Can one person make another person change?

This topic was inspired by this thread, which unfortunately quickly turned into a guy/gal argument.

I’m interested in the larger question of whether one person can make another person change. Most commonly we see this kind of attempt made by one spouse, occasionally by family members, friends, employers, etc. I’m excluding minor children from the question, as that just complicates the heck out of it.

I personally don’t think that I can really change anybody else unless they want to change, and even then, if I try hard, it’ll just generally make them dig their heels in more and resist. But many others disagree. My sister-in-law feels she can make her husband follow his diet by watching his every move; I’ve seen her physically try to restrain him when he’s attempted to eat something she didn’t want him to. And she takes the credit for getting him to lose weight.

So who do you think is right? And why? What have your experiences been?

Yes. It happens all the time.

My wife changed me significantly. When my daughter was born, she changed me deeply.

Even more to the point, we learn many lessons growing up, and through the process of growing up, unlearn some of what we’ve learned and replace it with something else.

I don’t think it is necessary that the person wants to change, but it certainly would make it easier. Wouldn’t behavioral conditioning represent what you are suggesting, QtM?

Interesting question, Qadgop. It’s been my observation that generally the answer is no, with some caveats.

That is, if two adults marry, one with the expectation that “he’ll change” [usually with the implication of “with my help/influence”], ninety-nine times out of a hundred they’re doomed, simply because an adult changing longstanding patterns of behavior is not typical. I think we all have probably seen examples of this. That being said, I have also seen the other one percent happen, where one spouse does a complete turnaround, seemingly because of the complete and compelling [stabilizing?] influence of the other on his/her life. I wouldn’t go into a marriage betting the farm on it, though.

Of course with the above I’m speaking of a change from bad-to-good, rather than the other way around. It appeared that such was the implication of your original post.

I sit firmly on the fence on this one. While I do not think you can make someone change, or change them, you can and will affect them. You can support them, or sabotage them. You can provide succor, or you can enable their self-defeat. You can inspire, or you can discourage. All these things you will do, will you won’t you, at some time in your life, and the lives of those who care for you, and those who despise you.

Can you direct the changes your influence makes? Sure. Is it a good idea to make someone over into the person you think they could or should be? I don’t think so. You can become a manipulative controller in other people’s lives, and those who are weak in character will mimic the prototype you approve. They will fail to be what you want, and your disappointment or scorn will hurt them. You will probably end up alone, and despised, and always wonder why no one appreciated that you had their best interest in mind. The strong in character will see you as weak and selfish, and avoid your influence, and your company. God help your children, though, for they are defenseless against you.

But, you can determine the types of behavior you will accept in your regular associates, and make your preferences clear. If you do, you have limited your associations, but that is not a good or bad thing by itself, only by the nature of your preferences. The desirability of your presence, and friendship, or love will make a difference in how people behave with regard to your preferences in behavior. The nature of your choices will strongly affect the desirability of your association, friendship, and love. If you require decency, and honor, people will come to expect that from you. If you tolerate lying, and self indulgence, you will be associated with those character traits as well.

The influences you have will not be the same as “making someone else change” but the people who choose to be influenced will be changed, none the less. And you will change as well. Nothing makes you actually be a better person so much as having to live up to your own expectations. (Assuming you have some.)

A friend of mine once said that another person’s influence over you was simply an aspect of your agreement with their opinions. When you see someone living their life in a way you admire, you will adopt something from their life strategies to make your own. You have been influence, by your own choice.

Tris

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~

Scylla, erislover I was changed profoundly by my spouse and kids also, but they did not set out to change me. New interactions, new ideas, and consequences caused change. And it’s been pretty well shown that behavioral conditioning doesn’t really change core values in and of itself, and isn’t that hot for making permanent behavioral changes either.

drpepper we are pretty much in agreement. Change comes with marriage, and some people can bring out the best in others, but, it seems to me they do so without really trying to force change, only by reinforcing good behavior and setting good examples themselves.

Tris you’ve summarized my rather inarticulate thoughts pretty well. So much so that I’m not sure I really have anything useful to add! And I like your Jung quote; I’ve found that what irritates me about others is generally something I don’t like in myself.

But what brought this whole thing to mind was actually a “Simpsons” quote:
Marge Simpson: Lisa, some people say you can’t change other people. I call people who say that “quitters”.

I guess what I was hoping for was to hear something from those people who feel that, with the strength of their own will and actions, they can make other people conform more closely with their own expectations. And I refer here not to job, or assigned task behavior, but personal behavior. Will anyone argue for that case here?

