"Character" is interpreted in psychology is far from unambiguous. Even more controversial issues arise when trying to separate the concepts of "character" and "personality". In the psychological literature, one can find all sorts of options for correlating these two concepts: character and personality are practically identified, i.e. these terms are used as synonyms; the character is included in the personality and is considered as its substructure; on the contrary, personality is understood as a specific part of character; personality and character are seen as "intersecting" formations. It is possible to avoid confusion between the concepts of character and personality if one adheres to their narrower interpretation.

The word "character" in Greek means "seal", "chasing". In the character, as it were, the main, most essential features of a given personality are imprinted, minted, which are steadily manifested in human behavior. Thus, character can be defined as "a hierarchized, ordered set of stable individual psychological characteristics of a person that are formed in the process of life and manifest themselves in the ways of a typical response of a person in activity, behavior and communication."

It is much more important to understand more deeply the difference between character and personality (in the narrow sense). Consider how these terms are used in everyday speech. First of all, let's pay attention to how different sets of adjectives are used to describe personality and character. They talk about a person "high", "outstanding", "creative", "gray", "criminal", etc. In relation to character, adjectives such as “heavy”, “cruel”, “iron”, “soft”, “golden” are used. After all, we do not say "high character" or "soft personality."

Thus, the analysis of everyday terminology shows that there are different formations. But the following consideration is even more convincing in this: when assessments of the character and personality of one and the same person are given, these assessments may not only not coincide, but may even be opposite in sign.

For example, let us recall the personalities of prominent people. The question arises: are great people known to history with a bad character? Yes, as much as you want. There is an opinion that F.M. Dostoevsky, I.P. had a very “cool” character. Pavlova. However, this did not prevent both from becoming outstanding personalities. So character and personality are not the same thing.

In this regard, one statement by P.B. Gannushkin. Stating the fact that high giftedness is often combined with psychopathy, he writes that for the assessment of creative personalities, the shortcomings of their character do not matter. “History,” he writes, “is only interested in creation and mainly in those elements of it that are not personal, individual, but general, enduring.”

Thus, the "creation" of man is primarily an expression of his personality. Descendants use the results of the activity of the individual, not the character. But it is not descendants who face the character of a person, but the people directly surrounding him: relatives and friends, friends, colleagues. They bear the burden of his character. For them, unlike their descendants, a person's character can become, and often becomes, more significant than his personality.

If we try to very briefly express the essence of the differences between character and personality, then we can say that character traits reflect what as a person acts, and personality traits, for what he acts. At the same time, it is obvious that the ways of behavior and the orientation of the individual are relatively independent: using the same methods, you can achieve different goals and, conversely, strive for the same goal in different ways.

Character - an individual combination of the most stable, essential personality traits, manifested in human behavior, in a certain respect:

To oneself (the degree of exactingness, criticality, self-esteem);

To other people (individualism or collectivism, egoism or altruism, cruelty or kindness, indifference or sensitivity, rudeness or politeness, deceit or truthfulness, etc.);

To the task assigned (laziness or diligence, accuracy or carelessness, initiative or passivity, perseverance or impatience, responsibility or irresponsibility, organization, etc.);

The character reflects volitional qualities: the willingness to overcome obstacles, mental and physical pain, the degree of perseverance, independence, determination, discipline.

Separate properties of character depend on each other, are connected with each other and form an integral organization, which is called the structure of character. There are two groups of traits in the character structure. A character trait is understood as certain features of a person’s personality that are systematically manifested in various types of his activities and by which one can judge his possible actions under certain conditions. The first group includes traits that express the orientation of the individual (sustainable needs, attitudes, interests, inclinations, ideals, goals), a system of relations to the surrounding reality and representing individually peculiar ways of implementing these relations. The second group includes intellectual, strong-willed and emotional character traits.

Another classification of character traits is possible, for example:

properties that determine a person's actions in choosing the goals of activity and communication (thrift, rationality, etc., or alternative features to them);

properties related to actions aimed at achieving the set goals (persistence, purposefulness, consistency, etc., as well as their opposite qualities);

properties that have a purely instrumental meaning, directly related to temperament (introversion-extra-version, calmness-anxiety, restraint-impulsivity, plasticity-rigidity, etc.).

Attempts to construct a typology of characters have been repeatedly made throughout the history of psychology. One of the most famous and earliest of them was the one that, at the beginning of our century, was proposed by the German psychiatrist and psychologist E. Kretschmer. Somewhat later, a similar attempt was made by his American colleague W. Sheddon, and nowadays by E. Fromm, Kleongard, A. Yelichko and a number of other scientists.

All typologies of human characters proceeded from a number of general ideas. The main ones are the following:

1. The character of a person is formed quite early in ontogeny and throughout the rest of his life manifests itself as more or less stable.

2. Those combinations of personality traits that are part of a person's character are not random. They form clearly distinguishable types that make it possible to identify and build a typology of characters.

3. Most of the people in accordance with this typology can be divided into groups.

The following typologies of character are best known:

constitutional theories that connect character traits with the appearance of a person, with his constitution, habitus (Rostan, Lombroso, Seago, Kretschmer, Sheldon, etc.).

Accentual theories that connect character traits with its accentuation - the excessive severity of individual character traits and their combinations, representing extreme variants of the mental norm, borderline with psychopathy (Leonhard, Lichko, etc.).

Social typology of characters, which is based on a person's attitude to life, society, moral values ​​(Fromm).

When we say that character traits are stable personality traits, we certainly should not understand this as immutability of character traits. In the process of life, certain character traits can undergo certain, sometimes significant changes. However, character traits cannot change quickly and easily, such as, for example, a person's mood. Change of character is most often a complex and lengthy process. The character can change under the influence of a new experience of human life, as well as as a result of purposeful education and self-education of the individual.

The formation of character occurs only under the influence of the social environment and experience as a manifestation of a certain set of personal qualities. Character is formed throughout a person's life and, in turn, has a significant impact on the development of personality. Depending on the characterological features of the personality, internal contradictions in a person are resolved and his actions are determined. Personality: what is it, properties, qualities and personality disorders.

"Character" is interpreted in psychology is far from unambiguous. The difficulties of distinguishing between character and temperament have already been discussed above. Even more controversial issues arise when trying to separate the concepts of "character" and "personality". In the psychological literature, one can find all sorts of options for correlating these two concepts: character and personality are practically identified, that is, these terms are used as synonyms; the character is included in the personality and is considered as its substructure; on the contrary, personality is understood as a specific part of character; personality and character are seen as "intersecting" formations. It is possible to avoid confusion between the concepts of character and personality if one adheres to their narrower interpretation. The concept of personality in the narrow sense was already dealt with at the beginning of the previous lecture. There is also a more specialized understanding of character, and I'm going to introduce it to you.

