At What Point In Your Life Did Your Personality Get "Set" (If Indeed, It Ever Did)

I think I would disagree with Tuomas on that. I've had my fair share of 'meaningful experiences' ... becoming a parent, coping with bereavement etc etc .. but those experiences haven't changed my essential identity. They've perhaps served to hone things, make me stronger, more able to deal with problems, given me a certain degree of maturity and understanding etc, but I do think underneath it all I am still very much the same person I have always been.

But this very quote depends on the idea that there is some single self, to be true to.

Yet there are some things - personality quirks, recurring interests, abilities - that seem to "set" at a certain age, and even though the external self may change from situation to situation, these quirks remain, some kind of core.

I had the ability to get intensely absorbed in books or films that would change the way I thought or acted for a while afterwards, in a way that never happens now.

There is a reason for this question - people in adolescence often go through very quick changes, and are malleable, and this is perfectly normal. In our society, adolescence often reaches into the early to mid 20s.

After that, my general experience is that in most people, there is a kind of a settling - not as in "settling for" but more the idea of a house settling on its foundations.

I'm just wondering if this observation is similar for people mine own age and older. Especially interested in the opinions of those that are older than me.

People who are constantly assuming and discarding new personnas produce a deep revulsion in me. It's not just disdain that I see it as being down to their assuming the personality of their latest lover, whatever that is. It is something deeper and more primeaval than that.

Ask me what the worst sin is, and I would probably answer "falseness".

I think of examples from art of chameleons - even artists who totally "reinvent themselves" on a regular basis - David Bowie and Madonna spring to mind as the usual examples - seem to carry across many basic themes.

I think that people do "settle for" lifestyles or even lovers. But the idea that they could "settle for" a personality is absurd.

Are you either saying that 1) your lifestyle/partner/situation is in many ways your personality or that 2) people settle for certain aspects of their personality that they'd like to change?

x-post

I always thought Bowie's chameleon nature is massively over-rated: "er, now I'm the Thin White Duke".

I suspect Stella Street captured him best.

A desire for security is perhaps a personality trait, perhaps a basic human need.

One you stop being open to any kind of change - e.g. Miss Haversham style - you could surely be said to have settled for a personality?

Settling for a lifestyle is the same as settling for a personality that can inhabit that lifestyle, I'd have said.

Words fail me.

Or at least they would if I didn't know what this thread was really about, in which case words are pointless.

Who's to say that wasn't their personality in the first place, that enabled them to "settle".

Also, what would appear to you to be settling - or to me to be settling - might actually be "growing up and getting a perspective on what is actually important" to others.

It's not saying that bereavement in itself is simply an 'aberration".

If you took an adapted Lockean idea of psychological continuity, then perhaps certain traits becoming a Fundamental to your personality are actually aspirants rather than realities - you are identifying your self with your future self who has none of the bad traits but all of the fundamentals. The bad bits don't belong to the same person. Having said this, the most continuous sides of 'me' appear to all be negative (but perhaps this still works - if one has changed in other ways then one hangs on to the awfulness because it is the only part left that makes you 'you').

Or perhaps this is all badly-explained psuedo-psychological bollocks.

But, like I say, that's not what this thread is actually about, so I'll shut up now.

[sucks through teeth, it'll cost yah but I've got these polish blokes who'll so it it double quick time]

Personality and self is very much about adapting to situation and experience through growth and change. There is a settling over time but it does not preclude radical change.

This is a very very interesting idea and one I need to think about.

That what we think of as our "selves" are maybe our "perfected self" that we would aspire to.

Though aspirations also change over the course of a lifetime. Somtimes.

All it takes to do something out of character or to go against your nature is a conscious decision to do so. It's really very easy - the difficulty, be it moral or spiritual or whatever, is something we manufacture.

Character or personaliy is a fascinating product of many different ingredients - social, familial, genetic, cultural, physical - and it will and does change as those ingredients change.

I am not really aware of what my personality is on any objective level - if asked I might reply glibly in a manner similar to anyone else; generous, fun, solemn, liberal, reserved, charming, whatever; but these terms are arbitrarily chosen. I don't know what "my voice" as a writer is, for instance, yet I'm told I have one by other people. I'm unconvinced.

I think we put too much emphasis on locating the self, in all probability.

Especially since tearing down and rebuilding is so costly and time-consuming.

And again, at middle age, when you realise that your body has hit its peak, and from now on, things don't necessarily renew themselves. This realisation about the body and the self - the mid life crisis - can be as life-changing and priority-changing as adolescence.

Also, I don't think this is necessarily true. For people with a certain character, some ideas will simply not even dawn on them, let alone the idea of acting on them. (We may call this character trait innocence, "goodness" or "willfull navite" depending on the act in question.)

multi-x-post

I think **behaviour** does not equal **personality**. I can walk into a room of strangers and appear to be confident, friendly and at ease. I'm acting. Essentially I'm a loner - self-contained and happier on my own or with people that I know v.well. That's the way that I'll always be.

