this vague and, perhaps, misleading. The Big 5 decades' long factor analysis has located four or five indivisible human characteristics thought to distinguish people from one another; these characteristics, moreover, correlate with related constructs from other instruments (high convergent validity). These things are not merely statistical imaginings; there are some readily discernible ecological differences.

At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this problem and have identified generally the same Big Five factors: Tupes & Cristal were first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute, Cattell at the University of Illinois, and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of Health. These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned.

It could also be argued that IQ relates to personality where intelligence or g is accurately assessed and intelligence is considered a behavioral, cognitive, and attitudinal cluster, which I believe it is.

Personally, I would suggest that the best POV could be provided by examining the literal meaning of the word, the actor's mask.

Seems like a metaphysical and pretentious way of stating the obvious - self-assessments (subject based) and semi-structured clinical interviews (object based) are already in use.

In any event, Personality is a multivariate phenomena and perhaps it would be worthwhile to prepare a list of the variables: continuous or discrete, confounded or extraneous, dependent or independent etc. that contribute as components to the dynamic system that is personality?

This is really a cocktail conversation that can go on, open-endedly, for hours. Jungian philosophy and the Big 5 have already contributed something though. I say it's open-ended because people can always argue against the system's comprehensiveness or everyday applicability. It's simultaneously clever and stupid to do so.

 

[joal0503]

what would the personality of a feral human be?

 

[Da Blob]

@IdeasNotTheProblem, thanks I've seen the video before, I found it interesting, but not surprising, that the brain goes blank when viewing television programming.

@snafupants some valid criticism concerning the typed-on-the-fly OP. However, I am not much of an advocate of the work began by Hans Eyesenk 60 years ago that resulted in the Big 5. It seems to me that it justs documents the obvious, and pretends that which is not obvious does not exist. It does not explain personality as a dynamic system of adaptation and presents all of the variables as continuous rather than discrete. I have a problem with unbounded variables that have no beginning and no end, and the stats that can be derived from such.

Instead, I believe that personality is a result of the interaction and relationships of discrete variables, defined by the role that different neurological structures react to stress and illustrated by analogies derived from evolutionary psychology. It is to be noted that the Big 5 limits personality as a 'humans only' phenomena, whereas studies in Temperament, the precursor to Personality, expand the definition of the phenomena to other species.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Does the phenomena exist?

Okay, I'm putting this out there: Yes

What is happening is that a bundle of genetic and environmental factors coupled with memory generate personality. The problem is that our understanding of personality is based on attempting to gauge a 'static' phenomenon, when infact it is dynamic and more importantly that phenomenon exists within unquantifiable models within each individual.

This is akin to predicting the behaviour of the line of imaginary numbers in maths by only seeing the line of real numbers and the sines and cosines being extremely complex and the number of dimensions being extraordinarily complex.

As a consequence models with high qualitative value are extremely generic and not useful when applied to the individual when measuring specifics, e.g. MBTI/Socionics/Enneagram and peoples personalities do, to a point, evolve over time.

 

[snafupants]

@Da Blob

It seems to me that it justs documents the obvious, and pretends that which is not obvious does not exist.

Fair criticism. Eysenck is the same guy who said if it couldn't be chronicled, it doesn't exist, which is fucking absurd. Jung doesn't believe that presupposition at all. Perhaps this constitutes the core distinction between Te (Eysenck) and Ti (Jung). Oh well.

It does not explain personality as a dynamic system of adaptation and presents all of the variables as continuous rather than discrete. I have a problem with unbounded variables that have no beginning and no end, and the stats that can be derived from such.

Jung said personality remained dynamic. I could probably find the clip but he conceded that type does change. Then again, Big 5 traits have a highly genetic component.

Instead, I believe that personality is a result of the interaction and relationships of discrete variables, defined by the role that different neurological structures react to stress and illustrated by analogies derived from evolutionary psychology.

Absolutely, some neuroticism measures, even on the Big 5, can be modulated with cortisol dampening drugs. Yeah, generally, fight or flight responses might inform introversion too. Should neuroticism and introversion, then, be expected to correlate?!

It is to be noted that the Big 5 limits personality as a 'humans only' phenomena, whereas studies in Temperament, the precursor to Personality, expand the definition of the phenomena to other species.

How helpful would that expansion be though? What would it tell us about human psychology? Hopefully this is coherent...there's loud music going and I'm eating. ">@

It seems to me that it justs documents the obvious, and pretends that which is not obvious does not exist.

Fair criticism. Eysenck is the same guy who said if it couldn't be chronicled, it doesn't exist, which is fucking absurd. Jung doesn't believe that presupposition at all. Perhaps this constitutes the core distinction between Te (Eysenck) and Ti (Jung). Oh well.

