Ideas of how diversity-based issues effect an individual person, on an objective scale of being human... Haunts me. While my position of being a nonanthropism* helps me become the objectivist in theory crafting, for practicality a feministic (multidisciplinary perspective) approach is at the same time necessary and deceiving. A non-biased position which applies to everyone, constantly? Is that possible? Or are many anticipated and biased positions. which applies to everyone, in the majority, more reasonable to champion? These questions are the holistic assistance here.
We are discussing human nature and the most basic level of diversion between humans; diversity. What makes you different from me? Can I know that by knowing a few factors about you, or do I have to know everything? Are there factors which can at least map out some of the 'everything' accurately? Which diversity-factors separate people the most? These question are the atomistic assistance here.
So here, is where we will discuss diversity-based factors and how they effect individual personality development and self actualization (individuation). Perhaps in extension dictate something about 'social cognition' - how we cognate (process+perceive) one another.
Let's begin with identifying diversity-factors and then applying them to characteristics of personality:
Diversity factors: Natural personality/intelligence, age, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status/class, body image/fitness, educational background, academic/social achievement, family of origin/make up, and language.
Now they all effect our daily lives, but which stand out as being something we can directly start effecting in society? Well, being an American I see - race, sexual preference, gender (sex), age, religion and socioeconomic status/class - as the factors which seem to be of the biggest issue. So as a partial nationalist (I only care to help and not necessarily identity with America) I will focus on these 6.
To note: I had previously accredited thoughts to the BIG 8 of diversity... Well, from inspiration comes new ideas - and these are them!
A very popular personality theory today is the BIG 5 (no, they are not related in context of BIG) and has changed the way in which mind theorist and researchers develop. The biggest benefit which came from this theory is the variation-clause which suggest personality is not a yes-or-no thing. For example: you are not either introvert nor extrovert, but both depending on the situation and circumstance. So, when a researcher wants to know how introvert or extrovert you are, they look at a scale from 1 to 100 of "extraversion" AND low extraversion is someone who is more likely prone to be 'introverted' and high extraversion is one who is more likely an 'extravert'. So what's the difference between saying they are either of the two and not? Well that doesn't tell me HOW introvert or extravert someone is, without a scale of variation. So when someone is at 45 - 55 (on the extraversion scale) they have a balanced extraversion, making them an ambivert (luckily there is a phrase for it, usually not for balanced traits). So again, why does a scale of personality TRAIT beat out a duality of personality TRAITS? Let's think about the difference between two identified introverted people; one is at 14 on the scale and the other 35. This 21 point variation can tell us a great amount about these two individuals; the first is probably a lot more shy than the second (although they are both shy), and the second person is more likely to probably act extravert in any given environment.
Variation-clauses allows us to compare individuals with others more easily, which also allows us to psychoanalysis individuals quicker. (Think about how much better you get to know somebody when they are hanging with their closest friends). By comparison of one persons behavior compared to others, are able to see which traits effect sociability and/or personality more often.
While the following expressions of diversity-factors and personality have been crafted for argumentation of how to better understand human psyches and persona... To call them personality-factors or traits is stretching it, because they are more so personality-effectors. As they effect personality when they are reflected on and are not necessarily natural attitudes (since we are not born with predispositions of diversity, but given them in our respective societies). As opposed to the BIG 5 where those characteristics can be argued to be innate, these cannot be. No one is born realizing age or sex or race is a factor.... We are instructed to believe so in our life times by others in our nurturing.
So here are my personality-effectors (working name):
We are discussing human nature and the most basic level of diversion between humans; diversity. What makes you different from me? Can I know that by knowing a few factors about you, or do I have to know everything? Are there factors which can at least map out some of the 'everything' accurately? Which diversity-factors separate people the most? These question are the atomistic assistance here.
So here, is where we will discuss diversity-based factors and how they effect individual personality development and self actualization (individuation). Perhaps in extension dictate something about 'social cognition' - how we cognate (process+perceive) one another.
Let's begin with identifying diversity-factors and then applying them to characteristics of personality:
Diversity factors: Natural personality/intelligence, age, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status/class, body image/fitness, educational background, academic/social achievement, family of origin/make up, and language.
Now they all effect our daily lives, but which stand out as being something we can directly start effecting in society? Well, being an American I see - race, sexual preference, gender (sex), age, religion and socioeconomic status/class - as the factors which seem to be of the biggest issue. So as a partial nationalist (I only care to help and not necessarily identity with America) I will focus on these 6.
To note: I had previously accredited thoughts to the BIG 8 of diversity... Well, from inspiration comes new ideas - and these are them!
A very popular personality theory today is the BIG 5 (no, they are not related in context of BIG) and has changed the way in which mind theorist and researchers develop. The biggest benefit which came from this theory is the variation-clause which suggest personality is not a yes-or-no thing. For example: you are not either introvert nor extrovert, but both depending on the situation and circumstance. So, when a researcher wants to know how introvert or extrovert you are, they look at a scale from 1 to 100 of "extraversion" AND low extraversion is someone who is more likely prone to be 'introverted' and high extraversion is one who is more likely an 'extravert'. So what's the difference between saying they are either of the two and not? Well that doesn't tell me HOW introvert or extravert someone is, without a scale of variation. So when someone is at 45 - 55 (on the extraversion scale) they have a balanced extraversion, making them an ambivert (luckily there is a phrase for it, usually not for balanced traits). So again, why does a scale of personality TRAIT beat out a duality of personality TRAITS? Let's think about the difference between two identified introverted people; one is at 14 on the scale and the other 35. This 21 point variation can tell us a great amount about these two individuals; the first is probably a lot more shy than the second (although they are both shy), and the second person is more likely to probably act extravert in any given environment.
Variation-clauses allows us to compare individuals with others more easily, which also allows us to psychoanalysis individuals quicker. (Think about how much better you get to know somebody when they are hanging with their closest friends). By comparison of one persons behavior compared to others, are able to see which traits effect sociability and/or personality more often.
While the following expressions of diversity-factors and personality have been crafted for argumentation of how to better understand human psyches and persona... To call them personality-factors or traits is stretching it, because they are more so personality-effectors. As they effect personality when they are reflected on and are not necessarily natural attitudes (since we are not born with predispositions of diversity, but given them in our respective societies). As opposed to the BIG 5 where those characteristics can be argued to be innate, these cannot be. No one is born realizing age or sex or race is a factor.... We are instructed to believe so in our life times by others in our nurturing.
So here are my personality-effectors (working name):
Agetisism - a variational response to ageism; variations existing between recognizing age related factors of self in
societal situations - and - responses from society of how/what age effects and prevents or allows. Low degree of variation is
related to awareness of societal/cultural normatives being based on negative
experience and feelings of acceptance - a low opinion of self's age and/or a low opinion other people's ages. A high degree comes from awareness of age-based benefits; activating the privileges certain ages of society gives and grants that certain age-group. Although one may be a well-practiced agetist, they can still face large amounts of diversity... based on their age and reflections of what age can provide (just because they understand the situation, does not make them capable of manipulating said situation). However the higher degree of agetisism will allow more acceptance which (not always, but) allows an individual to become better able to perform with ageist norms
Pretty much it is the same definition for racetisim and sextisism, but with respects to racism and sexism rather than ageism. Terms for religion, sexual preference and socioeconomic status/class are in the process of being considered... Perhaps a few comments can help me with terms? However, unlike agetisism, the factors of how an individual may dislike homosexuals is more often a religious [knowledge] issue than anything else - although we can find there are privileges of being homosexual, there may be (in reality) more privileges to not being homosexual. This does not insist on the notion "homosexuality is wrong," on the contrary this insist on the fact MOST think it is wrong... Therefore the above example of agetisism needs modifications in order to align with such a stipulation of societal acceptance with non-heterosexual sexual preference. As far as religion and socioeconomic status/class- they may fit in the definition, but the terms are still on the drawing board. More on these terms development in the future.
So, we realize the world is divided by ideas of diversity, and yet individuals are able to overcome AND/OR get deluded into those diversity-based realities, which effects their personality (and their ability to self actualize).
How do we become a better person? By realizing how everyone wants to become a better person, but is then prevented by diversity-factors. That prevention can be lifted with reflection on what exactly it is it is preventing... People from realizing we are one of the same species of animal, and should strive to survive collectively. Better person, better people, better society, better world.
Pretty much it is the same definition for racetisim and sextisism, but with respects to racism and sexism rather than ageism. Terms for religion, sexual preference and socioeconomic status/class are in the process of being considered... Perhaps a few comments can help me with terms? However, unlike agetisism, the factors of how an individual may dislike homosexuals is more often a religious [knowledge] issue than anything else - although we can find there are privileges of being homosexual, there may be (in reality) more privileges to not being homosexual. This does not insist on the notion "homosexuality is wrong," on the contrary this insist on the fact MOST think it is wrong... Therefore the above example of agetisism needs modifications in order to align with such a stipulation of societal acceptance with non-heterosexual sexual preference. As far as religion and socioeconomic status/class- they may fit in the definition, but the terms are still on the drawing board. More on these terms development in the future.
So, we realize the world is divided by ideas of diversity, and yet individuals are able to overcome AND/OR get deluded into those diversity-based realities, which effects their personality (and their ability to self actualize).
How do we become a better person? By realizing how everyone wants to become a better person, but is then prevented by diversity-factors. That prevention can be lifted with reflection on what exactly it is it is preventing... People from realizing we are one of the same species of animal, and should strive to survive collectively. Better person, better people, better society, better world.
*Nonanthropism - the
position humans are not intrinsically
unique/special
- the belief people are all innately the same
machine and/or spiritual vessel