'Nature of personality paper\r'

' charitable character is a complex construct that includes a number of influences, which ar, however, often opposed in definitive psychology: communicable versus environ psychogenic factors; loosen ordain vs. determinism and certified versus unconscious mien. The present paper is think to analyze this spectrum through the prism of various mental theories.\r\nFreudian, or psychoanalytic come, alleges that benignant demeanour depends upon the instincts, manifested in Homo sapiens in more ‘ interact’ form. Freud (Carver and Scheier, 1995) divides nature into three parts: the Id, or the subconscious, or the reflection of human instincts and most egoistic and immature desires, the cook Ego, or human consciousness (the self), which provides mental determination of behavior, and Super Ego, or conscience, which acts as an knowledgeable censor and places restrictions on both the Id and the Alter Ego.\r\nThe prentice suggests that human behavior is mostly determi ned by the Id, as it comprises the greatest part of record, just now the Alter Ego and the Super Ego develop throughout developmental course under the influence of genial environment. Thus, psychoanalytic approach prioritizes environmental factors over genetic, unconscious behavior over conscious and determinism over promiscuous give (Cook, 1984).\r\nNeo-Freudians importanttain most psychoanalytic concepts, but develop a unique framework of human Ego as non merely a mediator between the Id and the Super Ego, but  kinda as a separate force, less helpless upon the other two constituents and because more autonomous in spirit formation. For instance, Erik Erikson held that â€Å"the Ego’s main job was to establish and maintain a aw beness of identity.\r\nA person with a strong awareness of identity is one who knows where he is in life, has veritable this position and has workable goals for change and growth. He has a sense of uniqueness while also having a sens e of belonging and wholeness” (Cook, 1984, p. 258).\r\nAlso Neo-Freudian or psychodynamic approach is captureed as a single doctrine, its proponents vary greatly in their offices on the spectrum of human personality: for instance, earlier Neo-Freudians like Carl Jung stated the power of unconscious behavior over conscious and of determinism over free will, whereas the next generation of psychologists, who identified their views as ‘Neo-Freudian’ (like Erikson and Horney) aver that human behavior is mostly conscious and not necessarily determined by physiological or instinctual drives. All Neo-Freudians, however, consent to the notion that environmental influences are stronger than genetic (Cook, 1984; Funder, 1996).\r\nBiological perspective focuses on the control of genetic and physiological factors and stresses the influence of certain fashion of neural bodily function on human personality (temperament). This approach highlights genetic factors as opposed to environmental, biologic and genetic determinism as opposed to free will and unconscious behavior (for instance, the work of muscles, peculiarities of digestive growth as they relate to human diurnal performance in both physical and social contexts) as opposed to conscious.\r\nTrait theorists view human personality as a set of traits, which efficiency be interdependent or independent, in addition, certain traits might predominate over others (central traits and cardinal trait, in Allport’s interpretation) (Cook, 1984). Trait theorists provide plainly a shortened framework of personality development, as most of them reason out that individuals hunt down to focus on new settings (functional self-direction of motives) and therefore each developmental course is unique. Thus, the scholars view free will and social environment as behavior-shapers and insist that human actions are rather conscious than unconscious (Funder, 1996).\r\nHumanistic approach, which derived fro m Roger’s view on personality, which focuses on â€Å"healthy development in cost of how the individual perceived their own being” (Funder, 1996, p. 370). In addition, â€Å"a healthy individual will tend to see congruence between their sense of who they are (self) and who they feel they should be (ideal self)” (ibid). Human development is therefore a path to the ideal self, and the person by themselves decides on the mode of their progress, so this approach rejects determinism and genetic influences. Due to the fact that the personality is formed as a take of self-perception and self-analysis, this approach priorities conscious behavior (Cook, 1994).\r\nBehaviorists study human personality and development as a progress of behavior and social competence, as they (as phenomenologists) generally suggest that the matrix of human actions is the only true reality (rather than mood or personality traits). The central points of behaviorism are the notions of classica l condition (stimulus-behavioral reaction), operant conditioning (action-reinforcement-response) and social learning (behavior depends on human expectancies concerning the possible reward).\r\nThus, most behaviorists believe in determinism, the dominance of environmental factors over social (Carver and Scheier, 1995) . genuine behaviors (e.g. reflex-based), are, in their opinion, unconscious, whereas other behavioral manifestations are the result of human expectations and perceived roles (Founder, 1996).\r\nCognitive paradigm ‘is center on the individual’s thoughts as the classic of his or her emotions and behaviors and therefore personality” (Founder, 1996, p. 307). Cognitive theorists view human development as gradual organic evolution of human ability to process and analyze the sensible received through perception after the ingathering of experience.\r\nFor instance, Kelly’s Fundamental Postulate can be formulated in the following way: ”a per son’s process are mentally channelized by the way in which he anticipates events” (ibid, p. 308). Hence, this approach doesn’t accept determinism, views human behavior as conscious in practically all aspects and manifestations. neither genetic nor environmental influences are positioned as spectacular personality-shapers, as human perception and thinking (internal psychological factors) are more important. Nevertheless, environment is more presumable to have power over personality formation, they believe.\r\nAs for me, I don’t think that the spectrum of these dichotomies should be necessarily studied as three pairs of opposing factors. Due to the fact that scientific progress has allowed part de-scripting the DNA, it has appeared that genetic factors determine human neural activity and might shape such traits as emotiveness or assertiveness.\r\nFurthermore, conscious behavior should not be contrasted to unconscious, as the line that divides both behav iors is not actually straighten; human acts might be influenced by the faction of conscious decisions as well as unconscious and barely controllable drives. In addition, certain form of determinism is always present in human behavior and personal development (as we all are venomous creatures, so we plan our future keeping in mind this fact), whereas free will allows concentrating on current issues. Thus, all these factors should be viewed as a complex, or holistically.\r\nReference list\r\nCarver, C. and Scheier, S. (1995). Perspectives on character, 3rd edition. Massachussets, Allyn and Bacon.\r\nCook, M. (1984). Levels of personality. London, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.\r\nFunder, D. (1996). The Personality Puzzle. New York, W.W. Norton.\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n'