Personalities Change as Beliefs Change - Essay Example

and Evaluation of Two Theories of Personality by 0 PERSONALITIES CHANGE AS BELIEFS CHANGE (DWECK, 2008) 1.1 Description There are two classes of beliefs that change the personality: “beliefs about the malleability of self-attributes and expectations of social acceptance versus rejection” (Dweck, 2008). Moreover, according to the author, “Beliefs are central to the way in which people package their experiences and carry them forward” (Dweck, 2008). The beliefs about the malleability of personal attributes somehow refer to people’s self-theories. Those with fixed or “entity” theory about themselves usually tend to believe that their traits are normally fixed and cannot therefore be altered or improved. On the other hand, those who believe that their qualities are malleable have a malleable or incremental theory about themselves, and these are the very people who believe that even their most basic personality qualities can be developed and improved through their efforts and education. Moreover, research shows that the latter group are also “more open to learning, willing to confront challenges, able to stick to difficult tasks, and capable of bouncing back from failures” (Dweck, 2008). These are therefore the people who can function well in society and these are the very people who can help society change for the better. It is therefore interesting to note that the malleable theory can be taught, and so it means that highly productive people can also be produced from such idea. In fact, in one experimental research, the researchers were even successful at making a group of college students learn malleable intelligence. This yielded positive results in terms of enhanced enjoyment of academic work, higher GPAs and a greater valuing of academics (Dweck, 2008). Moreover, the second part of this theory on personality is that the beliefs of an individual regarding relationships, namely “expectations of acceptance or rejection” (Dweck, 2008). Based on this aspect of the theory, expectations of positive or negative responses have somehow been shown to influence the integrity of adult relationships. For example, as demonstrated by some studies, people who anxiously expect negative reactions and pessimistic responses from others tend to have relationships that are more fragile and even perceive rejection in many situations. In terms of academics, they become less engaged and they tend to do less well. However, if taught the malleable theory of beliefs, they would tend to program their thoughts and reactions to positive, thereby ensuring better and healthier relationships (Dweck, 2008). 1.2 Evaluation In fact, according to a report by Lee (1999), certain mental disorders classified under The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders in 1992 are actually a result of the beliefs of the individual patients suffering from such disorders. Dissocial Personality Disorder – which includes amoral, sociopathic, psychopathic and asocial personality disorders – usually have symptoms that show the patient’s underlying beliefs. Two symptoms include “callous unconcern for the feelings of others” as well as “gross and persistent attitude of…disregard for social norms, rules and obligations” (Lee, 1999). From these symptoms, one can therefore deduce that the development of a personality disorder or a personality for that matter is actually brought about by beliefs. The fact that the patient has “callous unconcern for the feelings of others” as well as a “disregard for social norms” means that the patient believes that other people do not matter at all to him (Lee, 1999). It may also indicate that he believes that other people are not worthy of attention and their feelings need not be acknowledged and recognized. Thus, from this example, one can actually somehow prove that one’s beliefs determine not only one’s personality disorder but also one’s personality. Moreover, according to Roseborough et al. (2011), aggression may actually only be retaliatory behavior in response to the injustice that is perceived by the individual, usually arising from the idea that they were not given what they believed they deserved and regardless whether such an injustice is real or not. Thus, from this statement, one can say that one’s beliefs – although imagined and false – govern one’s behavior and one’s personality. Thus, the person who falsely imagines injustice although there is none may actually feel aggressive and retaliatory. Moreover, in order to fit the person’s false concept of injustice, he may even falsely regard others as his own enemies. This therefore explains how beliefs actively influence one’s aggression or one’s aggressive personality. What is interesting about this theory, however, is that the perceived injustice is usually coming from the idea that the victim had very little or no control over the event that transpired (Roseborough et al., 2011). Thus, when one believes that he is not in control of things, then he becomes the victim. When he is the victim or if this is what he falsely believes in even though it is true, then such a belief would eventually shape his personality. From these aforementioned proofs, it seems that the theory that one’s beliefs shape one’s personality is actually very much plausible. The stronger these beliefs are and the longer one harbors them, the more it seems that they shape one’s personality. Moreover, it also seems that as personalities eventually take shape from such beliefs, these personalities reinforce the beliefs that helped shape them by continually acting upon these beliefs. In fact, based on real life situations, the theory is also very much plausible. If, for example, a woman has the deeply-ingrained belief that all men are cheaters then she will always try to look for situations that would accuse or suspect her male lovers of cheating on her. She will then become automatically distrustful of all men. This will then lead to a series of events that will make her a man-hater or a staunch defender of women’s rights. Thus, she will then be able to develop a unique personality that is somehow in conjunction with her deeply-ingrained beliefs in the evil and untrustworthiness of males. 