I know John Lilly did some research with floatation tanks - but thoughts didn't disappear in that isolated environment.

So THAT'S what happened in Altered States!

However, I've noticed that some people feel this sort of conscious changing yourself is somehow worse than just changing non-deliberately, and I can't see the reason for that.

No, I don't think so. So long as the change is internally-directed from your own desires and expectations, rather than an external pressure. Even if the external pressure may have "your best interests" at heart, change can only really come from inside. [/Dr. Cuddles, psychotherapist]

Was is Saussure who said that language structures identity? I forget (undergrad study is a long time ago now!) but nevertheless it's an idea I agree with largely. I think, for instance, that it's vastly significant psychologically that English is the only major world language that I know of which priviliges the self-singular pronoun by capitalising it - making "I" more important than "you", "we", "them" or "us" at a very basic, learn-it-at-school way. It stands to reason that if you learn this as an infant, and obey it, then it becomes a part of your socio-cultural make-up, your personality.

I agree with Tuomas re; deliberate and chosen character change. I've done it myself on occasion, and I find the idea that it's frowned upon by so many interesting.

There are schools of thought/psychology that disagree. (I don't necessarily agree, but there are.) That if you act a certain way on a regular basis (happy, self confident, etc.) you will eventually become that way.

Also, the "going native" experience - if you act a role for long enough and deep enough, you will become what you are acting.

But I don't necessarily agree - there are some things (intraversion/extroversion) which are hardwired into you, and may be from birth.

I just don't get this. It seems to me that for all meaningful purposes, you are what you do. Or rather I don't see why your self-image should be any truer than the way you behave.

But I'm going to be boring and say that there's no such thing as a stable identity, anyway.

I don't believe that; you can learn or train yourself out of these and other traits. Human nature is wonderfully malleable.

How do you separate between external pressures and your own desires? The desire to change is always a result of some external impulse, if nothing in the outside world made us reconsider our thinking and behaviour, change would never happen.

I also think though, and this is something I say to my girlfriend a lot when she says she doens't understand how some people can be naturally confident, that the people one might perceive as "confident" probably don't think of themselves in any defined and emphatic way as being "a confident person" - they're just doing stuff ina certain way. Obv. you get a certain type of person (EXETER GRADUATES!!!!) who say "I'm a confident go-getter" but again, I imagine that's either hollow bragadoccio or deliberate obfuscation / self-help in many, many occasions.

Though going along with what I was saying above, Acting is an ability. By Acting, I mean, being able to convincingly feign actions that may be other than what you actually feel/are.

Abilities can be just as much a part of a personality as anything else - I would certainly say that my mathematical and musical abilities are integral to my personality.

Maybe it is that Abilities can become more honed and appear more natural and comfortable as you exercise them. If you act a part long enough, you may not become it, but you will appear to be it so thoroughly that a casual or even non-casual observer may no longer know the difference.

I don't believe that; you can learn or train yourself out of these and other traits.

No, I don't think so. They've done studies (sorry, cannot quote chapter and verse) that intraversion/extroversion manifests itself as early as infancy.

You can learn to *act* in ways other to your nature. But I think that's one of those things that doesn't change.

Over time - I think I have become more tolerant. I have developed more empathy and really don't bear grudges any more. Most people try to do their best in life.

Actually I'm going to stop...thinking through this stuff is good. But maybe not today. Too much stuff crowding in.

I don't think there's a definite psychological knowledge regarding this. I myself have most certainly turned from an introvert to an extrovert, and it's been at least partly deliberate.

Introversion/Extraversion is the scale of whether you draw strength (or relaxation) from being alone, and expend that energy in being with others (intraversion) or whether you draw strength or energy from being with others, and expend energy being alone (extroversion).

Things that have stuck out for me
- a house settling on it's foundations
- the distinction between behavior and personality
and this:
Specifically, as you get older you notice how less energy you have, and how less you will have in the future, and it becomes a goal to just get things - housing, companionship, a career - to a state where it's off the "to worry about" list, to stop them being a drain on what you have left to live your life.

As I've gotten older things I used to care about greatly - going out, meeting people, being stylish and "cool" - just aren't important anymore. I tend to believe this is a natural part of growing older but many of my acquaintences, many older than me, still seem to have the same values and same lifestyle I did 6 or 7 years ago. So perhaps these are personality elements for these people?

I've found myself becoming happier as I've learned to drop my more shallow ideas about what's important in life. Instead I've learned to just focus on what makes me happy, a simple goal that often leads to the most simple and basic things.

Maybe from the outside this would seem like a change of personality but I think it's just a deepening of self-awareness. I know people who know me best, like my family, would say I've never changed through out all the phases and periods of my life. I've been probably the same core person since I was 13. (I would say the same about them)

Something that perplexes me on this thread is the constant bringing in of romantic relationships. how does this influence who you are anymore than other relationships?

