Who are you?

Lucky Strike · #1 09-15-2011, 09:21 PM

If you where to place percentages into three categories that would total up to 100%. How would you categorize what has made you who you are. The three categories would be:

1) Biological (Genes, DNA..)
2) Society/Social influence (Socialization)
3) Personal choice (I choose to be the way I am, and make decisions, independent of biology and social influence).

Muaguana · #2 09-15-2011, 09:44 PM

1. 35%
2. 50%
3. 15%

Completely arbitrary values that I essentially just made up, as there's no way for me to determine exact amounts. I think the way the categories compare to each other proportionally is more important than the exact numerical value of each.

**colcifer** · #3 09-15-2011, 09:48 PM

This is a good question. Another way to think of it is:

1) Id (basic urges)
2) Superego (early influences on behavior and how you "should" act)
3) Ego (the part of your mind that tries to reconcile the two)

How did you come up with this? With the exception of the last question, it's quite close to a Freudian view of this aspect of behavior.

Big_Daddy · #4 09-15-2011, 10:06 PM

Biological: A fair bit, actually.
Societal: Do my parents count? I'm very much like my father (attitude).
Personal choice: Being an introvert, this'll probably be the highest percentage.

IconBasser · #5 09-15-2011, 10:09 PM

it depends upon the trait you're examining. It varies in each. things like height and weight are mostly dependent upon genes, but can be affected by things like diet. Political dispositions are more influenced by choice and society, but genetics also augment how people view things.

Lucky Strike · #6 09-15-2011, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IconBasser

it depends upon the trait you're examining. It varies in each. things like height and weight are mostly dependent upon genes, but can be affected by things like diet. Political dispositions are more influenced by choice and society, but genetics also augment how people view things.

By "Who are you" I do not mean physically, but internally. Things like personality, character, the choices you make... So definitely yes for political dispositions.

So, your statement about how genetics augment how people view things would most likely mean you place some sort of emphasis on #1, biological.

Lucky Strike · #7 09-15-2011, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colcifer

This is a good question. Another way to think of it is:

1) Id (basic urges)
2) Superego (early influences on behavior and how you "should" act)
3) Ego (the part of your mind that tries to reconcile the two)

How did you come up with this? With the exception of the last question, it's quite close to a Freudian view of this aspect of behavior.

I like this.. a very psychological way to re-interpret the question. Yet, phrasing the question in this way leads a bit into a different direction. Would be a good questionnaire for Psych students.

Lucky Strike · #8 09-15-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Daddy

Biological: A fair bit, actually.
Societal: Do my parents count? I'm very much like my father (attitude).
Personal choice: Being an introvert, this'll probably be the highest percentage.

Your parents greatly count. For example, you may have an avoidant attachment style in your significant-other relationships due to the way your parents showed you affection as a child. Or maybe you have a stable attachment style, also inherited from your parents unconsciously.

Other things that would shape you would be things like the relational dynamics between your siblings while growing up (did the presence of a younger brother mold you into a protector-type, and now you're a police officer...). Your classmates throughout schooling. And ultimately, every social institution that has effected you since birth (Way too many to name!).

Hobobob · #9 09-16-2011, 02:24 AM

Ah, the old 'nature vs nurture' debate. One could argue that the OP's third option would simply be a result of the influence of the previous two. What makes you think and decide the way you do? Your genes or external influences? A little of both, more one than the other? I personally believe that the balance between the two varies from person to person. I honestly couldn't tell you which is more prominent for me; you'd get a better answer from an unbiased third party. This is a different matter from the Freudian personality model, by the way. Freud was trying to describe what the personality is, whereas this debate tries to discover what makes it that way. Sort of like the difference between anatomy and anthropology.

Simo98 · #10 09-16-2011, 02:27 AM

5-15%
65-75%
20%

I like to consider myself a very individual person, which is why I put 20% into the last one. In all honesty it's probably less than that. While genetics might have a big effect on you physically, when I think of what "You" is, I think of the person you are "on the inside" if you like.

A huge amount of what makes you you, in my opinion, is the cultural impacts, and the society you were brought up in. While its not a foolproof example, imagine two twins seperated at birth and raised in completely different cultures, speaking different languages, totally different parents with different moral values. I imagine they would be completely different people.

pcp1976 · #11 09-16-2011, 02:37 AM

I remember from studying psychology (a long, long time ago) several studies involving twins who had been seperated at birth, theoretically isolating the different effects of nature and nurture on those studied. The figures generally reported were that a person's personality is the result of 60% nature, 40% nurture iirc.
Not entirely convinced psychometric testing can be considered accurate though - think how your current mood might affect the responses you give, for example.

hrodbert696 · #12 09-16-2011, 04:49 AM

I don't really think it's possible to assign number values that mean anything, because personality and identity are not things that can be quantified. But for the sake of the exercise;

Biology: 35%.
I'm more of a nurture- than nature-person, but I would be kidding myself if I didn't acknowledge that being male, white, and born in America have done a huge amount to define the parameters of my life.

Social conditions: 55%.
My upbringing, my values, my education, my work - I think even the unconscious habits and automatic reactions that I'm not even aware of come from early family dynamics.

Personal choice: 10%.
What choices are available or realistic for me to make are dictated by the biological and social conditions. Still, I do play a role and deciding among the options that are available to me - go on for more school or stop and go into the job market now? Pursue my intellectual interests or study something more directly job-related? Discipline the kids or let it go this time? Get up and practice or sleep in another hour?

Jim Nazium · #13 09-16-2011, 05:16 AM

400 million years of evolution: 43%
18 years of f*****-up parenting: 31%
Star Trek: 9%
Bass guitar: 8%
Coffee: 5%
That girl I knew in college: 4%

Lucky Strike · #14 09-16-2011, 08:00 AM

LOL, nice Jim..

MatticusMania · #15 09-16-2011, 09:34 AM

I am not a number! I am a free man!

Muaguana · #16 09-16-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Strike

By "Who are you" I do not mean physically, but internally. Things like personality, character, the choices you make... So definitely yes for political dispositions.

So, your statement about how genetics augment how people view things would most likely mean you place some sort of emphasis on #1, biological.

But for some people like myself that possess a chemical imbalance that essentially forces patterns of behavior and alters one's personality, there is little difference between "physically" and "internally" sometimes.

YMMV.