Personality

Personality is defined as the relatively enduring combination of traits which makes an individual unique and at the same time produces consistencies in his or her thought and behaviour. Personality can be thought of as a set of characteristic behaviours, attitudes and general temperament that remain relatively stable and distinguish one individual from another. Personality is that fundamental “thing” that makes us who we are and makes us different from everybody else.

Personality can be divided into two main approaches. These are the Nomothetic Approach and the Idiographic Approach. The term “nomothetic” comes from the Greek word “nomos” meaning “law”. Psychologists who adopt this approach are mainly concerned with studying what we share with others. That is to say in establishing laws or generalisations. The term “idiographic” comes from the Greek word “idios” meaning “own” or “private”. Psychologists interested in this aspect of experience want to find out what makes each of us unique.

Despite the fact that an important aspect of our uniqueness is our genes (i.e. it comes from biology) the distinction between the nomothetic and the idiographic is often associated with two types of science. These are the natural sciences concerned with discovering laws of nature and the social sciences, concerned with concerned with individual meanings (nurture).

The nomothetic view emphasizes the fact that personal traits have the same psychological meaning in everyone. This view believes that people only differ in the amount of each trait they have. These characteristics are ones that can be identified and measured so this means that they can also be observed and tested. This perspective is especially helpful for managers when they are involved in selecting and training individuals. The nomothetic approaches views environmental and social influences as minimal and personality as mainly inherited characteristics which are resistant to change. It claims that it is possible to measure and guess the ways in which certain personality types would behave given certain circumstances. Being able to predict behaviour is a major aim and outcome of this approach.

The idiographic view on the other hand emphasizes the fact that each and every individual has their own unique structure and that some characteristics and traits are possessed only by one individual. This theory suggests that it is impossible to compare one person with another. This approach also claims that different traits may vary in importance from person to person. It tends to use case studies, bibliographical information, and diaries for information gathering. It insists that managers take into account a “full” understanding of the individual at work. The idiographic perspective regards personality development as a process that is open to change. It claims that people respond to the environment, the people around them and social influences. Social interaction plays a major part in shaping personality. It criticises the nomothetic approach, stating that a person’s personality cannot be revealed simply by superficial questionnaires. (Mullins 2007).

Darwin's theory of evolution led psychologists like William Hamilton, George Williams and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that like physical organs, your personality is result of natural selection for survival of the fittest. You do as your genes dictate.
They suggest that fear of injury/ death, fear of spiders, fear of heights, shyness, addiction, criminality and sexual orientation are main examples of inheritable behaviours. Steven Pinker (2004) includes religiousness, liberalism and conservativeness in the list. William Paley considers cognitive capabilities, temperaments and cheating behaviours inheritable.
There is however a lot of criticism to this nature approach. There is no single universal behaviour which can be proved evolutionary. Even fear of death, that seems natural to all, cannot be explained by things such as suicides. Research has found that chimpanzees share 95% of our genetic characteristics. However, they don't share even 10% of our behaviours. Even identical twins (with 100% similar genes) behave differently in most circumstances.
It is due to all of these reasons that I feel the nurture approach is the more dominant influence. Although I believe that our personality is influenced by nature and genes, I believe that nurture and social influences have a more dominant role. As an example, both of my parents both have extremely short tempers and are very impatient. Alternatively, I am a very patient person and do not get angry or upset easily. Therefore this trait of my personality cannot be explained by genes. I believe that the reason I am patient is due to having watched them a lot and not liking their impatience, I choose to be more patient so that I am not like them in that way. Another way social influences have impacted my personality, rather than with genes, is that my mum and most of my family in fact are doctors or nurses. Both of my parents wanted me to become a doctor too; however I found that I was more influenced by my friends mother who is an accountant. The odd thing is that that particular friend of mine does not want to be an accountant but a doctor! This shows that it is not genetic influences (the nature approach) that are the main influence on our personality, but it is social influences (the nurture approach).
After taking the “Big Personality Test” I achieved the following results. There are 5 big personality traits. These are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism.

For Openness, I scored 2 out of 5. This trait is sometimes known as ‘Openness to experience’. People with scores like mine tend to have a less broad range of interests. They usually stick to what they know rather than being overly enthusiastic about trying new things. Generating lots of imaginative ideas is not your biggest strength. It has been suggested that openness is related to a person’s likelihood to hold unusual beliefs. People with low openness like myself are therefore less likely to believe in things such as conspiracy theories.

