# What determines personality? Nature or Nurture?



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it should be nurture. Genetics only form the building blocks, but how personality builds up depends on your family environment, your social circle and even the cultural/religious environment you live in. Personality, imo, is more fluid than other personal characteristics like IQ.


----------



## pertracto (Sep 4, 2015)

> I think what I was trying to say is that free will determines our system of values more than our personality. I don't think it is possible to change what cognitive functions you primarily use, you can strengthen your weaker ones though.


I get it, it is true that I sometimes forget to dissociate values and personality as mine are deeply connected.



> Free Will does not exist. Just thought you should know.


Argh I didn't want to go there but you leave me no choice. Basically my comment was meant to be very light and not asking to go too deep into the eternal debate : does free will exist? 
So it is true that recent neuroscientific studies proved that actually certain areas of our brain activate 7 to 10 seconds before we "act" our choice, hence seriously questioning the idea we have of "free will". These results only strenghtened the beliefs of people who claimed that free will simply did not exist. 

However I think a more reasonable position is to simply conclude that our intentions are not systematically at the origin of our actions. Unconscious process is maybe playing a bigger role than we used to think, and the awareness of a decision is something that builds during the decison process, not at its origin. 

Moreover, experiments seem to agree with that as MRI show that the areas activated also possess the function to inhibit actions which have been decided upstream. So it looks like until the very last moment we have the choice to not act. People call that "Free won't"


----------



## AstralSoldier (Jun 18, 2012)

flourine said:


> What do you think? Are you born with your traits from the start, or are your traits a result of what you experienced during your life? No true middle ground for this one; *just leaning towards one or the other is fine, but stray away from 50/50*


Interesting Flourine! I'll have to ramble a little to form what my intuition grasped here, so BARE WITH ME! lol 

It is both, but to what degree is dependent on the individual AFTER they have achieved cognitive autonomy, or "the ability to think for oneself based on the knowledge they have about themselves and their environment."

Prior to a person's individuation they are entirely dependent on their innate traits (nature) and social rearing that can support/cripple the innate traits of the person (nurture) both, and this combination of experiences provided to them from both characteristics provides a basic template of personality structure (however disordered or organized/balanced in it's expression it may be/become). These characteristics (combined with the experiences they have gathered up to the point of cognitive autonomy) can influence the degrees by which the person is able to define their personality expression, however I do think nature (depending upon what is nurtured in the individuals such as freedom of expression and generally socially and personally 'productive' behavioral aspects) has the capacity to effect a person more depending on their innate drive and resilience.

For example, some people have an innate drive to surmount traumatic circumstances, (due to creative/abstract thinking) coming out of them relatively fine, and able to move on and others do not, and instead give in to their circumstances and believe that they have little to no effect on their surroundings other than conforming and acting through what is permitted by their primary caregivers: if you were to take this pattern of behavior from them, they become stressed, erratic, and volatile, unable to find equilibrium and will slide further down mentally until they breakdown, at such a point that they believe they must act in desperation to alleviate their stress and poor coping ability.

Traits that innate to two children born in the same family unit can and often times, be different in expression: one can be an artist/intellectual, the other a partyer/social butter fly, or some combination of both to varying degrees. The point is in the end, when cognitive autonomy is reached (*IF it even is*) the degree and manner by which people find cognitive harmony (in what they do, and know, and have done and known) will determine what degree they feel that their personality is effected by their own Nature and what is Nurtured. 

Levels of cognitive autonomy (and degrees of personality expression) are determined by the person's innate nature(and can be influenced by what social motivations/catalysts are nurtured) internal motivations and drives: For example, some people aspire to gain more intellect/knowledge and so reflect more on what they know, and do not, and strengthen their core reasoning/logic considering the motivation being for the internal/intrinsic love of learning will attribute to a higher IQ than without the motivation: (provided this drive remains constant by some catalyst: either internal or external, however, if this drive remains internal, it will do far more for the individual than anything external because internal motivation is a constant presence being an initiating/directing motivation that is 'active' and under the control of the individual: it drives the individual to act as needed where external motivational factors change with environment and wane being inconstant and are so 'passive' influences requiring the person to go after them due to the inconsistency of their occurrence, and so they go after more diversified/broader sets to find cognitive harmony: this would provide some 'practical' examples and basis to Jung's Extroversion and Introversion scales.

