3 ms·

Short answer: no. Long answer: no. The supposition that the personality is completely fixed or completely mutable is simply false. There are fundamental constr

Short answer: no. Long answer: no. The supposition that the personality is completely fixed or completely mutable is simply false. There are fundamental constraints to how the personality can be manifested. Histrionic personalities are perhaps those most inclined to believe that their personality is truly self-determined, but they'd also be mistaken.

msdos 10y ago
Do you have a citation? The researcher in the article believes the opposite.
- superobserver 10y ago
  The author can believe whatever is fashionable. I dare you to consider the body of all psychological literature on the subject of the personality. It is so apparent and obvious that the personality is neither fixed nor completely mutable that I find the article to be essentially nonsensical. Who here supposes anyone is a tabula rasa? Who here supposes anyone emerges in this life fully formed and actualized? This is a spurious dichotomy that is erected time to time based on cultural norms and stipulations - much of it propagandising to suit others desires and ends.
RIMR 10y ago
This wasn't really a yes-or-no question...
- superobserver 10y ago
  Yes, actually, it is, in the context of there being two, spuriously postulated dichotomous outcomes, whereas it is clearly the case that neither is true. What would it mean for a personality to be fixed? Such a thing doesn't even begin to make any sense, given that persons develop over their lifetimes, for instance. What would it mean that you could change who you are? That also doesn't make much sense, since it is like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. The personality is a constellation of aspects that we all show to varying degrees, many of which are in fact out of our control, but some of which nevertheless are capable of being adjusted in accordance with various forms of conditioning. It is in that constellation that we find what the personality is. Emphasizing minute aspects and exaggerating them doesn't constitute the whole personality. This is remarkably uninformative as an article.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out for you?
- superobserver 10y ago
  Let me guess, you probably make a lot of presumptive statements that have no basis in reality about what a lot of people say. Or perhaps that is just in this instance. I can, nevertheless, point out to you that that isn't going to get you very far in rational discourse.
- mike4ty4 10y ago
  It seems you are interpreting what is said in black and white terms. He (she?) said that personality is _neither_ completely _fixed_ _nor_ completely _mutable_. Things are not either/XOR. The same goes with IQ. I don't think any average person could ever train their intelligence to be, say, John von Neumann. Thus it is not _completely_ mutable. He was a genetically superior specimen by every account and evidenced such from a very young age. But a good 15-20 point boost, especially if we did not train ourselves to our fullest before? Maybe. I used to process more slowly, now I process faster, because I pushed to think quicker. Thus it is not completely _fixed_, either. Definitely we can eradicate racial IQ gaps, I believe (average Black-White IQ gap in the US is 15 points favoring Whites, by the way.), Rushton et. al. be damned. If I remember right, in some places it was actually done, thus proving its possibility. (Interesting tidbit the racists seem not to address: Bhutan's and China's people are both “Mongoloid Asian" race by racist theory – but Bhutan has IQ 85, China at 105, at least using racists' own data sets. I wonder also what the IQ for rural China vs. urban wealthy China looks like. I suspect the 105 number comes from having a large proportion of the latter in the sample.)

msdos 10y ago

Do you have a citation? The researcher in the article believes the opposite.

superobserver 10y ago
The author can believe whatever is fashionable. I dare you to consider the body of all psychological literature on the subject of the personality. It is so apparent and obvious that the personality is neither fixed nor completely mutable that I find the article to be essentially nonsensical. Who here supposes anyone is a tabula rasa? Who here supposes anyone emerges in this life fully formed and actualized? This is a spurious dichotomy that is erected time to time based on cultural norms and stipulations - much of it propagandising to suit others desires and ends.

RIMR 10y ago

This wasn't really a yes-or-no question...

superobserver 10y ago
Yes, actually, it is, in the context of there being two, spuriously postulated dichotomous outcomes, whereas it is clearly the case that neither is true. What would it mean for a personality to be fixed? Such a thing doesn't even begin to make any sense, given that persons develop over their lifetimes, for instance. What would it mean that you could change who you are? That also doesn't make much sense, since it is like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. The personality is a constellation of aspects that we all show to varying degrees, many of which are in fact out of our control, but some of which nevertheless are capable of being adjusted in accordance with various forms of conditioning. It is in that constellation that we find what the personality is. Emphasizing minute aspects and exaggerating them doesn't constitute the whole personality. This is remarkably uninformative as an article.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out for you?

superobserver 10y ago
Let me guess, you probably make a lot of presumptive statements that have no basis in reality about what a lot of people say. Or perhaps that is just in this instance. I can, nevertheless, point out to you that that isn't going to get you very far in rational discourse.
mike4ty4 10y ago
It seems you are interpreting what is said in black and white terms. He (she?) said that personality is _neither_ completely _fixed_ _nor_ completely _mutable_. Things are not either/XOR. The same goes with IQ. I don't think any average person could ever train their intelligence to be, say, John von Neumann. Thus it is not _completely_ mutable. He was a genetically superior specimen by every account and evidenced such from a very young age. But a good 15-20 point boost, especially if we did not train ourselves to our fullest before? Maybe. I used to process more slowly, now I process faster, because I pushed to think quicker. Thus it is not completely _fixed_, either. Definitely we can eradicate racial IQ gaps, I believe (average Black-White IQ gap in the US is 15 points favoring Whites, by the way.), Rushton et. al. be damned. If I remember right, in some places it was actually done, thus proving its possibility. (Interesting tidbit the racists seem not to address: Bhutan's and China's people are both “Mongoloid Asian" race by racist theory – but Bhutan has IQ 85, China at 105, at least using racists' own data sets. I wonder also what the IQ for rural China vs. urban wealthy China looks like. I suspect the 105 number comes from having a large proportion of the latter in the sample.)