weshop's Blog

Life is a learning experience. The complexity of human behaviour is finely related to the several mechanisms which define how, what and when we learn about the world. People devote varied levels of energy to observe, memorise and recount the ongoing stimuli around them ? and that focus is the magical touch which produces the fascinating ambiguity of mankind. In the realm of behavioural science (and also common sense), there is one word which is vastly used to define such effect: personality.

What is Personality?

?Personality? is a word originated from the Latin persona, which means ?mask?. ?Significantly, in the theatre of the ancient Latin-speaking world, the mask was not used as a plot device to disguise the identity of a character, but rather was a convention employed to represent, or typify that character.? (Wikipedia).

Personality is a broadly used term which meaning can be sought through popular knowledge. Most people use the word as a reference to the collection of characteristics which define how a person sees and acts upon the world ? something like a mix of their thought processes and behaviour. In psychology, it could be defined as the emotional, cognitive and behavioural patterns unique to an individual, learned and incremented through experience, and relatively consistent over time.

Overview of the Personality Framework

The study of personality has developed relatively parallel to the evolution of psychology as a science. The perspective on human nature has been floating between nature and nurture throughout the years, with researchers constantly finding evidence to support and validate both determinants. Thus, many theoretical concepts of personality were based on the perspective that psychologists and behavioural scientists had of human nature at a certain period in time.

?Over the years, numerous personality theories have been proposed, and they can be classified within several major approaches, each assuming its own model of human nature. Personality psychologists within each approach emphasise different aspects of personality, favor different research methods, and use different standards to evaluate sufficient explanations.? (Peterson 1997)

Understanding personality involves not only analysing the individual as a whole, but considering individual behaviour in a particular social context. Culture plays a major role in defining the variants between individuals. For instance, western civilisations tend to encourage individuality ? which increases the incidence of people that present unique behaviour with the aim of standing out. Being distinctive in our society is normally a social benefit. In other societies ? such as Japan and China ? uniqueness can play a divergent role: standing out is not socially sanctioned and therefore not admirable.

Theories of Personality

?The major theoretical approaches to personality are akin to great schools that dominated psychology throughout the early part of the twentieth century?. (Peterson 1997)

Psychodynamic Theory

Encouraged by Freud?s psychoanalytic approach, psychodynamic theories emphasise motivation and emotion as the major dictators of personality, along with the presence of unconscious divergences of individuals. In such theory, libido (defined by Freud as a ?psychological energy?) is the primary determinant of our behaviour. This perspective concentrates on the conflict between an individual?s biological motivation (instincts) and the social rules which guide common individual behaviour. In the psychodynamic theory, the structure of personality is described in terms of the conscious, preconscious and unconscious (id, ego and superego). Other major contributors of this theory were Carl Jung (collective unconscious), Alfred Adler (compensation for inferiority) and Erik Erikson (psychosocial development).

Trait Theory

The trait approach is derived from Darwin?s theory of evolution and the emphasis on individual variation within a species, defining the function of that individual in the social setting. This theory is mainly concerned with the heritable traits which determine behaviour and result in particular characteristics and types of individuals. Such theory began with Gordon Allport around 1937. Allport defined a trait as ?a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent (meaningfully consistent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior.? (1961)

The Big Five is a model of personality that describes five defining personality traits. They were originally described by Warren Norman (1963) and consist of: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

Phenomenological Theory

The Phenomenological approach stresses the importance of the cognitive side of human behaviour ? therefore ? what and how people think. Phenomenological theory dictates that conscious thoughts and beliefs are the major determinants of personality. This approach puts individuals in the role of scientist: analysing the world and themselves within a social context to reach conclusions about the formation and display of personality traits. George Kelly, a clinical psychologist, developed the concept of ?personal constructs? which refers to the ?categories with which we interpret our experiences? (Peterson 1997). The personal construct theory suggests that our interpretations of the world around us create our personality. Therefore the concept of personality is a flexible one.

Phenomenological theory was further developed by Carl Rogers? self-actualisation concepts. According to Rogers, the drive towards self-actualisation (familiar to the Maslow?s hierarchy of needs) was the major determinant of an individual?s personality. This humanistic and optimistic approach was also the basis for Rogers? client-centred therapy.

Social Learning Theory

Finally, the social learning theory focuses mainly on the influence of social dynamics and learning. This approached is based on behaviourism and it stresses the importance that the human learning process has in the formation of personality traits. In social learning theory, the most important psychological process is learning. The pioneering theorists of this approach were John Dollard and Neal Miller, authors of the book Personality and Psychotherapy (1950). According to them, people learn behaviours that decrease their physiological drive.

Albert Bandura also played a key role in the development of this theory. Bandura affirmed that people learn through modelling, and such modelling becomes the main determinant of personality. The concept of self-efficacy, the belief that one can perform a given behaviour, creates an immediate mechanism in which people modify behaviour in order to improve performance in life.

