Influences on Human Nature Essay

cle handst nature is the key characteristics, including the ways of thinking, acting, and reacting that ar shargond by most or all(a) gentle military man existences, and which military mans display naturally. Each unitary of us is a unique universe and various facets of homo nature reckon our individual personalities. The question posed by temper theorists is, what factors enamor the development of our personalities? patently landed estated, how did we be advance who we ar? Who we be is non set by any 1 characteristic or c at a timept of valet nature, but by combination of influences.Is gay nature determined by our testify easy will or is it pre-determined by our prehistoric stimulates and forces which we afford no nurse? ar we dominated by our communicable nature and genetic com target or the nurturing environs of our background and education? Are we bloodsucking or individual of our past? Is serviceman nature unique or globe-wide? Are our bear ing coatings incite by the simple happiness of fleshly call for, or atomic number 18 we drive by a deeper need for egress and get on with? Is man kinds aspect unity of optimism or pessimism? Do valet develop relationally or champion after another?Questions well(p)-nigh serviceman nature focus on these central expels and theorists attempt to exercise this question, small-arm defining their image of human nature. unornamented Will versus Determinism The ability to exercise survivals open by certain factors is called part with will. In contrast to chuck up the sponge will, determinism dictates that t establish argon forces over which we sport no control. These forces externally exercise our temper and that individually termination is determined by preceding even offts. How elicit we adopt free will if everything is determined for us? On the early(a) hand, if everything is determined, how backside we discombobulate free will? at large(p) will and de terminism are companions and you rout outnot befool virtuoso and only(a) without the other. We need to feel that our will is free and not determined for us. We need to be able to assign responsibility, bestow whack and praise, and allocate punishments and rewards. If we do not throw free will, are we then not responsible for the survivals we declare? If we are not responsible for our actions, then we should not be punished when our behavior justifies it. The decisions we make, and the emotional reactions we feel, nearly the choices we make, are a learning process. When we make a choice, we learn from the import.The next snip we are in the couch to make a correspondent choice, we draw on our experiences and either choose similarly, or antitheticly, depending on our former outcome. In this sense, it posterior be said that determinism is a smashed factor. The choice do is determined by the outcome of previous decisions. We cannot learn to choose more(prenominal) wise ly, unless we can recognize a peculiarly good or bad choice. Gordon Allport held a balanced stain on the free will versus determinism debate. Allport bestowed free choice in our considerations virtually our in store(predicate).However, Allport withal recognized that round behaviors are determined by personality traits and personal dispositions. Once the behaviors are categoryed, they are difficult to modify (p. 203). Inherited personality versus Nurturing Environment For the purpose of the nature versus heighten debate, nature is defined as contagious traits and attributes. Nurture is the characteristics of our environment (nurturing influences of education, childhood, and guidance). Given that genetic science and environment both(prenominal) influence human nature and personality, which plays a greater post?The genes we inherit determine physical characteristics nigh us from the color of our eyes, hair, and skin to how pontifical or short we will be. However, behavio ral tendencies and personality attributes are not hard-wired. As human organisms, we are features of our environment and the conditions by which we live shape our personality and our intelligence. We come by our personality traits through detect behaviors, not through genetic endowment. At birth a childs mind is a blank slate. How he develops from birth is determined by the familiarity he obtains and his experiences.Adopted children support this position. A baby girl is surrendered by her biological parents and adopted. As she grows, she receives high marks end-to-end school and is accepted to a esteemed college. Is this child academically successful because of her genes, or is her success a result of the enriched environment her adopted parents provided? Adoptive and foster parents befool a much greater cushion on the personalities of their adopted and fostered offspring than the genes acquire from birth parents. The nurturing environment is the dominant influence on develop ment and behavior.Erik Erikson supports this position in his theory. Erikson held that personality is affected more by learning and experiences and less by hereditary. Psychosocial experiences dupe a greater influence on personality, not biological forces (p. 172). Dependent versus commutative of Our Past Is personality more influenced by our past events? Or are deal free-living of the past, with personalities more powerfully shape by events which occur by and by in life? For about, personality is dependent on childhood and subject to picayune alternate over the course of life.For others, personality is nonparasitic of the past. These individuals are influenced by their deliver experiences, as well as by their objectives and ambitions. For those independent of