#Nature vs. nurture

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Personality

The philosophy of personality explores the nature, origin, and development of individual identity and selfhood. It involves questions about the essence of what makes someone who they are, how personality is formed, the relationship between personality and free will, and how external and internal factors shape personal characteristics.

Here’s an overview of key concepts and perspectives:

1. Nature of Personality

Personality refers to the unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and experiences that define an individual. Philosophers examine whether personality is something inherent (fixed by nature) or whether it evolves over time (shaped by nurture and experience).

Essentialism vs. Existentialism:

Essentialism posits that personality is rooted in an essential nature that is relatively stable over time. This is often linked to the idea of a fixed "soul" or "self" that defines identity.

Existentialism, on the other hand, argues that personality is fluid, shaped by personal choices and life experiences. For existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, human beings are not born with a pre-defined personality but create themselves through actions and decisions. Sartre famously claimed, "Existence precedes essence," meaning that who we are is the result of our lived experiences, not an inherent nature.

2. Personality and Identity

Self-Identity: Philosophers such as John Locke have explored the link between personality and personal identity, especially how continuity of consciousness relates to being the same person over time. Locke's memory theory of identity suggests that we are the same person to the extent that we remember our past actions and experiences.

Psychological Continuity: Theories of psychological continuity focus on how personality and mental states over time create a coherent sense of self. If a person experiences radical changes in personality or memory loss, philosophers question whether they remain the same person.

3. Determinism vs. Free Will in Personality

Determinism: Determinists argue that personality is shaped by a combination of genetics, environment, and social conditioning. According to this view, free will plays little to no role in shaping personality because external factors like upbringing, culture, and biology predetermine how we think, feel, and act.

Free Will: Opposing this, many existentialists and humanistic philosophers believe that individuals have the power to transcend their circumstances and freely shape their personalities. Sartre argued that people are "condemned to be free," meaning that they must take responsibility for their actions and the personality traits they develop.

4. Personality and Moral Responsibility

Character and Virtue Ethics: Philosophers like Aristotle emphasized the role of character in shaping ethical behavior. According to Aristotle, personality traits like courage, temperance, and wisdom can be cultivated through practice and habit, leading to a virtuous life. In this view, personality is not just a collection of traits but something tied to one's moral development.

Moral Luck: A challenge in the philosophy of personality is the idea of moral luck—the notion that aspects of one’s personality may be shaped by circumstances outside of their control, yet they are still held morally accountable for their actions. For example, someone born with a naturally aggressive disposition may find it harder to behave ethically, raising questions about responsibility and fairness.

5. Personality and the Unconscious

The role of the unconscious mind in shaping personality has been a major topic of discussion, especially in the works of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Freud proposed that unconscious desires and conflicts shape much of our personality, and many of our behaviors are driven by unconscious motives rather than rational choices.

Jung expanded on Freud’s ideas by introducing the collective unconscious, which he argued contains archetypes that influence individual personalities. These archetypes are universal symbols and themes that shape human experience and personality development.

6. Personality and Social Context

Sociological and Cultural Influences: Many contemporary philosophers and social theorists emphasize that personality is not developed in isolation but in interaction with society and culture. Social constructivism suggests that much of our personality is shaped by societal norms, values, and roles. According to this view, personality traits are often expressions of the expectations and constraints placed on individuals by their social environment.

Gender and Personality: Feminist philosophers like Judith Butler argue that gender, as a central aspect of personality, is a social performance rather than an inherent trait. In this sense, personality is something individuals enact within the framework of societal norms.

7. Personality and the Self

Concept of the Self: Philosophers debate whether there is a "core" self behind personality traits or whether the self is an illusion, constructed through interactions with the world. Some argue for a unified self, where personality is an expression of a consistent internal essence. Others, such as David Hume, believed that the self is a bundle of perceptions with no fixed identity, constantly in flux.

Narrative Identity: Some philosophers, like Paul Ricoeur, suggest that individuals create their identities through the stories they tell about themselves. Personality, in this view, is tied to the personal narrative that individuals construct over time, making sense of their past experiences and future goals.

The philosophy of personality addresses fundamental questions about identity, free will, morality, and the interplay between nature and nurture. It explores how much of who we are is determined by genetics, culture, or unconscious factors, and to what extent we have the power to shape our own personalities.

