Might it not be more correct to suggest that statues corresponds to some inate ability rather than believe in some probably unrealistic hypothesis that statues is merely acting? The latter seems to appeal more to such ideals as individuals have unlimited power, so much so that they can rise from a low statues to a high statues by no real effort to change the external world but merely their internal psychological perception.
It is very much ridiculous I suspect. Especially as he begins with a description of personality where he makes it very clear that the traits are not internal but rather respond to external circumstances. I suspect however even here that there are some innate traits which differentiate in some level ones response to a circumstance from another's.
I understand that the article seemed to be reviewing a book or a theatre play, but that seems to be only the springboard as the content focuses more on explaining some very complex phenomena. Needles to say, the article is merely opinions and as such should probably not have been written at all. We live in a scientific age. We all have opinions, but very little of us have facts or the willingness to synthesise facts into a meaningful whole.
It is very much ridiculous I suspect. Especially as he begins with a description of personality where he makes it very clear that the traits are not internal but rather respond to external circumstances. I suspect however even here that there are some innate traits which differentiate in some level ones response to a circumstance from another's.
I understand that the article seemed to be reviewing a book or a theatre play, but that seems to be only the springboard as the content focuses more on explaining some very complex phenomena. Needles to say, the article is merely opinions and as such should probably not have been written at all. We live in a scientific age. We all have opinions, but very little of us have facts or the willingness to synthesise facts into a meaningful whole.