Character in the narrow sense of the word is defined as a set of stable properties of an individual, in which the ways of his behavior and ways of emotional response are expressed.

With such a definition of the nature of his properties, as well as the properties of temperament, can be attributed to formally dynamic features of behavior. However, in the first case, these properties, so to speak, are extremely formal, while in the second they bear signs of a somewhat greater content, formality. So, for the motor sphere, adjectives describing temperament will be "fast", "mobile", "sharp", "sluggish", and character qualities - "collected", "organized", "neat", "slack". To characterize the emotional sphere in the case of temperament, words such as "live", "impulsive", "quick-tempered", "sensitive", and in the case of character - "good-natured", "closed", "distrustful". However, as already mentioned, the boundary separating temperament and character is rather arbitrary. It is much more important to understand more deeply the difference between character and personality (in the narrow sense). For example, let us recall the personalities of prominent people. The question arises: are great people known to history with a bad character? Yes, as much as you want. There is an opinion that F. M. Dostoevsky was distinguished by a difficult character, I.P. had a very "cool" character. Pavlova. However, this did not prevent both from becoming outstanding personalities. So character and personality are not the same thing. In this regard, one statement by P. B. Gannushkin is interesting. Stating the fact that high giftedness is often combined with psychopathy, he writes that for the assessment of creative personalities, the shortcomings of their character do not matter. "History," he writes, "is only interested in creation and mainly in those of its elements that are not personal, individual, but general, enduring." Thus, the "creation" of man is primarily an expression of his personality. Descendants use the results of the activity of the individual, not the character. But it is not descendants who face the character of a person, but the people directly surrounding him: relatives and friends, friends, colleagues. They bear the burden of his character. For them, unlike their descendants, a person's character can become, and often becomes, more significant than his personality. If we try to very briefly express the essence of the differences between character and personality, then we can say that character traits reflect how a person acts, and personality traits reflect what he acts for. At the same time, it is obvious that the ways of behavior and the orientation of the individual are relatively independent: using the same methods, you can achieve different goals and, conversely, strive for the same goal in different ways.

Now let's turn to character descriptions. So, Jung identified two main types of character: extroverted and introverted; Kretschmer also described only two types: cycloid and schizoid. Over time, the number of types has increased. In Gannushkin we already find about seven types (or "groups") of characters; Leonhard and Lichko have ten and eleven. Almost all authors of typologies emphasized that character can be more or less pronounced. A character can be considered pathological, that is, regarded as psychopathy, if it is relatively stable over time, that is, it changes little during life. This first sign, according to A. E. Lichko, is well illustrated by the saying: "What is in the cradle, such is in the grave." The second sign is the totality of character manifestations: in psychopathy, the same character traits are found everywhere: at home, at work, and on vacation, among acquaintances, and among strangers, in short, in any circumstances. If a person, let's say, is alone at home, and "in public" is another, then he is not a psychopath. Finally, the third and perhaps the most important sign of psychopathy is social maladaptation. The latter lies in the fact that a person constantly has life difficulties, and these difficulties are experienced either by himself, or by the people around him, or both. Here is such a simple everyday and at the same time quite scientific criterion.

Consider two types of psychopathy described by Gannushkin.

The first type belongs to the asthenic group. This group includes two varieties (private types): neurasthenics and psychasthenics. Their common properties are increased sensitivity and rapid exhaustion. They are excitable and exhausted in a nervous, psychic sense. In the case of neurasthenia, some more somatic disorders are added here: a person complains of recurrent discomfort, pain, tingling, poor bowel function, poor sleep, increased heart rate, etc. All these malfunctions in the body's work are of a psychogenic nature, a noticeable organic basis of their is usually absent. They arise due to too much attention of the neurasthenic to the functions of his body. Anxiously feeling into them, he upsets them even more. The weakness and exhaustion of asthenics leads to the fact that their activity, as a rule, turns out to be ineffective. They do not succeed well in business, do not occupy high positions. due to frequent failures, they develop low self-esteem and morbid pride. Their claims are usually higher than their capabilities. They are vain, proud and at the same time cannot achieve all that they strive for. As a result, they develop and intensify such character traits as timidity, uncertainty, suspiciousness. Psychasthenics do not have somatic disorders, but another quality is added - fearfulness, indecision, doubts about everything. They doubt the present, the future and the past. Often they are overcome by false fears for their lives and for the lives of loved ones. It is very difficult for them to start a business: they make a decision, then retreat, gather strength again, etc. It is difficult for them to make decisions because they doubt the success of any conceived business. On the other hand, if the psychasthenic has already decided something, then he must implement it immediately; in other words, he is extremely impatient. Constant doubts, indecision and impatience, this is such a paradoxical combination of properties. However, it has its own logic: the psychasthenic rushes things because he is afraid that something will prevent him from completing his plan; in other words, impatience comes from the same uncertainty. Thus, asthenics basically suffer from their own character. But they have some features that make those around them suffer. The fact is that petty insults, humiliations and injections of pride, which are many in the life of an asthenic, accumulate and require a way out. And then they erupt in the form of angry outbursts, bouts of irritation. But this happens, as a rule, not among strangers - there the asthenic prefers to restrain himself, but at home, in the circle of loved ones. As a result, a timid asthenic can become a real tyrant of the family. However, emotional outbursts quickly subside and end in tears and remorse.

