Dan, this is a fascinating article. Here's the thought that struck me as I was reading.
Personality is such an intuitively obvious phenomenon, is it really empirically confinable? Is empiricism hindering our ability to understand personality? Perhaps the Greeks were on to something with their Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic, and Phlegmatic types.
To be empirically measured, we need to be able to isolate the secret sauce of what something is. We can measure the dimensions of a house because it has definite boundaries which we can assess. I think human "moods" also are pretty definite too--there are common physiological effects that relate to certain moods. Anger is signified by adrenaline and increased bloodflow in face and hands; happiness by an increase in dopamine, etc.
Is "what personality is" really a definitely pinned down concept? The Big Five even feel like they are trying to shoot for averages without really defining what exactly personality is. To me, the central question to empirical personality is whether or not you can do something physiological and affect personality changes. I don't think we are at that point, even if it is true.
I think the reason the Big Five have to shoot for a persons average behavior is because there is so much of personality that is intrinsic. I don't know a whole heck of a lot about your specific religious predilections but I personally believe that humans have a soul and part of what the soul gives us is our unique personality. I have heard this anecdotally and observed this in the children of my friends, but personality is apparent in children *from birth* which astounds me. There are some personality traits that are apparent from the very beginning, before any behaviors can be learned or imprinted upon a person. I don't think these personality traits are physiological constructions nor do I think they are learned behaviors--I think there is something Divine about them.
It is this reason that I think Empiricism is hindering the whole discussion. It's like measuring the beauty in a landscape. You can come up with some principles of beauty--symmetry, colors, perspective, perhaps--but those shoot for averages too. You can't *add* or *subtract* symmetry, color, perspective from a landscape and make it more or less beautiful. It either is or isn't. And that's something that we intuitively understand but cannot quite grasp empirically.
Because Personality is a non-physiological phenomenon, and because it is 100% possible for peoples moral character to change over time, it is logically possible for a persons personality to change over time. That's what I am arguing at least.
Admittedly--no expertise in this subject area, so forgive me for blasting a long comment here, but you're operating at a really interesting intersection of the human experience!
Most personality psychs agree that there’s more to personality than the Big Five, but if you’re going to research something you need to make it measurable somehow. And you’re actually spot on with the ‘shoot for averages’ thing - this is pretty much what the Big Five are. They originally emerged out of language studies that tried to cluster similar adjectives/personality descriptors together, which eventually settled on five major clusters (e.g., ‘outgoing’, ‘social’, ‘talkative’ would all cluster together to form Big Five ‘Extraversion’). There’s been some progress in identifying physiological sources of personality traits, but there’s still a long way to go on that.
My religious beliefs/thoughts on the soul are sort of a work in progress. One of the big hurdles for me is at the point where the material crosses into the immaterial, I can’t seem to bridge that gap intellectually (yet). But I agree that Empiricism is a limited perspective - and your point about beauty is a great example.
It’s true that there’s an element of personality that’s there from the beginning. From a material/Empirical perspective we try to explain this with genetics, but I think a soul or ‘essence’ isn’t a bad way to conceive of it either. It really is the core of who a person is. If this can change, I think committing to a new moral code is one way to do it - and the changes people go through when the find (or indeed, lose) religion exemplify this well.
Appreciated this reflection. For what it's worth, I agree that personalities can and do change. After all, the traits fall on a continuum; the underlying question is often how substantially can they change?! Your post also reminded me of the notion from attachment theory of "earned secure" attachment--which I take to be an example of personality change. Some research suggests that going from insecure to secure attachment takes 2-5 years. Sounds in the ballpark to me. Thanks for the post.
"how substantially can they change?" - yes, that's the big question! I think you're right about attachment change being a form of personality change. I feel like I've gone through a similar process throughout my life.
Interesting article, thank-you! I think personality can change, and you've touched on a number of reasons why. Personally I think more credence should be placed on life experiences resulting in personality changes. Choices people make around employment, study, relationships, travel...who they interact with and form bonds with and significant emotional experiences would surely influence personality change...not sure how we measure these impacts though? I look forward to reading more!
I agree, I think all of these things can impact/change personality. The evidence is mixed at the moment, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to what scientists think. And there hasn't been much done on change at the level of Character Adaptations, where I think a lot of this change occurs.
Thanks for the feedback! I do try to make these topics accessible, so I'm glad it's working.
I think you're right about reason/ sentiment/intuition and their connection to personality. And my experience as a therapist seems to back this up - it's easy enough to convince someone that being scared of frogs is irrational, but to overcome the fear they actually have to feel the change on a much deeper level. They have to experience it first hand. This suggests that our thoughts aren't really hard-wired into us like our intuitions are.
Dan, this is a fascinating article. Here's the thought that struck me as I was reading.
