Human Beings Have Always Been

Human beings have always been consumed by a drive to define themselves in relation to some criteria. The present work is focused on analyzing theories of self in society, with special emphasis on intelligence theories and those that are insightful of the learning process.

In the course of establishing who they are exactly, individuals most frequently make use of some type of social activity for the purpose of unveiling and expressing the self. In this sense, people employ certain jobs, hobbies, arts, sporting activities, and forms of education that are meant to act as continuous expressions of who they are. Thus, the search for self is dependent on action, and it is the various activities that reveal who people are, through the talents and capacities that they may develop.

On the other hand, this essentially dynamic mechanism suggests that "the self may not be pre-given: it is not something hidden that we have to find, but something that has to be made" (Burkitt, 2008). Based on this statement, it can be concluded that in the course of his lifetime, an individual constantly defines and redefines, creates and recreates his self, which makes life a continuous learning process conditioned by intelligence.

Carol Dweck was the first to identify two particular theories of intelligence derived from the process of learning, namely entity and incremental (Self-theories). Even though these theories of intelligence are opposites of each other and remain relatively stable for a person over time, they possess the quality of being interchangeable for the same individual throughout his lifetime. In terms of proportions, it is alleged that nearly "40% of adults and children endorse an entity theory of intelligence, about 40% endorse an incremental theory, and about 20% are undecided" (Dweck & Master, 2008).

Entity theorists are those individuals who perceive intelligence as having a certain static value, being an unchangeable, fixed internal instrument, which cannot be outwardly influenced over time. This outlook, when applied to the educational process, has been found to cause learners to have a high desire to prove their selves to others, through behavior patterns designed for appearing smart and avoiding to seem unintelligent. Another risk that comes with this approach is the susceptibility to learned helplessness, meaning that students may feel that circumstances are outside of their control, and so easily give up when faced with challenges. Apart from that, they may even undertake extremely difficult tasks that would ensure failure, and thus justify it.

The entity theory stipulates that success or failure of an endeavor is automatically correlated to what is perceived to be an innate level of intelligence rather than personal effort, which may lead individuals into believing that failure occurs from a natural limitation of their intelligent capacities. Interestingly, Dweck claims that people with a long history of success may be predisposed to learn helplessness because they may equate their continuous success with an intrinsic high value of intelligence (Self-theories).

By contrast, the incremental theory is about perceiving intelligence as akin to a muscle which can be exercised through effort, and thus improved. Unlike entity theorists, incremental theorists maintain that an amount of effort put into the learning process, and into strategy development, undoubtedly increases the value of intelligence (Self-Theories). In this case, individuals shift their attention from what the outcome could potentially say about them, to what they can actually gain from tackling the challenge. Therefore, it becomes clear that these students take every opportunity to master obstacles, and so immediately invest much effort into evaluating and electing the best strategies to approach the task with. Considering the two theories related to intelligence in the learning process, it is visible that the first is correlated with external motivation and is decisively negative, whereas the latter is described as significantly more desirable and attached to internal motivation.

Motivation, as vital component of the learning process, is supported by three major theories, namely that of self-efficacy, of self-worth, and of self-determination (Module 17: Self Theories), which are altogether based on competence in shaping the self. Self-efficacy can be defined as an individual's expectation that he is capable of successfully performing an activity. According to the self-worth theory, individuals need a constant positive appraisal of their own value as persons, and the way to protect their self-worth is by entertaining the belief that they are competent. Finally, the self-determination theory asserts that human beings possess universal, inherent needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

What transpires from the three theories of motivation is the fact that human beings need to envision their selves as competent, which would entirely justify an inherent desire to explore and attempt mastery of certain skills. At the very root of self-efficacy is the personal belief that one has the knowledge or skills to succeed in a given activity, whereas self-worth is grounded in the basic need to defend individual perception of competence. Lastly, the need to feel competent is central to the motivational striving for self-determination. Interestingly, students with a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to "engage in self-regulatory processes such as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and effective strategy use" (Module 17: Self Theories).

Moreover, in order to successfully initiate activities in the surrounding environment for the purpose of achieving and maintaining competence, an individual also needs to feel safe while doing so, and the feeling of security comes from the existence of relatedness, or the social awareness of being connected to others. Additionally, it would be interesting to note that behavior is viewed as internally regulated in all three theories, and thus is not of a pressured or otherwise externally controlled origin. Self-efficacy is domain-specific, which means that it involves expectations about reaching a particular goal. Similarly, self-determination is domain-specific insofar as the implicit sense of autonomy is directly dependent on the given situation.