Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Think psychologists would say there's an element which is genetic and an element that's up to you - much like your likelihood of getting various illnesses which have a genetic component.


I used to be quite a Victor Meldrew when I was younger but am much more positive now, at least in part because I've worked at being more positive - was terrified of turning into my miserable mother who stresses about everything and anything (most of it in her imagination rather than real)

If you mean those ebullient types then I think they are in denial and are over-acting. If they are trying to make me enthusiastic about stuff then their ebullience does not work because I rather prefer to think carefully and quietly about the matters in hand. And I don't think that personality has any genetic basis unless it is a manifestation of some genetically linked chemical imbalance.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm just not naturally one myself. I excuse myself

> believing that your personality is part of your

> genetic make up. Am I right.


Or are you right? Course y'ar ya big ungrammatical-question mark-forgettin' lug. C'mere fer a man hug ya big dope.

Personality traits are broadly heritable, but it seems current thought is that environment plays about an equal part.

In psychology, the Big Five personality traits are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. The theory based on the Big Five factors is called the Five Factor Model (FFM)[1] The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.


The Big five has been preferably used, since it is able to measure different traits in personality without overlapping. During studies, the Big Five personality traits show consistency in interviews, self-descriptions, and when observed.[2] Acronyms commonly used to refer to the five traits collectively are OCEAN, NEOAC, or CANOE. Beneath each factor, a cluster of correlated specific traits is found; for example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.

...


Twin studies suggest that heritability and environmental factors equally influence all five factors to the same degree.[57] Among four recent twin studies, the mean percentage for heritability was calculated for each personality and it was concluded that heritability influenced the five factors broadly. The self-report measures were as follows: openness to experience was estimated to have a 57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, and agreeableness 42%.



So, did I get my neuroticism from my mother's genes, or I did I pick it up from her by sharing the same environment? Hmmm...


I like to think I'm a positive person, but I wouldn't say I'm ebullient (or in denial, and definitely not over-acting). They're not synonymous. In any event, I'm ok with sad, grumpy, negative people too. Hugs all around! :)

Mick Mac - you seemed a happy man at the Supper Club? Good food and wine can do that to a person.


I do't know about Saffron's suggestion but I've always found Myers Briggs a good indicator of style in people. Me - I'm broadly optimistic about life and people (and an easy mark for a con artist!)

The trouble with psychology is that, at best, it's primitive. We don't really know who we are, and the nearest we can ever get is by training people to make theoretical painting-by-numbers portraits of us. The finished work might, at best, give a few broad hints about what might be supposed to be there, but it's never nearly as good as the picture on the box.


This is bad news in many ways, especially for happy people. One of the few things that we do know is that our mood is broadly governed by the dictatorial oozings of our gelatinous brains, things which have, over the millennia, grown to a half-evolved state where they're good enough to make nearly the best of what happens to be at hand, subject to the grubbily selfish motives of molecular biology. Some brains ooze in such a way as to keep their owners stuck firmly at morose end of the perkiness spectrum, and we feed them pills and give them books to read. Others, less decisively, bounce between the two, resulting in what might still be called bipolar persons, and whom we also, allegedly, care for. It takes no great insight (except, possibly, for a trained psychologist) to realise that those stuck at the irrepressibly cheerful end are just as afflicted. But, because their misplaced altruistic urges save the rest of us a bit of bother, we've never thought it worth attempting to find a cure. In short, we're perfectly content to exploit the happy, whether they like it or not.


Even those with no psychological training are aware of this, even if only at second-hand. There's a reason why the predominant motif of culture, both popular and otherwise, and arguably the most irredeemably common, is the pestilence known as love, and it's not just because psychiatrists and biochemists have long delighted in seeking out the lovestruck and putting their heads in clamps. A short poem by Housman puts it more neatly than I could, concisely illustrating the effects on others of the imbalances that occur in the euphoric phase, effects that will be familiar to anyone who's been subject to the soupy effluence of a sufferer. But even Housman tiptoes tastefully round the inevitable backlash; the crashing, and equally irritating, misery that's the result of a bubbling excess of romantic gloop suddenly and speedily meeting with the unrequited concrete of remorseless reality.


This is, in some sense, a good thing. Once we can openly acknowledge that "happy, positive people" are just as screwed up as the rest of us, and even more exploited, we can hope to come to terms with our own mediocre positions on the despondency charts and stop wasting our days skimming "Think Yourself Less Glum". For most of us, it is not the pursuit of happiness that keeps us awake at night, but the fear of it getting away. Realising that happiness won't make us any happier is surely the first step in conquering that fear and getting what we really want, which is, or should be, peace.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So to summarise, absolutely everyone has to pull

> themselves together


Not exactly, there being no together to pull to, and it not being a matter of choice. But, other than that, a fair enough summary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • DD, "Rejoice rejoice. It's a pity he and his fellow clowns were completely annihilated at the ballot box. I mean they were doing so well after all 🙃🙃" At least the economy and unemployment weren't in the mess they are now. What is it, give the public sector a whopping pay increase with no strings attached, double the black hole and then blame it on the last Govt. Give me strength. Rachel from accounts shouldn't be anywhere near the economy. The final straw was increasing employer NI contributions and look how that's worked out. Month on month both inflation and unemployment have risen. Won't be long before inflation and u/e are exceeding 5%, but guess what, They'll blame Sunak and go.  Lets have a snap election right NOW, then see how poorly Starmer, Reeves and Rainer do. They're already plotting to get rid of Starmer, and if you think its bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. Oh and did I mention Starmer wanting to stop Freedom of Speech............................................Normal people can see right through what him and co are doing, great at spending other peoples money, him and co don't have = bankruptcy. We'll just repeat the economic collapse that happened in Greece and wasn't it in Italy as well?
    • One of the best of Shakespeare 's plays.  I did Othello for A level. Also seen a number of stage and film versions. Is there any specific aspects of the play that is difficult for your daughter to understand?  
    • @Sue think this is your quote.  It wasn't binary, good Vs bad, and Corbyn had a lot of popular support, as evidenced by the previous election. He had aot of good policies, some picked up by others since. He was defeated by a mixture of a right wing press,good targeting the Johnson 'Get Brexit Done" and for some that Johnson was a funny loveable rogue/fool/liar/philander/opportunist.  I wouldn't see choosing the perceived least worst candidate out of the two major parties as being "good sense'.  We imagine that Corbyn would have been terrible, but we don't know.  He would have taken a stronger line against Israel in Gaza, not sucked up to Trump nut on Russia?  Would the UK be better for that?
    • We have had 4 greyhounds - the last one, a bitch, was not speyed so we  had to pay for that at our local vet.  Only one dog was nervous around children and only one was cat friendly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...