Well, I think such scale would be almost impossible to measure in any objective way, so you can't claim science proves introversion/extroversion manifests at an early age and doesn't change after that. All we have is people's interpretations of themselves.

learning to be patient and nice with other people is part of my quotidian behavior now, but that took a lot (A LOT) of breaking in

A relationship I was in a few years ago did change me for the worse for awhile. It took awhile to heal those wounds and feel whole again. It's amazing how much damage abusive, fucked-up people can inflict on you - esp. when you think you're not suseptible to that anymore.

I've been in therapy since I was 19 and even though sometiems it's a drag I feel it's been absolutely essential to my happiness and stability. But therapy is often like a relationship and you have to find the right person for it work best. I'm grateful I've been seeing the same woman since the beginning. More like a long deep friendship really.

This is very true, and I'm probably walking proof of that. But also, I've been affected more - good and bad - on a personality-shaping level by close friends than by lovers. So I place more importance on them.

My observation is that people - especially women, but also men - feel more pressure to change their personalities in order to attract mates. Do people feel the same pressure to change to attract friends? Maybe they do. I've always been fairly blind to peer pressure and don't really understand its mechanics. But I do feel and am overly aware of the pressures to act, look, *be* a certain way in order to attract males.

The disdaining of changing one's core personality for a lover is part of mine own growth (?) / changing, trying not to put SO MUCH PRESSURE on myself to have a lover, (which I did to myself, for much of my life) and accepting that a single state is a valid lifestyle.

Actually, that's not entirely true. I do understand its mechanics, I just seem utterly powerless to follow the principles, and wouldn't even want to in most cases.

The trick, I suppose, is to cultivate friends who embody your ideals and hope that the peer pressure will be positive. I think I am a more positive person for being in the influence of people like Ed and Emsk, for example.

it isn't! Ever heard of Jungian tests? I-E S-N F-T J-P and all that?

There have been whole threads about these tests, and although they may not be "objective" the results that they provide are certainly meaningful as descriptive tools.

Are actions always true to inward thoughts though? You can alter your behaviour to be contrary to your personality. (though maybe that tendency is a personality trait itself.)

Yeah, but not meaningful in this discussion, because they're based on the assumption of a relatively stable self rather than self-in-a-flux, and therefore are biased towards proving the former.

I think we all do really, and you're right about all the other stuff too (obv. we care more than anyone else does about ourselves).

My take on it, is that behaviour *may* be an outward manifestation of personality, but it may also be influenced by external influences that are nothing to do with personality.

You see Behaviour as foremost, I see Personality as foremost. That's a difference of gestalt or worldview or whatever the word is.

Yeah, but not meaningful in this discussion, because they're based on the assumption of a relatively stable self rather than self-in-a-flux, and therefore are biased towards proving the former.

Well, I've been taking these tests on and off for twenty years, and they have stayed fairly stable in their results! I'm not sure what you want to read into that.

Yeah, but there's always a reason (an inward thought, that is) for you behaving against what you/others perceive as your personality. One can't truly act against one's "inner self", only against some fixed idea of it.

I'm not saying some, or even most people don't stay stable throughout their lives. All I'm saying is that deliberate change is not impossible.

how much is 'deliberate change' cheating on the tests?

1) it would be funny if I'd been taking these psychological tests longer than you've been alive
2) I am curious to see if your fairly behaviourist view on personality as a thing in constant flux is due to your still being in the intense flux-period

When I have it's usually due to some outside force like drug abuse.

Also, deliberate change is much easier in adolescence - even into your early to mid 20s. Even if semi-set, the personality then is still a lot more malleable then than it is at 30 or 40 or later.

But these life-changing personality-changing events - heartbreak, bereavement, etc. - is that the equivalent of a structural support being knocked out of the foundations of your house? Or is it the cracking of this lovely gloss and paint and plasterwork with which you've covered your perceived faults.

Ed, it might not be cheating but... idealising, instead.

I'm 27, but I don't think that's important. My own personality has been pretty stable for several years now, but that hasn't made me think it is totally impossible for it to change (though I agree it's probably less likely as we get older). And I don't see myself as a behaviourist, I don't think people are automatons, but I don't think their personalities are totally separate from outside forces either. In fact, people who think everything is set in childhood or teenage seem to have a more deterministic view than I have.

If a flaw doens't come through, is never ever demonstrated, does it exist? Because we're very close to thought-crime here.

many of the questions on the Jung tests, I have to kind of think "well, this is different depending on the phase of mania or depression" and try to judge which answer is more relevant. Maybe that goes along with the idealising thing.

I'd say that's a lack of self-awareness and/or self confidence which the person might need to address. I do think you can learn to be more self-aware, and I do think it's entirely possibly to become more self-confident and to be able to trust one's own judgement better. Outside influences play a huge part in this, i.e. learning to trust others, and having the good sense to keep away from people who hurt you or exacerbate your own personal insecurities withe the way they behave towards you.