The conclusion I'm drawing here is, from the time the person is able to differentiate between themselves and their environments (provided they arrive at the cognitive autonomy phase of their cognitive development) they should begin to think to some degree about their environment and their social rearing and it's effect on them to make use/effect of what was provided for them in terms of their nurturance from primary care givers and those they learn from in their environments(nurture) or what was innate to their nature.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

I think you're born with a certain personality. All three of my children acted so differently as babies and stayed consistant with those personalities. 

I think if anything we are born with set functions but perhaps the order of function stacking can change depending on input.


----------



## JR CreativeGenius (Dec 2, 2015)

pertracto said:


> I get it, it is true that I sometimes forget to dissociate values and personality as mine are deeply connected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, if you insist to debate.

That was quite the introduction, and I do applaud you. However, your arguments fail on critical matters. Before I begin, I will state the definition of free will. "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination." It is important to remember that free will certainly does not equate to making decisions. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with the way we behave. The concept of free will is far more profound than that. Free will isn't the the observable fruit on the tree, but it's is the roots under the ground. The roots that we can't see or observe. No, but it's even more than that. Free will originates at the seed. Well, that is, if if free will existed.

It is crucial to understand what free will is. When I argue that free will is an illusion, I argue this, the ability to make choices only appears to be free will, however, everything from our thoughts to our actions has been determined by factors which we do not choose. Free will assumes that humans have a "soul" if you may. And this soul is not only who we truly are, but it is also is also responsible for all our choices. Free will is the concept that everyone possesses their own self-discretion, and this self discretion acts as an "independent variable." This brings me to my first point.

Free will is riddled with illogical paradoxes that prove its falsehood. The first problem with free will is the paradox of the independent variable. For this argument I will be focusing on constant variables and independent variables.
The most important step is to define the terms in the context of which I will be using them.

Independent Variables: The independent variable is the free will that is individual to each person. In order for free will to exist, all people must have their own independent variable. The reason is because if people do not have their own independent variable than it is merely a constant variable, which brings me to constant variables.

Constant Variables = All variables that are not under the control of the Independent Variable. These variables include every last detail of everything that transcends the Independent Variable. They encompass everything from atoms, viruses, bacteria, other human beings, nature, Earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, and the Universe. Of course, all of these things are not under the control of the independent variable. These variables would remain constant even if a new independent variable were to be input into the equation.

Now, free will can not exist if different independent variables"the souls of different people"do not result in a different answer, when plugged into an identical equation of constant variables. For example, say I were born as Barack Obama. All constant variables are the same. This means that anything not under the control of my independent variable will remain constant. I have absolutely no control over my molecular form, and therefore I would be molecularly identical to Barack Obama. Now, I am "given," the identical constant variables that Barack Obama was "given." Of course, I have absolutely no choice in what constant variables I am "given." Notice that I do add quotations around the word given. To proceed, with identical constant variables, I will be born into the same family as Obama. The same environment. All constant variables are exactly identical, as I have absolutely no control over them. Now, according to free will, I should have a different independent variable than Barack Obama, and therefore I will not live the exact same life that he did. However, how could this so called "free will," this independent variable, be any different than Barack Obama's?

At what point did I ever get a chance to choose a different independent variable? When did I choose to possess a different free will? If this different independent variable, was "given" to me, then it is a constant variable, as I had no control over it. If it is given to me then how did I choose it? At what point do I diverge from Obama's life. We are the same person now. Yet, "I" have done nothing. I have simply "received" Barack Obama"s constant variables, not to my own discretion, and I simply acted upon these constant variables. I had absolutely no control in the matter, and now I am Barack Obama. Everything he does in his life will be what I do. My life will be exactly identical, and even if it is not it can only be explained by a differing constant variable, as there is no way to acquire a differing independent variable.

