Category: Human behavior

Introduction

Human behavior is a product of a range of various interrelated factors that walk alongside with our lives starting with the early childhood and is even thought to be closely related to genetics and predicted by it (Hartwell, 2014). Thus, it can be concluded that people’s behavior is always under the influence of people around us, environment, culture and other things that cannot be excluded from our lives (Kierkus & Baer, 2002).

The effect produced by them is considered by many scholars; however, they still have not come to the irreversible decision. We pointed out three variables that are tightly connected with everyday life and go along with us wherever we are. These are music, media and culture – things that every person is aware of and understands.

We develop a hypothesis that human behavior changes in the course of a lifetime, because it is influenced by music one listens to, media the person perceives, and culture he/she inherits. This issue is important as the knowledge of the reasons of some kinds of people’s behavior provides individuals with the opportunity to reduce the adverse impacts and become more independent in the decision-making and actions (Rost, 2002).

Literature Review

Of course, we are not the only ones who investigate this issue that is why in our study we refer to the works of the researchers, who examined the influence made on the human behavior.

In her article, Tropeano focuses on the influence provided on people by the music they listen to and music videos they watch. She also found that “watching the violent music video containing violent lyrics, aggressive behavior, and degrading behaviors toward women did make an individual feel and react more violently with regards to responses to questions about fictitious scenarios” (Tropeano, 2011).

According to this research, it becomes obvious that even one’s musical tastes have a great impact on the personality and actions of a person, which supports our hypothesis.

Media is the factor that recently started to affect people’s behavior at a great rate. Paek, Gunther, McLeod and Hove focus on the issue using the example of smoking decisions made by adolescence and their connection with media. They distinguish that the majority of peers are influenced by antismoking messages in predicting adolescent smoking attitudes and behavior (Paek, Gunther, McLeod, & Hove, 2011).

After the evaluation of the gained dada the authors came up to a decision that media is really a great tool for antismoking campaigns, which proves that it has an immense influence on people, as media surrounds them whenever and wherever they are.

We all exist in the particular society, and its members render us the values of the culture while interacting with us. Thus, it influences our behavior, thoughts, and actions. Matsumoto claims that culture “emerges from the connection between the ecological context and basic human nature, and the way in which social roles are determined by culture-specific psychological meanings attributed to situational contexts” (Matsumoto, 2007).

He also comes to the conclusion that every day people play some specific roles that are expected of them by the society; the performance of the roles differs due to various cultures, but the influence stays unchanged.

Hypotheses

After considering the information received from these articles, several hypotheses can be made. People who listen to calm music receive positive impact as it helps them to compose themselves while those who prefer sharp and disturbing melodies gain detrimental effect. Under the influence of media, people change their attitudes and decisions, which reflects on the behavior. Human behavior alters, because it is affected by the values of the culture that one is taught.

Taking into consideration everything mentioned above, we can prove that human behavior is not constant. It changes due to the influences from the outer world even though we do not always realize this. As music, media and culture are inalienable parts of our life, they are the ones that affect it the most.

References

Hartwell, H. (2014). Behaviour change. Perspectives in Public Health, 134(1), 1-15.

Kierkus, C. & Baer, D. (2002). A social control explanation of the relationship between family structure and delinquent behaviour. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 44(4), 32-70.

Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1285-1320.

Paek, H., Gunther, A., McLeod, D., & Hove, T. (2011). How adolescents’ perceived media influence on peers affects smoking decisions. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(1), 123-146.

Rost, J. (2002). When personality questionnaires fail to be unidimensional. Psychologische Beiträge, 44(1), 108-125.

Tropeano, E. (2011). Does rap or rock music provoke violent behavior? Journal of Undergraduate Psychological Research, 1(1), 31-34.

Introduction

Interpersonal relationships in an organization and the organizational culture prevailing among the members of an organization influence the behavior of the human resources in the organization. The best way to understand human behavior in an organization is to observe as people interact with each other. Observations give insight on the culture of an organization, and the leadership model in the organization in question can be easily detected by observing how the employees relate with their leaders. It is important to conduct several observations in a group before making conclusions about the behavior of the people in the group because one observation may not provide accurate conclusions about the character of the people or the group under study.

Second observation

The second observation was also in a meeting setting. The meeting was about planning for a project to upgrade the information system in the organization, and the manager and the CEO of the organization was present along with 12 members of the team handling the project. The project manager had a presentation that guided the subject matter in discussion. During the presentation, he used a persuasive tone and maintained eye contact with the leader and the manager. It was clear that he was trying to acquaint them with the plan developed by the team as well as attempting to convince the leaders to accept the proposed plan. Notes were taken by the team members as well as the manager and the CEO.

Everyone was thoroughly attentive during the presentation. The manager and the CEO asked several questions, which the project manager answered in a confident tone. The formal setting in the meeting did not seem to bother any of the members present. The project’ team members played the role of listening and taking short notes. When the presentation was over, the manager and the leader engaged in private conversations before the CEO declared that the project plan was remarkable. The meeting ended with all the members shaking hands with the manager and the leader. Short personal conversations were observed among some of the members and the CEO. He addressed every member by their surnames, and he seemed acquainted with details of their private lives.

