Summary of the book
Written by Daniel Nettle (2007), the book What Makes You the Way You Are is a captivating masterpiece that reveals how people have different traits, which determine their personalities. For instance, some individuals are nomads, while others are fighters. Why does the world comprise people who constantly look for wars while some are so easy going? Daniel Nettle (2007) argues that this situation can be explained by different personalities that different people possess.
He explains his point of view by taking his readers through a tour of various theoretical approaches to human personality as postulated by science. He reveals that people’s personalities incept from their biological makeup. Also, the author explores different findings in genetic influences on personality, together with the findings realized in the field of brain science. He also discusses evolutionary approaches to human personality together with the repercussions of approaching human personality from this dimension.
The core of the book is structured to address five main issues that Nettle (2007) believes have an impact on the personalities of people. These are sincerity, extraversion, reliability, amicability, and neuroticism. Nettle (2007) agrees that personality may be influenced by genetic makeup. However, persons from the same family possess different personalities. Besides, the author poses the question on the best personality that people should enjoy.
How can one change his or her personality? To him, this query involves “choosing the right pond, and being mindful of the dangers” (Nettle, 2007, p.275). His book leaves more questions than answers on what influences people’s personalities in their lives. Nettle (2007) accepts this position by concluding that life involves different niches, which are in pursuit of the personality that works best for an individual.
Personal Book Opinion
Upon reading Nettles’ (2007) book, one gets the impression that it is possible to determine how personalities are developed within an individual. This assertion is evidenced by the immense discussion offered by the author on how personality characteristics and behavioral traits evolve. If indeed evolutionary theory could help to explain why some people possess certain personality traits.
It means that it could be possible to find persons who have similar personality traits in that they could have undergone similar processes of evolution through environmental training. Faced with this dilemma, I believe that Nettle (2007) does not answer satisfactorily the question of why different people possess different traits that define who they are.
If genetics could explain the prevalence of given personality traits among a certain group of people, why is it then possible to encounter a family with some honest members while others are dishonest, yet they share a similar genetic makeup?
Perhaps the closest that Nettle (2007) goes in responding to the above query is explaining how the environment influences people’s behaviors and how, in turn, the behavior influences people’s personality. He explains that the environment creates demands and changes that people must adopt through one generation to another. Surprisingly, the environment referred by Nettle (2007) encompasses people together with their personality traits.
Therefore, the personality traits of people can also shape up the personality traits portrayed by others. The suggestion here is that the personality of an individual is not in-built, but can indeed be acquired phenotypically.
Then, why should people, going through the same socialization process, display different personalities to the extent that two people growing together in the same environment own different traits such as sincerity versus deceitfulness? In spite of the arguments put forward by Nettle (2007) on how the environment influences the personality of an individual, the aforementioned interrogation makes it evident that it is not the only influencing factor.
Nettle (2007) describes a case in which he argues that cautious behavior developed in guppies is dependent on the existence or non-existence of predators within the environment. In support of this argument, he evidences that naturally cautious guppies can reduce their levels of caution over generations when exposed in an environment, which does not have predators. Therefore, “a survival value is evident in being wary and relaxed, depending on the environment” (Nettle, 2007, p.89).
This assertion means that a continuum of wariness exists within members of the same species depending on the environment to which a given member is exposed. However, it is not clear how the population within a single species mixes. Nettle (2007) does not explain how the guppies, which have developed high levels of caution due to the existence of predators within their environment, respond when they are mixed with guppies, which have low caution levels since they are not exposed to an environment, which has predators.
The relevance of the above discussion rests on the theoretical assertion that the environment, including different individuals with different personality traits, influences the personalities of a given individual. Nettle (2007) also sounds aware of the incompleteness of his study based on how well interaction with the environment can help in shaping the personality of an individual.
For this reason, he sums up his results presentation by arguing, “No specific level of wariness is globally favored by selection, though, for every individual guppy, there is a level of wariness that it would be best to have” (Nettle, 2007, p.113). This conclusion hints to me the need to consider issues of individuality together with diversity in matters of the description of different personalities portrayed by different people.
From the context of the big five aspects of personality, every chapter digs deep into what people know about the traits possessed by people based on behaviors associated with either genetic or even neural characteristics. While it is possible to raise counterarguments about the evidence provided by the author, he is smart enough to provide scholarly references on successful research that has been completed in the recent past in support of his line of argument.
However, for some neural characteristics, one may develop an adequate understanding of some compared to others. Additionally, it is somewhat impossible to develop a list of all links of personality traits with various neural characteristics.
I anticipated encountering an explanation of how temporal lobes are linked to personality traits such as openness. Nevertheless, based on the approach of arguing out his case from the paradigm of linking personality theory with research findings in the field of genetics and brain structures, research on this particular area has not yet been completed.
For every aspect of the big five, based on Nettle’s (2007) discussion, it is possible that optimum levels are not reached within individuals so that they can singly describe the personality portrayed by persons. For instance, different people show different magnitudes of extraversion or openness. I get the impression that optimum levels are dependent on the environment to which an individual is exposed.
This case also changes with time. Indeed, the description of the various advantages and disadvantages of each of the big five aspects qualifies to be one of the most important aspects of the book. This strategy ensures the neutrality of the author in terms of openness to different aspects, which may help to explain the personality of different people.
While it may be desirable to possess some forms of personalities, especially the positive ones, my opinion is that some forms of negative personalities are also desirable. For instance, high levels of conscientiousness are desirable. However, possession of elevated levels of this trait may cause people to have rigidity, which translates into missing some opportunities in life. Low levels of this trait are crucial in situations in which an individual is required to portray personality traits such as fluidity tied with responsiveness.
Additionally, possession of personality traits of agreeableness is vital. Unfortunately, too much of agreeableness is not appropriate either since it minimizes one’s bargaining power. In all the big five aspects, neuroticism sounds like the most appropriate personality aspect to possess. However, my opinion is that dissatisfaction and the capacity to take caution and reflect on the past are important in helping to avoid repetition of past mistakes together with aiding an individual to achieve higher in life.
I suggest that the best approach of choosing the aspects to base an individual’s personality is dependent on establishing a balance of strengths and weaknesses for each aspect of the big five. This assertion suggests that one can choose how to shape his or her personality.
Unfortunately, theories for a personality such as the one advanced by Sigmund Freud suggest that personality is displayed in an unconscious manner. This case eliminates the opportunity for individuals to determine the kind of personalities they desire to have an exhibit in their social interaction processes.
Reference
Nettle, D. (2007). Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.