Free will becomes a major paradox when you take a closer look. How can you have a differing independent variable, if you must choose to have a differing independent variable in the first place? You must have a differing independent variable to choose a different independent variable. The point is, we are only a result of the massive accumulation of all our constant variables. We possess no special free will that separates us as individuals. There is absolutely no way to have an individual independent variable, and no way to have free will. Therefore it is more logical to believe that free will is an illusion.

Here is a mathematical example to prove my point even further.
Now, here is a set of constant variables. These constant variables account for every last miniscule detail that impacts your life. Of course, these constant variables are all out of your control.

((55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(65,890,783*3,221,834-99,142,)+88/8+11,666,663*(59,422-488,008,065)-5*(4*(849+773/666))/5*732+(9^2(1*(65*3^2/77^2)/4^2))+22*19*13+7-903,827*(91*843/9-52)+391,839,941*2*(76-3^2/9+13^2)+55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(765,001,783*23,221,834-99,142,744,321)) *X

Here I have accumulated every single constant variable in your life. This includes anything and everything that you have no control over. However, do you see the bolded X at the bottom. That is the independent variable which you have control over. According to free will, if you and I were given the same constant variables, we would still live different lives because of that one constant variable which we can manipulate to our own discretion. Now, I have a question? Why would your X be any different than my X?

For instance, how could your X = 36,972 but my X = 28,999

Like I said, if that X value was given to you, then you did not choose it. Thus, it would merely be another constant variable to add to that massive equation. There is no possible way to have a different independent variable.
Possessing a different independent variable to plug into the equation would require a different independent variable to choose what the former independent variable was.

Something like this.

X = (66*91-777,456)+Y

VS

X = (66*91-777,456)+Y

The value of Y will now have to be different in each equation, in order for the output to have differing values for X.

Therefore, our independent variables would be the same. Say... 13, for example.

Okay, now if you plug 13 into that massive equation the output will always be the same number.
Every single time. The result will always be the same. This massive equation of more constant variables than we can count. We can add as many constant variables as we want and the result will always be the same.
To have free will is to have a unique free will that will change the set variables in which you are placed. This math equation explains it well. Free will asserts that all people possess a unique and independent variable that is individual to them, and therefore it will result in a different dependent variable when placed in the set formula of constant variables. Constant variable which they did not choose.
Now which is more logical to believe? An assumption made at birth through the mere observation of the five senses. An assumption riddled with major paradoxes?

Or a logical, well thought out, and thoroughly investigated proposal? I rest my case that it is far more logical that free will is an illusion.

Your turn.


----------



## pertracto (Sep 4, 2015)

> Oh, if you insist to debate.
> 
> That was quite the introduction, and I do applaud you. However, your arguments fail on critical matters. Before I begin, I will state the definition of free will. "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination." It is important to remember that free will certainly does not equate to making decisions. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with the way we behave. The concept of free will is far more profound than that. Free will isn't the the observable fruit on the tree, but it's is the roots under the ground. The roots that we can't see or observe. No, but it's even more than that. Free will originates at the seed. Well, that is, if if free will existed.
> 
> ...


I am going to sleep now because it is late, but don't you worry, I'll be back (like the terminator told ya :tongue


----------



## pertracto (Sep 4, 2015)

> Your turn.


Wow you really got into it! And I apologies for the people reading all this and realizing it has nothing to do with the thread (we got off topic here). I see the effort and time you have put there so by respect I have done the same. I just hope you take none of these personally (I didn’t with yours). Moreover I always like someone who can challenge my mind and a good debate is only possible when both are ready to change their minds (a word to the wise :wink: )



> That was quite the introduction, and I do applaud you. However, your arguments fail on critical matters. Before I begin, I will state the definition of free will. "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination." It is important to remember that free will certainly does not equate to making decisions. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with the way we behave. The concept of free will is far more profound than that. Free will isn't the the observable fruit on the tree, but it's is the roots under the ground. The roots that we can't see or observe. No, but it's even more than that. Free will originates at the seed. Well, that is, if if free will existed.


