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

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.