U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2013, 02:15 PM
 
921 posts, read 1,338,193 times
Reputation: 606

Advertisements

Surely positive or negative reciprocation on looks alone from peers affects how our minds are shaped? It's not the only thing at work, there's definitely a biological element to personality.

But looks definitely seem to shape personalities, for better or worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2013, 11:47 PM
 
4,762 posts, read 10,233,205 times
Reputation: 7798
I've known people who were exceptionally good looking and had the idea they were ugly, had low self-esteem, etc.

And I've known people who were not so good looking and had great self-esteem, were outgoing, and had no problem getting dates or married.

And good or not so good looks are not really developed until the later teens. So you have a LOT of years of developing your personality before looks ever comes into play. I think a person's personality is pretty well set by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 02:14 AM
 
3,942 posts, read 3,874,434 times
Reputation: 4682
So what I'm hearing is biology is a stronger predictor than environment.

I disagree.

People's environments and experiences can tremendously alter and shape their perceptions in life.

Personality being partly shaped by our inner experiences by our outside world during childhood can play a huge factor in what we value, what we deem important, and can alter traits expressed.

It's easy to assume and lump all personalities into one category. Basing personality on looks is similar to racial profiling in that when we generalize all people to have certain features, not only do we present ethnic bias, we're also deeming certain looks as all bad or all good, we discount all the variations and variables in between.

It's like saying, if you have slanted eyes and yellow skin, you have pragmatic tendencies. That's just not always the case. It could be as a social cultural phenomenon that people with purple skin tend to be more subservient but take that purple or green skinned person and raise them in another environment. Human instincts can be innate and inborn, but personality expressing that inherited trait is malleable to change. Genetics can only predict so much, but does not account for the whole story or full picture. There's also inhibition or expression of genes that are encouraged or discouraged given the situation that helps promote expression of genetic traits. Human behavior isn't always black and white predictable.

Once scientists have found an isolated gene for a certain look that relates to personality, there's also adaptation and mutation that occurs. So, forget about how looks can determine personality. Look at the person's environment and their collected experiences, and how they culminate behavior and perception.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 08:49 AM
 
9,822 posts, read 13,900,796 times
Reputation: 10708
Well, for starters, genotype determines phenotype, or so modern science says.
Next, any child is a blank sheet of paper that a personality can be written on.
Next, though it is speculative, inclinations and treats do come into existence, so to speak, with birth of a child. Outside of scientific justification of one's opinion, most of us saw those strange folks, that will go good or bad no matter what environment shapes them like.
Old men wisdom is though, that there is much about person showing in outside appearances. That can be denied and questioned and called "unscientific" but, so far, a lot of that denial in scientific cisrcles is done by those who can be quite easily spotted by their specific treats and specific phenotype, and by no means are they interested in propagating that one can be "spotted" that way. No matter how much the idea about "racial profiling" will be rejected and called bad and wrong, races are out there; ethnicities are out there; nationalities are out there; cultures are out there; and they all do have their prevalent treats and behavioral patterns. That is a stubborn thing called fact.

As of the phenotype being an open book for reading, as asked by OP:

Lombroso's general theory suggested that criminals are distinguished from noncriminals by multiple physical anomalies. He postulated that criminals represented a reversion to a primitive or subhuman type of man characterized by physical features reminiscent of apes, lower primates, and early man and to some extent preserved, he said, in modern "savages". The behavior of these biological "throwbacks" will inevitably be contrary to the rules and expectations of modern civilized society.
Through years of postmortem examinations and anthropometric studies of criminals, the insane, and normal individuals, Lombroso became convinced that the "born criminal" (reo nato, a term given by Ferri) could be anatomically identified by such items as a sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, and other "physical stigmata". Specific criminals, such as thieves, rapists, and murderers, could be distinguished by specific characteristics, he believed. Lombroso also maintained that criminals had less sensibility to pain and touch; more acute sight; a lack of moral sense, including an absence of remorse; more vanity, impulsiveness, vindictiveness, and cruelty; and other manifestations, such as a special criminal argot and the excessive use of tattooing.
Besides the "born criminal", Lombroso also described "criminaloids", or occasional criminals, criminals by passion, moral imbeciles, and criminal epileptics. He recognized the diminished role of organic factors in many habitual offenders and referred to the delicate balance between predisposing factors (organic, genetic) and precipitating factors such as one's environment, opportunity, or poverty.
Lombroso's research methods were clinical and descriptive, with precise details of skull dimension and other measurements. He did not engage in rigorous statistical comparisons of criminals and noncriminals. Although he gave some recognition in his later years to psychological and sociological factors in the etiology of crime, he remained convinced of, and identified with, criminal anthropometry.
Lombroso's theories were disapproved throughout Europe, especially in schools of medicine, but not in the United States, where sociological studies of crime and the criminal predominated. His notions of physical differentiation between criminals and noncriminals were seriously challenged by Charles Goring (The English Convict, 1913), who made elaborate comparisons and found insignificant statistical differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 09:13 AM
 