First of all, I have to say that I find it very daring and naive of you to give a definition of “free will” as I find that when one buries oneself in the literature dedicated to the subject, the first difficulty met is that it seems there are as many concepts of free will as there are authors.

Then I agree that free will does not equate to making decisions (did I say that?).

Also your metaphor is pretty but is contestable, not in the content but already in the form. Indeed when you say that free will originates at the seed (if it existed, whatever) you support the existence of “ultimate sources”, which is the same as supporting the existence of non caused causes. But this equate to accepting the idea of causal rupture, and it can’t coexist metaphysically.

However if I was nevertheless to follow your metaphor, if free will originates at the seed of the tree, then surely our behavior or decisions are the fruits right ? The visible part and then how can you say there is absolutely no link between free will and the way we behave? 



> It is crucial to understand what free will is. When I argue that free will is an illusion, I argue this, the ability to make choices only appears to be free will, however, everything from our thoughts to our actions has been determined by factors which we do not choose. Free will assumes that humans have a "soul" if you may. And this soul is not only who we truly are, but it is also is also responsible for all our choices. Free will is the concept that everyone possesses their own self-discretion, and this self discretion acts as an "independent variable." This brings me to my first point.


It looks like you have restrained yourself to a determinist approach of free will. I think there is definitely a link between those factors and free will without one implying the other. 

In fact there can be a context effect without free will because it is possible there is only one conceptualization of a choice situation, the one influenced by the context, or that there are many of them but they are inaccessible to the consciousness at the decisive moment. 

We can also have an expression of free will and a context effect when one has a conscious access to different conceptualizations of a choice and is influenced by the context to choose among them.

Finally it is conceivable that free will occurs without a context effect, when between many conscious conceptualizations of a choice the person chooses not to be influenced by the context but to use internal factors.

So when you say that our actions are determined by factors that we do not choose, my answer is it depends what you mean by “choose”. If you mean that we don’t “shape” or “build” those factors, then I agree; but if you mean that we don’t elect those factors, then I disagree. 

Next thing is about humans having a soul (why the quotation marks?), I agree on the fact that free will assumes we got one, but not on the fact that that our soul is the only one responsible for all our choices (I think you took a short cut here) like I said earlier.

Then you say that “free will is the concept that everyone possesses their own self-discretion” I agree. And that “this self-discretion acts as an independent variable”, another short cut and I don’t agree with its statement. Again free will is the result of a combinatorial analysis, taking into account internal and external factors. In this context, “free” does not mean “without connection”.



> Free will is riddled with illogical paradoxes that prove its falsehood. The first problem with free will is the paradox of the independent variable. For this argument I will be focusing on constant variables and independent variables.
> The most important step is to define the terms in the context of which I will be using them.
> 
> Independent Variables: The independent variable is the free will that is individual to each person. In order for free will to exist, all people must have their own independent variable. The reason is because if people do not have their own independent variable than it is merely a constant variable, which brings me to constant variables.
> ...


I am trying to follow you there, so you build a dichotomous system to give a very simplified vision of the situation. However if you put constant variables as everything which is not under the control of free will, then how are we going to study the possible impact of free will?



> Now, free will can not exist if different independent variables"the souls of different people"do not result in a different answer, when plugged into an identical equation of constant variables. For example, say I were born as Barack Obama. All constant variables are the same. This means that anything not under the control of my independent variable will remain constant. I have absolutely no control over my molecular form, and therefore I would be molecularly identical to Barack Obama. Now, I am "given," the identical constant variables that Barack Obama was "given." Of course, I have absolutely no choice in what constant variables I am "given." Notice that I do add quotations around the word given. To proceed, with identical constant variables, I will be born into the same family as Obama. The same environment. All constant variables are exactly identical, as I have absolutely no control over them. Now, according to free will, I should have a different independent variable than Barack Obama, and therefore I will not live the exact same life that he did. However, how could this so called "free will," this independent variable, be any different than Barack Obama's?