I may be rambling now.

Yes, of course it does. A person may appear breathtakingly confident (in the context of a relationship, say) but still suffer pangs of jealousy and insecurity. Just because they keep it under control and don't allow it to sabotage the relationship, it doesn't mean to say it's not still there inside them.

An overall personality can be considered set, but there are always changes taking place. As a species we learn from experience (or at least we should) and this in turn affects our behaviour in similar situations. I know behaviour doesn't necessarily always equate to personality but it plays a huge role in how others see us (which in turns affects how we see ourselves).

People (or most people) tend to want to be liked. This affects, if not their personality, then at least the persona they put across. Sometimes it's not even a conscious thing.

I can't define the "real" me, but I do know that me at work != me at home != me out with friends != me on the internets but there are big enough overlaps that I don't consider myself to have multiple personalities, just different modes, or something.

During certain parts of my cycle, I think about suicide an average of 3 or 4 times an hour. I don't actually go to the doctor until they start to become detailed plans and active desire, rather than flitting almost reflexive impulses.

But a thought never has to have expression in order to have effect, and to be part of a personality. That background of suicidal hum is part of my personality, though I do my best to suppress and ignore it.

many of the questions on the Jung tests, I have to kind of think "well, this is different depending on the phase of mania or depression" and try to judge which answer is more relevant. Maybe that goes along with the idealising thing.

Having known multiple people with bipolar and other mood disorders, I can definitely say that the personality is still coherent to the outside observer. Yes, there are drastic changes, but the same person is still recognizable as such whether in a manic stage or depressive. That core is there.

i.e. learning to trust others, and having the good sense to keep away from people who hurt you or exacerbate your own personal insecurities withe the way they behave towards you.

These are huge. And life-changing once you get them straight.

but is deliberate change a true, fundamental change or just a person acting to cover up whatever flaw it is they are trying to overcome, which yet persists underneath all the gloss they are deliberately applying?

no, it actually can change it, i've done it. there was stuff i was *really* bitter about in my early 20s (ok perhaps i don't count and am still in flux and am a mere babe at 28) and it made me miserable to myself and horrible to certain other people. it wasn't just huge things either, but small things would *really* get to me and i was angry and hateful. i decided i did not want to be like that, to myself or to anyone else, and after a lot of internal wrangling i have taught myself to be able to let go, to not be someone who carries badnesses with them like that. and sure, for ages it was literally gritting my teeth and telling myself "it.does.NOT.MATTER.let.it.GO." and reacting "gggrrrnnnghhhbut-but-but-waaaaargh" and so on and so on. but now it's different; i have actually changed.

but then, have i only effected this change because i had a personality in the first place which would *want* to get rid of the badness?

i am currently trying to stop interrupting people so much.

xposts

Should someone who's had p@edophilic thoughts but never acted upon them in any way consider themselves a p@edophile?

-- Sick Mouthy (sickmouth...)

I'd say yes.

-- C J (CJ_The_Unrul...)

you're not a murderer until you've murdered somebody.

-- vita susicivus (n...)

paedophile is a state of being (err... you know what i mean); murderer is after an action you've taken.

haha, me too. On my montiors I've put post it notes that say "talk" with a no sign on top and the other says "listen"

Isn't conspiracy to commit a crime usually punishable even if the actual crime is never committed?

Well, I'm not going to say anything about whether you're in flux or not, as from circumstances I know you are in a flux, but I don't think it's an age/maturity thing, but a circumstantial thing.

Maybe I'm going to change my mind due to this thread. Or qualify things more carefully. Malleableness of personality is easier when you are younger, but there are other things that come with age/maturity. This whole decision to be able to "let things go" - is something that gets easier with age and more likely experience about how horribly wrong things go when you don't.

Is that changing your personality, though, or changing your behaviour?

I don't know; this is the problem that Tuomas raises - is there a difference, and ifso, where? I'm repeating myself now. But that's another personality quirk of mine. ;-)

But one thing I've noticed from this thread is that things go more easily if you don't just react about something someone has said that you disagree with (and it's taken a few instances of self discipline to refrain from zings) but rather to ask questions and get the person to clarify and rephrase until you understand what they are saying, not just what you expect/think they are saying, due to your impression of what their personality is or isn't.

One's impression of *others'* personalities doesn't have to be a fixed thing, either.

(That's another thread, and the whole Oscar Wilde "I have never met anyone who hasn't turned out to be exactly what I thought they were in my first five minutes of meetings them" first impressions, how accurate thing - does that say more about the power of first impressions, or Wilde's unique perceptiveness in his author's eye.)

MYSTERIOUS!

This whole decision to be able to "let things go" - is something that gets easier with age and more likely experience about how horribly wrong things go when you don't.

changing/evolving your personality, because before you weren't able to let things go?

Is that changing your personality, though, or changing your behaviour?
I don't know; this is the problem that Tuomas raises - is there a difference, and ifso, where?

