ACADEMIA GALLIFREYA
Welcome to Academia Gallifreya! Please log in to proceed.


A school of tradition and heritage for the children of Gallifrey on earth. All are welcome.
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  PublicationsPublications  Log inLog in  

Post new topic   Reply to topicShare | 
 

 The Personality of it all

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Patrician Shilo

avatar

Posts : 39
Join date : 2017-05-12

PostSubject: The Personality of it all   Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:07 pm

since I know everyone has been extremely busy I am only going to go over the basic theories of what a personality is this week. I would like you to read the entire chapter and tell me what you think about it. There is a bit of medical language in it, so be careful and be aware.
TW - medical coded language
in linked page
We are very much individuals with our own unique personality. Our memories and experience very much help form who we are as people, but defining what a personality is tends to be much more difficult. How do we explain such an important, fluid, and vital part of what makes us all unique individuals.

Personality can seen as the all encompassing description of who we are and how we became this way. Our lived experiences are very much a factor in an all encompassing description of personality. Most of us here have personalities that have both been very much shaped by our neurodivergency and it is important to acknowledge how important this in both in our identity and personality.

Although the all encompassing definition of personality involves the most relevant factors, it is too broadly defined, making it impossible to distinguish between different personalities and giving very little helpful information on an individual's disposition. A more helpful, and potentially much better known definition relies on traits that a person exhibits. These traits have to be consistent, but not always all present to the same degree. Although the trait based definition of personality eyes first popular in the 1940s and 1950s, it became popular in the 1990s and is now the standard definition used to define personality. We are actually all quite family with trait base, as Chapter affiliations are based on the predominant traits. We may not be able to completely Define who a person is by their tractor affiliation, it does go a long way in helping describe what they are like as individuals.

As well as the trait based describes us as individuals, it does not do a good job explaining personality in general, it does not take into account the different roles that we play in life. There are many different roles that we all take on in life, and the same person will have a slightly different manner of presenting themself when in different situations. A coffee shop and a classroom are two very different places and it would be important to modify behavior accordingly.

Reading over this chapter, what do you feel is the most effective definition of personality and why?
http://www.intropsych.com/ch11-personality/what-is-personality.html

_________________
Patrician Shilo (they/them)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zomomalungbarrowtodonos

avatar

Posts : 56
Join date : 2017-07-11
Age : 21
Location : Essex, England

PostSubject: Re: The Personality of it all   Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:09 am

Personality if difficult for me to define, as someone with a personality disorder. Reading through those definitions, I feel the third definition is most effective. It goes fully into depth of a person which I like because again, as someone with a personality disorder, defining myself just by traits involves looking at myself from day to day, hour to hour and deciding what traits I have this time. It's difficult to grasp my trait-based personality as it changes with my environment and the people around me.

However when defining myself in general I tend to turn to the trait-based definitions. I'm fortunate enough that rather than tell myself I am none of the traits I recognise, I am all of them. This makes me hard to pin down into an archetype but it makes it easier for me to define myself, as I can then look through the traits I've noticed and decide for myself which are dominant. For example, my Chapter -- I chose Prydon because, in a Gallifreyan setting, my personality adjusts itself to exhibit those traits; however if they were not Gallifreyan Chapters, evidence suggests I would more likely be Patrex or Cerule. This is further shown by my Hogwarts House, Hufflepuff, and my Divergent Faction, Amity. It shows that in general life I prioritise kindness and peace over all, and in my personal case I am quite meek and submissive in general. That I am Prydonian in a Gallifreyan setting shows that I open up more to GT, and am more confident in myself and my ability to follow my passions and goals. This is important for me to know, as without these factions and chapters and houses I would struggle to know where I stand in life and who I am.

_________________
Candidate Sapphire "Zomo" Balmore

Zomamɑlungbɑrotadanas || Adoptive cousin of the Prydonian Chapter || House Lungbarrow || they/them ||
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://prydonianprincess.tumblr.com
Faemon



Posts : 30
Join date : 2017-07-17

PostSubject: Re: The Personality of it all   Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:18 am

I appreciate defining personality as a collection of traits used to describe an individual, especially with dimensions such as genetics/neurology/biochemical physiology, personal perspective/experience statements to information processing, and expression/behavior.

However, I hesitate to define personality without the context of purpose. If it were definition (of a unique individual's composition) for definition's sake, then to me either everyone is the same in the ways that matter, or each and everyone is unique in the ways that matter. I consider "typing" to be futile or arbitrary without purpose to guide further definition.

That's partly why I prefer Kolbe typing to Myers-Briggs or the Greek horoscope. Kolbe tries to pinpoint the personality of workers in professional settings in order to understand and reduce conflicts, with the awareness that these specified traits are necessary to keep diverse in an optimally-running business company.