Recommendations

From the observations made on groups in the organization, it is clear that the behavior of the human assets in a company is dependent on the culture influenced by the leadership function. The free flowing conversations in the discussions and the setting chosen for the discussions indicate that the leadership in the organizations focuses on simplicity and equality values. Organizations should develop espoused values that provide the employees with a free environment where they can attain their highest level of self-efficacy. Humility, among the members of an organization, as seen through the lens of the company under study, is a good character trait that motivates free expression among the employees. From the observations made, it is clear that providing a free environment allows leaders and their followers to have effective communication.

Conclusion

The behaviors of people in a group are an indication of the norms upheld by the members of the groups. The members of the groups studied revealed a free spirited interaction process with mutual respect between the employees and the leaders. Their personal behavior was portrayed on a formal platform that indicates that the espoused values of the organization are geared toward ensuring all members behave in a professional manner.

Introduction

Human behavior is susceptible to change based on one’s social situation. A person in a group will have a heightened level of social awareness that will prevent them from acting appropriately. Two scenarios of behavior alteration will be analyzed in order to demonstrate this tendency.

Description of the specific behaviors

The first incident was the gang rape of a high school student at Richmond, which occurred on 27^th October 2009. The victim was a fifteen year old student who was attending a dance at the school’s gymnasium. Ten men raped and tortured her in the presence of ten other witnesses who surrounded the attackers and took pictures of the incident. Several other individuals joined the crowd of witnesses and continued to watch or laugh at the girl. The school had a number of security guards during the incident, yet no individual bothered to call them. Even the assistant principle noticed that a group of strange men was in the school premises, but he did not investigate the matter further. This administrator did not alert teachers or the police concerning such a peculiar situation. One student who left the party reported the incident after the girl had already been raped and was in critical condition. She was found under a bench, half conscious.

The second behavior is something that has taken place in several organizations around the world. An employer assigns workers with the responsibility of creating a new company manual. In performing this task, they are expected to meet regularly and give their suggestions and ideas. After collection of ideas, different members must compile, edit and prepare the manual. They need to research and add more information concerning those suggestions in order to translate them into usable material. However, many of the employees do not carry their weight in the project meetings as well as the implementation phase. This occurs regardless of the fact that most of the employees are highly productive in their specific departments. The project ends up dragging for long and members create an inferior product at the end of it all.

Context

The rapists had varied ages, but most of them were young. Additionally, most of the eye witnesses were immature. Psychologists explain that youth are more likely to be detached during a dangerous situation because they do not understand the idea of victimization well. Eyewitnesses did not have any personal association with the rape victim thus explaining why most of them remained passive. Failure to notify the police or other authorities in the vicinity contributed to excessive prolonging of the rape, psychological and physical torture of the victim.

The second issue of employee stalling occurred in an organizational setting. The individuals were not used to working in groups. Furthermore, there was no explicit evaluator who would hold project members responsible for project failure. This incident also occurred in a western context. Employees had minimal collective tendencies; consequently, they did not care much about the effect of their actions on the group. Perhaps their behavior would have been different if they came from a collectivist society, such as China (Sheppard, 1993).

Precursors and consequences of the behaviors

The group under consideration had difficulties in sharing information outside their weekly meetings. Employees had to wait for seven days before they could make any useful decisions. When they did make any contributions, these were not recognized by an authoritative figure. They did not feel satisfied about the project team as well as the way in which work was done. Furthermore, few of them identified with the group. They defined their membership in terms of their respective departments as well as the organization in general. None of them mentioned the company manual committee as a group that they belonged to. They did not think that members of the group valued them. Since the project team constituted of forty members, it is likely that most of the participants felt that their efforts were too trivial to make any significant contribution to the project goals. Furthermore, there were no tangible rewards or foreseeable outcomes of the tasks. All the above factors were precursors to their stalling behavior. The consequences of their behavior were depletion of company resources during the project and wastage of valuable company time. Performance declined in the company and employees were also demoralized.

Associated phenomenon with the selected behaviors

Groupthink may be attributed to the 2009 gang rape incident. This was manifested in the form of the bystander effect. The latter phenomenon refers to the tendency to refrain from taking action in an emergency situation when a high number of people exist. One’s response as an eye witness is likely to be more active if no observers exist (Brun & Tiegen, 2011). When people are present in large numbers during an emergency, then diffusion of responsibility takes place. In the case of the Richmond rape, most of the witnesses probably felt that others would notify the authorities about the matter. Additionally, social influence played a large role in determination of their actions. Sometimes individuals may act passively in an effort to be socially acceptable. In the gang rape, it likely that the observers continued to watch the ghastly act of rape because of influences from other witnesses. Since the crowd had a large number of men, it is likely that the need to appear more masculine made the eyewitnesses appear less empathetic towards the victim.

The phenomenon that led to employee stalling was social loafing, which is the reduction of individual effort when people need to work in a group (Kowalski & Westen, 2011). Psychologists explain that people will reduce their personal efforts in a group when they do not see a connection between their inputs and the outcomes of their world. Furthermore, social loafing may occur when a group is large in size with very divergent members. Also, if people think that their input is insignificant then social loafing will arise. In this case, members of the organization had all the above qualities hence explaining why their behavior changed when in a group.