I'd say personality is those modes of behaviour which you and others perceive as more fixed than others. The reason personality seems (or is, usually) stable is because they are less easy to deprogram than others.

People who seem to "change" personalities might just have a core personality akin to the carrier shell, constantly cementing new decor to their shell. Thus, in their changeability, they are unchanging.
Somebody's probably said this. I don't have time to read the whole thing until later.

No, just the ageing process. It gets harder to keep track of who I'm feuding with, due to the senility, and easy to ignore obvious windups with the thought "is this worth having a coronary over?"

It is just significantly different in my late 30s than it was in my late 20s. And I hope that it will continue in my 40s and 50s and so on. As my mum would say, it gets easier to ignore idiots and suffer fools when you can just wave your hand and say "I'm old, I don't have to deal with this!"

When you're young, you think the world is your responsibility, and it seems imperative to right all the wrongs (perceived or otherwise). As you get older, you kinda care less.

But that said, maybe decisions get more irrevocable as you get older. (Yes, that has a double meaning I don't really care to explain.)

When life is simpler, i.e less commitments (financial, relationship, dependants) maybe there are less constraints from *outside* that make you need to adapt behaviour to fit in with other people and situations. To what extent does that behaviour become *the real* you? In my view you essentially haven't changed personality, because YOU CAN'T, but maybe you've modified its effects through some conscious changes in the way you act. I TOTALLY screwed my life up twice in the last 10 or so years, and my personality is the same now - given the same combination of circumstances it COULD happen again. But I think I have learned enough about myself & others to modify my behaviour and avoid the same. The relentlessly positive side of my nature is a real asset here. I actually believe that I CAN avoid disaster in the future! Older and wiser, or older and more deluded? Who knows?

No, but that's a very interesting idea.

Was talking a while ago with a friend, complaining about someone who I saw as "false" or "two-faced" and she kind of re-explained it as being someone who was more concerned with not upsetting anyone and keeping everything smooth and nice-appearances-wise. While I see this as bald faced lying, by omission or otherwise, and terribly deceiptful, it had a reason, a use and/or a "good quality" to her.

Maybe the core personality in these cases that wind me up so much is an extreme example of someone whose desire is to please others. It seems like falseness to me, but they are being true to themselves, when what is most important to their personalities is pleasing others.

Ned, I saw "19/20" and thought you were grading yourself there :)

Kate, hypocrisy is the soul of politesse and sometimes it's nice to see someone more interested in making sure that everyone has a good time than in expressing (sometimes narcissistically) their own 'authenticity'.

It's slightly more complicated than that. I understand that certain things must be suppressed in order for polite society to proceed accordingly. (Hence my restraint and not raging at people I think are completely off the money.) However, it is more about the supressing of information which may hurt a person, in order to continue to look like a Nice Person *to* that person (and/or others) rather than being honest about what is going on, at the risk of hurting some people, and conversely not seeming like a Nice Person.

In that case, honestly will usually win for me, even if it ends up making me look like a cnut. Because the longer that you prolong that fantasy of everyone having a good time, the worse the situation will get when it eventually all comes out.

This sounds horribly convoluted without specific examples, but it is more complicated than your example. To some people, seeming like the "nice guy" is more important than truthfulness. In some cases, this may be warranted, in others, it is not.

It's useful to discard the notion that "people can change." How many miserable relationships struggle on because of people climging to this belief?

Children develop and unfold, but core personalities don't change unless there's organic damage to the brain. Witness so many recovering-alcoholics who are still permanent assholes.

How much of a person's perceived personality is based on other's preconceptions (or misconceptions) of them? Does this ever impact your actual personality?

Agreed, Beth.

Excepting a few lifetime hobbies/traits ('I like swimming.' 'I like books.' 'I love dogs.' ' I write for money.') and something of a soul-based ethical command center, I'd like to believe in constant change. Most people I know are like this, except they carry trappings (apartments, photos, stories) from other phases of their lives to keep them connected with their former selves. I can't quite get on board with the shell metaphor, but I'd endorse a hermit-crab alternative.

PS: Once I found a hermit crab on Martha's Vineyard. I brought it home, and it moved into a lightbulb. A year later he grew out of it, so I gave him a Dinty Moore can. Then I lost him but found him dead in the piano bench a week later. He smelled like canned stew.

This is very very important. Behaviour can sometimes change, but never by trying to change someone.

(Though my fear is that my deep down personality is that I *am* just a permanent asshole, and everything else is just not very well learned social graces.)

?? Did you break off the end so he could climb in? Wasn't it jagged?

I think we do have a certain *constant self* but we are able to change the outside layers. It's very hard but possible, notice it when going in therapy and/or entering a new relationship.

Though, I do think personality is fluid, and that people do 'change', just not me.

