This thread is about personality and whether or not it is consistent on a day to day basis (weekly or monthly basis if we want/need to expand a little).
I often hear humans say, “I always conduct myself in this manner and no others” and other humans say to yet other humans, “You always act this way or do things like <blank> with no variances” but there are times where I wonder if we are merely organizing the information we receive from others (in regards to their actions/moods/words) in order to better serve ourselves. Maybe our “personality” is an illusion (or delusion, in some instances), a series of patterns that we patch together for convenience’s sake? Maybe we only perceive ourselves as consistent because it is easier to categorize that way?
There is another layer to this and I believe it is the original reason I concocted this question. I have heard at times, leveled at myself, and at others, that I or someone else change(s) my/his or her personality to suit the group and that I am/she or he is as a result disingenuous. But to me, one must modify to a certain extent the content of a conversation and the manner in which you approach a conversation to suit the pairing you are currently occupying (a group, in this instance, meaning two or more people).
I am not sure I am being very clear, but I wanted some other opinions on the matter. I don’t think I know very much about this, save for an intuition or two. What are your thoughts, O denizens of the Dope?
If I am being rather silly, please tell me. I do that a lot (but at least I admit it). :smack:
I think personality is something which is actually very tough to define. We look at other people’s behaviour, average it out, and call that that person’s personality.
But from our own perspective, we have lots of competing elements within our minds, and this competition absolutely changes based on situation, and over time.
There is no “real me” independent of context or unchanged by past experiences.
And this leads into why I can never feel the difference between me “trying to be something I am not” and “finding my true self”. They tend to only look different in retrospect.
(I doubt that this post has added more clarity, but I saw there were no replies and just thought I’d throw some stuff out there.)
I think that observed behaviour is an illusion of personality, because in life we play roles.
I play the roles of wife, daughter, sister, friend, office worker, gamer, etc. In each of these roles, my personality can be quite different - at home and with friends I am introverted, at work with colleagues I am extroverted.
I think personality is quite fluid. Everything else about one’s mental state changes as they get older, so why wouldn’t personality? I think people think the personality provides a glimpse into the “soul”–an entity that must stay the same to be recognizable by whatever supernatural force you fancy. A changing, malleable personality gunks up this idea.
Hmm, quite possibly. Do you have any recommendations for how we should define it? Just taking a meek guess at the definition, I state that personality is a perceived series of patterns of behavior, thought, and mood, usually, but not necessarily, that one identifies with and admits to oneself, and with other portions of said personality observed and verbally noted by spectators of the given person. Now whether these patterns are actually consistent - actually patterns - is one part of the question. How does that sound?
I am not stating a definition with the declaration that I am right. I am merely exploring one way we can define it. Any other input is appreciated.
Forgive me if this is sarcasm on your part, but I haven’t experienced that phrase in the same way. For example, I try (and often succeed) to remind myself that when I say something like “I always wash the dishes”, what I really mean to say is “I wash the dishes frequently enough to feel I have some claim to this act”, but occasionally I honestly think that I mean “always” and will only alter my phrasing at another person’s behest. I have seen this happen on other humans as well. I can certainly agree that everyone, in retrospect, will have meant most of the time - again, in retrospect.
In regards to everyone else, I am simultaneously delighted and surprised at the amount of people who agree with my own ideas to some extent. Now I am not saying that as a point of arrogance. Only, I have often put forth this hypothesis to people in-person and have all but once been scoffed at for suggesting it. Perhaps it was only due to poor wording on my part, poor timing, or poor group choice. I am delighted because now I feel less alone now in my thoughts.
Mijin – I can really feel some relation to your comment of “there is no ‘real me’ independent of context or unchanged by experience” and the comment regarding not feeling the difference between those two elements stated in your post (forgive the shoddy paraphrase).
sandra_nz – I did not equate my question or my thoughts with what you stated on my own, but after reading your post I suddenly feel as if this perfectly describes what I meant to say all along. Thank you for your contribution.
monstro – So are you suggesting that this “illusion” originally stemmed from a picture of the soul influenced or determined by religious practice or religious forces?
Interesting thoughts here; I am liking it so far. Come, let us discuss this further!
Absolutely! Well, when I’m trying to define something for a discussion, my first step is the dictionary. This one says:
It seems like 3 is the closest to what you’re talking about, made more concise, so let’s look at that one again:
Would you accept that for the sake of this discussion?
I’m going to assume for the moment you will, since it’s pretty close to the definition you offered, and I’ve got insomnia and some time on my hands and don’t want to wait for a reply.
If that, or something like it, is our definition of personality, then I’m going to say no, consistency of personality is not an illusion. I believe the research which has shown that personality is fairly consistent from infancy through late adulthood, until and unless unusual stress (abuse, war, etc.), neurological trauma or mental illness occurs.
Current theory, which is about as widely accepted as anything in psychology is accepted, is that there are 5 facets of personality, and meta-studies have found them to be constant. These factors are:
If those sound like horribly Victorian, stuffed shirt terms, it’s because they are. They’re kept around because they make a nice mnemonic (“OCEAN”) and that makes it easier to pass tests. There have been suggestions for additions and alterations of these 5, but most of what has been proposed doesn’t add much statistically useful information, as it’s so strongly correlated (inversely or directly) with the Big Five as already identified.
Each factor is a scale. An infant may be very open to new experiences, looking longer at a new toy and sucking faster on a pacifier, or she may be not open at all, turning her head away and crying. What we’ve found time and time again is that where a person lies on the scales as an infant is very close to where they lie on the scales as an adult, although of course the expression is different. People who like new experiences as infants like them as adults. People who are efficient and organized in their first attempts to roll over tend to be people who are efficient and organized at their desks in middle age. While there is some change due to maturation, it still tends to be fairly predictable - we become less agreeable and conscientious as older children and teens, to the shock of no parent ever. But then we tend to become more agreeable and conscientious as adults.
So…is it impossible to change one’s behavior? Are we slaves to our personalities, set in stone from infancy? No, I don’t think so. But I think it takes a concerted effort of will and a plan of action to do so. Just as people who naturally tend to fat can be thin with a lot of work, a person who is naturally closed to new experiences can have and perhaps even enjoy new experiences with a lot of work. But “a lot of work” seems to be key there. It’s possible to fight one’s innate personality and act in a manner opposed to it, but it takes effort, and practice, and an intentional, repeated and sustained commitment to changing one’s behavior. Whether or not the underlying emotions/drives/tendencies at rest ever change is doubtful.
I have read your post. I am going to think it over just before I go to bed (which is a few minutes here) and rest on it a bit more – then think about it some more throughout the day “tomorrow” before I give a response. It is definitely something to consider.
I just wanted to pop in really quickly to agree to the definition of personality showing here:
And I agree that the dictionary is a good place to start (usually I check the dictionary first before trying to define something). :rolleyes: Of course, as you can see, I didn’t start there. Oh, me! :rolleyes:
There have been suggestions for additions and alterations of these 5, but most of what has been proposed doesn’t add much statistically useful information, as it’s so strongly correlated (inversely or directly) with the Big Five as already identified.