Study: If you were at chatterbox at 6, you probably still are โ and so on
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comOur personalities may be set as early as 1st grade
Seeded on Fri Aug 6, 2010 6:40 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
oh sht.
IMHO, personalities are set much earlier than this. My kids had different personalities since the day they were born. They evolved as they got older and learned to talk, etc. but they didn't change. Maybe it's just easier to see how a 6-year-old compares to an adult than how an infant compares to an adult.
You're probably correct, Jess G, but the article says the subjects were evaluated by their 1st thru 6th grade teachers in the 60s and compared to how they turned out to be 40 years later. As newborns to 1st grade age, they would have had no intensive (read that as steady and consistent) contact with quasi-professional people capable of assessing their personality traits in a highly social (peer interaction in school viewed by non-intrusive teachers couldn't be better, I think) situation. Before school age, you would have only parents' observations (biased by family) or peer interaction with friends (only monitored by biased family members or not consistently monitored at all).
Like you though, I believe that by the time they go to school, they are what they are, and who they choose to bond with just teaches them a little more social 'skills' (right from wrong, 'good' from 'bad', polite from insolent, etc.). From birth to school, those 'skills' come from the parents. In school, they come from whoever they choose to associate with. Whichever they choose to listen to comes from their own minds (personality or intelligence).
Obviously, grade school teachers would be subjective in their evaluations. However, Steve,I agree with you. Coming from a large family with not only children of my own but many nieces and nephews, I can say that most are born with their own personalities. Some personality traits seem to be carried on in my own children as well as in nieces and nephews. So, I wonder, is there a correlation with genetics also.
I disagree with this article. My personality has changed dramatically as I've aged. Given the changes the body goes through both physically and chemically, they all contribute to a person's personality in the end.ย ย Personality is after all in the brain and the brain changes over time.
I agree. I am almost the complete opposite of what I was when I was that age.
Really there isn't anything I'd agree with them on in this study. Usually when people talk a lot they are less likely to listen and also less likely to be any more intelligent than anyone else as a result, though that is not the case for everyone it certainly happens.
I think they just needed something to say so they could get paid. lol
Holy jeebus does anyone understand how science works??? I'll reiterate once again:
The study concluded that the more outgoing type kids showed intellectualism, but it didn't conclude the other direction, that quiet kids did not show intellectualism.
In other words, it's an implication statement. The study said "If outgoing, then higher chance to show intellectual interests."
Think about it like this "If it is raining outside, then the ground is wet." Does this statement mean that if the ground is wet, it is always raining outside? No. The ground could be wet for other reasons.
Ahem... duh! I mean really... this kind of thing is no news to someone who has had kids/been around kids a lot! And this is true much earlier than 6! I mean, for example my little brother, was the same person before he was born (yes, we all could tell his personality even before he was born!) to when he was a few months old, to the age of two, that he is today as an adult! They really shouldn't be wasting their time and research money studying this stuff when casual observers would have been able to say at least the same! My advice for people with kids is always watch out for what they are like when they are 2, because they are usually that exact same person as a teenager! (It's a gaining independence thing).
Just because it is news to researchers doesn't mean it is always news to the general public...
In regard to the comment about wasting money on a study which is considered common sense, I would disagree. Often times what we "know" as true based on tradition, dogma, or common sense is often quite incorrect, and psychological studies are quite important in either confirming or disconfirming our preconceived notions. Think about how widely accepted phrenology was, the measurement of lumps in the skull to gauge personality and character, or blood-letting to cure disease! All widely accepted. Or the flatness of the Earth, or the "fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe! All of these were either widely accepted or even held as incontrovertible fact until the scientific method was applied to them. I'm sure that other studies will follow this one to either replicate its results or repudiate them.
Perhaps now they can stop discriminating against introverts in the corporate world.