Which is definitely a trap or can be. It seems to be fitting in more and more with my belief of process over product.

xxpost MsMisery: the light bulb was from my grandma's station wagon, it had (kind-of) a natural opening from where it had been not-too-gently removed from the car. Not too jagged. As the year went on, it got cooler-looking because bits of sand and food would get trapped inside with the crab and scratch patterns on the interior.

(Though my fear is that my deep down personality is that I *am* just a permanent asshole, and everything else is just not very well learned social graces.)

YOU ARE A WARRIOR QUEEN!!!!

When I look at a newborn baby I get a specific "feel" from them that remains as they grow up. Some core is there, watchful and detached, or open and bemused, whatever

Maybe this is U&K, that I'm trying to discuss personality on the basis of a rather too limited sample base. Mainly mine own, because that's the only personality I've known intimately through the course of its whole course. And one is always too intimately involved in one's own personality to see it, and its changes, clearly.

When you have a child, and watch them grow up, and their personality become established, grow, change or not, that must be a far more useful lesson in the actual roots and origins of personality - why I included parenthood as one of the list of life-changing things that really can permanently alter your outlook.

There is definitely a layer of my personality that was set and laid down by the time I was 14, 15. Another fairly permanent layer got set down at 22, with the decisions and experiences I had then. Since then, behavioural-wise, I'm not the same person at all, due to learning from experiences and hopefully growing. But in terms of interests, patterns of thinking, quirks, tastes, the way I move through life hasn't changed a bit.

This is really resonating with me. I like this idea/image a lot.

Which is why I try to avoid looking back at them! Obviously I write and receive a lot of letters and take thousands of photos now (thank you digital age) but in both cases they're not things I recheck much if at all. Something like Flickr is handy because it gives me a space for photos that others might find of interest, but I'm not bound to look through them myself. I'd rather look through others'!

This I don't agree with. People do change, but only with extreme self-motivation and lots of time. Always intrinsically. It's a rule of thumb of mine to trust people to what I call (and is probably more eloquently titled elsewhere) 'the law of minimal effective action.' As I've observed, people will set inconcrete goals for themselves, and do as little as they can to achieve them. Goals are so specific and idiosyncratic 'I want an antique Beemer' or 'This year I should become the greatest linotypist in the world' or 'I'd feel more complete with a Zoroastrian girlfriend' that people are forced to change themselves, sometimes, in pursuit of these things. When they reach their desires they change mostly back to the way they were. Mostly. But some of the new self they tried on in pursuit of their X sticks to them. Over time, the accumulation of all these little adjustments, possibilities, makes them/us wider people, with a stranger band of possible actions, a broader selection of selves to use, and a more global personality.

i see the change when i'm with my parents. now i'm staying with'em in tokyo and i already became "someone else." ;-)

I'd like to think that the former is a fixed quantity: we, by and large, always believe X is right and Y is wrong. With some jiggling. But the latter? Personality? defined in my world as an individual set of most-probable actions, responses, and patterns for behavior. Mutable, and in flux, but with defined likelihoods and wheel-ruts from constant travel.

The 'deep layer' you talk about, Beth, seems more like a soul to me than a personality.

I'd like to think that the former is a fixed quantity: we, by and large, always believe X is right and Y is wrong. With some jiggling. But the latter? Personality? defined in my world as an individual set of most-probable actions, responses, and patterns for behavior. Mutable, and in flux, but with defined likelihoods and wheel-ruts from constant travel.

No, see I see those core values as the core personality. The other stuff is pretty much the behaviour. The personality is the thing that doesn't change. Everything else gets tossed in the whirlwind of manic depression, that's behaviour, moods, changing things.

I have to believe that the core is the real thing, the immutable thing. Because the behaviour outside bit is so mutable - if I were to go by that, living on 3 continents by the time I was 10, 14 schools in 12 years, dozens of jobs, possibly 50 or more lovers - my god, I wouldn't exist if I called all that my personality.

(xpost) I think personality is an expression of core values, but I also think the tools we use, and the modes of expression we access are unchanging.

Example: SomeZ is on a deep private level unsure of her personal worth. Early in Z's life, there's a lot of bragging, brash adolescent silliness. Even some bullying. But Z grows out of that. As a twenty-something Z feels constantly depressed. Maybe seeks some therapy?? 30s? Z's clinging to a loveless marriage. 40s? Kids, new career, workaholic, making herself indispensible to her clients. 50s? Burnt out, feeling unappreciated, drops out of life a little bit. 60s? Joins a hippie church... doesn't love it, but the people are kind., etc. Always the same person, same drives... but two to people who meet her twenty years apart she might seem 100% different, though always with the same center, same ideals, same core of conscience.

thanks CJ. Yes, not to hurt others is urgent and key here.

**why I included parenthood as one of the list of life-changing things that really can permanently alter your outlook.** said Kate.

It's probably the biggest life-change. Suddenly you are totally responsible for them, they totally depend on you. You're responsible for everything from the basics like warmth, shelter, food, safety etc to making provision for their future, teaching them how to navigate their way through physical and emotional changes.