For Conscientiousness, I scored 2.9 out of 5. Conscientiousness describes how dependable, organised and hard-working a person is likely to be. This may be the reason why, of all the personality traits, Conscientiousness is the most consistent indicator of job success. People with scores like mine can appear disorganised, but tend to be spontaneous and have a good sense of fun. People with low conscientiousness like myself may be well suited to investigative or artistic careers. Some studies have shown that the more conscientious a person is, the more disciplined they are likely to be about exercise and diet (which I guess does not bode well with me!).

For extroversion, I scored 3.9 out of 5. Extroversion is characterised by positive emotions and the tendency to seek out pleasure-stimulating or risk-taking activities. People with scores like mine are often perceived as gregarious, expressive and energetic. I am someone who enjoys socialising and is quick to form new friendships. Personality studies have shown that scoring highly on Extroversion often translates to a natural capacity for leadership. High Extroversion may also indicate a tendency to earn more than those with lower scores, but the reasons for this are as yet apparently unclear. People with high Extroversion are more likely to lead risky lifestyles and take greater risks in pursuit of rewards. Health studies have shown they are more likely to smoke and less likely to get enough sleep than people who score less highly on this trait. I have to say that I disagree with the smoking part of this theory, as after scoring highly on this trait, I do not smoke (and do not intend to either) and cannot say I have very much trouble sleeping.

For Agreeableness, I scored 4.8 out of 5. Agreeableness measures how sympathetic and considerate a person is likely to be. People with scores like mine are likely to find it very easy to get along with other people. I find that I am sensitive to the feelings of others and that people find it easy to warm to me. As a “peoples person”, I find it very comfortable and easy to work in situations that require teamwork.

Finally, for Neuroticism, I scored medium with a score of 2.4 out of 5. In the context of the Big Five personality traits, the term 'Neuroticism' relates to a person’s response to threatening or stressful situations. People with scores like mine are likely to be comparatively level-headed about perceived threats, but I may find myself worrying when faced with uncertainty or unfamiliar situations. Some scientists have suggested that Neuroticism was beneficial in evolutionary terms. Early man may have found it advantageous to live in a population where certain individuals had a high sensitivity to threats to the group's survival. There is evidence to suggest that Neuroticism, when combined with high scores in personality traits such as Conscientiousness, can result in a powerful work ethic and a will to succeed.

Overall I feel that the “big personality” test is very realistic, and I will most certainly recommend people to take it. In fact I have already told both my mother and my brother just how insightful I consider it to be. I found that the results of this questionnaire, match my personality almost perfectly and I have also gained valuable knowledge on areas I am not so good at which I did not in fact know before, for example openness. I considered myself to be a fairly open person however I understand now, after going through these results, that I was wrong and that I can improve on this trait.

Alongside the “big personality” test, I also took the Mind Frames questionnaire. There are 4 mindframes of thought (the internal mindframes) and 4 mindframes of action (the external mindframes). The 4 mindframes of thought are Logic, Insight, order and Sensitivity. The 4 mindframes of action are Proactivity, Charisma, Control and Sociability. The mindframe that receives the highest score is called the "lead" mindframe, because very often it will be the first mindframe I turn to as I deal with the everyday challenges of work and life. Of the 8 mindframes, my lead mindframe is the sociability mindframe. This mindframe is used by me very often and feels so comfortable, natural and effortless that I may use it more than 80% of the time. I will use it first and most often and I will probably stick with it longer. My second highest mindframe was the charisma mindframe. Apparently I use this mindframe often. This mindframe feels comfortable, and I may use it 60% - 80% of the time. Even if I rely on others more, you’ll have no trouble operating in this mode.

Overall I feel that this questionnaire, although not as realistic as the “big personality” test, is still useful to use. The results I received were the ones I expected to get, showing that this questionnaire is just as realistic as the “big personality” test, however unlike with that questionnaire; in this test I did not learn anything new.

http://wilderdom.com/personality/traits/PersonalityTraitsIdiographicNomothetic.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Nature-VS-Nurture---Theories-of-Personality-in-21st-Century&id=64862

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/ttomasic.html

http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/whatamilike/index.shtml

www.initforlife.com/home/tm.asp