Man, that would be so great. It's almost impossible to find a corporate job posting nowadays that doesn't say they want a "friendly" or "outgoing" or "energetic" personality. In my opinion, it's all code for "working hard and well isn't enough, you must love the idea of joining our social clique, too." It often makes me wonder if they're looking for a productive, capable employee or somebody fun to be a new drinking buddy and play for the corporate softball team.
There just aren't enough lighthouses to tend to, IMO....
The corporate world is a world where you're required to work with others. It's totally miserable when someone on your team is incapable of working well with others -- it makes work painful when you need to drag things out of people who just want to sit in a room alone, but who you need to collaborate with throughout the day to get things done.
If you're an introvert, pick a profession where you don't need to work closely with others.
Huh? The fact that introverts are quiet and not as expressive does not mean they don't work well with others. I've actually found the opposite--that they listen better, think before speaking and form real relationships with others. I am somewhere in the middle between introvert and extrovert. I've known many friendly outgoing extroverts who are great and also many who were self-centered, didn't listen, tried to manage outcomes for their personal benefit, were wonderfully friendly but back-stabbers. In other words, I think both introverts and extroverts can have really good or really bad qualities. Perhaps more people should look up what these terms actually mean. Hint: Introvert does not mean antisocial.
I have raised a number of baby (grey) squirrels that I found after they had fallen out of their nests, been caught by cats, etc. I got them before they opened their eyes. They all looked exactly alike, as infants and grownups. However, each one had a different personality. Some were playful and affectionate, some were timid and unresponsive, others were aggressive biters. This shows the strong influence of genetics on personality.
I disagree with this longitudinal study. The sample size is quite clearly not large enough for an adequate measure of personality change. Further, it's been widely recognized that personality goes through many changes before the age of 30. Environment is at least 50% of the puzzle of how our personalities develop and change; this article assumes genetic attributes are the leading factor.
Dear Readers, please do not take everything you read on the internet as truisms.
Also, Hawaii is an island, which limits the diversity of interaction on it, and makes it a quite unique societal environment. As you said, the environment here is very important, perhaps if the study can be replicated in California, Iowa, Kentucky, and Connecticut I would lend it a small bit more credibility. Also, what the heck were the actual psychological tests conducted? Watching interviews? Are you kidding? And this is someone's doctoral work?
Obviously you have never been or know little of Hawaii. Hawaii is a bustling melting pot of cultures, religions, economics and ethnic origins. Hawaii was the first truly liberal and therefore modern state of the USA. The mixing of Anglo-Saxons from the US and Australia along with Europeans with Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Africans and yes Latinos was common and acceptable long before Civil Rights. This happened in large part because of WW II. WW II created unions of people from different countries and ethnic backgrounds. Just consider the occupation of Japan for instance. After a service man or woman was discharged from the military they had to begin looking for a place that would accept their Japanese or Filipinos wife or husband and Hawaii was about the only place where no one cared. Hawaii was a place in the 1960s where you could truly be prideful of your mixed heritage. So Hawaii was and is not some remote desolate place where Post Modernisms occurred at a slower pace. In fact, it led the US into the Post Modern Age in almost every way.
kpokeefe - You must be joking.....you must be Hawaiian.
Nope, Mike, I live in Atlanta and am of Irish-Germanic origin. The Joke is that I can read census data which proves my statement above.
Obviously, this racial diversity didn't happen overnight. Read a little about the history of post WW II Hawaii and I think you will find the "Joke" will be on you!
I believe one comes into this world with a temperament and from that and environmental influences, personality is formed. Interesting that viable memory, for most, begins at approximately three years.
True: anyone who has children will agree with you.
meh, it's genetics and environment, do we really need a study on this? Sometimes kids don't change much. Sometimes they do. I bet the ones that do had environmental variables that helped foster those changes.
My bro, sister, and I, all very similar in personality to when we were little. It's not the sum of our being, but at our core, yes. We all have taken fairly different life paths as adults. All landed on different religious paths. One of us has had serious life long health issues and some hard knocks to boot.