Personality is such an intuitively obvious phenomenon, is it really empirically confinable? Is empiricism hindering our ability to understand personality? Perhaps the Greeks were on to something with their Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic, and Phlegmatic types.
To be empirically measured, we need to be able to isolate the secret sauce of what something is. We can measure the dimensions of a house because it has definite boundaries which we can assess. I think human "moods" also are pretty definite too--there are common physiological effects that relate to certain moods. Anger is signified by adrenaline and increased bloodflow in face and hands; happiness by an increase in dopamine, etc.
Is "what personality is" really a definitely pinned down concept? The Big Five even feel like they are trying to shoot for averages without really defining what exactly personality is. To me, the central question to empirical personality is whether or not you can do something physiological and affect personality changes. I don't think we are at that point, even if it is true.
I think the reason the Big Five have to shoot for a persons average behavior is because there is so much of personality that is intrinsic. I don't know a whole heck of a lot about your specific religious predilections but I personally believe that humans have a soul and part of what the soul gives us is our unique personality. I have heard this anecdotally and observed this in the children of my friends, but personality is apparent in children *from birth* which astounds me. There are some personality traits that are apparent from the very beginning, before any behaviors can be learned or imprinted upon a person. I don't think these personality traits are physiological constructions nor do I think they are learned behaviors--I think there is something Divine about them.
It is this reason that I think Empiricism is hindering the whole discussion. It's like measuring the beauty in a landscape. You can come up with some principles of beauty--symmetry, colors, perspective, perhaps--but those shoot for averages too. You can't *add* or *subtract* symmetry, color, perspective from a landscape and make it more or less beautiful. It either is or isn't. And that's something that we intuitively understand but cannot quite grasp empirically.
Because Personality is a non-physiological phenomenon, and because it is 100% possible for peoples moral character to change over time, it is logically possible for a persons personality to change over time. That's what I am arguing at least.
Admittedly--no expertise in this subject area, so forgive me for blasting a long comment here, but you're operating at a really interesting intersection of the human experience!
Thank you as always, Dan!
Thanks Scoot, glad you liked it!
Most personality psychs agree that there’s more to personality than the Big Five, but if you’re going to research something you need to make it measurable somehow. And you’re actually spot on with the ‘shoot for averages’ thing - this is pretty much what the Big Five are. They originally emerged out of language studies that tried to cluster similar adjectives/personality descriptors together, which eventually settled on five major clusters (e.g., ‘outgoing’, ‘social’, ‘talkative’ would all cluster together to form Big Five ‘Extraversion’). There’s been some progress in identifying physiological sources of personality traits, but there’s still a long way to go on that.
My religious beliefs/thoughts on the soul are sort of a work in progress. One of the big hurdles for me is at the point where the material crosses into the immaterial, I can’t seem to bridge that gap intellectually (yet). But I agree that Empiricism is a limited perspective - and your point about beauty is a great example.
It’s true that there’s an element of personality that’s there from the beginning. From a material/Empirical perspective we try to explain this with genetics, but I think a soul or ‘essence’ isn’t a bad way to conceive of it either. It really is the core of who a person is. If this can change, I think committing to a new moral code is one way to do it - and the changes people go through when the find (or indeed, lose) religion exemplify this well.
Appreciated this reflection. For what it's worth, I agree that personalities can and do change. After all, the traits fall on a continuum; the underlying question is often how substantially can they change?! Your post also reminded me of the notion from attachment theory of "earned secure" attachment--which I take to be an example of personality change. Some research suggests that going from insecure to secure attachment takes 2-5 years. Sounds in the ballpark to me. Thanks for the post.
"how substantially can they change?" - yes, that's the big question! I think you're right about attachment change being a form of personality change. I feel like I've gone through a similar process throughout my life.
Interesting article, thank-you! I think personality can change, and you've touched on a number of reasons why. Personally I think more credence should be placed on life experiences resulting in personality changes. Choices people make around employment, study, relationships, travel...who they interact with and form bonds with and significant emotional experiences would surely influence personality change...not sure how we measure these impacts though? I look forward to reading more!
Thank you!
I agree, I think all of these things can impact/change personality. The evidence is mixed at the moment, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to what scientists think. And there hasn't been much done on change at the level of Character Adaptations, where I think a lot of this change occurs.
I'll write more on this topic in future!
Thanks for the feedback! I do try to make these topics accessible, so I'm glad it's working.
I think you're right about reason/ sentiment/intuition and their connection to personality. And my experience as a therapist seems to back this up - it's easy enough to convince someone that being scared of frogs is irrational, but to overcome the fear they actually have to feel the change on a much deeper level. They have to experience it first hand. This suggests that our thoughts aren't really hard-wired into us like our intuitions are.