Whether the behaviors necessitate therapeutic intervention

The first case of gang rape necessitates therapeutic intervention because it led to highly severe and dire consequences. Members of the high school or the Richmond community need to be sensitized about group think and its dreadful effects. They can learn about the importance of sound moral judgment even when one is in a large group. Unless the individuals learn about thinking independently, then they may remain inactive in future incidences.

Organizational psychologists can also intervene in cases of social loafing. In the concerned case, they would have identified individual contributions among project members. Administrators should also have made group members feel valued. Team cohesiveness could have been increased and evaluation systems instated. The organizational psychologists could also have reduced the number of team members.

Conclusion

The two cases under consideration were undesirable; one was even tragic. Alterations in behavior were caused by social situations or the presence of a group. Mental efficiency and bad judgment were caused by group think and social loafing, which only arise when participants are socially aware of their situations. Therefore, the behavior can be altered if therapists deal with these social influences.

References

Brun, W. & Tiegen, K. (2011). Responsibility is divisible by two, but not three or four: Judgments of responsibility in dyads and groups. Social cognition, 29(3), 15-42.

Kowalski, R. & Westen, D. (2011). Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

Sheppard, J. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81.

Introduction

The conjunction fallacies may often happen in our everyday life because of the people’s striving to generalize the incoming information, and thus people often mistake in their conclusions. Thus, the example of the probable conjunction fallacies in hiring people for the work in a fast food restaurant (so for any restaurant, or the place, where team work is needed): He/ She was fired from the previous place of work because of conflict with some other team member, so he/ she is conflict person. But it may be that the conflict person is the other team member – the opposite party to the conflict.

Another example is when one had been fired from several places because of the reasons close to irresponsibility. HR managers prefer not to hire such people, but person might have a wish to get another chance. Such people just need to be interested in their work and stimulated for good job. If the company is not able to stimulate the staff, it may face huge turnover.

The last, but not the least is the external unattractiveness. May be the most common case is when the future workers are suited by the HR manager by appearance. This is the most non-professional approach, but unfortunately is widely applied.

Hypothesis on the behavior

For the smokers: if a person does not go for a smoking break with the other team members – he/ she is non-communicative. Such mistaking generalization may occur in the smoking teams, but on the other hand one just may not complete the work in time, and thus, when everyone smokes, stay to continue working.

Another example on the appearance – if one is unattractive, and moreover with tough voice, one is considered cruel and unsociable. The fact is, such approach and conclusions by the other people may make one unsociable, and offended for the whole world, but understanding makes everyone kind-hearted.

The most fallacies take place during the first moments of acquaintance with people. It is said, that the first impression is always wrong, but not everyone follows this rule.

Correction of the conjunction fallacies on behavior

The judgments and such conjunction fallacies may be corrected either by offering a person another chance to correct or prove everybody’s mistake, or changing one’s own approach to people, and communicating to them. Most may reveal the unexpected features.

The perpetuation of the fallacies happen, as it had been mentioned above, because of the people’s ability to generalize the information, and in some measure because of comprehending the facts by emotions but not reason, and it is known, that emotions are always mistaken in judgments.

Conclusion

As it may be seen of the hypothesis, the conjunction fallacies in human behavior appear because of people’s prejudices, and non-wishing to use reason. This may be corrected only by the use of good logic in the everyday life, and people also need to be tolerant to each other.

In a cultural community setting, there exist different values, habits, and vices. For example, observing particular holiday events or lifestyle practices might be passed down through generations in a society (Nickerson, 2022). The cultural deviance hypothesis postulates that ideas taught in schools that justify crimes and violence as legitimate responses to societal circumstances are what lead to criminal behavior.

In certain regions of the world, various cultures, such as Islamic Shariah law in Pakistan, permit the relatives of a murder victim to commute the sentence of a killer in the event of an honor killing. The Pakistani community believes that committing an honor killing might restore one’s family’s honor after being “soiled” by the alleged misdeeds of one of its members (Hongdao et al., 2018). This demonstrates how well the rules and regulations that apply to various communities sometimes depend on the geographical setting. Understanding various manifestations of human actions and tendencies in depth requires the use of theoretical approaches. These concepts offer a framework for comprehending human cognition. The theories offer analytical responses to inquiries made in an effort to comprehend the aspects of human behavior in various social, political, economic, and geographical settings.

Animals whose primary source of nutrition is not meat are classified as herbivores. The same holds true when pointing out a group of individuals and discussing almost instantly the traits they all share without taking into account how unique each individual is. Later, the generalizations become stereotypes, implying that every member of a particular cultural group will engage in certain behaviors. This is harmful since it lumps people into categories and spreads narrow viewpoints without taking into account the fact that people always undergo both personal and professional development (Behl, 2021). Misinformation and lack of awareness are the causes of most cultural generalizations.

References

Behl, J. D., & Steverson, L. A. (2021). Criminal Theory Profiles: Inside the Minds of Theorists of Crime and Deviance. Routledge.

Hongdao, Q., Khaskheli, M. B., Rehman Saleem, H. A., Mapa, J. G., & Bibi, S. (2018). Honor killing phenomena in Pakistan. JL Pol’y & Globalization, 73, 169.

Nickerson, C. (2022). Cultural transmission theory of deviance. Cultural transmission theory of deviance – Simply Psychology. Web.