It does not explain personality as a dynamic system of adaptation and presents all of the variables as continuous rather than discrete. I have a problem with unbounded variables that have no beginning and no end, and the stats that can be derived from such.

Jung said personality remained dynamic. I could probably find the clip but he conceded that type does change. Then again, Big 5 traits have a highly genetic component.

Instead, I believe that personality is a result of the interaction and relationships of discrete variables, defined by the role that different neurological structures react to stress and illustrated by analogies derived from evolutionary psychology.

Absolutely, some neuroticism measures, even on the Big 5, can be modulated with cortisol dampening drugs. Yeah, generally, fight or flight responses might inform introversion too. Should neuroticism and introversion, then, be expected to correlate?!

It is to be noted that the Big 5 limits personality as a 'humans only' phenomena, whereas studies in Temperament, the precursor to Personality, expand the definition of the phenomena to other species.

How helpful would that expansion be though? What would it tell us about human psychology? Hopefully this is coherent...there's loud music going and I'm eating.

 

[Da Blob]

It is to be noted that the Big 5 limits personality as a 'humans only' phenomena, whereas studies in Temperament, the precursor to Personality, expand the definition of the phenomena to other species.

How helpful would that expansion be though?
What would it tell us about human psychology?
Hopefully this is coherent...there's loud music going and I'm eating.

Coherency is above the norm, as usual

I have always viewed the development of personality as granting an adaptive advantage to an individual. Although that advantage seems to be one linked primarily to social adaptation as a subset of the cognitive environment, there are other benefits of fully developed personalities.

Although I do question the methodology used to generate the numbers that validates the Big 5, I really do not question the validity of the observations of these 5 subjective qualities in the population. My criticism is not that the Big 5 is invalid, but rather that it is incomplete.

The model of personality of the MBTI is a bit different, not only are the variables discrete, they also exist in a closed system. The scales correlate to both evolutionary psychology and neurology. The advantage being one can study personality from a biological perspective and not a POV pretty much limited to social studies.

The behavior generated by a reptilian brain is pure Sensor (S)
The behavior generated by a rodent (old mammalian brain) is primarily emotional (F)

43% of the population are SF, and 90% are both, one or the other, S or F.

The behavior generated by the right hemisphere of the human brain is withdrawn in relationship to the environment (N/I/P?)

The behavior of the left hemisphere is aggressive in relationship to the environment (T/E/J?)

Obviously, a neurological model is not as simple as the MBTI, yet the pattern seems to hold, even if the scales do not. I think this because of the parallel processing involved. The MBTI scales are linear representations of a multi-dimensional dynamic process, we do not use those functions one at a time. Instead of S being opposed by N as a polar opposite, there are scenarios where S is opposed by F or T. That is to say the information derived from the S POV, is overridden by better information obtained from the F perspective or the T perspective or the N perspective or all three or a pair. Internal conflict is not a simple linear problem.

Whatever
In any event the hypothesis that is the MBTI can be tweaked to conform to neurological structures and functions in the science of biology, as well as observations of other species from evolutionary psychology, which is a much better method of validation, IMO, than mere statistics based upon self-reports and unmeasurable rankings of More or Less.

I won't bother to even ask about coherency...lol
this is something difficult to explain in 25 words or less.
Perhaps another day ...

 

[snafupants]

Obviously, a neurological model is not as simple as the MBTI, yet the pattern seems to hold, even if the scales do not. I think this because of the parallel processing involved. The MBTI scales are linear representations of a multi-dimensional dynamic process, we do not use those functions one at a time. Instead of S being opposed by N as a polar opposite, there are scenarios where S is opposed by F or T. That is to say the information derived from the S POV, is overridden by better information obtained from the F perspective or the T perspective or the N perspective or all three or a pair. Internal conflict is not a simple linear problem.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/50366-dario-nardi-s-neuroscience-personality.html

 

[Da Blob]

Afterthought: I got out of bed to write this, I hope it means something to someone. Although the reptilian brain is quite complex in dealing with input, output is limited to three options: move toward, do not move and move away.
The old mammalian brain comprised mainly of the glands of the endocrine system expanded that set of options tremendously. However the prime motivation is still reptilian. One moves towards pleasure, does not move or moves away from the pain.

The vast majority of the life forms of this planet are seemingly involved in the same dance, move toward, don't move or move away. It really should not come as a surprise that 90% of humanity has joined this dance.

The question is, whether this dance is limited to the living, for is not all inanimate phenomena also moving toward, not moving or moving away? Everything is being attracted toward or repelled from.

