Talk:Personality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanjanamahtani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adam firlotte, Amcampbell2, Mabuckle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

The theory of individual differences started from the concept of temperament suggested by Hippocrates and Galen. Hippocrates' four humours gave rise to four temperaments.[1] The explanation was further refined by his successor Galen during the second century CE. The "Four Humours" theory held that a person's temperament was based on the balance of bodily humours; yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood.[2] Choleric people were characterized as having an excess of yellow bile, making them irascible. High levels of black bile were held to induce melancholy, signified by a sombre, gloomy, pessimistic outlook. Phlegmatic people were thought to have an excess of phlegm, leading to their sluggish, calm temperaments. Finally, people thought to have high levels of blood were said to be sanguine and were characterized by their cheerful, passionate dispositions.[2]

There are debates between researchers of temperament and researchers of personality as to whether or not biologically-based differences define a concept of temperament or a part of personality. The presence of such differences in pre-cultural individuals (such as animals or young infants) suggests that they belong to temperament since personality is a socio-cultural concept. Researchers of adult temperament point out that, similarly to sex, age, and mental illness, temperament is based on biochemical systems whereas personality is a product of socialization of an individual possessing these four types of features. Temperament interacts with social-cultural factors, but still cannot be controlled or easily changed by these factors.[3][4][5][6] Modern theories of temperament converge to 12 components, all based on ensemble interaction between brain neurotransmitters.[6][7]

Therefore, temperament should be kept as an independent concept for further studies and not be conflated with personality. Moreover, temperament refers to dynamical features of behaviour (energetic, tempo, sensitivity and emotionality-related), whereas personality is to be considered a psycho-social construct comprising the content characteristics of human behavior (such as values, attitudes, habits, preferences, personal history, self-image).[4][5][6] Temperament researchers point out that the lack of attention to extant temperament research by the developers of the Big Five model led to an overlap between its dimensions and dimensions described in multiple temperament models much earlier. For example, neuroticism reflects the traditional temperament dimension of emotionality, extraversion the temperament dimension of "energy" or "activity", and openness to experience, the temperament dimension of Sensation Seeking.[6][8]

Hans Eysenck developed a 3 dimension concept of personality (Wikipedia page exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eysenck_Personality_Questionnaire). Each of these dimensions exist on a spectrum of traits, from one extreme to the other. For instance, one dimension, Extroversion, is measured on a spectrum from Extroversion to Introversion. Robert Cloninger developed an instrument (Wikipedia page exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament_and_Character_Inventory) that measures personality, roughly based on the Eysenck model, but at least theoretically based on the action of levels of specific neurotransmitters, as well as the system of Personality Disorder Diagnosis used at the time (DSM-3, wikipedia page exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders). His 7-factor system of personality involved a four-factor measure of temperament, which he theorized is inborn and had neurochemical correlates. An additional 3 factors of character, which included Self-Directedness (SD), Cooperativeness (C), and Self-Transcendence (ST), could be developed over the course of a person's lifespan. The systems proposed by Eysenck and by Cloninger each have psychometric instruments that can be used to measure a subject's personality traits. Reference: Cloninger CR, Svrakic NM, Svrakic DM. The Role of personality self-organization in development of mental order and disorder. Development and P psychopath theology. 1997;9(4):881–906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457949700148X Vinculo3 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Vinculo3 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe modern psychoanalytic concepts of personality disorders, especially their presentation and treatment through the transference, should be included in the discussion of Personality. Something like the following:

Personality is a manifestation of a person's internal representation of themselves and expectations of other people, a constellation that is consistent over time and in different situations. This constellation is observable in psychotherapeutic, particularly psychoanalytic, treatments in the form of patterns of interaction called the transference. Otto Kernberg has categorized a system of understanding and treating disorders of personality, based on how disruptive these internal representations are to relationships. He calls these typical patterns of internal representations and their outward behavioral manifestations Personality Organizations. ref: Kernberg, O. F. (2019) Therapeutic Implications of Transference Structures in Various Personality Pathologies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 67:951-986 Vinculo3 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, I am interested in adding a section on Galen's temperament theory of personality to this article. There's some content on the theory itself and how it was applied using the four humours. Since Galen was one of the first to describe personality, I thought it would be important to add. Adam firlotte (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is an important historic root of personality theory (if not the most important one) and it should be mentioned.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 17:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Storm Paula, "Personality Psychology and the Workplace" Archived 2012-04-11 at the Wayback Machine, MLA Forum, 2006
  2. ^ a b Carlson, Neil, et al. 2010. Psychology the Science of Behaviour, p. 438. Pearson Canada, United States of America. ISBN 978-0-205-64524-4.
  3. ^ Rusalov, VM (1989). "Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament". Personality and Individual Differences. 10: 817–827. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90017-2.
  4. ^ a b Strelau, J (1998). Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Plenum.
  5. ^ a b Rusalov, VM; Trofimova, IN (2007). Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.
  6. ^ a b c d Trofimova, IN (2016). "The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of adult temperament". In Arnold, M.C. (ed.). Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. pp. 77–147.
  7. ^ Trofimova, IN; Robbins, TW (2016). "Temperament and arousal systems: a new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 64: 382–402. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.008.
  8. ^ Trofimova, IN (2010). "An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality". American Journal of Psychology. 123 (4): 467–480. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467.