Introduction

The podcast “What are the Odds” from The Hidden Brain deals with the subject of coincidences and their place in our everyday life. They aim to explain the mathematics behind coincidences and the influence of processes in the human brain on our perception of coincidences.

Chosen theory

George Ritzer, on the other hand, aims to explore the notion of rationalization and its increasing effect on the community. He explains that the rationalization today is seen more like a fast-food restaurant than a bureaucratic structure. The basic principles of rationalization that affects the social processes today include efficiency, calculability, predictability, control, and irrationalities of rationality (Ritzer 293-294). In other words, all processes that occur within the community are supposed to be efficient, quantitative rather than qualitative, predictable, controlled, and somewhat irrational in terms of the people’s opinion on them.

Relation to the podcast

The Hidden Brain, essentially, argues that our attitudes are guided by the same principles of rationalization. The processes in our brain control our thoughts and actions to increase their efficiency, why is why they are usually predictable. Moreover, as described in the podcast, we tend to pay attention to the smallest of coincidences, thus attributing more value to their quantity rather than quality. Finally, the overall belief in coincidences and the ecstatic reaction to discovering one is irrational, given their explainability: according to the scientists’ claims, about 80% of coincidences we see as extraordinary are not coincidences at all. Instead, these occurrences result from our misconception about the number of people we know and the odds of meeting them (“What are the odds?” 9:25-9:45).

Conclusion

Overall, it is clear that the theory of McDonaldization, as described by Ritzer, applies not just to the interactions between people, but also to the people’s actions and opinions, as it follows the very basics of the processes that occur in our brain. Expanding the theory of rationalization to include all aspects of human behavior and not just the social one would provide us with a new way of explaining the various behavioral phenomena.

Works Cited

Ritzer, George. “The McDonaldization Thesis: Is Expansion Inevitable?” International Sociology, vol. 11, no. 3, 1996, pp. 291-308.

“What Are the Odds?” The Hidden Brain from NPR, 2016, Web.

The foundations of human behavior are among the most hotly debated topics in the field of psychology. Despite the impressive progress made in several recent decades, there was no conclusive evidence that a single factor is either solely or predominantly responsible for the resulting behavior. Two major candidates that are currently viewed as the most significant sources of influence are emotion and cognition. The emotion-driven theory suggests that our decisions are grounded in how we feel about the situation or action, while the more recent cognitive psychology states that our analysis of the situation is the primary driving force behind our decisions (Hunt, 2007).

The situation is complicated by the findings in the evolutionary psychology field, which show that the ultimate aim of both emotions and cognition processes are very similar and are evolutionary-based (Forgas, Haselton, & Hippel, 2011). This makes isolation of the primary cause of a decision nearly impossible to determine. Currently, the psychologists lean towards a more recognized cognitive model. However, some researchers point that emotion as a defining factor can not be ignored even despite the current consensus, as it plays at least an equally important role (Gutnik, Hakimzada, Yoskowitz, & Patel, 2006).

It is difficult to illustrate the prevalence of emotion as a driving force behind human behavior, as the example must clearly distinguish between the emotional and cognitive processes, which is a challenging task. However, a possible solution is an event where emotion is conflicting with the critical analysis of the situation. For example, we can imagine the event which I perceived as morally unacceptable but is otherwise harmless.

We can use a thought experiment suggested by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. In an experiment, people are told about brother and sister who decide to make love while on vacation. They use several types of contraception to eliminate pregnancy, and the resulting experience is satisfactory. However, they agree not to repeat it or share the details with anyone. When asked to evaluate if there is anything wrong with the event, most people would respond positively, condemning the siblings’ behavior (Royzman, Kim, & Leeman, 2015). However, they fail at explaining the reason for the condemnation, usually pointing to adverse genetic effects for children born from close relatives.

When reminded about the contraception, they proceed to the possible psychological trauma. When this argument is discarded based on their satisfaction with the experience, they turn to possible negative social outcomes. Finally, when this assertion is negated by the fact that they managed to keep it a secret, people usually either continue to seek logical explanations in minor details or admit they “feel” it is wrong but cannot reasonably explain the reason behind it.

In this case, the emotion clearly defines the judgment, and would likely result in attitude towards the siblings. The cognitive process struggles to provide the justification, which in this case is challenging. However, in other circumstances, not suited to prove a point, this would likely be easier and would allow to “mask” the decision as originating in the thinking rather than the emotional domain.

It is important to mention that the described situation has its weak points. First, it is an experiment and would likely produce other results in an uncontrollable environment (Callies, Keller, & Lohöfer, 2011). Second, the topic selected by Haidt is deliberately highly sensitive and is thus culturally biased. It is unclear to what extent the emotions are defined by social and cultural norms – in other words, the result may be socially rather than emotionally driven. Nevertheless, the discussed situation clearly shows that emotion overrides the cognitive process at least in some instances, which suggests its importance for understanding and predicting behavior.

References

Callies, M., Keller, W., & Lohöfer, A. (2011). Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences: avenues, challenges, and limitations. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

Forgas, J.P., Haselton, M.G., & Hippel, W. (2011). Evolution and the social mind: evolutionary psychology and social cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Gutnik, L. A., Hakimzada, A. F., Yoskowitz, N. A., & Patel, V. L. (2006). The role of emotion in decision-making: A cognitive neuroeconomic approach towards understanding sexual risk behavior. Journal of biomedical informatics, 39(6), 720-736.