The Human Perspective

Personality is not only part of the realms of scientific research and behavioural studies. In order to better understand the world, we tend to create patterns ? to classify everything we can into groups based on common characteristics. This learning process seems to work effectively with our brain structure, and also to improve the interpersonal communication process and to define roles in a social setting. It is normal that we analyse other people?s behaviours and physical appearance based on predefined ideas which are enforced by our experiences, culture, inherited traits and social setting.

A common example of such effect is found in the perspective towards personality: there are hundreds of popular measurements of personality available through varied media and in different formats. Horoscopes, personality and intelligence tests, amongst others, are all part of our own way to view the world and to place individuals on common ground. It seems almost natural to categorise ourselves and others in an attempt to make sense of the world. Perhaps this evidence indicates that Kelly?s argument is particularly accurate: in a social setting, aren?t we all scientists?

Content Sources
1. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality.

2. Peterson, C (1997) Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach. Addison-Wesley, New York.

? Australian Institute of Professional Counsellors. If you wish to republish or reproduce this article, please include this information in the end of the article. For more information about the Institute ? please visit www.aipc.net.au/lz. To access our Article Library, visit www.aipc.net.au/articles.

What are the personal qualities associated with being an effective Counsellor? Counselling theorists and researchers have given this question much attention and research has identified a framework of personal skills which are shared among highly effective counsellors, despite their theoretical orientation.

Self-awareness helps counsellors to understand their client's needs and separate those from personal orientations. Being introspective and in touch with their own issues improves their ability to recognise strengths and weaknesses and to accept them. Self awareness includes the ability to acknowledge your personal values and beliefs, and the potential they may have on your interactions with others.

Effective counsellors are open-minded. They are aware of their own personal values and at the same time must be able to resist forcing their values on clients. This means that counsellors are deeply appreciative and accepting of human differences and do not need to impose their values on others.

Risk-taking means individuals are willing to be vulnerable and take interpersonal risks. Effective counsellors do not hide behind a professional fa?ade. They are willing to be honest and direct with others and are free to challenge clients when appropriate.

Effective counsellors are also able to develop sincere, warm and deep relationships with others. They can prize other individuals - their feelings, their opinions, their persons. This feeling is caring, but non-possessive caring, with little evaluation or judgment.

Transparency involves allowing others to see you as you are. This characteristic results in an attitude of realness or genuineness. Transparency helps to create authentic, honest connections with others, which is the key to effective counselling.

Finally, responsibility for their own actions and behaviours is an important characteristic of effective counsellors. Rather than denying the way they are and blaming others, they can grow from failures and acknowledge their weaknesses.

? Australian Institute of Professional Counsellors. If you wish to republish or reproduce this article, please include this information in the end of the article. For more information about the Institute ? please visit www.aipc.net.au/lz. To access our Article Library, visit www.aipc.net.au/articles.

Trust is the basis of all human relationships. Trust can be thought of as a tool that can measure the positive and negative nature of a relationship. The more positive one feels about others in the group, the more likely they are to share feelings, thoughts, ideas and suggestions. Those persons who cannot trust others in the group at even a basis level will have great difficulty functioning in the group.

Trusting the Facilitator and other group members with their fears, dreams, and feelings is not easy to do and should be understood as such. Just as when we were infants, our trust in others builds as we learn through experience that others will be accepting of us. The more we are exposed to positive trust experiences, the more trust in others will develop.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Facilitator to encourage an environment of trust at all sessions. If the trust bond cannot be developed or is abused in any way, the group will dissolve itself. Participants absolutely must feel that all their feelings and thoughts are accepted non-judgmentally.

The building of a trusting attitude goes hand-in-hand with the development of positive self-esteem, a key goal in grief management groups.

Imagine a young woman on a tropical beach dressed in heavy winter clothing. As the sun comes up in the morning, she begins to get warm and takes off her muffler and gloves and feels better. The sun continues to shine and the young lady sheds more of her heavy clothing. Each time she gets rid of a layer of protective clothing, she feels more comfortable, more in tune with her environment. If the weather changes and it gets cold again, the woman can put on a layer of clothing for protections.

So it is when we learn to trust others with our pains, our fears, and our sense of helplessness. There is a period of time in every group when each member begins to peel off layers of protection in response to the growing warm feelings in the group. But, as each participant shed his or her ego protective coats they become more vulnerable to hurt or betrayal. facilitators must be aware of this and put forth every effort to not tolerate abuse of any kind to exist within the group..

I have found that in most grief groups there are periods of pulling away and periods of growing closer within the group. Capitalizing on these moments is essential for helping members learn about themselves, particularly in those areas where they appear to be most sensitive. Feelings of insecurity often indicate areas of our personal lives in which trust has been betrayed or about which we feel negatively. Taking the risk to trust sharing feelings about painful issues is often scary, but with big risks come big gains.