Well we have gone completely into science fiction here haha! But whatever you are indeed creative. As for me, from the moment you said “say I were born as Barack Obama” there was no more discussion possible, because if you are him then “you” are “him”. You don’t have “your” free will, you have “his”. 

But I understand what you are trying to say here, you mean what if your soul had been transferred in Obama’s body from the beginning? There you go, we have changed only one variable in our equation and you say it will not change the result. I have only one question: how do you know? You say it wouldn’t change a thing, I say it could change something but honestly I don’t see how we could prove our words and that is the problem with unreal situations. 



> At what point did I ever get a chance to choose a different independent variable? When did I choose to possess a different free will? If this different independent variable, was "given" to me, then it is a constant variable, as I had no control over it. If it is given to me then how did I choose it? At what point do I diverge from Obama's life. We are the same person now. Yet, "I" have done nothing. I have simply "received" Barack Obama"s constant variables, not to my own discretion, and I simply acted upon these constant variables. I had absolutely no control in the matter, and now I am Barack Obama. Everything he does in his life will be what I do. My life will be exactly identical, and even if it is not it can only be explained by a differing constant variable, as there is no way to acquire a differing independent variable.


“If this different independent variable, was "given" to me, then it is a constant variable, as I had no control over it.” I think your dichotomous system was way too simplistic and that is why it cannot go the distance. For the rest, I’ve already answered.



> Free will becomes a major paradox when you take a closer look. How can you have a differing independent variable, if you must choose to have a differing independent variable in the first place? You must have a differing independent variable to choose a different independent variable. The point is, we are only a result of the massive accumulation of all our constant variables. We possess no special free will that separates us as individuals. There is absolutely no way to have an individual independent variable, and no way to have free will. Therefore it is more logical to believe that free will is an illusion.


I don’t understand what you mean by “You must have a differing independent variable to choose a different independent variable”, I am honestly lost here. Then you say that we are only a result of the massive accumulation of all our constant variables and I think you are mixing things really, we were talking about free will, which is a the concept of a process, and you are now talking about identity which is a whole different subject. 

Then what you call constant variables I call them factors and we are not the result of factors, like I said our free will can choose to be affected or not by them and by which ones of them. 

Finally it is true that if there was no way to have free will, then it would be logical to say it is only an illusion, but I don’t share this point of view.



> Here is a mathematical example to prove my point even further.
> Now, here is a set of constant variables. These constant variables account for every last miniscule detail that impacts your life. Of course, these constant variables are all out of your control.
> 
> ((55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(65,890,783*3,221,834-99,142,)+88/8+11,666,663*(59,422-488,008,065)-5*(4*(849+773/666))/5*732+(9^2(1*(65*3^2/77^2)/4^2))+22*19*13+7-903,827*(91*843/9-52)+391,839,941*2*(76-3^2/9+13^2)+55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(765,001,783*23,221,834-99,142,744,321)) *X


Hehe…were you trying to intimidate me or what? 



> Here I have accumulated every single constant variable in your life. This includes anything and everything that you have no control over. However, do you see the bolded X at the bottom. That is the independent variable which you have control over. According to free will, if you and I were given the same constant variables, we would still live different lives because of that one constant variable which we can manipulate to our own discretion. Now, I have a question? Why would your X be any different than my X?
> 
> For instance, how could your X = 36,972 but my X = 28,999


I am not saying it has to be different, you know having a free will does not mean acting in a unique way, so my X could be the same as yours…or not.



> Like I said, if that X value was given to you, then you did not choose it. Thus, it would merely be another constant variable to add to that massive equation. There is no possible way to have a different independent variable.
> Possessing a different independent variable to plug into the equation would require a different independent variable to choose what the former independent variable was.


So like a vicious cycle? 



> Something like this.
> 
> X = (66*91-777,456)+Y
> 
> ...