Hunt, M. (2007). The story of psychology. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 296.

Introduction

According to (Moore, 2003), the issue of whether nature has more impact than nurture on ways in which human beings behave has been debated upon for quite some time, where each individual is found to support either of the two according to experience or perceptions. Nature concerns itself with the natural internal qualities possessed by human beings. On the other hand, nurture concerns itself with experiences that human beings have acquired from the environment in which they live. The debate involves how these two factors determine the behavioral as well as physical characteristics of human beings and ways in which they vary. The particular roles of nurture and nature are portrayed in various areas and stages of lives of human beings.

Historical Background

The debate on how nurture as well as nature contributes to behavior of human beings can be traced to historical times. From the nineteenth century to early the twentieth century, opinions were found to consider nature as the determinant of human behavior. This was mainly supported by scientific research on the role played by genes that are inherited by offsprings. Another study that supported nature is natural selection that was conducted by Charles Darwin. Galton wrote a book called “hereditary nature” where he argued that, those people who possessed various gifts were found to originate from parents or family backgrounds that had similar kinds of gifts. He supported his arguments by an analysis that he carried on concerning talents and various professions where he concluded that, they were inherited from particular parents who possessed such talents. He also argued that, character traits improve or get worse throughout generations depending on the traits of parents. However, after the First World War, more research was carried out on the issue of the roles of nurture as well as nature. This particular research challenged the views that were in support of nature as the sole determinant of human beings’ behavior and argued that nurture was a major contributing factor to ways in which human beings behaved (Moore, 2003).

Nurture

According to (Bouchard, 1997), supporters of nurture argue that, the manner in which human beings behave is primarily determined by the environment in which they are brought up. This particular argument has been supported by several studies performed on the various types of temperaments possessed by children. For example, John Watson, an American psychologist performed an experiment on a young boy which showed that, phobia is as a result of classical conditioning. He argued that, if he was to be given some healthy infants, he would apply his own knowledge to equip them with skills of his choice and they would end up in different specializations regardless of their abilities, race, genetic characteristics and talents.

(Steele, 1981), found that the theory of nurture was also supported by Skinner, another psychologist, who performed experiments using pigeons. He took his time to train them on various dancing styles, which they imitated and after some time they could dance as directed. He also trained them on how to play tennis and twist their bodies to make figure eight which they did as well. These experiments made him to be considered as the founder of the science that deals with behavior. From experiments that he carried out on animals, he inferred that it’s possible to condition the behavior of human beings in a similar manner. This inference supported the fact that human behavior is a product of what is learnt through experience acquired in one’s surroundings.

Another study done by scientists, show that human beings acquire their humor through learning. Acquisition of humor is influenced by the type of culture that one grows up in or the kind of family set up that one is brought up in. For example, if one grows up in a family where people are jovial, peaceful and make a lot of jokes, then he/she will grow up a jovial person who is full of humor which will have been learnt from the environment surrounding him. A study of the behavior portrayed by identical twins show that, when brought up in different environments, they acquire very different behavioral traits showing that nurture plays a very big role in determining the type of traits acquired by human beings. (Bridgeman, 2003)

Debate In Support Of Nature

(Maroni, 2000), found that, the color of hair as well as that of eyes is determined by genes. Supporters of the theory of nature also argue that, traits such as aggression, sexual orientation and intelligence are determined by genes. Therefore, various types of genes have been studied so as to show how nature plays its role in determination of behavior. However, these arguments are feared to be used by some people as an excuse for their bad behavior. This is because; some people are found to argue that, since one or both of their parents or someone in their extended family was a criminal, he/she can do nothing to his/her criminal behavior because its inherited. Others argue that, since their parents are divorced, they too cannot escape it because; even if they marry they will have to divorce. This is a negative application of the transfer of genes through inheritance as people tend to stick to negative behavior since their parents had the same. Possession of the gene that makes people to become gay has also been used to explain the role of nature in its determination of behavior. Studies have shown that, genes determine the ways in which various people are oriented sexually. It is argued that, sexual behavior is usually encoded in one’s genes and that, one does not choose whether to become gay or not. Gay individuals are therefore believed to be naturally attracted to people of a similar sex which comes out without their knowledge and cannot be controlled.

However, debate suggests that, both nurture and nature play essential roles in determining the manner in which human beings behave. This is because; some behavior is usually engrained in human beings before birth, while others develop during interaction with their surrounding environment. Therefore, it is agreed that, the way in which genes are related to behavior greatly differs with the way in which causes are related to their consequential effects. This is because; one’s genes may give a probability of a certain behavior but does not guarantee or restrict someone to behave in that particular manner. This gives individuals an opportunity to decide what they want to become, where environment and their effort takes charge (Lindsay, 2000).

Interaction of Nurture and Nature

It has been found that, there exist minimal instances where behavior can be taken to be entirely caused by nurture or entirely as a result of nature. For example, a study on some “genetic” diseases like Huntington disease show that, there is a high percentage of possession of the gene that causes it as well as the disease which is similar to the percentage that shows a lack of both. However, the lives of those animals that already have this disease entirely depend on the level of care they get. That is, those that get quality animal husbandry live for a longer time than those that are not taken good cared of. Therefore, though nature causes Huntington’s disease, nurture takes control of the length of life that the sick animals will live. On the contrary, some characteristics of human beings are determined by nurture among them being someone’s native language. It is argued that, children have the ability to learn languages of their choice when they are provided with the necessary facilities to enable them learn. This means that, the language spoken by any individual is not in any case determined by genes or inherited but by the environment in which people leave. Therefore, nurture and nature work together in the determination of behavior in human beings.

Another example of their interaction is an experiment that was carried out by Pinker on the religion as well as language spoken by human beings. Results to his experiment showed that, one’s religion, language as well as political party is not determined by genes. However, on acquisition of the specific choices, characteristics that show temperaments and skills in the form of how well one can communicate in a certain language, how one behaves in his /her political party or the level of commitment to a certain religion are to some extent determined by one’s inherited genes (Lindsay, 2000).

Therefore, when characteristics of human beings’ behavior are caused by interactions of nurture and nature, the level of heritability can only be measured through variations that exist in a given population. But there are cases where scientists have been noticed to assume that, if a particular level of heritability is noticed in a certain trait, that trait has been purely determined by nature, not taking into account the possibility of nurture been involved in some way. However, this should not be case as both determinants play roles in determination of the traits acquired by human beings though their levels of association or involvement vary in different traits (Stuart, 1999).

IQ And Personality Debate

This debate has attracted a wide range of arguments and suggestions where studies of twins who are identical and fraternal are used. Adopted children are also used for comparison purposes. Studies that support the role played by nature in determination human beings’ IQ argue that, the IQ of those twins who are identical has a high level of similarity even when the two are reared separately. Those supporting nature say that the high level of similarity is caused by their shared genes from the environment they were inside their mothers’ womb. Further studies show that, similarity of IQ diminishes as one moves from twins, to fraternal, to adopted children and finally to strangers. On the contrary, studies supporting nurture argue something different altogether. For example, James Flynn, a political scientist noticed that, the level of human beings’ IQ was accelerating with time. His arguments suggested that, the level of IQ is determined by environmental factors that children are exposed to as they grow up. These environmental factors include, diet, education and the level of IQ of those people with whom children interact with.

Flynn argued that, the complexity of visual images that people are exposed to through advertisements, computer games and posters increase their levels of IQ. Other environmental aspects that tend to affect IQ levels include infant malnutrition where those children who suffer malnutrition possess low levels of IQ as they lack enough energy to reason as well as other nutrients required in reasoning. The profession of parents also matters as it tends to motivate the child in one way or another if it happens to be good. Consequently, studies show that most children tend to follow the professions of their parents as children are likely to imitate their parents. This trend makes the IQ of those children to be determined by the profession and not genes acquired from parents. Another factor that may affect children’s level of IQ is the parental ambition as well as rigidity. A child whose parents are ambitious is likely to be exposed to issues that would in one way or another increase his/her IQ while rigid parents are likely to cause rigidity in their children resulting to lowering their IQ levels (Stuart, 1999).

Conclusion

The manner in which people behave is caused or determined by both nurture and nature. However, involvement of each of them varies depending on the kind of trait in question. Scientists have contributed to this particular debate by performing studies that are directed at differentiating roles played by nature and those played by nurture. Though it is not possible to give an exact estimation of their involvement, it can be concluded that, genes only determine one’s behavior up to a certain age where environment in which he/she is brought up takes over. (Becker, 2002)

References

1. Becker B. (2002): Behavioral endocrinology: MIT Press pp33-38
2. Bouchard C. (1997): Genetics of fitness and physical performance: Human Kinetics pp. 23-27
3. Bridgeman B. (2003): Psychology and evolution: Sage Publications pp. 31-36
4. Lindsay S. (2000): Adaptation and Learning: Wiley-Blackwell pp. 54-59
5. Maroni G. (2000): Molecular and genetic analysis of human traits: Wiley-Blackwell pp. 13-16
6. Moore D. (2003): The Fallacy of nature Vs Nurture: Henry Holt pp. 59-65
7. Steele J. (1981): On the inheritance of acquired characters: University of Chicago Press pp. 19-24
8. Stuart I. (1999): Key ideas in psychology: Jessica Kingsley publishers pp. 11-16

In “The Baby in the Well” and “The Bad Things We Do Because of Empathy,” authors Paul Bloom and Fritz Breithaupt offer divergent perspectives on empathy and its impact on human behavior. As a guiding principle for moral decision-making, Bloom argues that empathy can lead to irrational and harmful decisions. On the other hand, Breithaupt argues that empathy can lead to prosocial behavior and encourages a more nuanced understanding of empathy’s role in moral decision-making. This essay will compare and contrast the rhetorical styles of Paul Bloom and Fritz Breithaupt to examine how they present their divergent perspectives on empathy and its impact on human behavior. Through a comparative analysis of their use of ethos, logos, and pathos, this essay will demonstrate how the authors employ distinct rhetorical strategies to engage their audience and advance their arguments.

Bloom and Breithaupt both use ethos to establish their credibility as experts in their respective fields, allowing readers to trust their perspectives and fully engage with their ideas. Bloom, being a professor of psychology at Yale University and a renowned expert on the topic of empathy, demonstrates his credibility through his extensive research and studies that support his claims. He cites data and academic studies to strengthen his argument, making it difficult for readers to challenge his perspective (Bloom). Similarly, Breithaupt, as a professor of Philosophy at the University of Regensburg, leverages his expertise in the field of philosophy to support his argument for the positive impact of empathy on human behavior. He uses his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the topic to present his perspective effectively (Breithaupt 167). Both authors’ use of ethos strengthens their arguments, allowing readers to trust their perspectives and fully engage with their ideas. Through their effective use of ethos, Bloom and Breithaupt demonstrate their expertise, demonstrating why their perspectives are worth considering and engaging with.

Consequently, Bloom argues that empathy can lead to irrational and harmful decisions, while Breithaupt argues that it can lead to prosocial behavior. He suggests that empathy is an emotional response often misguided and can impair judgment, leading to poor decision-making and irrational actions (Bloom). In contrast, Breithaupt argues that empathy can positively and negatively impact human behavior. He asserts that while empathy can lead to harmful actions, it can also foster moral growth and development by encouraging individuals to understand and connect with the emotions and experiences of others (Breithaupt 170). Thus, he suggests that empathy should not be dismissed outright but rather approached with a nuanced understanding of its potential for good and ill.

In terms of logos, both authors present well-supported and logically consistent arguments. Bloom’s argument against empathy as a basis for moral decision-making is rooted in empirical evidence and practical examples. He cites instances where individuals’ emotional responses to a single, compelling case can lead them to ignore larger, systemic issues that impact millions (Bloom). For example, people may donate money to save a single child while neglecting the broader social and political issues that contribute to suffering and poverty on a massive scale. On the other hand, Breithaupt argues in favor of empathy, drawing on a wealth of research in psychology and neuroscience to demonstrate how empathy can inspire prosocial behavior (Breithaupt 171). He cites studies that show how empathy can motivate individuals to act in ways that benefit others, for instance, by volunteering, donating to charity, or advocating for social justice. In this sense, empathy is seen as a powerful force for good, capable of driving individuals to act in the service of others. Both authors present well-crafted arguments supported by evidence and logic and make compelling cases for their positions.

However, the authors’ use of pathos is notably distinct, with Breithaupt intentionally attempting to evoke emotions and Bloom’s writing being more objective and devoid of emotional appeals. Breithaupt uses personal anecdotes and stories to illustrate the positive impact of empathy on human behavior, making it easier for readers to connect with the content on an emotional level (Breithaupt 167). By sharing touching and inspiring examples, Breithaupt effectively appeals to readers’ emotions, showing them the power of empathy to motivate individuals to act in ways that benefit others. In contrast, Bloom’s writing is more objective, grounded in evidence and reason, and lacks the emotional appeals central to Breithaupt’s writing (Bloom). Through this stark contrast, the authors’ distinct approaches to pathos become apparent, highlighting their unique rhetorical strategies to engage their audience and advance their arguments.

In conclusion, Paul Bloom and Fritz Breithaupt offer divergent perspectives on empathy and its impact on human behavior. Both authors effectively establish their credibility as experts in their respective fields by using ethos and presenting well-supported arguments through logos. While Bloom claims that empathy may cause illogical and dangerous choices, Breithaupt argues that it can lead to prosocial behavior and encourages a more nuanced understanding of its role in moral decision-making. The authors’ use of pathos sets them apart, with Breithaupt intentionally attempting to evoke emotions and Bloom’s writing being more objective and devoid of emotional appeals. Through a comparative analysis of their arguments, this essay highlights the similarities and differences in the authors’ perspectives and demonstrates how they use rhetorical strategies to engage their audience and advance their ideas. Furthermore, the essay sheds light on the complex nature of empathy and its potential both for good and ill, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of its role in moral decision-making.

Works Cited

Breithaupt, Fritz. “The Bad Things We Do Because of Empathy.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 43, no. 2, Informa UK Limited, Apr. 2018, pp. 166–74. Web.

Bloom, Paul. “The Baby in the Well.” The New Yorker, Web.

Personality

Personality, according to Harré & Lamb (1986, p .1), is the entirety of feature and traits, as of manners or qualities that are particular per person. Personality is all about a person’s mind-sets, dispositions, performing, opinions, and method of thoughts, perceiving, and verbal communication. Hypothesis concerning personality or individuality have been formulated and existed in the majority of traditions and all through recorded history.

Many people have studied personality and have come up with discoveries and explanations on the subject. For instance, Giambattista, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, and Vico Immanuel Kant all of them put forward ways of comprehending person and group differences. Others include Carl Jung, psychiatrics therapist Sigmund Freud, Ernst Kretschmer, and Alfred Adler who presented contending personality hypothesis.

Freud’s hypothesis was founded on “psychosexual drives that had the components of the id, ego, and super ego and the interplay of the conscious, sub-conscious and unconscious” (Shane, 2007, p.3) Carl Jung, his student and follower emphasized unconscious motives but de-emphasized sexuality. Instead, he advanced a typical theory that classified people as either introverts or extroverts. He claimed that individual personalities were from the unconscious, inherited memories.

Later on, we still had theories brought forward by other psychologists like Gordon. W. Allport, Erik H. Erikson, and Carl R. Rogers, which were all influential. Gordon wanted to find out common ideology that could be functional to a complete category of persons. It was called personality trait theory. He discovered 4000 words that could be applied to personality traits and categorized them into three classes.

These were cardinal, central, and secondary traits. Cardinal traits are strong dispositions that shape behaviors and experiences and develop later in life. By definition, “Central traits are dispositions that manifest to some degree in all individuals, comprising the basic repertoire of personality expressions” (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.15). Secondary personalities are dispositions that are not straight away noticeable, manifesting as a result of precise sets of conditions in a human being’s life.

Later on Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck expanded on this theory. They reduced the list of four thousand to sixteen. Later on Eysenck reduced them to three. Skeptical psychoanalysts said this were too few and came up with five traits, which were inconclusive as they did not prove to be effective predictors of human behavior and did not shed any light onto how they developed. These traits were known as the big 5 and they are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeable and neuroticism (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Personality character is thought to be as a result of “both experience and genetic predisposition” (Harré & Lamb, 1986, p.2). It has been severally discussed and researched to find out what influences behavior in human beings. Some strongly believe it is a particular situation while others believe it is character type.

According to Kenrick & funder (2001), personality is a predictor of personality across all situations but not at a specific time or situation, for instance, personality more accurately predicts how happy one will be over the next year than it.

People choose their situations, which reflect their personality. For example, people choose where to work according to how comfortable they feel with their environment; with the best performance occurring when there is a positive match between the two otherwise mediocre results will be the order of the day.

A type of personality refers to categories that are distinct and discontinuous (patterns of relatively enduring characteristics of behavior) whereby one is either one or the other e.g. one is either an introvert or an extrovert (Ornstein, 1993). Today, several scientists have all come up with their different personality types and model systems that classify them. Some are categorized into 4, 9, 16, and many more. This essay has categorizes personalities or individuality into four categories that is:

1. The extroverts and the introverts
2. The thinking and feeling types
3. Sensitive and intuitive types
4. Perceiving and judging types

Extroverts and introverts

Extroverts concentrate on the globe and acquire their power from it, are conversational and frank, evaluate their views with the rest, they make new friends with no trouble and become accustomed to a fresh assembly, they express their thoughts, are keen on new community and effortlessly smash unnecessary relations.

Introverts in contrast concentrate on their belief and feelings, produce their energy from within and consequently call for their own territory or region, frequently emerge as reserved, silent and thoughtful, typically they have less associates, have troubles in creating new links, and never want to work in group. They are generally very difficult to deal with and therefore this can be a predictive of their behavior (Shane, 2007).

Sensitive and intuitive types

Sensitive kind notice every person and are sensitive to everything around them, are realistic and lively, are reasonable and self-assured, they love enjoyments derived from physical feeling, swiftly become accustomed to whichever the circumstances and exist at this time.

Intuitive or instinctive categories in contrast are more often than not “in the past or the present, rely on their inner voice, worry about the future than they do of the present, are attracted more to the theory than to the practice, often have doubts and do not like routine”( Ornstein, 1993, p.12).

Thinking and feeling types

The thinking kind of people are keen on organizations, compositions and prototypes, renders all to rational investigation, are comparatively unfriendly and unresponsive, assess everything by mental power and true or false, have complexities discussing on feelings and do not get to the bottom of a row or squabbles.

The feeling category are keen on human beings and their thoughts, effortlessly pass their personal feelings or moods to people around them, give immense concentration to love and fervor, weigh up issues by moral values and excellent or poor, they can get touchy and employ sensational exploitation and regularly give admiring comments to make happy people.

Perceiving and judging types

The perceiving sort of people operate on impulse following the state of affairs, can initiate numerous projects at the same time with no concluding any of the project accurately.

They have a preference to have liberty from responsibilities, are inquisitive and akin to a new appearance at things, work efficiency is dependent on their frame of mind, and habitually do something with no any groundwork or preparation. The judging type on the other hand does not like to leave unanswered questions, plan work ahead, and tend to finish it, do not like to change their decisions, have relative stable workability, and easily follow rules and discipline (Gross, 2010).

Therefore based on the above four personality models, we see that personality is predictive of individuals’ behaviors. For instance, extroverts who are open to ideas and express their minds explains the ease with which someone can deal with these kind of people and generally well behaved .

On the other hand, introverts are directly opposite of this and are generally considered ill mannered. Individuals behavior determines whether you will interact freely with them or not and as we see, it is easy to deal with people who have personalities such as being sensitive and outgoing for instance as compared to those with opposite traits. For that reason, personality is predictive of human behavior.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Gross, R.D. (2010). Psychology. The science of mind and behavior. London: Hodder Arnold.

Harré, R. &Lamb, R. (1986). The dictionary of personality and social psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1991). The person-situation debate: Do personality traits really exist? In V. J. Derlega, B. A. Winstead, & W. H. Jones, W. H. (Eds.) Personality: Contemporary Theory and Research (Chapter 6)

Ornstein, R. (1993). The Roots of the Self: Unraveling the mystery of who we are. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Shane, P. (2007). The Model of human behavior: Understanding personality. Contemporary Theory, 2, 1-5.