Who knows, we have named that which attracts matter gravity, perhaps then antigravity is that which repels/propels light (?) It may be all a part of The Dance, matter moving toward and light moving away, with that which does not move being dark

Good night!

 

[Da Blob]

To elaborate on the above...

Spoiler

One calls into question a basic assumption of those who prefer to build models of a random universe. While it could be true that motion is random as an isolated variable, any time motion can be identified as being 'to' or 'from' an intentional universe is revealed.

The ego
Jung saw the ego as the centre of the field of consciousness which contains our conscious awareness of existing and a continuing sense of personal identity. It is the organiser of our thoughts and intuitions, feelings, and sensations, and has access to memories which are not repressed. The ego is the bearer of personality and stands at the junction between the inner and outer worlds.
The way in which people relate to inner and outer worlds is determined by their attitude type: an extraverted individual being orientated to the outer world, and an introverted one primarily to the inner world.

http://www.thesap.org.uk/uploads/PDF/ModelofPsyche.pdf

Thought/Left hemisphere
Intuition/Right hemisphere (neo-mammalian/primate)
Feelings/endocrine system (old mammalian)
Sensation/reptilian (avian)

"The juncture" of the subjective and objective universes is an intriguing metaphysical plane, here describe as the overlap within which the POV of Ego exists, with egos located close to the boundary of the 'inner world' being described as introverted and of course then, egos being located closer to the 'outer world' being labeled extroverts.

The 'field of consciousness" may indeed be a physical phenomena and not just a convenient analogy

Once again, the perspective of evolutionary psychology can be employed to show how such an organization of consciousnesses has resulted in an adaptive advantage.
A great deal of the advantage can be attributed to the perception and manipulation of Time, so that personality acquires a temporal dimension.

EDIT: Jung was a disciple of Freud. Freud's model of personality contained the ID, Ego, Superego and a number of unidentified 'sub' consciousnesses. Jung improved on that model by identifying the four consciousnesses, without labeling any of them 'sub' or inferior. Instead he proposed the Ego as a gatekeeper/tuning mechanism, so that at any given instance, any of the four (Thinking, Intuition, Emotions, Sensing) could be providing input, with the other three being temporarily being assigned the role of 'sub' consciousness.

It is to be noted that the dichotomy of Extroversion and Introversion is not included in the set of consciousnesses, but rather is demoted to the role of an attitude or orientation. It is very questionable to view this attitude and its own derivative the P/J scale as equivalent to consciousness, being a mere derivative/filter of consciousness (?) Both are qualities of the ego.

 

[Paladin-X]

It is to be noted that the dichotomy of Extroversion and Introversion is not included in the set of consciousnesses, but rather is demoted to the role of an attitude or orientation. It is very questionable to view this attitude and its own derivative the P/J scale as equivalent to consciousness, being a mere derivative/filter of consciousness (?) Both are qualities of the ego.

I see Extraversion and Introversion more as a coefficient than a variable in and of itself. I also don't take great stock in P vs J dichotomy as it is a little murky for Introverts.

To the OP,

There are several ways of looking at Personality. There is a whole subset of Psychology devoted to it. Now, I'm not as well versed as some of these other folks, but in an Intro to Psych class we learned the basics about 5 different ways to look at personality.

Trait approach - Identifying personality by patterns of behaviour. mentioned before with the Big 5 test. NOTE: Introversion is part of the measurement of Extraversion, it is not a 6th trait.

Psychodynamic approach - An approach that regards personality as formed by needs, strivings, and desires largely operating outside of awareness-motive that can also produce emotional disorders. Based on Freudian theories.

Humanistic-existential approach - Human needs and self-actualization (aka Maslow); the human motive toward realizing inner potential. Existentialists regard personality as governed by an individual's ongoing choices and decisions in the contexts of the realities of life and death.

Social Cognitive approach - views personality in terms of how the person thinks about the situations encountered in daily life and behaves in response to them.

Self-concept - a person's explicit knowledge of his or her own behaviours, traits, and other personal characteristics.

 

[snafupants]

@Da Blob

Personality can be seen as convenient information processing modules (MBTI) or defense mechanisms (Enneagram). Does some comprehensive and definable ego structure demarcate people from one another? Of course. Personality even demarcates parts of ourselves from one another; the ego isn't all bad: the ego is a psychological bandaid or easy way of seeing reality. Are the ego's convolutions the deepest level of spiritual psychology? Not at all. The systematic aggregation of traits and tendencies (personality) arises because things need to be done in the real world (MBTI) and because most people are not whole (Enneagram). It's that simple.