their past, early experiences do contribute to the geological formation of personality, but not permanently. On the issue of whether we are shaped more by past experiences, or events which occur later in life, at that place is no star size fits all answer. Every chief is unique and each genius of us draws on the more powerful determinant. Human nature is both dependent and independent of our past.In one individual the events he experiences in childhood and adolescent eld whitethorn be a strong contributing factor to his personality. In another, the here and now events of her later life may be the stronger factor in who she has become. An poser is given up for both sides of the continuum. A buddy and sister, one year apart, are embossed by the like mother and the men who enter and exit their lives. The two children blend in a dysfunctional childhood pregnant with homelessness, neglect, poor adult guidance, and mental, physical, and informal abuse. From adolescence on the brother takes a deplorable path.He murders a third sibling and is institutionalized. at heart a short time of his expel from the sanitarium, he commits arson (burns d witness his sisters apartment) and is sent to state prison. Upon his spill from state prison he leads the life of a drifting loner with anti-social tendencies. flat a 42 year erstwhile(a) man he has no family of his own (a good choice given the danger he posits to others at times) possesses only an eighth grade education is paranoid insane and suffers from delusions and cannot maintain employment for extended periods of time. The antheral child is an example of historical determinism.The extremely unfortunate serious of events of his childhood hold in made him who he is. His personality is dependent on his past it was mostly obstinate in the early geezerhood and has changed little throughout his life. The sister half of the compare began her adolescent and early adult years coping with her past in her own dysfunctional way. plot of ground early on she turned to methamphetamine use and sexual promiscuity as escapes from the past, she made a cognitive choice in her 30s not lead the life of her mother. The trigger of a life change for her was predominantly self-motivated by her hopes and aspirations for a future.However, it was influenced by negative events she had go through in her present status, as well as positive relationships she formed. She is now 43 years old, married and has four fair children. She works full time, owns a fine home, is growing in Christ, working toward a college degree, and has goals and aspirations for a fantastic future. Her personality is one completely independent of the past it was not fixed by the tragic events of her childhood. While childhood and adolescent experiences may have contributed negatively early on to pliant her personality, it was not permanent.She is influenced by events and experiences in the present and they have modified her early personality traits to make her a happy, healthy, productive constituent of society. Albert Bandura supports the position that behaviors can be modified. He believed that our self-efficacy and a set of ideal be haviors are established in childhood. However, these early experiences can be reversed later in life, and performance standards and behaviors may be replaced (p. 344). Carl Jung also believed we are affected more by our experiences in middle age and our hopes and expectations for the future (p. 102). Unique versus UniversalThe position that personalities are unique holds that each persons action has no complementing action or behavior in any other individual. There is no comparing one person to another. The universal position follows that there are overall patterns of behavior among people. That inwardly individuals of the same culture, there are similar identifiable behaviors. Is there such a thing as an innate universal characteristic of human nature? Our experiences shape our behavior however, two people with a universal pattern (such as those from the same tribe) still grow into two pitchfork and unique individuals.The human personality is both unique and universal. While ful ly carrying out persons dish out well-nigh universal characteristics, we all possess traits unique to the individual. Maslow reinforces uniqueness of personality in his theory. Maslow believed that incentive and needs are universal, but how the needs are met differs mingled with individuals because behaviors are learned. He went on to state that even self-actualizers, despite the fact they share certain abilities, do not have identical behaviors (p. 256). Satisfaction versus Growth Theorists light upon down the issue of our life goals to opponent motivating factors.Are we driven by satisfaction or reaping? If satisfaction is the goal, we are content as huge as balance is maintained and our needs are met. In contrast some theorists believe our major motivation is offset. The choice of issue or satisfaction is different from one individual to another. A man in his mid-forties has a at ease home, a family who go to bed and respect him, plays golf game on Saturdays, goes on v acation at a time a year, and has a job with a decent salary. While he has not reached his fullest potential, or all of the goals he initially set out to attain, this man is satisfied.His position is one that his needs are met, and he sees no need to expend the elan vital or stress for further growth or development. He may even ask himself, what more could I require? Sigmund Freud took the satisfaction position in his demoralised gather in of human nature. Freud believed that we continually experience stress and conflict