its a good article i prefer everyone to read it

This article is really helpfull.

a useful article, although many generalisations are made... perhaps go a little easier on the modality of some statements.

for example, "...a person that is fond of reading or any other form of art will behave more elegantly than someone that does not manifest any interest in culture. Obviously, the latter will be more insensitive and will have a more violent behavior than the former..."

is this based on scientific research? if so, it should be stated... if not, this statement is a little bold if unfounded.

sorry to be nit-picky. this is rather a useful article.

yeah, agree with you.
you dont have to be interested in art to be elegant...obviously makes it sound like a fact

Although the basic conclusion of the author isn't without merit, this article is rather useless. Please give citation, scientific data or studies, or anything to back up you claims. Otherwise, this is just one person's opinion, and not well stated at that.

this is such a great article and i really agree!!!;)

Saying that people who read and like art are "more elegant" seems kind of ridiculous, no offense meant. I'm sure as hell not elegant, but I love art and would die without books. And people who don't read or appreciate art aren't neccessarily violent or insensitive. That's a bit farfetched.
I wish this had been an actually reliable source with proof rather than assumptions or "theories", though theories seem to make up much of the information in social science.
I really needed this for research and now I have to go look for actual facts. Never getting those ten minutes of my life back, but thanks. It was helpful in the sense that it's thought provoking. Next time, please add proof, 'cause this was perfect for what I needed, but is now useless.

Perfect statement

"Therefore, heredity establishes the limits of one's personality traits that can be developed, while the environment - represented by the cultural, social and situational factors - influence the actual development within the limits. "

i have been trying to tell my lecturer that this so...and he just would not listen...

The interrelationship of heredity and environment in the development of a whole person cannot be underestimated. Heredity provides the general ingredients where environment can develop. Environment cannot go beyond what is provided for by heredity. Heredity therefore sets the limits of the development of the individual.

i think there should be more info :( sorry

Me and my friends love books, music, and things from other cultures. But we are generally insensitive to eachother physically. For example: I hit my guy friends on the back of the head when I say hi to them. If I was a guy this would not seem very strange. I am not a guy. I also am a total clutz. Not elegant at all.
My grandma also tells me that I act like her mother...
whom I have only met once. It goes without saying that there are in fact many parts in the human genome that have no part in genetic structure or design. There is no confirmation on this but it might be that the remaining genes are meant for aspects of a person that cannot be physically examined or explained.
And that was my little rant about genetics. This entire article just proved my bio teacher wrong. : )

I believe the personalities are for the most part, hereditary. Medical influences - or carry-overs from either parent may be obvious in the child. Whereas I believe also, personality traits can be modified after childhood. When the individual may be influenced in his developmental years to act / perform / think one way, he may opt to evaluate himself and, over time, recondition himself to conduct self, act, think, or be influential in an absolute opposite manner.

Gerry.

Gerry's on the right track, glad i wasn't the only one with that theory.

im thinking the complamentary theory is closist 2 what actualy happens

I agree with the general tenor of most of the responses (that heredity is the dominant factor), but perhaps have a different way of expressing the idea.

First, I would dispense with the Kantian terms "nomotetic" (sic) and "idiographic". They unnecessarily complicate matters. I think the less esoteric and more commonplace words "nature" and "nurture" suffice.

Second, I don't think that it advances our thinking on the subject to say that our personalities result from both our inherited characteristics and our experiences. This much seems self-evident. What would be illuminating would be to discuss in what way these two elements contribute to creating personality.

You state in the beginning of your article that our personalities are unique. This suggests that the predominant factor in personality formation is heredity since, if it were otherwise, we would expect persons with similar environments to display similar personalities.
Consider also that personality differences are evident in infants, and that these differences tend to persist through life regardless of experience.

Humans are far more adaptible than other animals. Some anthropologists consider it the hallmark of our species. This means that we learn prodigiously from our experiences. But how are does this learning affect personality?

Emotion and cognition are bound together to produce behavior that is both intelligent and motivated, so learning cannot be separated strictly into one or the other category. But some learning tends to be more cognitive (like how to fish for ants, locate water, and make a stone tool), while other learning tends to be more emotional (like social skills).

Neither type of learning seems to change our innate predispositions, but they do affect how we behave. That, I believe, is the key difference between how nature and nurture operate. What we inherit is a predispositional substrate while what we learn affects how those predispositions are expressed in our behavior. Nature defines and experience inflects.

Concessions to nature are often reluctantly accepted by society because it seems to diminish our "free will" - a belief that many hold dear. But that's another story.







The observation that personality results from a combination of nurture and nature is self-evident and does not extend our understanding of the situation. Discerning in what ways nature and nurture contribute

Thank you for this article. It really helped me with my report. Thanks.

this article is quite intersting and good summerization of ones personality.

I believe that you inherit your train of thinking, but you adapt to society.

Good way to say it! I agree, that seems true.

i think genetics has everything to do with ones personality for instance, a child born from a parent who is an alcoholic may portray a mischieviors behavior. perhaps is because he might have inheritated these traits from his drunkard parent. there also things that are visible in ones personality that are exactily those of the parent or grant parent.

I highly doubt that.

I'm the polar opposite of my parents, grandparents, my cousins, and my brother in opinions, morals, reactions, what I care about, etc. You name it, I'm just the opposite.

If you're right, I'm an extraterrestrial or adopted, and I'm neither of those. Not bashing you at all, but I don't necessarily respect your thought on the matter. Now, my parents would've, but I'm not them. Just saying.

cheers

thank you its help me alot......

I read article and found very useful.

personality depends upon the guideness becoz widout a good guideness aq proper personality cannot be formed.