I had a discussion on a now-defunct forum with another forum member about Myers-Briggs typing and the horoscope, and they made a good point that I didn't appreciate then: that MBTI relied on the input of its subjects, whereas horoscopes truly were arbitrary superstition because it did not rely on input from people it was supposed to be typing (and neither does it confer how the position of the stars generates personality; but I'll get back to this point with the merits of star signs.)

I considered both models arbitrary because I understood it as personality typing for personality typing's sake.

The earliest history of typing that I know of as a patient of a Jungian psychologist, however, was to my interpretation an effort of Carl Jung to reframe the abuse he suffered from Sigmund Freud as a mere incompatibility. It therefore had a purpose. I can understand how intellectualizing this trauma could be a way to regain personal power, but doubted the application of the resulting model beyond that. (The people from who I heard this history never outright call it anything but a professional break or ideological schism, but the point is never contested that Freud lacked candor to an abysmal and destructive degree when it came to his protégés.)

From there I understand that at least both Freud and Jung agreed to a part of an individual that the individual themself is not conscious of, the unconscious or subconscious, being very influential to personality. I understand this subconscious force to operate as either defining a personality by limiting behavior (e.g., Someone might aim to be friendly but fear people due to trauma from kindergarten while socializing, that they did their best to forget because it stood to reason that it wasn't constructive to dwell on) or operating beyond conscious limitations (e.g., Judgments about people, while muddled by conditioning, courtesy, bias or prejudice, can also be a product of intuition from the subconscious.)

I remain unsure how relevant that old-school psychology model continues to be. I did like this one essay about how conditioning in childhood causes loss and fragmentation of an innocently present and whole self. The personality, in that context, is what a person tends to describe themselves as, which to a psychologist of the Jungian school from the outside predicts the subject's self-description to be made up of 1.) what remains of the authentic self from childhood and 2.) some aspects of the "false" self (that patients of this school—though, this theory of personal development is supposed to apply really to everyone—are predicted to have developed to combat first the pain of psychological repression, and then to protect the ego from further conditioning against such "neurotic" developments of the false self.)

And I do consider personality typing for its seeming own sake to have some societal and cultural relevance still. That's where I find the merits of the horoscope being so commonly known, that it does generate a shared symbolic language of aspiration or expectation when it comes to personality. That can be helpful for some, although others might find it an imposition or otherwise unhelpful.

Why I say all of the above? Trait: I'm insufferably loquacious, once I make connections between things that I have some confidence about.

But I'm also reticent and quiet, sometimes out of discomfort but mostly because I feel comfortable with seldom communicating and having few social links.

I have found it difficult in my offline life to find the company of people who reflect back my words and actions as I meant them (for example, I would get a reputation for being snobbish because of my reticent behavior—instead of shy, which is the condition that that same behavior would come from in that case). Whether that's an issue of my communication skills or some overly common willful misinterpretation has been an issue to navigate.

I didn't used to consider myself an angry person, either, but I developed an immersive anger in response to a bad home situation, that seemed to continue even after I had left...and then, just as I had come to terms with my defaulting to constantly angry, once I could describe myself as stubbornly belligerent and loud because I am always angry? Dissipated.

I used to get very anxious if everything wasn't neat and tidy, and would lose sleep and consider it a character failing if I made a typo. Now I'm far more comfortable with mess, and tend to find myself unable to focus on what used to drive me to perfectionist intrusive thoughts.

I can trace what sort of person I have been, but not always why I have become—So, I frankly can't guarantee the delivery of a specific me tomorrow (although I feel confident in saying that I would not have transformed into a velociraptor riding a unicycle, juggling three flaming lollipop batons, and whistling the Badinerie from BWV 1067 orchestral suite backwards.) I do tend to get caught up in a specific emotion, or issue, or passion, or mindset, or task so much that...I wouldn't say that I can take all these personal changes and apply the experience to a more varied or wiser perspective. As in: "Because that used to be my thought process and motivation, then somebody else behaving so must have the same; I know because I've been there," doesn't work for everything or everyone.

If I lived in a cottage in the middle of a forest all alone like a fairy tale witch, I wouldn't mind emotional inconsistencies or involuntarily shifting paradigms. When it comes to socialization, I suspect that most people feel more comfortable with consistency and order. In conclusion, I suspect that I might not have an orderly personality, but would leave that evaluation to experts in the field.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Personality of it all   

Back to top Go down
 
The Personality of it all
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Dissocitive Identity Disorder Multiple Personality Disorder
» False Memory Syndrome Foundation - why they claim Multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) doesnt exist
» Does your personality change ?
» DID vs Personality Disorder
» Antisocial Personality Disorder in Cult Leaders

Permissions in this forum:You can reply to topics in this forum
ACADEMIA GALLIFREYA :: Classes, Assignments, and Workshops :: Student Assignment Threads-
Post new topic   Reply to topicJump to: