Personalities

[di]

I think some of it is down to genetics,a bit more your upbringing and more down to the people you're surrounded by(or are you just drawn to them because they are similar???)
I'm a very huggy/tactile person,yet none of my family are...if go to give my parents or sisters a hug you can see them coil away and they go almost rigid.Yet amongst friends,we hug when we meet up,if one of us is down and needs one and again when we part.

Although me and my two sisters are all very different we share the same...or at least very similar...core values.These are what I think are passed down to us from our parents and make up a part of our personality,also certain neurological traits...as sarz pointed out,PND often runs in families as do many other neurological disorders which can play a huge part in your personality.
My Nan was a major worrier...to the extent that she couldn't sleep without knowing we'd safely survived a five mile car journey...I'm often teased by family members for carrying on that trait
A pretty complex subject!

[pipscariad]

Oo, I love thinking/talking about this subject, it's so fascinating! Sadly, I am supposed to be doing umpteen other things this morning, so mustn't get carried away right now (phew, I hear you sigh...) - but given the chance I'll be back to this later!

One thing I want to do at some stage is have my mitochondrial dna tested, I just need a few spare hundred pounds .

Oh, and having twins has made this subject even more interesting for me. Right, I shall drag myself away to do some jobs, Bah.

[Hilary B]

We have certain characteristics born in us, and they get adapted by experience. The earlier an experience happens, the deeper (and less noticeable, by ourselves) the effects. We start learning 'who we are' in the womb, and we don't stop throughout our lives, unless we stop being willing to learn and to change.
Most of our attitudes are 'picked up' from our family (or sometimes from drastic experiences) before we have enough language to explain or understand (and by the time we know the words, we have usually forgotten exactly what we would be talking about).

[Brengirl]

I read once that there are two types of people. The takers and the givers. That has a ring of truth to me.

[HeyWayne]

I guess my original post was more about how complex people will be in the future, than how do we get to become who we are.

Or will they?

Personalities are a complex thing aren't they.

Quite interesting to see how the post is developing.

[bobleponge]

But will the human become more complex?
The corporate knowledge of the world advances with every generation, but perhaps doesnt increase too much.
Things in daily use 200 years ago no longer feature in our cognisance, due to evolution, ie lost from our heads. We use things nowadays, that were unthinkable 200 years ago (see internet for example) but there arent many of us that could rustle up a poultice from a Silver Birch tree, or separate the wheat from the chaff without use of a machine.
John Smith or Jean Pierre Dupont of today is probably not too much different in average intelligence than his predecessor, the main difference being the subject matter they hold in their respective heads.

[HeyWayne]

But will people become more complex as time goes on?
The corporate knowledge of the world increases every generation, but John Smith or Jean Pierre Dupont still remains a similar creature to his predecessors.
We dont use things we did use 200 years ago, and thus these have dropped out of our cognisance, we do however, use things that they didnt 200 years ago, which is what we know now.
I doubt the average head is fuller or emptier than it was 200 years ago, its simply the subject matter that changes.

But lets say we go back further than 200 years, and likewise forward further than 200 years. Mr Homer Sapien in his formative years had very little to learn in his surrounding environment and as such learned very little I would suggest. Since that time we must have continued to develop and learn more and more as we have evolved in different environments. Surely we have not already passed the stage where the human brain is used to its fullest extent? All that is to be discovered has been discovered and the human race can improve no more?

I'm not the most eloquent of debaters, but it makes sense in my mind. Then I go and type it and it's converted to garbish.

[Glutton4...]

If you met my brother and I, you'd swear we are from different parentage. Ignoring the fact that we're both 6ft 7.

Don't believe it! My sister and I think we are very different, we even look different. She's thinner and taller, totally different shape figure. She has a longer face, different brow line, different complexion and totally different eyes, in both shape and colour. Yet many people over the years have said "Oh it's obvious you are Sisters!"

[Brengirl]

But lets say we go back further than 200 years, and likewise forward further than 200 years. Mr Homer Sapien in his formative years had very little to learn in his surrounding environment and as such learned very little I would suggest. Since that time we must have continued to develop and learn more and more as we have evolved in different environments. Surely we have not already passed the stage where the human brain is used to its fullest extent? All that is to be discovered has been discovered and the human race can improve no more?

I'm not the most eloquent of debaters, but it makes sense in my mind. Then I go and type it and it's converted to garbish.