I’m not sure what you mean by conditioning not working. That’s how we have religious devotion in spite of evidence to the contrary; that’s why many scientists can’t “see passed” a problem; that’s why some people have reflex-like mental responses to certain moral stimulii. We’re conditioned.

I was glancing through my psychology book-- unfortunately only an introductory one-- in an attempt to provide some resolution to your challenge. Unfortunately there are simply too many theories on how we develop our personalities. But in each case there is the idea that there are stimulii which, through some interaction in some way, evoke a personality trait. Apart from Freud’s progressive stages I don’t see why one couldn’t simulate, in some way, the proper stimulii to change a person’s behavior.

Anyone here known a military lifer who still gets up at the crack of dawn? That’s a Pavlov-like response IMO.

So yeah, I think it isn’t only possible but happens all the time. Doing it deliberately… well, I don’t think I can tackle that without more psychology classes.

Which makes me wonder… is the SDMB graced with the presence of a psychologist or psychiatrist? I can’t say I remember hearing from one on anything.

I think it depends on what you’re trying to change. My Loved One does not cover things before she puts them into the refrigerator. I could change that, no doubt about it. (But, though it drives me crazy, it’s easier just to wrap the things myself.) It’s easy to change people in minor ways, and the more they have vested in you, the more they care about you and what you think, the easier it will be. (It is, of course, often worth reflecting on whether or not you actually want the changes that you think you do.) There are lots of ways to make minor changes in people - some that are almost unnoticeable (ex: reward-based conditioning, when done correctly) and some that are very obvious, not to mention abrasive (ex: making such an enormous and terrifying scene that people will change at least their behavior - not necessarily in the way you want, though - to avoid a reoccurrence).

I get the sense, though, that you’re talking about fundamental changes - making an irresponsible person more responsible, for example, or making a very methodical and pragmatic person free-wheeling and zany.

Can it be done? Well, yes. We’ve all seen cases like this - becoming a parent, for example, can make a person much more responsible. Sometimes.

Can it be done deliberately, with forethought? Yes, though that is much rarer. It requires a lot of intelligence on the part of the person instigating the change, and a lot of cooperation on the part of the person doing the changing, not to mention a lot of effort from both people. Therapists sometimes manage it. Spouses sometimes manage it. Parents sometimes manage it. Most often, though, it isn’t exactly changing someone, it’s facilitating change, which is a different matter; the difference is the crucial one of where the change originates. Changing someone against his will is very hard, and very rarely successful, though that also has been done.

Can you count on it? Absolutely not. Not even the most successful professional can count on being able to change another person in a fundamental way; every therapist, for example, has unexpected failures as well as unexpected successes. A person making a first attempt at changing someone - say, a person who went into marriage thinking, well, I’ll just change X and Y in my spouse and then we’ll be fine - is very likely to fail. Better to count on not being able to change anything.

Should you try it? This is a much tougher call. I would not try it. It is dangerous, it can be unethical, it’s rarely in another person’s best interests, and it feels like hubris. When you change something fundamental about a person, you change other parts of him, too - that’s inevitable. You may end up with a situation worse than before you started. And, more importantly, I don’t think I, at any rate, have the right to try to change who someone else is. I’ll live with it if I can, I’ll get out if I can’t - but I don’t expect the world, or any person in it, to build to suit. Also, I think you need a lot of confidence, more than I’ve got, to wield that kind of power over someone else.

You also have to think about the consequences of your actins, and why you’re undertaking them. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I’m not saying this is absolute law when it comes to human personalities, but I do think that you risk changing yourself as much as, or more than, you change someone else. This is especially true if your motives are less than pure, and in a personal relationship, they almost always will be. Do you want your spouse to be more aggressive and energetic in his career because he’d be happier or because you’d both have more money? Do you want your spouse to exercise and diet because he’d be healthier or because you’d like the way he looks more? These are just examples, but you see what I’m trying to say - there’s often an ulterior motive. If there is, I think you are risking even more harm to yourself, as well as to the other person, by trying to change him.

If someone in my life truly needed to change, say because his current path would almost certainly lead to an untimely death, I wouldn’t try to facilitate that change myself. I’d encourage that person to seek help, not so much because I have some kind of faith in the divine abilities of therapists, but because a) the act of seeking help is a very important first step on the road to change and b) I would not want to have that relationship - that of changer and changee - with someone I love. It’s not what I expect of love or what I want from my life.