The second type belongs to the epileptoid group. The characteristic features of this type of persons, according to Gannushkin, are extreme irritability, reaching attacks of rage and anger; periodic mood disorders with an admixture of melancholy, fear, anger and, finally, certain moral defects. Epileptoids are people who are extremely selfish, intensely active, persistent and very affective. They are passionate thrill seekers. They are prone to the formation of overvalued ideas. At the same time, scrupulous pettiness, pedantry, and hoarding can be observed in them. They are also characterized by hypocrisy and hypocrisy. All manifestations of epileptoids contain elements of irritability, anger, anger. This constant accompaniment of their lives makes them extremely difficult for others and loved ones. They are aggressive, petty, picky, ready to criticize and correct everything, extremely vindictive and vindictive. They are also prone to violent acts, as a result of which they sometimes find themselves in the dock. The physiological basis of the epileptoid nature, according to Gannushkin, is the strength of primitive drives, on the one hand, and the viscosity of nervous processes, on the other.

character accentuations

Accentuations are extreme variants of normal characters. At the same time, deviations of accentuations from the average norm also give rise to some problems and difficulties for their carriers (although not to such a strong extent as in psychopathy). That is why both the term itself and the first studies of accentuated characters appeared in the work of psychiatrists. However, the problem of accentuated characters belongs to general psychology to no lesser extent, and perhaps to a greater extent. Suffice it to say that more than half of the teenagers studying in ordinary secondary schools have accentuated characters. What is the difference between character accentuations and psychopathy? This is an important issue that should be understood, since it is associated with the difference between pathology and the norm. In the case of character accentuations, there may not be any of the signs of psychopathy listed above, at least all three signs are never present at once. The absence of the first sign is expressed in the fact that the accentuated character does not run like a "red thread" through life. It usually worsens during adolescence, and smoothes out with adulthood. The second sign - totality - is also not obligatory: the features of accentuated characters do not appear in any situation, but only in special conditions. Finally, social maladjustment with accentuations either does not occur at all, or is short-lived. At the same time, the reason for temporary discord with oneself and with the environment is not any difficult conditions (as in psychopathy), but conditions that create a load on the place of least resistance of the character.

Types of accentuations

They basically coincide with the types of psychopathy, although their list is wider. A. E. Lichko distinguishes the following types of accentuations: hyperthymic, cycloid, labile, asthenoneurotic, sensitive, psychasthenic, schizoid, epileptoid, hysteroid, unstable and conformal. As in the case of psychopathy, different types can be combined, or mixed, in one person, although these combinations are not arbitrary.

What situations are difficult for hyperthyms? Those where their behavior is strictly regulated, where there is no freedom to take the initiative, where there is monotonous work or forced inaction. In all these situations, hyperthymas give explosions or breakdowns. For example, if a teenager of this type has overprotective parents who control his every step, then very early he begins to protest, to give sharp negative reactions, up to running away from home. For individuals with schizoid accentuation, it is most difficult to enter into emotional contacts with people. Therefore, they are maladapted where it is necessary to communicate informally (which is just very suitable for hyperthym). Therefore, they should not be entrusted, for example, with the role of the organizer of a new business: after all, this will require him to establish many connections with people, take into account their moods and relationships, fine orientation in the social environment, flexibility of behavior, etc. Representatives of this type also cannot tolerate, when they "climb into the soul", they especially need a careful attitude to their inner world. For a hysterical accentuator, the most difficult thing is to endure inattention to his person. He strives for praise, fame, leadership, but soon loses his position as a result of business immaturity and then suffers greatly. It is possible, and sometimes even necessary, to leave a schizoid or a psychasthenic alone; to do the same with an hysteroid means to create a situation of psychological discomfort and even stress.

In psychology, the problem of the biological foundations of character has long been standing. It is discussed, conditionally speaking, in weaker and stronger forms. In the "weak" version, we are talking about the biological, or physiological, foundations of character; in a more "strong" version, the genetic basis of character is assumed. After all, as you already know, everything genotypic is biological at the same time, but not everything biological has a genotypic nature. Consider this problem immediately in a stronger formulation: are there genetic foundations of character? Understanding character in a narrow sense, one can answer: yes, they exist. As proof of this conclusion, the following facts are cited in the scientific literature: the similarity of characters, traced in the pedigree lines by many authors; the connection of character, especially in its pathological forms, with the bodily constitution (Kretschmer, Sheldon, and others); early appearance and stability of the properties of anomalous characters during life; finally, the results of studies of normal characters using the twin method. The study of extreme character anomalies suggests that in some cases a relatively greater contribution to the design of anomalies is made by the genotypic factor, in other cases - by the environmental factor. Thus, in the psychiatric literature, "true" or "nuclear" psychopathy is described, in the origin of which unfavorable heredity plays a decisive role. In these cases, it is possible to establish the presence of the same type of character in parents, siblings and relatives along the lateral lines. There is also an early manifestation of character anomalies and their relative invariability throughout life. Finally, it has been established, and it is important to emphasize that psychopathy can occur even under the most favorable conditions of education. At the same time, cases of the exact opposite meaning are known: exceptionally difficult social conditions with a completely normal initial background can lead to the formation of psychopathy. The same role can be played by biologically harmful environmental influences (brain injuries, infections), especially in the prenatal, natal and early postnatal periods. Finally, the middle position is occupied by cases (they are the majority) in which, according to A.E. Lichko, "the seeds of bad environmental influences fell on endogenously prepared soil suitable for them", i.e. with a genetic predisposition, the child finds himself in conditions of unfavorable upbringing , which leads to the sharpening of certain character traits. So, the analysis of the problem of "biological foundations of character" leads us to the following conclusions.

First, the determinants of character properties should be sought both in the characteristics of the genotypic background and in the characteristics of environmental influences. Secondly, the degree of relative participation of genotypic and environmental factors in the formation of character can be very different. Thirdly, genotypic and environmental influences on character can, so to speak, be summed up algebraically: with an unfavorable combination of both factors, the development of character can give strong degrees of deviation up to pathological forms; with a favorable combination, even a strong genotypic predisposition to anomaly may not be realized, or at least not lead to pathological character deviations.

All these conclusions are very important for psychology. In particular, they force us to put forward as a very urgent task the early diagnosis of character deviations in children and the study of special conditions of education that take into account and, possibly, correct these deviations. Each type of character is not a random conglomerate of properties; a certain pattern emerges in their combinations; or "logic". Tracing this logic is an important task of psychological research, the solution of which, unfortunately, is far from being sufficiently advanced. In almost all descriptions of character types, one can find combinations of very heterogeneous or, better to say, very heterogeneous properties. Simply put, they contain in an undivided form both character traits and personality traits. When characterizing schizoids, E. Kretschmer lists such formal, i.e., properties that do not depend on the direction of behavior (properties of character), as uncommunicativeness, restraint, seriousness, timidity, sentimentality, and, on the other hand, much more meaningful, motivational and personal traits: "the desire to make people happy", "the desire for doctrinaire principles", "unshakable steadfastness of convictions", "purity of views", "perseverance in the struggle for one's ideals", etc. In the description of the paranoid type of P. B. Gannushkin, you can also find the whole the range of psychological characteristics - from purely dynamic to ideological: intense affectivity, perseverance, stubbornness, aggressiveness, rancor, complacency, selfishness, conviction in the special significance of one's own personality. These examples can be multiplied. The "diversity of order" of the traits included in the descriptions of character types, generally speaking, is quite natural. Moreover, they testify to the completeness and impartiality of their authors' perception of the psychological appearance of people. However, these holistic pictures require dissecting analysis. Such an analysis by the authors of character descriptions, as a rule, is not brought to the end: they do not fix the transition in the descriptions from characterological structures proper to personal ones. If, however, in characterological complexes, a mental separation of character traits and personality traits is made, then much will fall into place. First of all, it will become clear that, in fact, "types of characters" show typicality and, therefore. regularity of combinations of certain character traits with certain personality traits. By the way, the latter are sometimes singled out in special headings, where under the names "social attitude", "social meaning" features of social positions and relations are traced, i.e. e. personality traits typical of representatives of each character. And here a very important task arises: to trace why and how certain character traits contribute to the formation of certain personality traits. The psychological literature contains separate attempts to answer these questions, that is, to trace the mechanisms of the emergence of personal qualities in connection with certain pronounced character traits. So, S. Ya. Rubinshtein gives the following explanation of the obsequiousness and hypocrisy of epileptics and epileptoid psychopaths. As already mentioned, the nature of these individuals is characterized by increased anger and malice. Receiving legal "retribution" from peers and adults in response to frequent affective outbursts, a child with this character is looking for ways to protect himself. He finds them in the way of masking his viciousness and temper with obsequious behavior. It is known how crucial for the development of a teenager's personality is his attitude to social norms and values. However, due to the peculiarities of his character, a teenager may find a different attitude towards them. So, hyperthymia usually has a very pronounced "reaction of emancipation", i.e., separation from adults, which, of course, complicates the process of assimilation of social norms. On the contrary, a sensitive adolescent, as a rule, retains a childish attachment to adults, willingly obeys their demands. As a result, a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility, increased and even inflated moral requirements for oneself and others are formed early on. Thus, it can be said that the activity of society, aimed at the formation of personality, as well as the entire process of personality formation as a whole, “meets” different soils in individual characters. And as a result of such meetings, typical combinations of characterological and personal properties arise. They are reflected in the "types of character", although it would be more accurate to speak of "personal character types". I emphasize once again that the typicality of the combinations under discussion does not mean that the personality is predetermined by character, but only a natural manifestation of the role of certain character traits in the process of personality formation.

Now for the reverse, e. about the influence of personality on the fate of character. Manifestations of character are much more immediate than manifestations of personality. When a person "sends" his character, he is rather prompted by what is "natural" to him, that he "wants" or "does not want". When he begins to act as a person, he is guided rather by what "should", what "should", "as it should be". In other words, with the development of personality, a person begins to live more normatively, not only in the sense of a general orientation, but also in the sense of ways of behavior. This can be expressed by the general formula, according to which the personality "removes" the character in its development. It is impossible, however, to think that the "removal" of character traits by a person always occurs. What has been said expresses only the most general tendency. Often this trend is not fully realized, and sometimes it encounters serious obstacles in the form of pronounced character traits, which are further exacerbated by external conditions. In this case, the person is not able to overcome or "rework" his character. Then the latter turns out to be an essential determinant of behavior, and sometimes a brake on the development of the personality (which is observed in psychopathy).

Is there a normal character, and if so, how does it manifest itself? The formal answer to this question seems to be obvious; a normal character, of course, exists: it is a character without deviations. A person has a normal character if he is not too lively - and not too inhibited, not too closed and not too open, not too anxious - and not too carefree ... - and here, continuing, I would have to enumerate all the main features that distinguish, for example, known types of accentuations from each other. In other words, a normal character is the "golden mean" of a number of qualities. Let us first try to realize how typical, that is, how widespread, such a hypothetical character is. Let "normal" be considered such degrees of deviation of some property from the mathematical average, which half of the population possesses; then 1/4 of the population will be located at both poles of the "axis" of this property in the zones of "deviation from the norm". If now we take not one, but two independent properties, then under the same conditions, 1/4 of the population will already be in the "normal" zone, and the remaining 3/4 will fall into the "deviations" zones, with five independent properties, one will be "normal" people out of 32, and with nine - one out of 1024! So it is very difficult to have a "normal" character, and such a phenomenon is quite rare.

Human nature is not even a medal with two sides, but something immeasurably more complex and multifaceted. In one person, for example, a brilliant literary gift and contempt for people, faith in hippie ideals and a craving for violence, progressive philosophical ideas and sexism can be combined. In this list, you will find people you probably know, but a lot of this collection will surprise you.

1. Robert Fisher

His name has long been synonymous with a crazy genius: the eleventh world chess champion is known for his eccentric actions and provocative statements. The last point in his professional career was put in 1972, when Bobby played the last game in a match with the Soviet grandmaster Boris Spassky.

After the victory, Fischer returned to the United States, where he was greeted as a national hero: Robert was invited to participate in numerous television shows, he became a real idol of youth, he was even invited to dinner by President Nixon, but Fischer refused, saying: “I can’t stand it when I looking into my mouth while I chew."

Boris Spassky

Gradually, the chess player got tired of everyone's attention and began to demand money for his appearance in public and participation in events: he took $1,000 for reading a letter, estimated $2,500 for a telephone conversation, demanded $5,000 for a personal meeting, and a full-fledged interview cost journalists $25,000. to loud statements, Fischer did not play another match for the world title, and the general hysteria around him gradually subsided.

He lived in seclusion in California until the late 1980s, then moved to Budapest with an 18-year-old lover, and in 1992 he was offered to play a commercial match with Spassky in Yugoslavia. The United States government declared the match illegal and promised to fine Fischer $250,000 if the meeting took place, in response, the chess genius publicly tore up a written notice from the State Department and spat on him. From then until his death in 2008, Fischer expressed his dislike of the state, whose interests he once represented, in every possible way.

2. Virginia Woolf

As one of the main representatives of modernist literature of the early 20th century, Virginia Woolf made a huge contribution to the development of English literature. Her books have been translated into several languages ​​and are still sold in millions of copies. Despite an outstanding literary gift, and perhaps because of it, Virginia in life was distinguished by arrogance and a difficult character.

