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

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.