[tssm-screencaps]

The Spectacular Spider-Man - S1 E13: Nature vs. Nurture

[linguisticdiscovery]

A mind for language: The language innateness debate

Check out the new book A mind for language: An introduction to the innateness debate. It looks at the evidence for and against the idea that language is innate rather than learned:

For an opposing perspective, check out “The language myth: Why language is not an instinct”:

[liskantope]

The topic of sexual orientation being a choice or how much it's a product of genetics or otherwise, and the whole debate around it that peaked around 15-18 years ago, has happened to come up a number of times in my posts/discussions here lately, so I might as well lay out how I feel about it.

It seems most likely to me that sexual orientation is probably largely genetic or at least somehow wired in people from birth, but not entirely and not in all cases. I think environment almost certainly plays a significant role for many though far from all people. And in some moderately exceptional cases, someone might be able to consciously choose their sexual orientation, not as in snapping their fingers and making themself attracted to a different set of people, but as in deliberately self-modifying over a prolonged period (I've seen some talk of "bi-hacking" in the rationalist-sphere, for instance.)

(I would imagine that it's pretty much the same story for transness, but I don't want to get into that here.)

Back at the final hurrah of the gay rights movement's prominence among the culture wars, during the mid-00's (this is the part I remember the best, maybe a lot of this was going on earlier as well), one of the main planks of the gay rights side was "not a choice" and "born that way". Many younger progressives nowadays tend to see this as a misguided perspective that both misleadingly oversimplified the situation and wrongly prioritized the question of choice -- why should it matter whether homosexuality is a choice, when the real point is that it's harmless? -- and lament how much this is ingrained into the victorious perspective of gay issues adopted by society, even if it was clearly good political strategy and may have been instrumental to changing hearts and minds.

I count myself among this camp: I vividly remember my high school self circa 2004 angrily insisting that all gay people were born gay and nothing whatsoever can influence someone's sexual orientation after they're born (or probably almost nothing -- I at least had some sense of epistemic caution at that age), and now I see that perspective as naive and misguided.

But, while the "not a choice", "born that way" thing was certainly overplayed in the mid-00's to the point of probably having some indirectly harmful aftereffects, I think we need to be careful about dismissing it as a totally irrelevant distraction in the debate. There are reasons it was probably crucial in our success at changing hearts and minds, and some of them do point to valid motivations.

Several arguments come to mind which mostly boil down to the fact that a low-agency model of someone implies they deserve sympathy. First of all, it seems worse to pick on a group of people for a trait they can't help, or (analogously) to rail against them developing that trait and however others are supposedly to blame for them developing it if in fact it's a trait people are born with. Relatedly, a lot of the anti-gay side's attitude came from a pervasive religious belief about homosexuality displeasing God. This kind of conviction obviously doesn't hold up very well if homosexuality is a trait that someone was born with or otherwise can't change about themself.

"But," many conservatives have said, "we're not denying that a tendency towards the 'wrong' sexual orientation is out of some people's control; we're just saying that people have enough control to be able to modify their orientations through certain types of therapy. It's just like a tendency to alcoholism: with enough work, an alcoholic can learn to not feel an overwhelming craving for a drink." Okay, but if it's evident that homosexuality is of a more deeply ingrained nature than an active addiction to alcohol, then that argument doesn't really work either. And on some level such a thing appears to be the case: at least it's pretty widely agreed that various therapies pushed by conservatives for changing someone's sexual orientation rarely work. And the "born that way" narrative, if only a rough and naive approximation of the truth, has certainly helped to explain why conversion therapy is a bad idea and should be discouraged and certainly not pushed on people.

And then there's the fact that if some marginalized trait is entirely a choice, there seems to be less moral imperative for protecting those who possess it. If being attracted to people of the same gender is something that a person can just change, sure, we might be opposed to someone having a problem with it on the principle that an attitude like that is incorrect and somewhat restrictive, but at least gay people would have the option of changing their orientation to straight even if in principle they shouldn't be required to do so. Homophobia would still be wrong, and of course any kind of violence or direct coercion in its name would be very wrong, but we might be rationally justified in focusing our priorities on people who are oppressed for being in situations they truly have no control over.

So, it's good to recognize that it's not as simple as "To tell you it's okay / You were just born that way / And hey, it's in your DNA" and super important to recognize that homophobia would still be wrong even if sexual orientation were totally under everyone's control. But I don't think the truth that sexual orientation is mostly out of people's control and probably somewhat genetic/innate should be regarded as entirely irrelevant to gay rights either.