The writer was convinced that only the wealthiest people should have the right to education, and in her diaries, recently published, Woolf wrote about the pity and disgust that she feels for her servants. She believed that these people deserved more, but at the same time she wrote that they were not allowed to enjoy life as deeply as she did. Eventually, Virginia got to the point where she tried to control the servants by leaving notes all over the place, and when they didn't follow her written instructions, she wrote in her diary that it only confirmed the stupidity of the working class people.

3. Richard Dawkins

English ethologist (researcher of animal behavior) and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is known throughout the world as the inventor of the concept of "meme", which he first used in the book "The Selfish Gene", published in 1976. Dawkins is a critic of the concepts of creationism and intelligent design, the author of the sensational work The God Delusion, and also one of the most active so-called Internet trolls.

The scientist regularly arranges provocations in the network and creates scandalous information situations. For example, when Rebecca Watson, founder of the www.scepchick.org blog, published a story about how she was attempted to be raped, Dawkins left several sexist and derogatory comments on her website from the perspective of a fictional Muslim woman named Muslimah.

Rebecca Watson

In general, the meaning of Richard's statements was that Rebecca has no right to complain about her negative experience, since it is quite trivial compared to everything that happens in the world. Perhaps in this way the scientist tried to reinforce his statements that the Internet serves as a means of spreading religious hatred and various conspiracy theories.

The professor has gained an ambiguous reputation as a merciless critic of religion, alternative medicine and various pseudosciences. Peremptory judgments and provocative actions have led to the fact that even at the age of 72, Dawkins remains one of the most scandalous figures in modern science.

4. Aristotle

This name is familiar to everyone, even those who have forgotten most of the course of ancient history that they take at school. Aristotle is not only one of the greatest philosophers, thinkers and statesmen in history, the ancient Greek scientist was noted for his works on sociology, politics, logic, physics, mathematics, studied natural sciences and wrote poetry.

Of course, the genius, like all people, had its shortcomings: Aristotle was distinguished by extremely conservative (even for those times) views on the relationship between a man and a woman, he believed that in a family a wife should be practically in the position of a slave, up to that she should eat less than her husband. The philosopher believed that women are something like inferior men, so gender equality, by definition, cannot be.

It can be assumed that more than two thousand years ago such views were quite common, but at the same time, women were far from being treated everywhere as “second-class” people: for example, Spartan women were not infringed on their rights and participated in public life polis on a par with men. When Gorgo, one of the Spartan queens, was asked why women are so respected in Sparta, she answered with a smile: "Because only Spartan women give birth to men."

5. Isaac Newton

Everyone knows that this English physicist and naturalist created the theory of gravity, studied the optical properties of light and left behind many works in mathematics, mechanics and philosophy, which determined the development of science for centuries to come.

Robert Hooke

In 1675, Newton had a conflict with another luminary of British science - Robert Hooke, who stated that Newton used his hypotheses in his treatises on the nature of light and the theory of gravity, in fact, Hooke accused his colleague of plagiarism, saying that he had previously grasped the essence of these phenomena.

Some historians suggest that Newton really deliberately used his influence and authority so that Hooke's work, in which one can really find formulations of the law of universal gravitation and reflections on interference and the propagation of light, did not receive due recognition. Newton openly called Hooke an idiot and insisted that he was right. Both scientists have gone down in history, but Isaac Newton is known as the author of many fundamental theories and the founder of several scientific concepts, and Robert Hooke is famous mainly because of a quarrel with him.

6. Thomas Edison

Recently, the reputation of Thomas Edison as one of the greatest inventors and scientists has been questioned more than once, allegedly due to the fact that Nikola Tesla did most of the work for him, but there is no convincing evidence for this, and Edison is still one of the greatest minds in the world. the history of mankind.

The opposition of scientists at some point resulted in the so-called "war of currents" - a dispute about the predominant use of direct current in experiments (Edison advocated this) and alternating current, which Tesla insisted on.

Despite the fact that the scientific achievements of both geniuses had a noticeable impact on the development of technology and the widespread use of electricity, the two outstanding minds of their time could not resolve the differences. Edison arranged demonstrative killings of animals using alternating current in order to discredit Tesla's concept, and although he partially succeeded - alternating current was used to execute criminals in the so-called electric chair - time proved that Tesla's theories were in many ways much more progressive and more promising than Edison's works. .

7. Nikola Tesla

An outstanding scientist whose experiments revolutionized science and technology, Tesla is one of the most odious and mysterious figures of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The researcher is famous not only for his inventions and participation in the "war of currents", but also for his extremely strange behavior. It is known, for example, that Tesla suffered from a personality disorder, was terribly clean, avoided spherical objects like billiard balls, and settled only in hotel rooms with a number that was a multiple of three.

In addition, the inventor was an adherent of the so-called eugenics - the concept of universal selection, with the help of which it is necessary to influence the genetic development of mankind. In other words, Tesla believed that people with physical and mental disabilities should not have the right to offspring in order for the gene pool to become cleaner and better. All his life, Tesla promoted this idea in every possible way and even spoke out for the fact that carriers of low-quality genetic material were subjected to forced sterilization.

Of course, if we take into account only the rational side of the issue, Tesla may have been right, but the genius forgot that a person is valuable not only for his DNA, but also for his moral qualities, which he just lacked.

8. John Lennon

It is difficult to overestimate the influence of The Beatles on the culture and society of the second half of the 20th century and the present, the Liverpool Four became a real phenomenon, they were worshiped and envied, they were known and idolized by the whole world. Although the members of the team were equal, most of the attention of the press and the public, as a rule, was riveted to John Lennon, not least because of his eccentric antics and shocking statements.

His behavior did not always fit into moral and ethical standards: John often gave a resounding slap in the face to public opinion and taste, sometimes descending to direct insults, and in an interview with Playboy magazine, the musician admitted that he sometimes beat women. Not everyone is aware of this fact now, many believe that John Lennon was the personification of pacifism and adhered to the beliefs of hippies, however, as practice shows, composing "Imagine" and putting it into practice is not the same thing.

9. James Cameron

The legendary filmmaker, almost every creation of which becomes a cult, James Cameron can rightfully be proud of himself. Despite the scandals involving Cameron, when he nailed someone else's cell phone to the wall or drove actresses into hysterics, his reputation as the creator of the highest-grossing films in cinema history remains high.

The heavy nature of the genius of modern blockbusters is confirmed by numerous testimonies of members of his film crew: the director is called nothing more than "Iron Jim" ("Iron Jim") for his authoritarian leadership style and demand for unquestioning obedience.

