One Personality and Temperament - Essay Example

?PSYCHOLOGY MIDTERM Psychology Midterm Essays Word Count 042 (4 pages) 2. Describe one personality trait that you believe to be highly heritable (mostly a product of genetics) and another trait that seems to be much less so. Provide reasons for your answer, and explain why you would expect genetics to exert a much greater impact on some personality traits than on others. One personality trait that I find to be highly heritable includes temperament. Every baby has a different temperament when they are born, and that can largely be due to what the child has inherited from both its father and mother. According to Paris and Tyrer (2006), “Most personality traits have high heritabilities….” (pp. 32). Another trait that seems to be much less of a heritable trait is a subject’s weight—which I believe is mainly due to a complex combination of environmental, genetic, social, and cultural factors. For example, a girl might be raised to think that skinny women are not considered healthy, and therefore she strives at all costs to avoid becoming a thinner person because she doesn’t believe it suits her value system. Genetics probably plays a large role within some personality traits more than others due to the fact that some personalities are simply stronger than the others—and I believe this plays out in the real world when children exercise the true power of their personalities. Personalities have such strong connotations that, basically, young people adapt genetically and biologically to the personalities of one or both parents. For example, if one parent has many cultural mannerisms that are evident in that parent’s personality, it only makes sense that these elements of the child’s personality will naturally be brought about given the right amount of time. There are also triggers which can be activated within a young person which might bring certain personality characteristics to the forefront. 3. You have been hired by a large public school system to construct a musical aptitude test. Describe how you would standardize your test and assess its reliability and validity. Explain why it might be more difficult to develop a valid musical aptitude test than a reliable one. I would construct a musical aptitude test that would demonstrate not only reliability but validity. Reliability ensures that testing yields exactly the same (or similar) results. Validity ensures that the test measures what it is supposed to measure. According to Koch (2008), “A test may be reliable but not valid. If a vision test does not measure visual acuity, then it is not a valid test for determining the ability to see” (pp. 249). It’s very important that the musical aptitude test not only have simple multiple-choice questions, but also some questions or multiple choice questions that require the test-taker to provide evidence of deeper understanding. Also, some essay questions might also be included in order to ensure that there were other levels of understanding that would be accounted for, in turn. It might be more difficult to construct a valid test than a reliable one. Anyone can come up with a test that is reliable… number one matches with letter A, number two matches with letter C. Testing elements like deeper understanding are much more difficult than necessarily just randomly assigning a bunch of multiple-choice or true-false questions. A good musical aptitude test would not only challenge the test-taker on paper, but would also take into account a student’s aptitude for actually listening to and responding to a musical piece or pieces—or some other activity that would demonstrate thoughtful participation on the part of the student. As mentioned before, anyone can write tests, but not necessarily valid ones. 5. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald believe in the importance of stern discipline; they impose strict rules which they expect their children to obey without question. They penalize misbehavior harshly, frequently with a spanking. Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza instead use milder forms of punishment to enforce their rules. They also have regular family meetings in which their children help them to establish household rules and penalties for breaking them. What is the name of each of these two approaches to parenting and what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Explain the reasons for your answer. Parenting styles vary, but the McDonalds sound like they are more authoritarian—while the Mendozas seem like their style is more firm-but-open. What I see as the advantages of authoritarian parenting is that the parent is boss. There is really nothing wrong the parent can do in their own eyes. What they say goes. This could really help a child develop stability later on in life, knowing the de rigeur of good discipline. The disadvantages of such a parenting style could be that the children see their parents as nothing more than authority figures who wish to control their lives. This could backfire, resulting in some major blowback—such as children growing up and acting out by becoming drug addicts or alcoholics, or some other kind of degenerate. So, being strict is not necessarily a guarantor that the children are going to grow up and become well-adjusted adults and productive citizens of society. Rather, far from it. Children who are raised in warm, loving home environments in which there is not a lot of castigation has something to be said for them too. In the firm-but-open style, advantages are that the child has the ability to control (at least in part) his or her own penalties and guidelines—which, for kids, it is good to be able to have them be able to set boundaries at an early age. As mentioned, according to Srivastava (2010), “[P]arents who are warm and loving often employ a reasoning approach to discipline” for their children (pp. 416). The disadvantages of such a system is that chidren might take advantage of the fact that their parent is being nice and take that as a sign of weakness. 6. When your friend hears that you are taking a psychology course, she asserts that psychology is simply common sense. Explain why common sense is not the best way to understand human behavior. Describe the methods of science and explain why they are superior to common sense in understanding human behavior. Common sense, although it is appealing to the public, is not necessarily all it’s cracked up to be. While many people may espouse the thoughts maintained within popular wisdom, it is true that “common sense” ideas can also be factually wrong. According to Myers (2009), “A science of behavior and mental processes can certainly help us reach our goals, but it cannot decide what those goals should be. If some people see psychology as merely common sense, others have a different concern—that it is becoming dangerously powerful” (pp. 43). Common sense has, in the past, also been the basis for much of folk-healing. According to Zachar (2000), “True to the spirit of 19th century positivism, folk psychology as pre-scientific ‘common sense’ is one” huge debate (pp. 84). What is more important is that science should trump common sense, because popular wisdom cannot necessarily always be proved with facts, figures, and statistics like science can, and must be proved. Again, too, common sense may be wrong. It may be popular, for example, to say that the earth is flat, but science teaches us that this is indeed not so. So, in that regard, it is important to note that some common sense ideas are merely speculation which is convenient—and perhaps a bit cliche—but somewhat relevant for the person making the comment. Although common sense might appeal to people, facts are what makes for real judgments that can be independently be verified in order so that reality is viewed through an empirical lens and not a purely speculative one. REFERENCES Koch, G. (2008). Basic allied health statistics and analysis. US: Cengage Learning. Myers, D.G. (2009). Psychology, 9th Edition. US: Macmillan. Paris, J. & Tyrer, P. (2006). Social factors in the personality disorders. UK: Cambridge University Press. Srivastava, S.K. (2010). Empowerment of Neo Literates. Delhi, India: Sarup & Sons. Zachar, P. (2000). Psychological concepts and biological psychiatry: a philosophical analysis. US: John Benjamins. Read More