And despite that, yes, I'd say we have the same basic personality traits that we had at about 6.
I disagree with this study. It makes quiet kids seem stupid, and outgoing kids much more intelligent and independent. I beg to differ on this - I'm quiet, but I'm quite intellectual, determined, and more independent than those kids who are outgoing.
Yes, the conclusions and generalizations don't seem to do a very good job in correlating personality traits to overall intellectual characteristics. Almost every gifted mathematician I have ever met has been very reserved and introspective. Usually quite witty and personable though, too!
Sorry about the double post, but the reply didn't work the first time...
You guys aren't understanding the conclusions of the study. The study concluded that the more outgoing type kids showed intellectualism, but it didn't conclude the other direction, that quiet kids did not show intellectualism.
In other words, it's an implication statement. The study said "If outgoing, then higher chance to show intellectual interests."
Think about it like this "If it is raining outside, then the ground is wet." Does this statement mean that if the ground is wet, it is always raining outside? No. The ground could be wet for other reasons.
No. Clearly, it studies extroverted vs. introverted kids. 'awkward', 'fearful', 'insecure' and 'condescending' is not very scientific. In fact, it's pretty subjective how they're defined. This study is indeed judgmental. As in introspective introvert, I know what is judgmental or not - this is clearly judgmental of introverts.
"Children who rated low in verbal fluency were observed as adults to seek advice, give up when faced with obstacles, and exhibit an awkward interpersonal style."
"Those who rated low in adaptability as children were observed as adults to say negative things about themselves, seek advice and exhibit an awkward interpersonal style.
"Less impulsive kids tended to be fearful or timid, kept others at a distance and expressed insecurity as adults."
"Those who were ranked low on a self-minimizing scale tended to speak loudly, show interest in intellectual matters and exhibit condescending behavior as adults."
Not really Im sure it takes at least 10 years.
We’re certainly free to conclude that the researcher’s conclusions are wrong but that doesn’t necessarily mean that our conclusions are any more correct. The researchers will likely have used statistical analyses to arrive at their conclusions, i.e. they’re probably reporting the majority traits observed among the 144 individuals interviewed as adults in the study. (Michael G. - a sample size of 144 out of a population of 2,400 at the 95% confidence level gives a confidence interval of +/- 8%. That’s good enough for drawing conclusions.) We can also ascertain this from the way the author of the article used the terms “…tended to…” or “… were inclined to …” and “… were likely to…” The author didn’t say that every single child strictly behaved in one way or another as an adult. So we shouldn’t read it as a 100% correlation between the observed behavior of the child and the observed behavior of the adult. Eris2010 and Andy-2081491, don’t worry that you don’t think your experiences directly correlate with the “mode” of behaviors referred to by the author. You may be what are called “statistical outliers” and there’s nothing abnormal or unscientific about having outliers in the statistical analysis of a population. Besides, as HAL9000 noted, personalities (or personality traits) can and do change over time for a couple of important reasons, chemical or experiential. But the occurrence of such behavioral variations at the personal level doesn’t mean that researchers can’t or shouldn’t strive to learn more about the development of the human psyche. We need to learn as much as we can on this topic so that we can give our children the best possible environments and experiences for them to flourish in and grow into emotionally healthy adults.
We should also bear in mind that this is just one more study that needs to be added to the considerable amount of information that’s been collected so far on this topic, hence it needs to be considered in context with all the other research results. There have been numerous other studies conducted over the past 60 years (too many to try and list here but if you want a good overview of what has been learned, grab one of Steven Pinker’s books) that all seem to be pointing in the same direction, i.e. that our personalities are determined by a combination of our genes (which control brain chemistry and hardwiring prior to birth) and our environment (which introduces the experience factor to our brains after birth). The amazing thing is that our brains are relatively malleable. We are born with a limited number of established neural connections and pathways in our brain which enable us to respond to our environment at a fairly basic level. However, each experience we have as a baby or young child either reinforces existing neural pathways or leads to the growth of new neural pathways and their associated connections. The more new experiences we have, whether emotionally positive, negative or neutral, the more neural connections and pathways are formed. (That’s why our brains grow larger as we get older.) It’s these neural connections and pathways that then determine our “typical” responses to similar environmental stimuli in the years after, i.e. our personality. Changing those neural pathways in order to modify our behavior (or responses to stimuli) as adults is difficult but not impossible.