[blueheartbookclub]

"Resurrecting Prometheus: Mary Shelley's Haunting Masterpiece, Frankenstein"

Mary W. Shelley's "Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus" stands as an immortal testament to the enduring power of gothic literature and its exploration of the human condition. In this haunting tale of scientific ambition gone awry, Shelley weaves a narrative that transcends time, challenging our notions of morality, creation, and the pursuit of knowledge.

Victor Frankenstein's reckless quest to defy the boundaries of life and death results in the birth of a creature both wretched and sublime. Shelley's evocative prose takes us on a journey through the icy landscapes of the Arctic and the darkest recesses of the human soul. The novel's layered narrative, framed within the letters of an ambitious explorer, adds depth to the overarching tragedy, creating a sense of impending doom.

As the creature grapples with his identity, rejected by society and his own creator, Shelley compels us to confront themes of isolation, prejudice, and the consequences of playing god. The moral ambiguity of Victor Frankenstein and the sympathetic portrayal of his creature blur the lines between good and evil, challenging readers to ponder the ethical implications of scientific innovation.

"Frankenstein" is more than a cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific hubris; it is a profound exploration of the consequences of unchecked ambition and the responsibility that comes with creation. Shelley's narrative mastery, coupled with her intellectual depth, makes this novel a timeless classic that continues to resonate with readers, inviting them to ponder the boundaries of human knowledge and the price of playing with the forces of life and death.

"Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus" by Mary W. Shelley is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 20.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 266

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[nyxtalksmusic]

I was too young to play All of their grown up games Played a pawn anyways

[fathersonholygore]

Repressing the Past & Nurturing Monsters in COBWEB

Cobweb (2023) Directed by Samuel Bodin Screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin Starring Lizzy Caplan, Antony Starr, Woody Norman, Cleopatra Coleman, & Aleksandra Dragova. Horror / Thriller ★★★★ (out of ★★★★★) DISCLAIMER: The following essay contains SPOILERS! You’ve been warned. Samuel Bodin’s unnerving Gothic film Cobweb follows the plight of an eight-year-old boy named Peter (Woody Norman) after he…

[fictionophile]

"The Secret of the Brighton House" by Cathy Hayward - Book Review @CathyHayward7 #WomensFiction #TheSecretOfTheBrightonHouse #BookReview

Though the cover of this novel has a slight thriller vibe, make no mistake, this is not a thriller. The novel was about two young women, both pregnant, a generation apart. Some of the scenes in the book were traumatic to read. Grace and her husband Mike were so very excited to be expecting a baby. Grace sewed tiny clothes and she and her best friend, Susie, made a large and colourful rag rug for…

[blueheartbooks]

"Resurrecting Prometheus: Mary Shelley's Haunting Masterpiece, Frankenstein"

Mary W. Shelley's "Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus" stands as an immortal testament to the enduring power of gothic literature and its exploration of the human condition. In this haunting tale of scientific ambition gone awry, Shelley weaves a narrative that transcends time, challenging our notions of morality, creation, and the pursuit of knowledge.

Victor Frankenstein's reckless quest to defy the boundaries of life and death results in the birth of a creature both wretched and sublime. Shelley's evocative prose takes us on a journey through the icy landscapes of the Arctic and the darkest recesses of the human soul. The novel's layered narrative, framed within the letters of an ambitious explorer, adds depth to the overarching tragedy, creating a sense of impending doom.

As the creature grapples with his identity, rejected by society and his own creator, Shelley compels us to confront themes of isolation, prejudice, and the consequences of playing god. The moral ambiguity of Victor Frankenstein and the sympathetic portrayal of his creature blur the lines between good and evil, challenging readers to ponder the ethical implications of scientific innovation.

"Frankenstein" is more than a cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific hubris; it is a profound exploration of the consequences of unchecked ambition and the responsibility that comes with creation. Shelley's narrative mastery, coupled with her intellectual depth, makes this novel a timeless classic that continues to resonate with readers, inviting them to ponder the boundaries of human knowledge and the price of playing with the forces of life and death.

"Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus" by Mary W. Shelley is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 20.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 266

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[ecomehdi]

the Power of Human Intelligence: Beyond Brain Size and Into the Cognitive Marvels 23

In the intricate tapestry of human evolution, the enigma of intelligence takes center stage. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not merely about the size of our brains but the fascinating dance of cognitive circuitry that propels our intellect. Let’s embark on a journey through the corridors of the mind, exploring the nuances of human Intelligence. Understanding the Brain’s Symphony The Intricate…

[tssm-screencaps]

The Spectacular Spider-Man - S1 E13: Nature vs. Nurture

[turiyatitta]

The Harmony Within

[l33n1s]

Tbh I think one of the reasons why Shen Yuan's pretending (in being SQQ) was so successful (because it largely was. The second in command of a major sect being "replaced" in a way that was noticeable enough to cause concern would have been a big deal) is because Shen Jiu was also pretending. SQQ exists as a character that Both SY and SJ take their turn playing. Both Shens are internally emotional messes playing at being The Untouchable Immortal Master Shen™.

I do think it's funny though that SY frequently refers to SJ as a poser and a hypocrite when SY is also those things.

[mccromy]

I picture Ming Fan as the perfect teacher's pet, not in an ass kisser way, but in a was-born-for-this kind of way. If the authority figure is a cruel sneering villain, he is a cruel little minion hunched over rubbing his hands on the corner. If the authority figure is an old man with mommydaddy vibes, he's the neighborhood's unattainable MILF's son who clearly wants the cool Martial Arts champion to be his new dad and not you, I'm going to tell mom you hit me you little shit.

Unfortunately in the last scenario his aspiring stepdad is his little shit of pseudo (martial) brother, who wrote a poem titled something that Ming Fan interpreted as "Shixiong's mom has got it going on" which thankfully flew right above Shizun's head. Ming Fan just KNOWS that if Luo Binghe asked Shizun if they could marry pretty please Shizun would sigh and accept but only because Binghe has been such a diligent and filial disciple and he deserves a reward. And Ming Fan is not unaware of how incestuous he makes it sound, but you don't live here you don't know what he's going through.

He tried to keep Luo Binghe's grubby paws away from his shimei, but he focused so much on guarding the cabbage patch he didn't see Luo Binghe sneak past and towards the farmer's house!

Thank Heavens the farmer is so far removed from mortal issues he doesn't notice the beast he collared wants to be his house wife.

So Ming Fan, instead of a little henchman, becomes an anxiety riddled teenager, seeing gold diggers hiding in every corner. Ning Ying Ying tuts and tells him he's being ridiculous, to which Luo Binghe shakes his head and says:

"No, no. I see them too."

[zankalony]

Which aspects do you think makes a person unique?

No one else can or will have your exact collection of knowledge, experiences, and perceptions that causes you to be who you are. Every person is a unique puzzle composed of pieces of personality, life experiences, knowledge, and emotions. No one else can or will have your exact collection of knowledge, experiences, and perceptions that causes you to be who you are. No one else is going to…

[blorbocedes]

I saw (I think) jenson say that max is the most naturally talented driver he's ever driven with(through Sophie and jos), do you think max is more natural talent or grueling training he went through as a kid? Very nature vs nurture question lol

as an anthropologist they'd take my degree away if I say nature. so let me break it down. of course max is once in a generation talent, but what does that mean? he didn't come out of the womb knowing how to drive a car. it's not encoded in his dna, simply bc his parents were in the same occupation. hamilton's parents weren't racers. that veers into biological essentialism, when what it really is - having both racing parents is max was exposed to that environment from a much younger age and had 2 adult who could guide him into racing with different styles. max is not a biological freak of nature like michael phelp's wingspan/lung capacity. driving was something that was learned and perfected upon. you need money to get into karting, yes, but also skill. there's so promising talents that never made it. this ofc is not an endorsement of jos' parenting styles; max is the rare success story where other kids in that position would and have burned out. but my point in talent needs to be honed with perseverance, endurance, hard work, and yes luck too. max is someone who lives and breathes racing, when he has his free time he's fucking sim racing. brasil was a culmination of his talents on show, yes, but early in the season before the mcl even truly showed its pace max clocked lando as his challenger and since then he has been driving the championship to mitigate losing it. that's not just talent, that's brains at work too -- like the risk assessment that a lando at p2 is worth whatever penalty he may get for driving him off, because he believed he was fast enough to come back into points. the point I'm making re: gruelling childhood training is that it's not like max ever stopped working on his racecraft. even when he was winning every race in 23, he said he wanted to improve on previous races, win with larger margins, he was his own competitor. the max of today is a better driver than the max of 2016 as a result of that

I don't disagree with jenson's assessment, max certainly has "it" and it's something you either have or you don't. but the term natural talent also soothes their ego losing to max, ahhhh I couldn't have competed with what Nature gifted him. it downplays the mountain of work that's behind honing that natural talent into actionable skill.