10. Henry Ford

If not for Henry Ford, it is not known what humanity would be driving now. The American industrialist made a real revolution by introducing assembly line production in his automobile factories. This allowed him to flood the country, and then the whole world with a huge number of cheap cars and in a short time become one of the most influential businessmen on the planet. The principles formulated by Ford are still defining not only in the automotive industry, but also in many other industries.

Perhaps the most obnoxious character is actress Lindsay Lohan. She constantly gets into some unpleasant incidents. This summer, the media printed with enviable consistency the news about the unbearable Li Luo. For example, $100,000 jewelry theft scandal(At the party, she "wrapped" all the owner's jewelry in a T-shirt and gave them to friends, supposedly for safekeeping). The public did not have time to calm down about this, and Li Lo is already throwing up a new scandal: in her Porsche, she knocked down a man on the sidewalk and calmly left the scene.

And here is the latest incident - Li Lo's loud quarrel, which turned into a fight with... his own mother. True, mama is not a blunder there either. After the "girls" took a walk in a nightclub, they decided to find out money relations. Lindsey suddenly remembered that she lent her mother 40 thousand American money, for which her mother was very offended and began to call names and insult her famous daughter. The skirmish turned into a fight, the neighbors (as usual in America) called the police just in case. And not in vain - who knows how this massacre would have ended, the police barely separated the fighting relatives. As a result: shame, cuts and abrasions on the arms, legs and faces of both "beauties".

Madonna

The name of this singer is put on a par with the words "outrageous" and "scandal". The American pop star herself says this about herself: "I gesticulate a lot, cry a lot, I'm very emotional, I have a disgusting character, and I like beautiful shoes ... Just like a real Italian."

In the 1980s, her petushnitsa image, vulgarly made up and tastelessly dressed, blew up public opinion. And she climbed the musical Olympus, sweeping away everything in her path. She was impudent, capricious, narcissistic and violated all taboos. She was scolded for debauchery, for sleeping and using men for selfish purposes, she was accused of all mortal sins, even excommunicated from the church. But no one could blame her for laziness and lack of talent. Everything she has today, she deserves.

Madonna continues to shock everyone today. Each of her concerts is an event in the world of music, each of her performances is a scandal. So this year, the concerts of the 54-year-old singer were heard by everyone, they were accompanied by noise in the press and even a ban in some countries. In Muslim Istanbul, she made a real splash, exposing her chest, and in Rome she showed her bare ass. In Tel Aviv, during the performance of one of the compositions, a photograph of the current leader of the French nationalist party, Marine Le Pen, with a swastika on his forehead and a Hitler mustache above his upper lip, appeared for a few seconds on a plasma screen, and in Moscow, she publicly announced her support for the Pussy Riot group.

Naomi Campbell

Naomi is called "bitch" and "black panther" - she really has an unbridled and wild temperament. Only the lazy did not write about the outbursts of aggression of the beauties: she broke furniture, threw phones, threw tantrums and canceled shows, beat journalists, maids and policemen. No matter how they tried to rein her in, sentencing her to community service, Campbell still proved - it can not be ironed "against the coat"!

However, there was a man who was able to "tame this wild cat" - for several years Naomi has been living safely with Russian oligarch Vladislav Doronin. They say that her temperament pacified, and prayers and a healthy lifestyle helped this (according to the model herself). But something tells me that this is only a temporary calm before some kind of storm.

Angelina Jolie

In Hollywood, she is called "the bitch with the angelic face." The complex nature of the actress began to manifest itself in childhood. At school, she was called a "difficult" child, even diagnosed as "sociopathy". Angelina did not argue - she did not want to be a good girl. She dressed in all black, and in drawing lessons, instead of flowers, she painted cemetery crosses and coffins, she liked to shock others.

Extravagant Angie came to her wedding with Johnny Lee Miller not in a white wedding dress, but in black trousers and a snow-white T-shirt, on which she wrote the name of Johnny Lee in blood. It is even strange that the marriage lasted for three whole years. With her second husband, actor Billy Bob Thornton, they got married secretly, and Billy had a bride at that time. Angelina stole her third husband, Brad Pitt, from his wife, Jennifer Aniston. This time the marriage was surprisingly strong. The couple have three adopted and three children together. It seems that Angelina has calmed down, finally, she is actively involved in peacekeeping and charity work. True, from time to time bitchiness comes out. For example, she could not comment on the upcoming wedding of Pitt's ex-wife Jennifer Aniston with Justin Theroux. Jolie called Aniston "neurotic", foreshadowing a quick divorce.

Sandra Bullock

“My character is not sugar,” the famous actress says about herself. This is confirmed by colleagues in the workshop - it is really difficult to work with her: she can publicly make a remark and speak harshly about her partner's game. BUT in everyday life Sandra is a bore: despite the fact that she is surprisingly energetic, she is terribly fond of controlling everyone, making sure that everything is done accurately and on time. She and in the movies likes to play bitches, explaining this by the fact that all women at heart are bitches.

Bullock loves motorcycles, beer and tequila, she almost never does sex scenes. True, recently the actress showed her breasts in one of the TV shows, and the audience could only rejoice at the magnificent shape of 48-year-old Sandra: she has a luxurious figure and a slender, toned body.

Bad character does not prevent Bullock from being a gentle mother and an enthusiastic fan: the star often writes admiring letters to colleagues.

Heather Mills

Former top model and ex-wife of Paul McCartney Heather Mills can top any ranking of the most bitchy celebrities. at home, in England she is called "one-legged witch". Even despite the misfortune that happened to her in her youth (she was hit by a motorcyclist, she had to amputate her leg above the knee), she is not loved. In the biography of Heather Mills there was prostitution, and shooting in pornographic sessions, and stealing jewelry from the store where she worked. Heather later successfully sold all these details of her life to the tabloids.

And yet, it must be admitted that Heather, although a bad, but strong character - she did not become discouraged after the amputation of her leg, while still in the hospital she had an affair with a broker, and 3 weeks after the operation she danced on a prosthesis, swam and played tennis. She continued her modeling career, became a TV presenter, founded a charitable foundation to help victims of mines and traveled half the world on a mission of compassion and ... married ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. Absolutely everyone was against this wedding, but Paul was fascinated by the strength of the spirit of this woman.