As adults, we learn to trust through observation, experience and self-awareness. Each group member earns each other?s trust by exhibiting trust worthy behaviors and communications. We help participants to understand that two people can experience a death of a loved one in much the same way and yet have very different responses. In order for trust to grow, these different perspectives must be acknowledged and accepted even if not understood. It is the Facilitators duty to ensure that this happen.

All human beings tend to trust the people with whom we feel secure. When we know we can be ourselves and say what we really think and feel without repercussions our trust builds. A requirement to walk on eggs is a metaphor for the fragility of that security. If a griever feels insecure in being able to express him or herself or feel that there are some things he/she cannot say in the group for fear of attack or repercussions, he or she will shut down and probably not be back to the group.

It takes time to develop trust in others, especially for people who have been hurt by the loss of their loved ones. When group members can trust the Facilitator to protect them from hurt or ridicule from others in the group, they will share and be open to grow beyond the limitations imposed by their loss. They will let their guard down and open their hearts to group bonding and healing.

This trust and mutual vulnerability forms the very foundation of grief management groups.

Rev. Saundra L. Washington, D.D., is an ordained clergywoman, veteran social worker, and Founder of AMEN Ministries. http://www.clergyservices4u.org. She is also the author of two coffee table books: Room Beneath the Snow: Poems that Preach and Negative Disturbances: Homilies that Teach. Her new book, Out of Deep Waters: My Grief Management Workbook, will be available in July.

Are human thought, reasoning and abilities of the mind so vastly superior to animals we observe in the wild and as pets that they deserve a separate classification from that of the animal kingdom? Human beings maintain a wide set of emotional states, thoughts and abilities, which we see in animals. Yet, seldom do we see all of these in all animals or at all times? One think tanker in an online think tank challenged a commenter with regards to emotion of ?Empathy? as to whether humans and animals were all that different. Indeed the think tanker brought up some excellent points of contention, which do indeed require further thought and review.

The think tanker stated; ?We could expand this further by considering the complexities of networked human characteristics in opposition to isolated ones. It is also important to keep in mind that as a species, humans are the quintessential element on this planet, and seem to have been since the beginning of recorded history.?

Indeed and humans without competition and with the use of those social characteristics developed it makes sense that humans would remain so, having now controlled many larger complex life forms on the surface of the planet. Also with the kill off rates of human?s next nearest competitor species (large complex life) it would seem that humans have had a good run and should continue this run, that is if they do not kill off them selves thru believing that they are invincible to other threats or do not cause issues of war or destruction of their eco-system needed to sustain the huge population bases. And in your statement we must also realize that there are top of the food chain ocean species, insects, viruses, bacteria, reptiles, birds and other smaller mammals, which are doing fine on their own and adapting to human control of the surface of the planet. As well as those species, which are being pushed to extinction due to the rapid expansion of the human domain.

Excellent points to consider and the think tanker takes this one step further and states: ?I think we can use our own sense of judgment to determine that we are not rivaled in any way by other living thing on this planet. Even though some animals may demonstrate phenomenal abilities in some areas, the most magisterial example of our greatness is demonstrated by our superior abilities to study, construct and surpass that which we have observed.?

I agree that observations trump religious dogma and that humans do possess many very good uses of such traits and have evolved that way for a reason. Yet, the animal instincts humans possess, we sweep under the carpets and deny seem all too often come out at in-opportune times and if we fail to recognize these, as we tout our own human self-aggrandizement; we also fail to understand our place in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. When you speak of humans in such a wonderful light, we fail to share the truth about over half of the human population, which cannot think themselves out of a paper bag. Indeed we have most all of the African Continent at an IQ level of 85. Only 20-25 points above chimpanzees we have trained. So, as an observer of the human race, indeed it is an interesting species, but as far as being impressed? Well for me, that would be rarely.

We see birds, animals of prey and social mammals think, problem solve and adapt. They use their genetic abilities to their fullest, where as many humans piss theirs away. If an animal or organism?s mission is to live, procreate and die; then one could say that the animals often fulfill that mission better and do so using complex thought, problem solving and strategic thinking. Empathy is one social emotional trait, which can be seen in almost all complex life, which has adapted to live in social groupings.

I would not mind seeing your experiment carried out, although agree in observation that humans are a cut above, only in my estimation only a slight cut above and that there are some humans that are a big jump above the rest. The difference between actual humans in my opinion is greater than the leap from a Dog to the lowest human. That is to say IQ wise. With dogs being 20-30; the lowest humans (not developing children or retarded) at 70 IQ, as we see some humans at over 140 IQ. And when looking at the masses, it seems to me that it is hard to debate that much of the human population simply is not using all it has available and/or is not trying. Worse off that particular group seems to be re-producing faster than the rest. This is not good for the on-going future of human evolution. This is a rather interesting subject for a think tank and perhaps you have some thoughts on this subject of your own and if so, consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow