- Image by C L E E ٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶ ™ via Flickr
I read a blog called the Frontal Cortex by Jonah Lehrer. Jonah generally reviews neuroscience papers and provides commentary.
Today, Jonah had a post called the Personality Paradox that talks about the neuroscience behind personality. Here’s an excerpt from the paper, an Australian study found in Biological Psychiatry, that Jonah reviews:
Participants’ scores on Harm Avoidance, Novelty Seeking, Reward Dependence, and Persistence were tested for association with 1,252,387 genetic markers. We also performed gene-based association tests and biological pathway analyses. No genetic variants that significantly contribute to personality variation were identified, while our sample provides over 90% power to detect variants that explain only 1% of the trait variance. This indicates that individual common genetic variants of this size or greater do not contribute to personality trait variation, which has important implications regarding the genetic architecture of personality and the evolutionary mechanisms by which heritable variation is maintained.
Jonah ends the post with this comment:
And this might be why the Australian study came up empty: We’re trying to find the genes for personality constructs that don’t exist. It’s not that people don’t have personalities, or that these personalities can’t be measured – it’s that we aren’t the same person in every situation, which is what all these “tests” implicitly assume. It turns out that Shakespeare had it right all along. Just look at Hamlet – the Danish prince wouldn’t fit neatly into the categories of Myers-Briggs. He’s brooding and melancholy in one scene, and then violent and impulsive in the next. But this doesn’t seem strange to the audience. Instead, the inconsistency of Hamlet seems all too human.
This is particularly interesting for me and those that have read my book 10 Powerful Personas. The whole premise of the book is that people show a different face of their personality depending on the context; our personality has many faces (called personas). More than that, these personas are memetic–they have meme-like qualities and are, therefore, heavily influenced by social forces and change over time.
The paper Jonah reviews seems to lend some credence to this premise, which I think many people find intuitive. What are your thoughts on the topic?
Check out Jonah’s post. (And then buy my book ;) )
-Kevin
8.9.2010
