Our interface: what is character?
Probably, all imagine what is character. At least, everyone once used expressions “it has a bad character“, “flabby“, “difficult character“. Let`s remember well-known “character Nordic, resistant“ - all understand what it there is a speech also that at Stierlitz “Nordic“ about.
But household understanding it is not enough. Scientists with their habit to display everything on shelves cannot do without accurate information. However how exact can be definitions in psychology? Nevertheless they are. So, character is :
- an individual combination of the essential properties of the personality expressing the attitude of the person towards reality and which are shown in his behavior, in its acts;
- a combination of the steady mental features of the person causing a way of behavior, typical for this subject, in certain vital conditions and circumstances;
- the mental warehouse of the identity of the person expressed in her orientation and will;
- rather steady form of the sewerage of energy of the person in the course of assimilation and socialization.
And now we will try to express that zhesamy public language. It is possible to tell that character is a way of interaction of the person with the world. Habitual so that the person is not capable to depart from the stereotype, perceiving it as natural. The matter is still that and with ourselves we interact according to character. It is possible to tell that character is such interface for interaction with the world. Or the notorious armor concluding in itself ours “I“, our personality.
The structure of character is not for nothing compared to an armor. The armor protects - but in not smaller degree and limits, especially if this armor grew tightly. Also character - an armor happens more or less rigid.
In practice it is shown in that, the behavioural range of the person is how big. Whether we act absolutely in the same way in all similar situations or we can vary the actions?
Actually character limits our flexibility: both behavioural, and emotional. Tested by us (more precisely, felt) emotions in principle too are defined by character. How to react to this or that event? The majority of us does not reflect, reacting on a habit, according to the character. And as behavioural reaction is defined by reaction emotional, it turns out that character defines first of all how we perceive surrounding.
The structure of character is more rigid - the more unambiguous the world seems, the more unambiguously we react to it. At absolutely to rigid structure the behavior of the individual will become quite predictable, according to the scheme “incentive-reaction“.
Respectively, and feelings of such person clamped in a shell of own character it is difficult to call rich and various. At less rigid structure the range of possible reactions (both behavioural, and emotional) extends, we have possibilities of the choice: to arrive anyway. Usually and happens, extreme degrees of rigidity, as well as any extremes, are quite rare.
Absence of the expressed structure of character will be other extreme. You should not confuse lack of character to what it is accepted to call spinelessness. Usually mean spinelessness, a pliability by spinelessness to external influences, lack of own position or inability to defend it. Actually it is character too, and with rigid structure.
Similar character does not allow variability. Such person reacts to all influences unambiguously: caves in, concedes, follows the tastes of others... What it essentially differs from the “absolute“ hardness, obstinacy, inflexibility in? In fact, nothing, only the sign - from plus on minus changes. So “spinelessness“ actually - character, just such here specific.
Original lack of character is an absence of that algorithm according to which we interact with an outside and inner world. What does it mean? First of all, impartiality of perception. And from here uncertainty of reactions which are not set in advance follows.
The person who does not have character does not act according to it. So, has an opportunity to perceive the world more precisely - its emotional reactions are not set by character. He can perceive the world and himself directly as is, without “filter“. The person who does not have character is not limited in the acts by the structure created once. Which, perhaps, is not optimum for a long time for interaction with the world and even brings sufferings to the owner.
This “emptiness“ actually comprises all opportunities. We can react optimum, being not limited in the choice to several certain options - and even one and only.