Do Character Traits Exist?

[Fifty]

Whadya think?

BEFORE YOU SAY YES

In other words, although it may seem perfectly obvious, at least to someone who is unfamiliar with social psychology, that people differ in character traits, such an opinion is evidentially on a par with the opinion of a practicing psychoanalyst about the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis or the opinion of an employer that it is obvious that interviews improve hiring decisions. Such opinions are firmly held quite independently of their truth (they are known to be false) and can be explained in terms of confirmation biases of various sorts. Similarly for ordinary opinions about character traits. There is no reason at all to believe in character traits as ordinarily conceived.

quote source

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I would still say yes

 

[aronnax]

People are still jerks. So yes

 

[Perfection]

PDfs make perf sad.

 

[kulade]

They do to exist, and I'm Commercial and Industrious.

 

[GoodGame]

As I hold that free will does exist in part, and by that we can be self-trained, then I have to say yes.

The basic pretense to oneself, according to Sartre, is the pretense
that one lacks free will and cannot do otherwise.)

I agree with the criticism that the over-abundance of 'personality-type' books of a non-scientific nature, in past decades, have diluted the idea of personality. And probably character.

On the social psyche criticism of personality, I'd suggest that people's personalities evolve to be very complex over their lives when they're in their prime, so that snap judgements are usually incorrect. For the criticism of lack of consistency in personality, I'd say that personality/character are learned traits (socially taught, or self-developed in adulthood) so they don't necessarily develop in all people, and natural instinct is a strong primary trait that learned traits override; So lack of consistency of character, or lack of character would be due to natural instinct/lack of consistent training (I think dogs, at least my dogs, are a great example of how lack of consistent training will get inconsistent behaviors---sometimes the dogs do right, sometimes they deviate).

Poli-sci/Mass man/mass media as social pressure plays a more important role on peoples' personality because the more of us, the more influential we are on the individual. But it isn't a given that the social pressure will always override instinct or learned character behavior. But social psyche experiments show that we can be trained to give up values in pursuit of other values, so social pressure can lead to character shifts.

Won't go into the idea of breeding character thru breeding behavior. It may/may not be overstated. Can't say without better science, and the idea of eugenics of behavior pretty much leads to castes, master race ideology,etc.. Ugly stuff.

 

[Shaihulud]

I voted yes, since I am not familiar with social psychology. When they say traits, do they mean something other than what I think everyone else means?

 

[GoodGame]

I voted yes, since I am not familiar with social psychology. When they say traits, do they mean something other than what I think everyone else means?

I think they'd be implying that character is an illusion of the mind, and that behavior is influenced by uncontrolled variables like social pressure and instinct.

 

[homeyg]

PDfs make perf sad.

My computer's fan really doesn't like PDFs either.

 

[Mise]

I voted "downtown", which I read as "don't know". My gut tells me that most personality test things are BS, dunno what the scientific literature says. My gut also tells me that society reinforces certain dispositions or tendencies when you're younger; so if you're good at maths when you're young, you get more attention from parents and teachers in that subject. And that's often to the detriment of other subjects -- for some incomprehensible reason, people still think that if you're a "mathsy" person, you're not or can't also be an "artsy" person.

Anyway that's degenerated into a rant. Short answer: "I don't know and I suck." Ima read the PDF now.

 

[Mise]

It seems as though the author also doesn't know, but says that from a position of authority, rather than my position of ignorance on the subject. It's very interesting that what we common folk consider "evidence" for the existence of character traits is not robust at all, even if character traits do indeed exist -- and that the influence of this perceived "evidence" has an evolutionary basis.

This is only tangentially related to the topic, but...

Hardin (1995) observes that, although many terrible actions by groups, such as
those in the former Yugoslavia are often attributed to historical "ethnic hatreds,"
it is often possible to explain these events in rational terms. Suppose there are
limited resources and a successful coalition will benefit its members more than
those excluded from the coalition. Such a coalition is possible only if insiders can
be distinguished from excluded outsiders and only if it is possible to keep members
from defecting to other groups. Coalitions formed around ethnic or religious lines
might succeed. The threat that one such coalition may form can lead other groups
to form competing coalitions and to struggle against each other. If stakes are high
enough, such struggles can become violent. If we attribute the resulting violence
to ethnic hatred, we may very well doubt that there is anything we can do. If
we understand the way the violence arises from the situation, we may see more
opportunities to end the conflict.

...I found it really interesting.

Now, it seems to me that what happened in Nazi Germany and in Bosnia, So-
malia, etc. taken together with results in social psychology about the relative
explanatory importance of individual character versus the situation in which a
human being is placed, indicate that the very natural human tendency to think
in terms of character traits leads us in the wrong direction. To the extent that we
are interested in improving the lot of mankind it is better to put less emphasis
on moral education and on building character and more emphasis on trying to
arrange social institutions so that human beings are not placed in situations in
which they will act badly.

This too. Mostly cos I agree with it...

 

[holy king]

define character trait.

 

[Mark1031]

I think they'd be implying that character is an illusion of the mind, and that behavior is influenced by uncontrolled variables like social pressure and instinct.

If this is what is meant by character trait then I agree as there is no free will. There are obviously distinct character traits that are controlled by genetics and environmental factors.

Question: What is the name of the character trait that causes one to post polls with no explanation and based on the non-intuitive definition of words requiring reading of 20 page attachments on philosophical history to make a presumed “informed choice”.

 

[Mise]

Guys, it just means "honesty", or "courage", or "kindness", etc...

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Without character we would all be the same. I don't see evidence for such claims.

 

[GoodGame]

If this is what is meant by character trait then I agree as there is no free will. There are obviously distinct character traits that are controlled by genetics and environmental factors.

Question: What is the name of the character trait that causes one to post polls with no explanation and based on the non-intuitive definition of words requiring reading of 20 page attachments on philosophical history to make a presumed “informed choice”.

Laziness or craftiness, as in tricking other people into doing your homework?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Other people are hell. LOL

What I am is for me to decide. And, whether I choose to make this decision or not, I inevitably live in the shadow of my own character creation. Freedom is the fatal flaw in the world of objects, through which the self-defining subject (character) enters the scene.

So in a way. Character do exist. As long as you are accepted as you live as a subject among objects, and become one with them who does the defining of who you are.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I'm not doing any reading! Instead, I will vote to skew the result.

 

[Fifty]

Guys, it just means "honesty", or "courage", or "kindness", etc...

Indeed... nothing particularly unintuitive.

If you don't want to do 12 short pages of reading then don't.

@holy king: In laymens terms, a character trait is just something about you that makes it the case that you'll behave the same way in a variety of circumstances. For example, if someone is sitting alone looking lonely, a person who exemplifies the character trait of friendliness would usually go say hello to them.

Stuff like that. Another example would be that Mark1031 exemplifies the character trait of philosohater. So if someone posts a critique of character traits and the linked article is from a department of psychology, the philosohater will take it seriously. If the exact same article comes from a department of philosophy, the philosohater will do his best to find a reason to hate on it.

In more fancy terms: A character trait is a broad and counterfactually stable cluster of dispositions to act/think/feel in certain ways.

 

[Gustave5436]

Given that the concept of personality disorders seems to require the existence of stable character traits, I would say, yes, character traits do exist. I do not think anyone just wakes up in the morning and decides, whether on a conscious or unconscious level, that they e.g. want to have tragically low self-esteem and an immense fear of people (avoidant) or severe anhedonia resulting from a complete lack of emotion (schizoid).