824 posts, read 1,354,301 times
Reputation: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llewelyn View Post
Surely positive or negative reciprocation on looks alone from peers affects how our minds are shaped? It's not the only thing at work, there's definitely a biological element to personality.

But looks definitely seem to shape personalities, for better or worse.
Take two guys. One is attractive, tall, caucasian. The other is short, ugly and dark skinned.

Same age, same social status, same IQ.

Number one is gonna get smiles all the time, people is gonna speak to him with respect and the ladies are gonna keep him in their radar.

Number two is gonna get scornful looks all the time, people is gonna talk to him in a cautious/condescendant way, and the only attention he's gonna get from females will be from female police officers.


Maybe not in one day, or one week, or one year...but a lifetime of different treatment from people will make very different the way one perceives the world than the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:15 AM
 
3,234 posts, read 1,713,249 times
Reputation: 1829
I don't know about women. I feel like there are plenty of pretty women who are just plain rude but I have always seen a guy's personality shine/reek through. they say the eyes are the window to your soul and I find that true with guys. I think I'm the only one who sees it tho and I don't always listen to it but it's like I have this special perspective. for example my ex is one of the fugliest people because he's a stupid loser. he was never attractive to me but it wasn't til later that I figured out why. the guy I'm sorta seeing looks like a weird loner but caring person because he is that way.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's model handsome but I think guys are naturally handsome when they have the personality I am attracted to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 09:37 AM
 
518 posts, read 827,980 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy_J View Post
I've known people who were exceptionally good looking and had the idea they were ugly, had low self-esteem, etc.

And I've known people who were not so good looking and had great self-esteem, were outgoing, and had no problem getting dates or married.

And good or not so good looks are not really developed until the later teens. So you have a LOT of years of developing your personality before looks ever comes into play. I think a person's personality is pretty well set by then.
While I agree with most of this post, the last paragraph may not apply in all instances. There are non-attractive children as there are attractive/cute children. Many unattractive children are made fun of throughout their childhood which can and often does shape their personality by the time they reach teenagehood. Alternatively, the opposite is true as well with cute children. I know people who were unattractive when they were a child, were made fun of and never had any childhood friends because of how they looked. As teenagers and eventually adults, their personality is marred with resentment and insecurity. But, I understand what you meant by your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 12:34 PM
 
11 posts, read 13,691 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Next, any child is a blank sheet of paper that a personality can be written on.
I strongly disagree with this, ukrkoz, and just because you state it like it is a fact does not make it a fact. No one is a blank slate when they are born. Basic personality is determined by our genes. Look at studies of twins who have been separated at birth for whatever reason, studies that show evidence that despite the fact that they did not grow up together, twins still have some personality traits in common with each other. Read about adopted people who have reunited with their biological families and have discovered the similarities they share with their biological family members. Those similarities are not coincidences--they're genetics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:11 PM
 
11 posts, read 13,691 times
Reputation: 41
You know what, ukrkoz, I suggest that you look into perinatal research. It studies the minds and personalities of newborns (because, yes, newborn babies do have personalities of their own). Babies Remember Birth is a book that compiles a lot of perinatal research to make the argument that the blank slate theory is not valid. I strongly suggest that you check it out. Here's a link that gives general information about the book: Babies Remember Birth | Birth Psychology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:16 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,708 posts, read 64,172,365 times
Reputation: 68511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llewelyn View Post
Surely positive or negative reciprocation on looks alone from peers affects how our minds are shaped? It's not the only thing at work, there's definitely a biological element to personality.

But looks definitely seem to shape personalities, for better or worse.
Upbringing in the first 6 years of life is the primary influence. And after that, parental influence is still huge. A positive family experience can see people through almost anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top