and that the ultimate goal was to reduce stress (p. 61). While some individuals are satisfied as considerable as their needs are met and they can sustain a stress free life, others crave knowledge and growth of trunk and mind. A woman in her forties is in a similar situation as the man in the to a higher place example.She has a comfortable home, a family who love and respect her, goes on vacation once a year, and a job with a decent salary. However, the woma n is not satisfied. She is driven by her desire for growth, and the need to ready herself. She has aspirations for the future, a longing to help others, and recognizes she has not achieved full potential. While she can sure live comfortably in her present situation, she knows that she has not reached self-actualization. She realizes that she would not only be cheating herself, but those who surround her and society, by not persevering until she reaches her goals.Carl Rogers supports this position in his theory. Rogers believed our brainpower is progressive rather than regressive, toward growth rather than stagnation. In his opinion we stress challenge and stimulation, kinda of the satisfaction of familiarity (p. 274). Optimism versus Pessimism For centuries theorists have examined the question of optimism or pessimism. Do universe have an essentially optimistic outlook on life, a positive, upbeat, and hopeful view? Or is the human personality one of a pessimistic outlook, a negative, unhopeful view? On the issue of whether our virtues exceed our shortcomings, in general most of us are optimistic.Collectively, we are socially conscious, public-spirited beings with a drive to improve the world most us. People are fundamentally good, caring, and kindhearted. To believe anything else would create a dark portrait of human nature, one of despondency and hopelessness. Pessimists would argue that there are wars being waged all over the world, entire cultures being treated as second-class citizens, and meagreness is rampant. However, these occurrences do not originate from our human nature. They are activated under given conditions, enabled or hindered by social environments.Gordon Allport presents an optimistic view of adults in control of their lives. We rationally attend to current situations, plan for the future, and form and identity (p. 203). Erik Erikson had an optimistic view of human nature. He believed that although not everyone successful in th eir goal to attain hope, wisdom, and the other merits of intrinsical worth, we all possess the ability to do so (p. 172). Individual versus Relational Personalities are formed both individually and relationally. When we are born we develop relationally. We form jump with our parents, siblings, and care-givers relying on them for our needs.During this phase of life, how we grow individually is determined by these early relationships. In return, our relationships often motivate and nurture us to grow individually. For healthy development of the psyche, personalities essential form individually and relationally. My own growth is an example of how this continuum is not a count of individual or relational, but instead individual and relational. For more than ten years I was a mazed individual struggling with methamphetamine addiction, depression, periods of homelessness, and all around selfish bad choices. During this dark period, I did not have healthy relationships.At that point in my life, I had lost sight of who I once was and did not like the person I maxim in the mirror. When I made the decision to reclaim my life, initially I could not form healthy relationships, or repair damaged ones. I first inevitable to concentrate on healing myself and underdeveloped as an individual. During this healing period, I made a friend and my relational growth fostered my individual growth. Because of this one individual, I have grown individually and reached goals I neer would have dreamed possible without the stirring and love fostered by this relationship.We all have relationships which stimulate our individual growth. In contrast, there are also situations where we cannot develop relationally until we are secure as individuals. The individual versus relational issue was not a continuum address in the text book, nor could scholarly culture on theorists positions on the question be found in my search. Conclusion Human nature is a combination of instincts and envi ronment which compose how we get back on which actions to take. There is no skillful or wrong answer to the questions about human nature posed by personality theorists.It is easy to see why theorists such as Fromm, Murray, Jung, and Erikson leaned neither beneficial nor left on three or four of the six issues. When first depute the project, I held a menage position on where I stood on each of the issues. In an attempt to better regard the fundamental issues themselves, I began to read what sure enough amounted to hundreds of pages of material on the questions about human nature. These essays, papers, definitions, and postulates were written by psychologists, theologians, students, and (Im guilty to admit) the folks at Wikipedia and Ask.com. The more I read, the more I began to drift from my previous position on most of the issues. To restitution this, I would read more viewpoints in a fruitless search to stick something, anything, which held a firm position one way or anoth er on any of the questions. I was desperate for an answer that would lead me back to a firm right or left position on the issues. I discovered that on the questions about human nature, there is no black and white answer the answers are different for each of us.