Do people really have personalities or is the whole theory of

People definitely have different types of personalities, but it's probably caused by life experience rather than it being something you're born with (excluding autism, down syndrome, ADHD, etc.)

>>8954693
you think being an extrovert or introvert is acquired?

>>8954693
Wrong

>>8954732
Nice answer. Piggot embryo

>>8954760
You literally shat out your made up opinion and you call that a "nice answer"? "It's probably caused by life experience", and yet personality traits are extremely stable throughout adult and even young life. This strongly points toward an underlying biological basis. Of course experience also matters, but to say that personality is entirely shaped by experience is clearly a poor explanation.
>but I called him names, that'll show him!

File: no_name_needed.jpg (102KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x683px

>>8954693
Sigh

>>8954697
it certainly is to an extent
i used to be very extroverted but
now i dislike people and being around
them makes me anxious.

55555 get

>>8955540
I'm sorry, friend

>>8955536
>developed anxiety
sounds like a genetic predisposition

hows it feel finding out you are wrong and mentally ill at the same time?

>>8954760
>Piggot
WTF deos that mean?

>>8954697
acquired very early in life yes

>>8954611
>the whole theory of personality
wat

>>8954611
>do they exist
as an abstraction, of course they exist, and describe the particular way individuals interact with society.

>the Big 5
I'm a little bit uneasy about the factor analysis done to derive it--can you really say that because two traits reliably covary, that they're just components of one single personality trait?--but it is certainly the most useful, if nothing else because of the volume of research put into it due to its eminent popularity.

>>8959890
>can you really say that because two traits reliably covary, that they're just components of one single personality trait?
Isn't that basically true by the definition of trait? It certainly looks like a reasonable way to define a trait, at least from a pragmatic perspective.

>>8954693
that's retarded, how can you separate the two?

>>8954611
there is "theory if personality" obviously we have different personalities but any broad categorisation will always fall short or get no one near, it's a case by case thing

>>8961525
>there is
there ISN'T
learn what 'theory' means

>>8954693
its nature and nurture that defines personality

Its pretty tough, but HEXACO and the Big Five are the best psychometrics on personality. They stand up to scrutiny, and have correlations with both genetics, and life outcome.

The Big Five and HEXACO are pretty similar. HEXACO is basically the Big five but in 6 categories rather than five. Any the big five I believe are:

Consciousness
Openness
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Honesty

>>8961683
Not honesty, extroversion.

>>8961567

Nature vs Nurture is a pretty poor way to frame the situation. The literature actually gives up on the nature / nurture dichotomy in like 1920, so you are a bit behind the times anon!

The problem with nature vs nurture, is that its hard to discern whether any given thing is nature or nurture. Plenty of things are both, plenty of things are neither.

>>8961684

Thanks anon.

I just looked it up, HEXACO has honesty, the big five doesnt. The big five has extraversion

>>8961686
which things are neither?

>>8961692

Any environmental factor that isnt a part of your upbringing isnt nurture, as far as I can tell. So, I live in New York. Maybe New York does something to people, and if it does, that has nothing to do with where I grew up. Maybe going to church does something, even if I didnt grow up going to church. Diet isnt really nurture. Maybe its nature because its biological, but its not genetic. Any non-genetic biological factor is arguably not nature or nurture, so things like head injuries, microbes, etc.