I know next to nothing about this and i’ve always thought that how you are brought up and your experiences shape you. Apparently not because some studies i found say a large part is based on genetics.
Can someone point me in the right direction?
From experience almost 100% nature
You actually used (nearly) correct grammar and punctuation. It’s an early Festivus miracle!
To answer your question, watch Trading Places. It’s the plot to the whole movie.
Does No Fap truly make you a boss, or do people just not Fap if they are already kickass? Please discuss.
@ isildurrr
Personality , in simple term (as most accepted theories and defs put forward by psychologists, scientists and experts for such nebulous things tends to be somewhat abstruse ) can be defined to some extent as the product of heredity and environment i.e. mathematically speaking P=HxE. So , you may get the similar result whether it is 4x3 or 6x2 or even 12x1 and 3x4 or 2x6 or 1x12. Some used to believe that the personality is the sum of these two factors but many experiments with identical twins (Identical /monozygotic i.e. one-cell twins form when a single fertilised egg (ovum) splits in two and develops two babies with exactly the same genetic information) brought up in drastically different /opposing environment have proved the influence of each factor is too strong to be additive. In one case the new born identical twins were separated just after birth and one brought up in the red light area (where her mother belonged) and the other one was brought up in a royal family after adoption and the personalities were, as expected, vastly different and in line with the environment and culture they were exposed to.
In fact the hereditary factor being more or less constant by birth for the individual it is only the ‘environment’ factor that you can play with to bring in just visible to drastic improvement in the personality (for details see any child psychology or educational psychology text book, if you are really interested I can provide you exhaustive literature & studies reference on this) . The so called personality development schools and courses merely try to exploit these scientific findings to make money. That is why in modern education theory it is accepted that quality of environment (specially for an adolescent) can compensate the heredity factor to great extent. Hence, the call for a specific type of environment (which includes everything, from the surroundings to teachers and learning opportunities) in schools to contribute to better personality development. Also focussed movements for providing better environment and schools for children from slum and deprived section of the society is gaining momentum specially in less developed countries . Obviously though 3x4 can lead to same outcome as 1x12 theoretically , basically human nature and ‘learning’ factors are neither as flexible nor as ‘mouldable’ as may be needed for this to be true. 3x4 and 4x3 seems more plausible and practically true possibility.
^ Boardmember Quality. Respect.
Vote 4 mygos!
Personality definitely develops and responds to nuture and experiences. Take a look at people who change their lifestyle in response to a major trauma, divorce, heart attack, etc…
But different people definitely respond to similar events in different ways, even when they are young, so genetics play a role. Some people get depressed, which seems to be a neurological feedback loop out of control, whereas other people get angry, and some just don’t care.
So yeah, it’s both, partly because how to manage emotions is a learned behavior, even if the emotions themselves may be genetic. Personality is really the confluence of how people respond to different everyday events, which is both an emotional and a behavioral quality.
Someone once told me you’re the result of the 10 people you hang around the most. Personalities change over time and the people you hang out with change over time. Seems like a solid idea.
Thanks, CvM. But due to my commitment with too many social and educational cause related activities for the deprived and weaker sections of the society ( almost going away from investment and ‘core’ finance except for daily finding some time for AF and two other forums of my choice!) I may not be able to do justice to such an onerous activity. In fact, that is why I have noteven read the thread of the new mebers nomination. I salute people like BChad, BS etal who are doing it with so much commitment in spite of their professional commitment.
Scientists have created herds of genetically identical (cloned) cows/sheep and found in every case that some individuals still rise to become the dominant ones. Can’t all be genetics.
Interesting observation but may require some deep thinking as the conclusions are not as straightforward as it seems. I quote some excerpts from an article by Kris Bialk in Bellaonline (bold mine):
“The origin of a clone, at least using the current technology, does not involve sperm cells at all. In the few successful attempts at cloning animals, scientists have removed the nucleus of an egg cell from one animal (Animal A) and replaced the nucleus with the nucleus from a cell from another animal (Animal B). The resulting embryo is then implanted into the uterus of a female animal of that species (Animal C). When the clone is born, it is a genetic copy of Animal B.
Identical twins originate from one egg that has been fertilized by one sperm. Sometime early in the cell division process, for reasons still unknown, this fertilized egg splits into two distinct embryos. Though these embryos are genetically identical (sharing the same DNA), they both originated from the fertilization of an ova.
In summary, identical twins are not clones. They are distinct individuals who originated from the meeting of one egg and one sperm. Clones are genetically engineered organisms. If one really wanted to split hairs, identical twins more than likely share more similarities than clones, because clones depend on a “host” egg from Animal A, which contains its own properties, separate from that of the original animal (Animal B)–and these properties’ effects upon the implanted nucleus is unknown at this time. Additionally, clones do not share a womb with the original animal, and so are affected by Animal C in ways that are not fully understood. “
Clones may not be identical copies of the host animal, but they are likely identical copies of *each* *other*, particularly if clone embryos are developed from the same agglomeration of initial cells.
I think that’s probably more important for the test of holding genetic factors constant and seeing what happens on the nurture side.
The way we behave is hugely impacted by external events. Fundamental attribution error is a good thing to understand when dealing with people.
^ You just say that because you’re rawraw!
Don’t really have the inclination to type perfectly on the internet. I like the fact that you’re so snobbish about it though.
Having three offspring who were brought up nearly identically, I’d say it’s at least 90% nature: they could hardly be more different in their personalities.
thank you. Is the case of the twins available anywhere online?
Every post you’ve made up until this day has been devoid of upper case letters and spaces between sentences. Your sudden change raises concerns. It’s likely you either suffered a head injury in the last 24 hours or your account was hacked by a nice Englishman.
yup, dont have the patience to press caps and then press it again. it was just a slow day, nothing to get your panties in a twist over.
You could always press the SHIFT key.
I agree with STL on this one–you don’t always have to write as if this were your PhD thesis, but a little punctuation and capital letters never hurt anyone.
And I agree with S2000. I’m one of three kids, and we were all in the same boat growing up. And we’re all three extremely different.