Thinking about it, and going back on what I said before, maybe that does change your personality. You can't act it out, but I guess for the vast majority the bond is so instant and strong that you don't need to. I became more patient, more empathetic, probably more 'gentle' after having children. These maybe go deeper than just new behaviour.

I think this prospect alone is enough to make me never want kids, to a large extent.

I think personality is an expression of core values, but I also think the tools we use, and the modes of expression we access are unchanging.

Example: SomeZ is on a deep private level unsure of her personal worth. Early in Z's life, there's a lot of bragging, brash adolescent silliness. Even some bullying. But Z grows out of that. As a twenty-something Z feels constantly depressed. Maybe seeks some therapy?? 30s? Z's clinging to a loveless marriage. 40s? Kids, new career, workaholic, making herself indispensible to her clients. 50s? Burnt out, feeling unappreciated, drops out of life a little bit. 60s? Joins a hippie church... doesn't love it, but the people are kind., etc. Always the same person, same drives... but two to people who meet her twenty years apart she might seem 100% different, though always with the same center, same ideals, same core of conscience.

This actually makes some kind of sense - to an outside observer it would appear that Z is changing her personality like a fashion accessory, but there is a deep core level personality which is not changing, but finding different expressions. Gives me more understanding of why a person would *be* like that.

But this goes back to the same friend I was having the discussion of "falseness" with. My life has been constant flux, I am always looking for things that are the same. Other people, whose lives have been stable sameness are often looking for the differences, the exceptions, the things that change.

But when I read things like you, Dr. C, and Beth Parker have just written, I am kind of awestruck that people manage to do it. Respect.

And when the kids are older The REAL humbler is the realization one what a one-way street parent-child love evolves into. My love for my kids is so devouring and greedy—no way they can love me back that way. They're going to love their own lovers and kids that way. They love me in their way, and certainly want me to BE there, but I still can barely keep my hands off them. It's not useful love for them—that smothering thing, so I'm always curbing it. Stopping myself from asking constant questions, etc. They need some separation!

You're right Beth - I see that distancing starting in my son (aged 14).

I'm a bit of a wreck today. The emotional floodgates that I referred to way upthread may well open wide unless I get off the thread and do something constructive.

Anyway I don't have children, but I think I understand.

It's good you feel that way about your kids Beth. B/c I'm not sure all parents do.

Yes, pretty OTM once you get past the traumas of adolescence and the necessary separation.

Sometimes I can't stand my mother, sometimes she drives me insane, but I still love her so much I just can't contemplate ever being without me. So much it scares me sometimes. And that's when I get cranky and distancing, maybe. Because I'm scared of losing that love.

I think most parents love their kids massively, even if they're incompetent at putting it into practice. The desire for touch is a very animal thing, the licking of the cubs, regurgitating of food into their mouths, etc.

And Laurel's right: I adore both of my parents. Complicated, sure, but without reserve.

I don't gush about them much

Oh don't worry, please, I wasn't complaining at all! I have so many friends with kids and I love them all -- it's great to be an unofficial uncle to so many around here in particular. But as was noted, it takes a certain kind of person to be a parent -- I don't think I am, though I've been told otherwise. In sum: Dr. C, feel free to talk about yer kids whenever. :-)

But I also know, from my too brief experience of being pregnant, that it's not really something you get a choice in, that it's very powerful and primal and hormonal. You can express that love badly, you can mingle it with resentment and other emotions, but it's something that happens on a neurotransmitter level, not a logical level.

Oh, this is making me very sad now. :-(

I wonder about this often in the case of abusive/neglectufl parents. You can chalk their actions up to their own emotional/mental issues but when that treatment of their children never changes. . .when they never acknowledge it, fix it, own up to it?

I can't say I have any massive love for my parents. My mother, yes some, but largely out of obligation. I'm not sure what I'll feel when she dies, probably some guilt, not sure. Overall I've made peace with keeping her at arm's length and disenganging her from my emotions and life as much as possible. She seems to have no problem with this and has never had much to do with my life anyway. I wish my father was already dead.

I now look back on childhood memories of dinner through a much different viewpoint.

http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.3/images/Beck7.gif

So many people are damaged by addictions and undiagnosed mental illness. I'm sure they all have painful moments of lucidity about their parental failings. I don't think my father did, but, oh well.

my point was simply I don't think everyone has that essential parental chip that you and Dr. C were describing. Reproductive organs aside, not just anyone can be a parent.

My father was horribly abused as a kid and is GREAT with kids. Ophelia just loves him so much.

Whoa, I wouldn't go that far!

;-)

Uh... no.

Millions of years of further evolution will prove that I was in the right.

they might be surprised that i'm married, though. and rather more so if we spawn.

Kate: But one thing I've noticed from this thread is that things go more easily if you don't just react about something someone has said that you disagree with (and it's taken a few instances of self discipline to refrain from zings) but rather to ask questions and get the person to clarify and rephrase until you understand what they are saying, not just what you expect/think they are saying, due to your impression of what their personality is or isn't.

Says Ms "lalala, I'm not listening" - you'll notice from recent interaction on "your" thread that I have not resorting to zinging or cheap points-scoring, rather I have set out in detail some issues which may impinge on the way others see you, but all you've done is go "oh, fuck off already, I can't be arsed with this". But, hey, perhaps if I do it again you'll be more receptive to my points.

(also see your reaction to certain people on the vegetarianism thread (and other thread passim) based on other issues with them elsewhere...I hope your personality isn't so set in stone that you can't stop doing this all over the place)

no, it actually can change it, i've done it. there was stuff i was *really* bitter about in my early 20s (ok perhaps i don't count and am still in flux and am a mere babe at 28) and it made me miserable to myself and horrible to certain other people. it wasn't just huge things either, but small things would *really* get to me and i was angry and hateful. i decided i did not want to be like that, to myself or to anyone else, and after a lot of internal wrangling i have taught myself to be able to let go, to not be someone who carries badnesses with them like that. and sure, for ages it was literally gritting my teeth and telling myself "it.does.NOT.MATTER.let.it.GO." and reacting "gggrrrnnnghhhbut-but-but-waaaaargh" and so on and so on. but now it's different; i have actually changed.

Emsk - you are me and I claim my five pounds. Except I didn't really get the hang of this until a couple of years ago, and I'm six years older than you. So you aren't me, you're a younger yet wiser me, and you can keep your five pounds.

FWIW, I think I spent too long trying to be something I'm not. I'm happier now than I ever was.

And further, since so much upthread is based upon the involvement of a significant other, this internal change came about several years after I met my husband, and after we got married. And it had nothing, really, to do with him. He married me the way I used to be. I'm still the same, just a bit happier with it. And I'm reaping the rewards - I am more settled in myself, happier with my own company and with that of the friends I have and the company I keep (something I used to prioritise above all others when I was completely incapable of maintaining friendships with anyone, without realising I was going totally the wrong way about it).

I don't think my personality is set in stone yet, but I'm getting happier with it than I was.

(I have no idea what the catalyst for the start of this change was, btw)

Oh, sorry, you've all moved on and are now making jokes about skeletons. Carry on.

The importance of some sort of grounding in knowing how to be 'social' for lack of a better word is key. This doesn't mean, as Ailsa implies, a codependency or a feeling of 'if I just had *somebody* my life would be happier,' rather it's knowing how to balance out your own take on things (to put it in rough terms) with those of others, especially those whose company you value highly, as friends, relations and so forth.

(xpost)

Nah, just me being too subtle for my own good!

Allow me:

As Ailsa implies, this doesn't mean a codependency or a feeling of 'if I just had *somebody* my life would be happier,'

Is such an important lesson. Disengagement. Recognising when someone does exacerbate your worst qualities, and not letting them rile you up.

But it's really difficult when those people who do exacerbate your worst behaviour view such disengagement as being "la la, I can't hear you."

But it's really difficult when those people who do exacerbate your worst behaviour view such disengagement as being "la la, I can't hear you."

Right, so when you want to hear it, it's useful and you can learn from it. When it's something you *don't* want to hear, you can go "lalala not listening" and then claim you're disengaging for your own good when what you are actually doing is not wanting to hear something or deal with something because it's confronting your own personal insecurities and you're too egocentric to notice.

There's a marvellous little phrase you might want to bear in mind sometime. Namely "the truth hurts".

If you are going to continue to set out your personal bugbears for all to see, some people are going to react in ways you don't like. It won't do you a bit of harm to wonder if they actually have a point, rather than blithely "disengaging" (I'd call it ignoring, but, hey ho).

This is general advice, btw. I take criticism on board a lot - I've become a better and stronger person for it in some ways.

Stumbled over this thread doing a Search that was so remotely tangential to it that the connection was pure accident. There's a lot of fascinating discussion up thread, so I am reviving it.

As for me, I have a hard time grasping just what my personality consists of. My turn of mind is often quite literal-minded and simplistic, and so it is generally tethered very directly to whatever is under my nose.

Intellectually speaking, I instinctively submit to the wisdom of the Fool in King Lear, who said "Nothing comes of nothing, nuncle." Whatever my self is at this moment, it connects to what it was a few moments ago, and so on and on, following that thread down into the increasing dimness of the remote past. It all connects, right back to some unknown beginning. But what that amounts to in terms of my 'personality', it baffles me to say.

Taking another tack toward an answer to this conundrum, I once wrote a book. I was the only character in this book. When I wrote it, I had a good grip on what I was doing, but as other people read this book and I had a chance to talk to them about it, I discovered each reader had a different idea of what the book amounted to, which parts stood out, and which caught their interest. Their version was as valid as mine was. I suspect whatever my 'personality' is, it is much the same as what my book is - a complex thing that has no definitive version.

13

have you lost your tiller?