The personality is a set of customs, tendencies and interests related between themselves of a quite vague way, and that depends, in certain moments, on the circumstances and the context. But we are not capable of perceiving that because the people are accustomed to having a lot of control on his environment, which offers an image of false coherence in his personality.
That is to say: someone feels good and he is much entertained in the holidays, and that's why it comes to many or organizes many. The people deduce that she is an entertaining person. But if his friends were observing this person in all the situations in which it does not possess the control (a dark alley, a stressful work), probably the perception would change.
Mischel supports:
When we are a woman who sometimes seems hostile and very jealous of his independence but who others seems rather passive, dependent and feminine, our reduction valve makes us choose between one of two attitudes. This way, we decide that a rule is to the service of other one, or that both are to the service of a third motive. Debit of being a woman much castradora, under a passivity front. Or she is a warm and dependent woman with an exterior aggressiveness image like self-defense way.
More experiments that demonstrate the power of the way at the time of determining how our personality opens were, for example, the realized ones at the beginning of the year 1970 by a group of social scientists of Stanford's University, directed by Philip Zimbardo.
The experiment consisted of creating a false prison in the cellar of the faculty of Psychology. They chose a few males, all normal and healthy ones, as they demonstrated a series of tests psicotécnicas. A half they assumed the prisoners' roll, another half, of prison guards.
The results threw light to the question if the prisons are places as dangerous as the jungle because they are full of delinquents or because the prisons are in himself there are jungles that extract the worst of the delinquents.
To the little of beginning the experiment, for example, some of the prison guards, who even had declared himself a pacifist, fell down in the roll of the typical embittered guard who imposes an iron discipline on the others.
Passed thirty six hours, one of the prisoners began becoming hysterical, and it was necessary to liberate it. Other four more had to go out for “extreme emotional depression, crying, anger and the sharp states of anxiety.
Zimbardo was claiming that the experiment was getting longer two weeks, but it turned out to be forced to cancel it to six days. The conclusion is that, in addition to the education, the genes, the friends that we have met along our life, etc. … there are cases in which someone educated in a good school, born in a happy family and in a wealthy quarter, can change radically only modifying the immediate details of his situation.
As it happened to 11.000 students between 8 and 16 years that they were used in the decade of 1920 in an experiment led by Hugo Harsthorne and Mark A. May, in New York. They submitted them to tests designed to measure his honesty grade.
They were making them solve problems in different contexts: with alertness of the professorship, alone, alone but with the books where the solutions were appearing, in their own domiciles and all kinds of combinations.
Many children cheated, as it is obvious. But on having looked for rules in the tricks, the investigators remained surprised. Far from the obviousnesses of the type that more the biggest they were cheating more than the smallest, or that the girls and the children were cheating equally, there existed neither fixed rules nor coherent groups of trick.
There were children who were cheating when they were solving the problems at home, but they were not doing it in the school and vice versa. There was the one who was cheating in certain types of tests and not in others.
Finally, they repeated the tests six months later under the same circumstances: the trick status was similar, and the same one that then did pitfalls, they did them later. Nevertheless, on having modified some variable, everything was changing, both the tricky ones and the ways of doing pitfall.
Both investigators concluded that a feature as the honesty is not a fundamental feature not unified. But it keeps on turning out to be difficult to imagine a person who is capable of being honest in some things but dishonest in others, or honest with certain persons or in certain places, but very dishonestly with other persons and in other places to us. Because: how enjuiciaríamos then to a person?
Perhaps assuming that we cannot do it easily let's be able to fight some daily problems of a more effective form, like demostraré in the last part of this series of articles.
Route | The tipping point of Malcom Gladwell