I do not believe that the ultimate possibilities of the human brain have ever changed. Progress has been made in that more brains have been made cleverer but I still don't believe that the human brain has learned anything.

[Hilary B]

But lets say we go back further than 200 years, and likewise forward further than 200 years. Mr Homer Sapien in his formative years had very little to learn in his surrounding environment and as such learned very little I would suggest. Since that time we must have continued to develop and learn more and more as we have evolved in different environments. Surely we have not already passed the stage where the human brain is used to its fullest extent? All that is to be discovered has been discovered and the human race can improve no more?

I'm not the most eloquent of debaters, but it makes sense in my mind. Then I go and type it and it's converted to garbish.

For every thing the human race has learned, some knowledge has been lost. If early man had learned 'very little' in his surrounding environment, there probably wouldn't be humans around today.
Most people NOW hardly ever use their heads for anything more than a hat-rack, they do what they have 'always' done and think what they have 'always' thought, out of habit. The minority who do otherwise have always been the driving force behind change.
I'm far from convinced that any changes to the human race in the last 100,000 or so years have necessarily been 'improvement'. Look at what we have done to the planet?

[bobleponge]

But lets say we go back further than 200 years, and likewise forward further than 200 years. Mr Homer Sapien in his formative years had very little to learn in his surrounding environment and as such learned very little I would suggest. Since that time we must have continued to develop and learn more and more as we have evolved in different environments. Surely we have not already passed the stage where the human brain is used to its fullest extent? All that is to be discovered has been discovered and the human race can improve no more?

I'm not the most eloquent of debaters, but it makes sense in my mind. Then I go and type it and it's converted to garbish.

I was so convinced of my argument that I typed it twice but I would disagree totally that Mr H. Sapien Esquire, of the parish of Ug would have had very little to learn. He may not have had computers, nor buildings nor any of the luxuries we have today, but he would have had to learn how to cope with the conditions of the day.
He would have had to learn how to make shelter, how to make fire, what he could and couldnt eat, how to fish if he lived near the coast etc etc. The environment may have changed but not the learning capacity I would contend.
You may say that we too know how to do all that, (the corporate knowledge thing) but we certainly dont know how to do it like he did, using what tools etc he had to hand at the time. We still struggle to this day to make stone buildings with the precision of the artisans that built the Pyramids.
Pretty much all that said man learned during his evolutionarly life span, has been forgotten by modern day man, but we have indeed learned other stuff, which is roughly what I am trying to say, I think.

[HeyWayne]

I can't subscribe to the idea that the human brain hasn't evolved in 100,000 years.

I agree that Master H. Sapien had to learn all these things, but he didn't learn them all in a day, so at some point there would have been little going on in his head.

Mr Sapien Dude on day one didn't suddenly know all the survival skills required to live out his first day. It's why people like Ray Mears harps on about skills being learned over generations, and being passed down and so on.

I would suggest that Mr S Dude's diary (had he been able to read and write) on day one of his existence wasn't full of a day with Ray Mears/Bear Grylls type adventure.

Actually, that would suggest that a dude just landed on planet Earth and started living. Which is proposterous.

I guess we should be mindful of the countless things that we know, yet take for granted. Conversing here par example.

I really should stop doing these presentations (updating/amending/improving a Powerpoint presentation as we speak), they give me far too much time to think.

[HeyWayne]

We still struggle to this day to make stone buildings with the precision of the artisans that built the Pyramids.

That's because we have more efficient methods of construction nowadays.

[FionaH]

The Seven Daughters Of Eve might sound more familiar? Honestly, it's not that obscure (but probably should have added a link ) ...looky here for a brief idea BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Extreme genealogy

I love the idea of one 'tall, beautiful East African woman, striding strongly across the sub-Saharan plains, the mother of all women.' (This is from a separate article that I can't find on Google).

I just think it's kinda beautiful.

So do I.

I do believe that man has evolved. Mind you when I think of some ex boyfriends I would have to say some have evolved further than others

As to the nature nurture argument I can't decide. My lads biological father left when they were 3 and 1 but I see aspects of him in them. They have been nurtured by MrH and they have so many of his mannerisms people often comment "Oh you can see he is your son/dad" when biologically he isn't

[Brengirl]

In nemo secs we have gone from personality to brainpower. That is the power of debate. To learn.