After a four-year nightmare, McCartney filed for divorce. Their divorce proceedings, in which the ex-model publicly rinsed McCartney's underwear, was one of the dirtiest in modern history. Heather demanded half of the fortune of the former member of the Liverpool Four. In numerous interviews, she tried in every possible way to denigrate him: she said that he was not only an alcoholic, but also a drug addict. And to the same a sadist: he strangled his unfortunate wife several times, tried to mutilate her with a broken trough, banged his head on a coffee table. As a result, she managed to win about 25 million pounds from McCartney.

Sir Paul did not respond to the attacks, he did not utter a word in court, he looked pale and tired. After the divorce, he became a patient of one of the neurological clinics and even underwent heart surgery.

Megan Fox

Actress Megan Fox is called "Hollywood Madonna" because of her disgusting nature and bold statements. During the filming of "Transformers" she often made scandals. For example, she threw a tantrum when director Michael Bay asked her to gain weight and get a tan, called him Hitler. And in one interview she said that "it would be better if transformers rid the world" of an overdressed white trash who fights with homosexuals with a Bible under his arm.

Later, she admitted that she likes to sleep with girls no less than with guys. She dealt a big blow to fans of young actors Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron, calling them "immature": "Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron are just pretty boys with long hair and funny suits. And how old are they? Rob is 22? Zac is 21? This is ridiculous "All these 20-year-old boys are a waste of time. There is simply nothing to talk about with them, they are immature."

John Galliano

Designers must surprise the public by definition - that's their job. The more unusual and shocking the collection, the better. But among fashion designers there are those who turn life into an eternal show, while they are absolutely sure that a talented person can do and say absolutely everything, because he is great. Until recently, the leading designer of the Dior fashion house, John Galliano, also thought so.

The eccentric fashion designer really forgave a lot for the time being. Until a year ago, in one of the Parisian cafes, he did not allow himself antisemitic remarks in relation to the people sitting at the next table. At the same time, the designer, without hiding, admitted his sympathy for Hitler. Overnight, the talented designer lost his post as art director at the fashion house where he had worked since 1996.

But, most importantly, he lost his reputation. For a long time, Galliano had to hide from the storm of public indignation, the fashion world also turned its back on the designer. Not even a public apology helped.

And here is a new blow - The current President of France Francois Hollande deprived the designer of the Order of the Legion of Honor, which at one time handed him Nicolas Sarkozy. For Galliano, this was the "boiling point", he decided to go "all in" and filed a labor lawsuit against Christian Dior in the amount of 15 million euros. The trial will take place in February next year.

Philip Kirkorov

The favorite of the paparazzi is known for his unrestrained character. And the fault for this is excessive emotionality, the singer himself believes. The story of a journalist from Rostov has become a textbook in Russian journalism. At a press conference, the girl asked: why does the singer have so many remakes? And then Ostap (Philip) suffered: "Your pink blouse annoys me, your boobs and your microphone." This phrase became winged, and the scandal even got the name "pink blouse, boobs and a microphone."

And then - more. During the rehearsal of the "Golden Gramophone" he was so angry with the young assistant director for shining too brightly in his "starry face" that he simply beat her. The singer was then treated for several weeks in a psychiatric hospital in Israel.

Philip knows how to make trouble in social networks. Here is a recent one - a public skirmish between the pop king and rapper Timati on Twitter. They argued about the Muz-TV awards: Timati expressed doubts about the fairness of the awards, Kirkorov retorted and called for professional ethics. Timati didn’t go into his pocket for a word - he remembered all the cases of the singer’s “professional” behavior and called him a “stuffed animal”. The funny thing is that this scandal literally "teared" the Russian showbiz into two camps: some sided with the rapper, others defended the "pop star".

Zemfira

"Scandal Girl" burst into our lives like a hurricane. Her songs in the late 90s drove all the girls crazy: beautiful music, caustic words, anti-glamorous image - all this attracted. According to her beloved friend, director and actress Renata Litvinova, with whom they lived together for many years, "Zemfira is a genius living among us. This is the most important person in my life, and these are the words of a woman in love."

She rarely gives interviews, but those who know her admit that Zemfira has a complex and scandalous character. She then the plumber will hit the kidneys, then the journalist will move the camera. Because of such a cool disposition, the performer has no friends. And only Renata Litvinova can cope with the difficult nature of a rock star. Or rather, she could - Zemfira and Renata no longer live together, the actress has a new romance with a Frenchwoman, and, according to some reports, she is going to leave for France.

And 35-year-old Zemfira, finally realizing that the reason for her loneliness is a harsh temper and a bad character, she decided to learn how to manage her anger. She really wants to cultivate patience in herself. We hope this will help the talented singer find new friends and become happy.

Liked the article? Let others rejoice - click on the button of your favorite social network and share interesting news with your friends! And we remind you that we will be happy to see you in our groups, where every day we publish not only useful, but also funny. Join: we

Each person has certain characteristics, which are expressed in emotional manifestations, the selection of specific actions and reactions. All this happens automatically and is defined by people as character traits. There are many personality types for quickly determining what kind of person is happening.

We all know what character is. This is a set of qualities that are inherent in a particular person. Character is developed throughout life. In childhood, he is flexible and quickly changing. Over the years, it acquires greater stability and at the end is fixed .. What is it and what features does this phenomenon have, the article will tell.

What is the nature of a person?

Each person faces the character of another person. What it is? This is a characteristic of the psyche, which combines permanent and stable qualities that determine the behavior and attitude of the individual. Translated from Greek, character means "feature", "sign". This is a stable characteristic that affects behavior, responses, activities and individual manifestations of a person.

We can say that the character of a person determines the whole life of a person, his fate. They say that fate is predetermined. In fact, a person who does not obey specific rules and strategies creates his own destiny, which he then lives.

By changing the character, you can change the fate, because the character determines the reaction, behavior, decisions of a person that he takes in a particular situation. If you look closely, you can see that people who are similar in character live the same life. Only the details differ, but their ways and behavior are the same.

Character is formed throughout a person's life. At any moment it can be changed, which in adulthood is possible only under the influence of one's own desire and willpower. If a person cannot change his character, then his life does not change and its development is predictable.

Personality traits

The character changes depending on the type of activity, society, social circle, attitude towards oneself and the world as a whole. If any of these aspects change, then this can affect the change in the quality of character. If everything in a person's life remains unchanged, then the character traits remain unchanged.

Personality traits

The character of a person is also formed under the influence of the values ​​and moral beliefs that a person uses. The more stable they are, the more a person is fixed in his behavior and manifestations. The main feature of a personal character is its certainty, where one can note the leading features, of which there are always several. The certainty of character disappears if there are no stable qualities.