Wow. That’s long-winded, and I’m not sure if it makes sense; I’m pretty tired. Basically, I’m just saying - yes, you can change some of the people some of the time, but it isn’t reliable. And most of the time it isn’t a good idea.

erislover, having been exposed to the works of the Behaviorist Watson at Johns Hopkins, and having studied Pavlov and Skinner, I’m pretty familiar with the basic tenets (and failings) of classical and operant conditioning, specifically it’s apparent inability to make fundamental changes in human character. Just look at the failure of behaviorists to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. The cognitive dissonance which results from such attempts is truly horrendous. With the right conditioning, you can get a parent to kill their child. But the parent will be horribly damaged in the process. That’s not the kind of change I’m looking at.

Here’s a link to a general clearinghouse of information about classical and operant conditioning:
conditioning

deepbluesea, yes it makes sense, either that or I’m too tired also.

Some aspects of a persons character seem ingrained at a very early age, no matter what they do they will always be, say, optimistic, or impetuous or whatever.

It almost seems like they are born like this and I don’t think these apsects can ever be changed fundamentally.They may control and use them, its not necessarily change though.

I do think that these traits can be redirected and used by the person to their advantage.

In school many teachers can point out those who will have stormy lives, and it comes as no surprise to find certain children in trouble with the law in later life, but that’s almost like having the answer and working backwards.

There are certain environments that seem to predispose people to certain patterns of behaviour, children in state care living in homes seem to end up in prison far more than others, in the UK this happens to around 66% of them so there may be something about the competitive environment and the self first and last attitude that exists in sstate homes.
I can say that there is a lot of desire to keep credibility in the eyes of ones peers by not complying with authority in any way possible.

Well, QtM, when you say “can one person change another person” I’m just not sure how to interpret that. As you yourself mentioned it is possible, even though that very well might permanently damage the subject in the process. The problem here, I think, is in what one is trying to change. There are obviously some behaviors which can be changed; I mentioned waking up at a certain time, but could be punctuality, it could be how one conducts himself in public, it could be something like a diet.

I was reading into the psych book to see about not just how personalities develop, but what sort of things are actually considered personality. It would seem that, from the glossing-over my book gave it, once the personality is developed it is pretty much there. Your answer would then be “no.”

But then we could consider a psychologically addicted drug user or the psychological aspect of alcoholism. That is a trait that would seem to be learned necessarly… and unlearned, as well. What do you think?

I think that there are some parts of a personality that are “hard-wired” in the brain, and the only thing that can be changed there-- short of surgery!-- are the external appearence (ie, repression of the “instinct”, the consciousness deliberately watching and stopping th eexecution of these traits). Then it would seem we have a sort of ROM personality, not physiological per se, but coded into the way we actually think. Possible to change that, but not wihout a radical shift and possible production of inconsistency in the personality itself as a whole. Then we would simply have some circumstantial behavioral codes, like how to act at a fancy restaraunt, how to speak to our children or bosses, and so on. These can very easily be changed (easily with respect to the others, of course).

We are certainly flexible creatures at the surface, so I guess it comes down to: what do you want to change about a person?

Qadgop the Mercotan wrote:

Sure! If one person came up to me and chopped my left arm off, I’d change pretty dramatically.

Oh! You meant “can one person make another person’s behavior change?”! Well, why didn’t you say so! The answer is still: Sure! You betcha! If one person gave me a year’s supply of Prozac or Lithium or, oh, I don’t know, estrogen, and made me take it every day, you can betcher bottom dollar that my behavior would change.

I know MORE than one person can make another change.
This is how cults get recruits. This is how interventions work. This is the point of AA and Weight Watchers.
While it’s easy to dismiss one person’s opinion, it’s much harder when two or more are working on you.

Most of these examples are behavioral or mostly behavioral. (A member of AA is still an alcoholic. He’s just an alcoholic who doesn’t drink. A member of Weight Watchers has changed his weight by altering his diet and his lifestyle. A member of a cult is, arguably, a person who is prone to belief or dependence anyway; the only that has changed is what he believes, which is much more fluid than his need for belief, and how he acts, which is just behavior.) It’s much easier to change a behavior than it is to change a personality trait; and much, much harder to change a core trait, maybe even impossible. (Here’s an example, though not a perfect one. Behavior = drinking. Trait = alcoholism. Core trait = addictive personality.)

You can change a behavior, though it’s much harder to do if it arises from or feeds into a core trait. (It’s harder to quit drinking if you’re an alcoholic than it is to quit splitting infinitives.) But it’s usually possible, even if you’re changing another person’s behavior. It is much, much harder to modify your personality, even if you’re doing the modifying willingly; and often times, as several people have mentioned, there will be highly undesireable side effects that suggest that the personality is not so much changed as suppressed.

It’s very hard to argue the case without talking specifics.