Two dimensions[edit]

I've added the theory of tho dimensions. When i was taught this subject in my psychology bachelor, i first learnt the two dimensions as proposed by Eysenck and then the big five. In many factor analyses it's a matter of how strongly you boil down your factors whether you find the big five or these two dimensions. PizzaMan



♨♨♨]] 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC) I agree, I added a paragraph about the Eysenck and the Cloninger systems of measurement. Vinculo3 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggested improvements[edit]

I came to this page because it's the current Article for Improvement, but it also happens to fit right into the WikiProject I am currently working on: WP:Psychology. Please reach out if you're interested in collaborating with me on that WikiProject. A few suggestions for improving this page:

  • LEDE: The lede could use another paragraph summarizing the overall current state and direction of personality psychology, perhaps referring to the five factor inventory that is often used by researchers.
  • HISTORY: The current section "Historical development of the concept" ought to be expanded to sketch out the whole arc of development of the study of personality, and should start from the beginning, with Hippocrates and Galen, as someone else noted above. An editor above wrote "temperament should be kept as an independent concept for further studies and not be conflated with personality." Even so, I'd argue the history of temperament studies is clearly relevant to the history of personality studies and the philosophers mentioned in "Temperament and Philosophy" all wrote over a hundred years ago; therefore, I'd fold this material into the History section and would present these thinkers in chronological order from earliest to latest, and would suggest a History section follow immediately after the lede. All the influential theorists mentioned in the lede should at least appear in the History section, I would think.
  • CURRENT APPROACHES: Each of the major current approaches deserves its own section. Temperament could / should be one of those and could include Chess and Thomas's breakdown of 9 temperament classifications. I would also add a section on the current psychodynamic approach to personality.

Hypoplectrus (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoplectrus, these all sound like very reasonable edits to make. If you have citations to support the statements (if you're unfamiliar with how citing on WP works, see Help:Referencing for beginners), then in my view it would be appropriate for you to make these changes yourself. It may also be useful to have at least passing familiarity with MOS:LEAD as a number of your suggestions relate to it, although your suggestions seem broadly in line with it (especially because detail that appears in the lead should basically always be explained in the body). I'll also say, because you've mentioned that someone has previously argued against including temperament, I think it is highly relevant to include, and that the article would be incomplete without at least some discussion of it. Particularly as that construct in its modern form is arguably the biological component of personality, i.e. about 50% of it, and it's relevant to any discussion of development of personality as it is consistent throughout childhood. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Temperament (inborn) and Character (changeable) are both aspects of Personality. Robert Cloninger's work, cited above, reflects that well. Vinculo3 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Personality style into Personality[edit]

seemingly same stuff fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Personality style to Personality without a merge, as there wasn't really anything worth keeping that isn't already discussed here. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. SnailsSpace (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Article Moro430 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[edit]

The article could benefit from an organizational standpoint. The Introduction of the article mentions topics and subjects that arent talked about or expanded upon in the body of the article; it almost feels misleading.

I would also say tha swapping the first and 2nd paraphraph would make the paper feel stronger as a whole. Not only that, but there is a section called biology that makes sense to go first, and the history sectin to go last. That could just be personal preference, however, when it comes to writing articles or informational papers, it usually starts with the broadest topics and funnels from there.

I also think a this paper would benefit from a section on age and how young personality can be defined, as well as how personality changes throughout the stages of life. Moro430 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments on the introduction paragraph; it lists several psychologists who are not mentioned at all in the article: Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. There are also no sources following these names. I think Freud should be given a mention in the History section, as his theory of the id, ego, and superego was among the first mentions of personality.[1] Charlottercrane (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ewen, R. B. (2014). An introduction to theories of personality. Psychology Press. 17-25

Suggested Improvements[edit]

With the topic of Personology being mentioned I believe that adding the Thematic Apperception Test to the measuring category would be necessary. I also believe that the Biology and Developing Biological Model sections could be merged to help with conciseness. There is not much is said in the Biology section that could not also be said in the Developing Biological Model section.Avaught23001 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Avaught23001 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personality&oldid=1217990909"