Jess G is correct, too, that personality traits are set much earlier than 6 years of age but perhaps the researchers who conducted the study chose to start with 6-year olds simply because it was easier to get relatively objective observers (i.e. their teachers) to assess their behavior for the baseline of the study. It’s certainly a truth that parents can observe the development of their child’s personality right from birth (I did with mine) but I think one of the valuable outcomes of this kind of research is that it replaces our own personal “anecdotal” data with more scientifically robust data. And if our society is going to make decisions about what environments or experiences are better or worse for our children, we need to base those decisions on something more substantial than just my opinion versus yours.
This study definitely needs to be studied again. I am a mother of 3 and I can tell you the study is completely not correct. My quiet child is my most intelligent...because of his quiet nature, he's quite observant and he is quick to solve a complex problem. He takes his time understanding the intricacies of the problem before trying to solve it. While my most talkative child is all talk. He's very sociable, but has no patience in wanting to solve a complex problem like my quiet one. He rather be out and about and be with friends than to sit and study. While he's smart, I can see a huge difference in both child. So please, do the study again and you'll find it quite differently.
No, you are also misunderstanding what the conclusions of the study means. Let me reiterate:
The study concluded that the more outgoing type kids showed intellectualism, but it didn't conclude the other direction, that quiet kids did not show intellectualism.
In other words, it's an implication statement. The study said "If outgoing, then higher chance to show intellectual interests."
Think about it like this "If it is raining outside, then the ground is wet." Does this statement mean that if the ground is wet, it is always raining outside? No. The ground could be wet for other reasons.
Common sense- Your kids are exibiing their temperments which are hard wired and recognizable throughout life. It's what we bring to the world. Personality is how we deal with the world and has a lot to do with experience and what we have concluded. The article is junk science. Nothing about your kids is fully "determined" by anything.
So that means it would be impossible to choose "Gay" as a sexual orientation at only 6 years old?
Well then it appears you are born that way. It is not a personal decision.
Someone just had to bring up the gay thing.......
For the most part, people do not "choose" to be gay. There are always exceptions to the rule of course, such as a child molested/raped chooses a gay lifestyle caused by the severe emotional damage.
I agree but you cannot conclude that from this article.
Why would anybody choose to be gay and have to live with all the difficulty that comes with living in our society being homosexual?
If it was a choice most would choose differently.
What a crock. Like we don't change after six years old. Now if a child is stupid they likely will still be stupid as an adult but that is hardly personality. Makes me think a stupid child dreamed this one up.
No where in the article did it comment that any type of child was stupid. The article merely expounded on personality traits exhibited, not actual intellectual abilities.
This is a great article. Yes, yes, yes most of our core personality is set by first grade. If you studied brain science you would understand why. Most of the circuits in your brain are indelibly set by that time. Everything that comes after that time builds on those same circuits. There is no way, without injury, to eliminate those circuits. As I said, once they are formed everything else is formed on top of them. This is why it is very important to not hit children, why it is important to provide them with a stimulating environment and why you need to minimize stress on them. These old fashioned make them tough ideas need to finally die.
I know that parts of my basic personality were set by 1st grade. For example, I've always been a poor listener and bad at paying attention. In second grade, I received an Incomplete in the Listening grade (however that works, lol). I guess I annoyed the teacher by daydreaming all the time. Even decades later, I still daydream and have trouble paying attention, and it's hard for me to control.
