No.
You know, people go on about "Oh, but if you remove all these other factors like upbringings, social influences, etc, then it's related". But if you remove all those factors, then the situation would be completely different, and we'd be talking about completely different things.
If it's affected by things like upbringing, then it's 100% caused by upbringing, and 0% by anything else. The fact is that it cannot exist without the upbringing.
I see. Do you see people as more or less entirely socially constructed? Do you believe whatever can be said to be 'personality' is entirely developed during the formative years? Do you place any stock in heredity or innate characteristics? If you've the time or interest, any specifics you could offer would be appreciated.Originally Posted by Singu
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
I see the environment as a place for correcting errors. Errors can be corrected by even your own self or your cognition, but so can the environment.
Your cognition makes assumptions about the world, and if it's wrong then it gets corrected. That's how you learn anything. You imitate something your parent says, and if it's wrong, then you get corrected by your parent. You go to school and you learn something, and then you make an assumption that it's correct. If it's wrong, then you get the wrong answer and that gets corrected.
Some people may stubbornly resist correcting errors for a very long time, but that would unwise.
So we have in-born assumptions about the world, like how we see the world or what we hear. But even those are assumptions and they could be wrong.
If people supposedly have in-born views like "Democratic" or "Aristocratic", then it would mean that those people could never correct their own errors. And they must be wrong, because everybody is eventually wrong.
While I agree that our environment (physical and social) are feedback mechanisms, I have a slight nitpick on the above:
We develop mental models of our world (aka the assumptions you're referring to).
"Learning" simply means changing something of our mental models.
Above you refer to wrongness, correctness, etc. But the feedback we're getting from parents, society, teachers, etc is basically "your mental model does not match my mental model" with an implication of "so fix your mental model to match mine".
Some people do resist altering/changing their mental models. But that's not necessarily a bad/good thing. Sometimes a new or alternative mental model isn't as useful or accurate in certain contexts. Sometimes it is.Some people may stubbornly resist correcting errors for a very long time, but that would unwise.
I agree that our in-born biology influences our perceptions about and responses to the world (see Big 5 related personality theory), which is then further influenced by feedback from our physical and social environments.So we have in-born assumptions about the world, like how we see the world or what we hear. But even those are assumptions and they could be wrong.
If people supposedly have in-born views like "Democratic" or "Aristocratic", then it would mean that those people could never correct their own errors. And they must be wrong, because everybody is eventually wrong.
And finally, there's a saying "All models are wrong. Some are useful."
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Well I actually think that it may take more energy and effort to resist things than changing things, because it takes energy to keep the integrity of something. Books may degrade, memory gets faulty, people may remember things wrong, and so on. So it actually takes a lot of effort to keep things the same.
But those random errors and mistakes may be useful, because that's how things could change and improve, as in the case of random mutations.
Its that 0% room for nuance Ne polr
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