Character is also based on the interests that a person has. The more stable and constant they are, the more a person becomes purposeful, persistent and whole in his manifestations.

You can determine the characteristics of the character of another person by his actions and their orientation. Both the actions and the results that he achieves at the end of their commission are important. They are what characterize a person.

Temperament and personality

The interrelation and character of the personality is looked through. Although these characteristics are determined by the human psyche, they are different values. Temperament is determined by the structure of the nervous system, which makes it an innate quality, the manifestations of which cannot be changed, but you can just do something.

Character is a flexible aspect that develops throughout life. A person can change it, which is determined by his life activity.

Character is formed on the basis of the temperament with which a person was born. Temperament can be called the basis on which the entire branch of his character traits is built. At the same time, the temperament does not change from external circumstances and the type of activity.

Temperament is characterized by three directions, each of which has its own complex structure:

1. Mobility (activity). It manifests itself in vigorous activity, self-expression, manifestation of oneself, which can be both sluggish and overly active.
2. Emotionality. There is a variety of moods and flow of feelings. Defined:

• Lability is the rate of change from one mood to another.
• Impressibility - the depth of perception of external emotional stimuli.
• Impulsivity - the speed at which an emotion transforms into a motivating force for taking actions without thinking about it and making a decision to carry it out.

1. Motility.

Personality character types

Psychologists of different times tried to identify types of personality characters to identify specific groups of people. E. Kretschmer identified 3 groups of people according to their body type:

1. Picnic people, prone to gaining excess weight, short in stature, with a large face, neck, plump. They are easily adaptable to the conditions of the world, sociable and emotional.
2. Athletic people, characterized by well-developed muscles, are tall and broad-shouldered, hardy and with a large chest. They are not impressionable, domineering, calm and practical, restrained in gestures and facial expressions, and do not adapt well.
3. Asthenic people, characterized by thinness and underdeveloped muscles, a narrow face, long arms and legs, a flat chest. They are stubborn and serious, withdrawn and poorly adapted to change.

K. Jung proposed another typology that divides people according to the type of thinking:

• Extroverts. Very sociable and active people who tend to make many acquaintances. They are straight and open. They love to travel, have parties, be the soul of the company. They are guided by objective circumstances, and not by the subjective opinions of people.
• Introverts. Very closed and fenced off from the world people. They have few friends as it is difficult for them to make contacts. Constantly analyze everything that is happening. They are very anxious and prefer solitude.

Another classification divides people into 4 psychotypes depending on their combination of character and temperament:

1. Cholerics are unbalanced, fast, impulsive, passionate people. They are quickly depleted due to the senseless expenditure of strength. Prone to emotional outbursts and mood swings.
2. Phlegmatic people are stable in their manifestations, emotions and views, unhurried, unflappable people. They are inclined to calmness and poise, perseverance in work. Outwardly they do not show emotions.
3. Melancholic people are vulnerable people who are prone to constantly experiencing emotions. Very impressionable, sharply react to external manifestations.
4. Sanguine people are lively, mobile and active people. They react quickly to external circumstances and tend to receive many impressions. Productive at work. Easily tolerate failures and troubles.

The psychological nature of the personality

The changes that occur in the psychological character of a person are divided into regular (typical) and individual (atypical).

Regular changes occur as a person grows up and goes through certain changes in his body. Children's features disappear, being replaced by adults. Childish traits include capriciousness, irresponsibility, fears, tearfulness. For adults - wisdom, life experience, tolerance, reasonableness, prudence, etc.

Much here is determined by the situations that a person often encounters. Communication with people, various circumstances, successes and failures, tragedies determine the change of views and values ​​in a person. This is why people in the same age group differ from each other, because everyone had their own life experience. Here individual traits are formed, which depend on the life circumstances through which each person passes.

Traits change faster if they are similar to or include previous traits.

The social nature of personality

The social character of a person is understood as those qualities that should be characteristic of absolutely all people of this or that society. Going into society, a person must show not only individual traits, but also those qualities that are considered acceptable, approved, normal. Such a set is formed by society, the media, culture, upbringing, educational institutions, religion, etc. It should be noted that parents raise their children also depending on the framework and norms that are accepted in society.

According to E. Fromm, the social character of a person is a way of adapting a person to the society in which he is located. This is an unpunished and free way of existence in a particular society. He believed that no society allows a person to realize himself in full force, since he always dictates his own rules and norms, which should be above individual characteristics and desires. That is why a person is always in conflict with society, when he must obey in order to be accepted, or tries to protest, which can be punished.

Society will never allow a person to express himself in full force, which prevents him from realizing his inclinations and harms the individual himself. There must be a distortion of character, when everyone adjusts himself to certain limits and norms accepted in society. Only by developing a social character in a person does society make him safe for himself. It is not the personality that is important here, but its safe manifestations, which will be acceptable in society. Otherwise, there will be punishment for any individual self-expression that does not fit into the framework.

Personal character accentuation

Under the accentuation of the character of the personality is understood a set of qualities that are clearly manifested by the individual within the normal range. It is divided into:

• Hidden - traits that appear infrequently or never at all. However, under certain conditions, they can appear.
• Explicit - features that appear to the extreme degree of the norm and are characterized by constancy.

K. Leongrad identified types of accentuation:

1. Hysterical - a thirst for attention, egocentrism, a need for reverence and approval, recognition of individual characteristics.
2. Hyperthymic - sociability, mobility, a tendency to mischief, excessive independence.
3. Asthenoneurotic - anxiety, high fatigue.
4. Psychosthenic - indecision, a tendency to demagogy, analysis and introspection, suspiciousness.
5. Schizoid - detachment, isolation, lack of sociability.
6. Excitable - periodic dreary moods, accumulation of irritation.
7. Sensitive - increased touchiness, sensitivity, shyness.
8. Infantile-dependent - a delay in childhood when a person does not take responsibility.
9. Emotionally labile - mood variability.
10. Unstable - a tendency to idleness, pleasure, entertainment, idleness.

Outcome

The nature of a person often helps in understanding the person himself, since everything revolves around his inner world, which has manifestations in the form of reactions, emotions, behavior, actions, and even achievements that are currently available. Consideration various types character can lead to the following result - a quick and easy understanding of people.

Character is a flexible characteristic that can be changed at any time. It can change both unconsciously and under the influence of the willpower of a person who controls the manifestation of a particular quality. The longer a person manifests a particular quality, the more it is fixed and becomes one of his characteristics that influence the future development of life.