My Thoughts on Personality Theory
Charlie Hueber
PSY 502.020, SFASU
12/11/01
In developing my own ideas of personality, I have come to the conclusion that the more knowledge I gain the more knowledge I realize I lack. For the purpose of stating my ideas on personality, I will attempt to tie in several schools of thought. In previous papers I have attempted to explain genetic factors associated with personality as compared to social factors by using what I called a Blueprint Theory. Here I have no real name for my ideas; they are simply ideas.
We first discussed psychoanalytic theory. From that, the idea of an unconscious area of our mind struck me as important to our personalities. I chose to view this idea in a religious context. I believe that the unconscious we experience is a third party taking a part in our lives. My religion calls this the ‘Holy Ghost’. This idea first hit me when I was reading Carl Jung’s article. In his article, Jung mentioned a state of "God-Almightiness" and said that their exists some "universal basic qualities of humanity. (Jung, 2001, p. 36)." He really was not making an explanation for the Holy Ghost, but when reading it, it seemed to fit my beliefs. The existence of a Holy Ghost explains why there are universal qualities as well as explaining some forms of internal conflict, which some refer to as having a ‘conscious’.
With all of my experience in leadership, I found that Carl Rogers also aligned with many of my beliefs. He stated, " I have found it effective, in my dealings with people, to be acceptant of myself (Rogers, 2001, p. 208)." I believe this to be very important in personality and in helping others. If we have a firm grasp on our own beliefs, then we can begin to help others gain that same grasp. Jung shared the belief that self-acceptance brings happiness, the difference was that Jung did not see change as a part of the equation (Jung, 2001). Rogers’s theories focused on the individual and he excelled in counseling of individuals. Of all the areas studied in this course, this area was one that mentioned affecting change in people and their personalities. I believe change is possible and sometimes difficult.
Though I believe change is possible I feel that early experiences play a major role in determining our personality. Erikson stated that, "anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a functioning whole (Erikson, 2001, p. 52)." I believe that early development effects latter development, and therefore it holds a greater importance. I also believe that personality traits developed in earlier stages are harder to change the farther they are from development. I disagree with the idea that each part of the personality " all depend on the proper development in the proper sequence of each item (Erikson, p. 52)." It is the idea that personality must develop in a certain order that I disagree with. I hold the belief that we all develop personalities according to our environment in conjunction with our genetics. Each individual has a unique development and pinning it down to a specific order is hard for me to understand. Here, Bandura stated it best by saying, " human functioning is explained in terms of a model triadic reciprocality in which behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants of each other (Bandura, 2001, p. 150)."
Of all my thoughts on personality none consumed more of my time this semester that that of the construction of personality and its relation to genetics and social learning. I developed a blueprint theory that explained how I believe, as Bandura does, that both genetics and social learning effect personality. I particularly liked what Peele and Degrandpre pointed out with the supposed discovery of an "alcoholism gene." In that example they explain that genes "may effect how people experience alcohol …. But although genes can influence reactions to alcohol, they cannot explain why people continue drinking to the point of destroying their lives (Peele, 2001, p. 81)." This statement really launched my theory on the genetic blueprint and how the personality is constructed and changed as we develop.
My thoughts on personality are not complex and I believe that is a reflection of my own personality. I like to see things as simple as possible. I do believe that personality is complex; it is my explanation that remains simple. The many theories disagree and agree in several areas and choosing one theory is like choosing a religion, confusing and frustrating because they all have things we like and dislike. But in this case I can pick and choose what I like.
Reference
Bandura, Albert. (2001). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. In Friedman, H.S., Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (150-154) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Erikson, Erik H. (2001). The life cycle: Epigenesis of identity. In Friedman, H.S.,
Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (51-55) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jung, Carl G. (2001). The conception of the unconscious. In Friedman, H.S., Schustack,
M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (35-39) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Peele, Stanton. Degrandpre, Richard. (2001). My genes made me do it. In Friedman,
H.S., Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (78-86) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rogers, Carl (2001). What understanding and acceptance mean to me. In Friedman, H.S.,
Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (207-216) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.