I’m not particularly impressed with personality theory. I think you’re better off talking components: addictions, habits, skills, motivation levels, failures to communicate, neurological states and traits (the ADHD’s inability to focus/the depressive’s inability to get motivated), confidence levels, value systems, priorities, obliviousness, hostility, cognitive distortions…

Any of these can be influenced by another individual. In different ways, with different levels of success.

If you’re not empathic, if you’re not reflective, if you’re not creative, if you’re not flexible, you’ll have a hard time influencing another person.

But in general I (an atheist) stand by Jesus’ suggestion: take the log out of your own eye before you take the mote out of another’s.

Hmm. I have a personal story about someone changing me - and I’m not sure how it fits into the various catagories and theories given so far.

A friend and I (not a lifelong friend, not romantically involved, just somebody I knew pretty well) were sitting and talking one day about interior design. He happens to be a very gifted artist; I, on the other hand, am a semi-skilled copyist. During the course of our conversation, he made a change in the way I observed an interior - and changed my thinking on the subject forever. During a few later discussions, he showed me how that thought process applies to everything. I’m a much better artist now, and I have a creative way of looking at life that helps a lot in problem-solving.

That seems to be a pretty sweeping change to me. I’m sure there are Dopers out there who can recall teachers who gave them a new outlook. Does that enlightenment count as changing someone?

seawitch:

Only if the student chooses to listen and understand. My thoughts on this issue go back to a wise teacher who told my class, “No one can make you do anything”.
“Sure, they can,” we protested. “If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to give him all your money, he’s making you give him your money.”
“No,” she corrected. “I could choose to be shot.”

I think this is true in every case. No one can make another person do anything. The most a person can do is influence another. The degree of influence depends on the amount of power a person has over another. The catch is that in order to have power over a person, that person must give you that power, and he can choose to take it back.

A person who holds a gun to your head and demands your money may hold a great deal of power over you, but only if you value your life more than your wallet. To a suicidal person, a gun-wielding maniac would be a pleasant surprise.

If a stranger comes up to me on the street and says, “You should really quit smoking”, I’m likely to dismiss the comment. I don’t care much what the stranger thinks; he holds no power over me. When my son asks me to quit smoking, I listen. He holds the power of my love for him. My addiction also has power over me. Which side will I choose?

A woman is married to an abusive man. He demands to know where she is every minute of every day, decides who her friends may be, and beats her for every infraction. She changes. She becomes timid and compliant, she tries to satisfy his every whim. “Why doesn’t she leave him?” people ask. Because he has power over her: the power of fear. She can choose to leave him- if she is first able to stop giving him that power.

Parents are tremendously influential to their children. As the kids grow, the parents’ power wanes, so the time to mold them and teach them is when that power is still strong. We know that a parent may misuse his power to cause his child great harm, or he may use it well to the child’s benefit. In my opinion, it’s best that a parent’s power is based more on love than on fear.

Quadgop, your sister-in-law is badly mistaken. She doesn’t “make” her husband stick to his diet. He chooses to do it because of the power he has given her. He may decide to take that power back.

Well, the consensus seems to be that genuine effective change is possible only if someone wants to change. Which is pretty much my conclusion. But what do I tell sister-in-law now, when she proudly presents us with the fait accompli that 20 years of nagging have finally paid off by getting her hubby to lose 10 pounds? That’s half a pound a year!

Qadgop:

Just roll your eyes secretly. Saying anything in an attempt to think otherwise will only piss her off. The power struggle is between her and her husband; it’s up to him to change things if he’s not happy with being treated like a dog. Maybe he even enjoys being treated that way.

Well, you could turn to your brother (if in fact he is your brother - I know sisters-in-law can come into your life in other ways) and say: “Congratulations, Jack! I thought you looked fine before, [if indeed you did] but I hope you like the new look, too.” (Assuming the husband’s name is Jack.) Then, of course, you’d change the subject, quickly, preferably to something that will exclude s-i-l from the conversation entirely. (“So, Jack - how 'bout them Dodgers? Me ‘n’ the wife think they’re taking it all this year.” Or whatever.)

Do this enough times, and she’ll probably stop bragging. She obviously wants a) validation (“Great job, Jane!”) b) vindication (“Yeah, Jack, you were a total porker, but now you’ve finally shed those 10 pounds, well, International Male should be calling real soon.”) or c) attention (any comment directed to her or about her or her “accomplishment”). Depriving her of every one of those things will leave her feeling curiously unsatisfied, particularly if everyone else in the room is doing exactly the same thing. This may make her more voluable in the short-term, but in the long-term it should extinguish the behavior. The bragging, that is, or at any rate the bragging that happens around you. The nagging you couldn’t possibly stop, and in any case it’s up to your brother to do something about it if it bugs him.