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
36
37
38
39
40
|
\input mla8.tex
\numberfirstpage
\clas{AP Lang}
\name{Holden} \last{Rohrer}
\prof{Jones}
\header
\title{Situationalism and Personality}
A common conflict surveyed by scientific inquiries on individual behavior is whether any given action is the direct result of how someone was brought up (nurture) or the genetics or other ``inherent'' nature of that person (nature).
Typically, the result is a combination of both.
Where disease is involved, analysis typically demonstrates some degree of heredity (schizophrenia, for example, is highly heritable) but without being exclusively causal.
Where the behavior is more conscious or philosophical in nature, upbringing typically plays a larger role, but not necessarily by the type of models one receives.
Heathcliff in {\it Weathering Heights} takes the stance that available situations and opportunities play a critical role in the determination of one's later character (or even immediate action).
While specific exceptive cases may not follow the rule, access to opportunities and environment directly shape a person's behavior and individual actions to such a degree that personal liability is nearly impossible to assign.
The simplest form of environmental manipulation is reactive behavior.
Difficult and stressful situations inspire, in some respects, homogeneity.
Most people attempt to cope in some way or another, and human behavior is so predictable (not in specific, but in aggregate) that types of coping are common amongst the group: stress eating, nail biting, and overwhelm or exercise, taking a walk, and readjusting slightly are all sufficiently common to be relatable.
This is through no fault of our own; human nature simply dictates the obeisance of certain basic principles which, along with the natural tendency to act like others, create remarkably similar groups.
It is this strain of thought that encourages the view of humans as simple automata without free will, and while most people would disagree with the basic premise, the fact that ``fight or flight'' responses exist and other hormonal effects are remarkably consistent points otherwise.
After this simple reactive behavior is the type of effect Bronte notes through Heathcliff---taught or learned behavior.
If one repeated stressor (the wind as Bronte puts it) affects an individual, that individual will act differently because of it.
Childhood abuse, for example, is so damaging because whomever is put through it remains affected for the remainder of their life, their basic psychological processes tainted by it.
Personality is the most relevant term for this type of effect because personality is viewed as the ``core'' of what makes an individual an individual.
However, personality has been found to be a mostly poor measuring factor, because while personality is certainly perceived and believed in, as evidenced by horoscopes, personality tests, and the lot, most people don't have consistent guiding principles between situations, even the most accurate personality tests can vary by 50\% of their total measurement range, but behavior by situation is typically consistent.
One individual will mostly act the same if they are put in a comparable situation, which gives credence to taught or learned behavior especially as a result of stressful circumstances.
The largest issue with this line of thinking is that people remain different.
Situations of burden vary somewhat, but for the vast majority, actions are determined by how one acted previously.
How one acted previously depends on the environmental criteria of that previous situation.
But those environmental specifics can change from situation to situation.
Additionally, there are numerous cases where people strayed greatly from the behavior of their upbringing, including many stories of upward mobility.
But these cases, too, are affected by the environment.
Typically, credit is given to some helpful force or individual, and they are far from the rule despite the attention they garner.
And that attention is only given because these cases are specifically notable.
Therefore, like Heathcliff exclaims, if a consistent pressure is applied which teaches a specific behavior for any similar situation, that action and that response becomes much more preferred, and two otherwise distinct persons ``grow as crooked as another.''
\bye
|