Despite all the "common sense" and "science" posted here, I disagree. First, putting everyone in 4 categories, which in and of themselves show prejudice, doesn't make sense. Why talkativeness is supposed to be a sign of intelligence is beyond me. More people need to shut up and listen! Being verbally fluent does seem to be a better indicator of intelligence, but then my husband is brilliant, the smartest person I know. He is great at thinking things through and writes extremely well, but has trouble expressing himself verbally--but when he gets there, he will wow you. Personally, I was very quiet through grade school. As I grew older I became more outgoing and would now call myself moderately extroverted. I would also rate myself as being humble and not very adaptable when I was young. My grade school behavior would indicate, according to them, that I am not very smart, would be dependent on others for ideas, etc. Well, I was valedictorian of my high school and college classes. I have degrees in English and engineering, plus an MBA. I went into high tech sales where I am very successful because I enjoy interacting with people, have technical skills, love learning new things and am extremely determined to overcome obstacles. Now did my childhood behavior predict my adult personality and behavior? Somewhat, but my personality sure wasn't set in stone at age 6 or even by age 12. And I know many people who have changed over the years.
I would guess that the study was not designed with an assumption that there are only 4 types of personality traits. Rather, a scientific study must decide on a specific set of dimensions to view, and the control the variables which affect those dimensions.
If the scientists didn't limit the number of traits that were studied, then they'd be running a study on actually solving the question "what is personality?". That would be ridiculously hard and probably a crappy study.
Instead, the scientists controlled for a few sets of traits and studied the results. This is how modern science works...separate research groups establish a few suggested facts and conclusions, and then future studies can confirm, refute, or build on on them.
If you are offended from being classed then don't send your children to public school because those ideas are part of teaching education.
I think that if you are offended by the study then you have more problems than not fitting in some control category.
To the poster above who said: "I disagree with this study. It makes quiet kids seem stupid, and outgoing kids much more intelligent and independent. I beg to differ on this - I'm quiet, but I'm quite intellectual,"
Dude, don't feel so bad about it. The study concluded that the more outgoing type kids showed intellectualism, but it didn't conclude the other direction, that quiet kids did not show intellectualism.
In other words, it's an implication statement. The study said "If outgoing, then higher chance to show intellectual interests."
Think about it like this "If it is raining outside, then the ground is wet." Does this statement mean that if the ground is wet, it is always raining outside? No. The ground could be wet for other reasons.
An environment (good or bad) can modify a child's personality, but not change it. I disagree that chatty people are smarter - they may just be attention-seekers, while quiet kids may be more intellectually curious. Other traits come into play on the intelligence question.
Right. And we are all supposed to feel bad if we are not the so-called "well balanced" people that only exist statistically.
My mother-in-law said my wife as a child could talk the horns off a billy goat. 48 years later, I can state without question that she still can.
Both my boys have the same personality traits now at 25 and 21 as they had as toddlers. I believe this study in general could help the education world to understand that personality traits are set at an early age and teachers trying to forcibly change a talkative animated student or quiet student to the opposite could be damaging and create reluctant students who learn to hate learning.
Perhaps another way of looking at this is that most people don't change because they are formed in a certain way (genetics and environment) and have no impetus to change. But those who do find reason or have a changed environment are capable of changing and many do. To imply that it is set and cannot change is wrong. In other words, don't change, won't change and can't change are not the same.
Well said. I like your post more than mine.
If this study does prove true, my son is going to be a blast when he gets older. It's sad that we lose so much of our spark as we get older, but I think if given the chance our next generation can shine!
kpokeefe- I respect some of your comments on Hawaii....but I assure you....it did NOT lead the US into any real change of culture.
OK - well here we have it. Finally. We have established the future of the who, what and how of every human being ever born. Congrats scientists, particularly in this study, YOU have demonstrated the ability to FORECAST human behavior. OK - so now that the SCIENTISTS have discovered that a talkative 4th grader will probably continue this in her/his 40's - (any grandmother over 60 could tell you this, but WHO IN THIS WORLD would ever care or think to ASK THEM?) where does this take us next?