2.0 PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AS ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR SOLVING RECURRENT ADAPTIVE PROBLEMS (BUSS, 2009) 2.1 Description According to Buss (2009), personality and individual differences may arise from “alternative strategies for solving recurrent adaptive problems.” It is a fact that all human groups encounter and pose adaptive problems to every human being. These problems include forming social alliances, resolving conflicts, extracting sources from others and negotiating status hierarchies. In fact, one very common adaptive problem that almost every civilized human being must undergo in his lifetime at least once is negotiating status hierarchies. In the process of attaining a higher status or achieving a higher position in dominance hierarchies, differences in approaches would sometimes lead to differences in personalities, and vice versa. Extraverts, for example, tend to use positive externalities to advance themselves. Those low on agreeableness would use manipulation and deception. The conscientious ones, however, tend to use sheer hard work. In the same way, the approach that people tend to get used to early in life and tend to continually practice even later in life would eventually define the personality of the person who has got used to this particular approach (Buss, 2009). In the same way, one very common adaptive problem that almost every human being is confronted to do is extracting resources from other people in one’s immediate social environment. This adaptive problem actually only simply means how to obtain resources from other people. Those using coercive strategies like criticizing, demanding and yelling in order to get what they want usually tend to be those low on agreeableness. Those using regression strategies like pouting, whining and sulking are those low on emotional stability. Those employing monetary rewards and even acts of self-abasement tend to be those low on extraversion (Buss, 2009). In short, it is the approach that defines the personality and individual differences. Furthermore, based on the aforementioned concepts, it is also true that the various personalities of people are distinguished from one another through their approaches in solving a particular adaptive problem. 2.2 Evaluation One study proves that one’s particular approach to problem solving is a major determinant of one’s personality. According to Cole and Quinn (2011), individual differences in terms of competitive ability account for differences in personality and are actually explained by “a heritable personality trait and a repeatable cognitive trait.” The repeatable cognitive trait is also known as “innovative problem-solving,” and this means that one’s approach to problem solving is the one that determines one’s personality (Cole & Quinn, 2011). From this study one can actually conclude that how one should solve a particular problem in his immediate social environment more or less determines the personality that should take shape in him eventually. Thus, the degree to which he should deal with a particular problem should actually determine the degree of competitive spirit and the amount of aggression that he should have. This eventually determines his personality. This particular piece of scientific information actually somehow determines the validity of the theory that one’s approach to a particular problem eventually shapes one’s personality. The theory is actually also actually practically plausible in real life. Sometimes there are problems that seem insurmountable and would naturally require great courage on the part of the individual for him to solve it. This particular problem would then require the individual to have such great courage and he will then use this to surmount the obstacle. If he does this to other problems and if this becomes his specific approach in solving other problems, then every time he would solve the problem, he would be labeled a strong person. This will then be his personality. In the same way, if he always runs away from problems all the time, and if this becomes his approach every time there is a problem, then he himself will sooner or later realize that he is developing a personality of weakness. He will therefore eventually develop into someone who is weak and who is ready to avoid problems anytime. 3.0 CONCLUSION From Dweck (2008), one learns that one’s beliefs shape one’s personality, and that this personality will somehow continue to reinforce one’s beliefs further. The longer one holds on to these beliefs and the stronger these beliefs are in the individual, the more pronounced the personality is that will take shape in this person. In the same way, from Buss (2009), one learns that one’s specific approach to a problem is the reason for the development of his specific personality. The stronger the need for aggression in solving a particular problem, the more likely it is that this person will develop an aggressive personality, something akin to the amount of aggression needed to solve his usual problems. REFERENCES Buss, D. M. (2009). How Can Evolutionary Psychology Successfully Explain Personality and Individual Differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:4, 359-366. Cole, E. F. & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Personality and problem-solving performance explain competitive ability in the wild. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 279:1731, 1168-1175. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can Personality Be Changed?: The Role of Beliefs in Personality and Change. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:6, 391-394. Lee, J. H. (1999). The Treatment of Psychopathic and Antisocial Personality Disorders: A Review. Review of Therapeutic Community Treatment of Personality Disordered Patients, 1-33. Roseborough, J., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flett, G. L. & Cribbie, R. A. (2011). The Belief in an Unjust World and Narcissism: The Influence of Personality on Perceptions of Injustice, Driving Anger, and Aggressive Driving. Proceedings of the 21st Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference 1-15. Read More