Aha! There you said it, you assimilate free will with a unique free will and this is why your reasoning was biased from the beginning (now that I read this sentence it looks harsh but I am just saying what I think). I agree that everyone has an “individual” variable, but not that it is independent nor that it is unique. And let’s not forget that the most logical solution doesn’t mean the right solution. Furthermore the most logical solution is not necessarily the most paradoxical one.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

flourine said:


> What do you think? Are you born with your traits from the start, or are your traits a result of what you experienced during your life? No true middle ground for this one; *just leaning towards one or the other is fine, but stray away from 50/50*



Nope. Not going to stray. Not without more evidence.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

JR CreativeGenius said:


> Oh, if you insist to debate.
> 
> That was quite the introduction, and I do applaud you. However, your arguments fail on critical matters. Before I begin, I will state the definition of free will. "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination." It is important to remember that free will certainly does not equate to making decisions. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with the way we behave. The concept of free will is far more profound than that. Free will isn't the the observable fruit on the tree, but it's is the roots under the ground. The roots that we can't see or observe. No, but it's even more than that. Free will originates at the seed. Well, that is, if if free will existed.
> 
> ...





pertracto said:


> Wow you really got into it! And I apologies for the people reading all this and realizing it has nothing to do with the thread (we got off topic here). I see the effort and time you have put there so by respect I have done the same. I just hope you take none of these personally (I didn’t with yours). Moreover I always like someone who can challenge my mind and a good debate is only possible when both are ready to change their minds (a word to the wise :wink: )
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WTF ???

How did you two get so far off point ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


----------



## TTIOTBSAL (May 26, 2014)

Both, but nature first.


----------



## Rhonda Rousey (Sep 22, 2015)

Both?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

flourine said:


> What do you think? Are you born with your traits from the start, or are your traits a result of what you experienced during your life? No true middle ground for this one; *just leaning towards one or the other is fine, but stray away from 50/50*


''Personality'' (i.e., self-awareness) - is 'brain dependent' (i.e., encoded). What determines, personality is emergent (via) global complex of memories / experience + perceptions. 

Thus, ''personality'' - (nature); ceases or is _eliminated_ - without the brain. 

However, ''personality'' - cannot be, 'personality' without being *nurtured*. (i.e., perception of awareness / memories / experience).

________________

Ex; (1) - Can something _without_ ''self-awareness'' have a *persona*-lity .. (?) -- (e.g., ''_You_''). Can you, be _you_ - without awareness of yourself?

Thus, 

What ''determines'' persona - is nurture.

What ''enables'' persona - is nature.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

Both, but I think it depends on the person. As the only intuitive in an all sensor family, I know my intuition was nature. I can't ever remember _not_ having it. I wasn't influenced by outside sources, it's just the way my brain worked. So I think nature plays a slightly bigger role but I know nurture can be significant for some people.


----------



## Godless (Jan 27, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> ''Personality'' (i.e., self-awareness) - is 'brain dependent' (i.e., encoded). What determines, personality is emergent (via) global complex of memories / experience + perceptions.
> 
> Thus, ''personality'' - (nature); ceases or is _eliminated_ - without the brain.
> 
> ...


I have heard many people say they were born in the wrong body. Some call themselves cats. Others, children. Some, wolves. Another, an attack helicopter. You would be a dictionary.

Edit: Just noticed your post count and that you actually do normally type like that on here. I take back the bad joke because I'd wager that you're sick of people commenting on how you type.


----------



## JR CreativeGenius (Dec 2, 2015)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I have some time to reply now so I will. 






pertracto said:


> Wow you really got into it! And I apologies for the people reading all this and realizing it has nothing to do with the thread (we got off topic here). I see the effort and time you have put there so by respect I have done the same. I just hope you take none of these personally (I didn’t with yours). Moreover I always like someone who can challenge my mind and a good debate is only possible when both are ready to change their minds (a word to the wise :wink: )
> 
> (Son't worry I won't take a nice debate personally.)
> 
> ...



First of all, independant does not actually mean independant. It's used as in the indepednant variable you plug into a graph that controls the dependant variable. I'm not sure how else to explain that. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read and analyze what I wrote. At this point, I don't think we will be changing each other's mind's any time soon. I can tell you're very adament free will, and I can tell you that I am very adament about free will not existing. I say we just agree to disagree.

Nice debating with you


----------

