5 ms·

This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal s

This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal social experiment studies such as those of Milgram or Zimbardo. The argument that the changes seen there are short lived can be contradicted by the fact that subjects always go back to their normal environment after the experiment. What I believe Ed Boyden would call the illusion of isolation. That is why important changes usually occur at key breaking moments in a life: change of school, leaving home, changing city/country. The social environment has far more power on the psyche than any therapy. But the social environment of an individual usually do not change, and the only real power he has on it is to willingly chose isolation, which is worst of all. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691614568352 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/174569161456835... Personality disorders, on the other hand, are characterised by fixed traits of personality, rigid in time in spite of detrimental effects on the life of the subject or the life of others.

atis 10y ago
Serious question: why is choosing isolation "worst of all"?
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings (loneliness, anxiety, sadness, guilt, shame, cynicism, paranoia, listlessness, self loathing, despair, etc.), disrupted circadian rhythms from poor sleep and lack of sunshine, lack of routines and loss of time sense, lack of exercise, unhealthy diet, poor personal hygiene and cleanliness, substance abuse, financial problems, and so on. Without sources of external correction/feedback/perspective, even tiny negative thoughts can get amplified and spiral out of control, and a human can stop behaving within the range of personhood (that is, the usual social construction of normal behavior). Without any human contact, it is difficult to keep control over the focus of attention, find meaning in daily routines and projects, etc. Even trivial tasks can start to take monumental amounts of mental effort. With sufficient sensory deprivation someone can become dissociated or start hallucinating, or can fall into catatonic depression. Some people are obviously better at handling isolation than others, but it’s tough for even the strongest willed. Involuntary isolation (e.g. solitary confinement, or long-term homelessness) is a torturous experience for most people, often causing permanent emotional scars. Voluntary isolation (living as a hermit in the woods to write a novel or whatever) should not be undertaken lightly. Often people isolate themselves after some kind of severe negative shock, e.g. the death of a loved one, a bad break-up, a professional failure, etc. People experiencing strong negative emotions without any social support/comfort from family/friends can get themselves into situations that are difficult or impossible to climb back out of, especially if substance abuse is involved.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - albertTJames 10y ago
    Such a great answer. I think it would deserve a little article on its own.
  - xkxx 10y ago
    > Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings I became much happier after I chose to be alone. I realized that I'm not meant to have any close friends. I realized that I'm not a likable person. And I realized that it's totally okay. Even if I change to become a "better" (more likable, able to have more friends) person, I won't like myself. I like myself the way I am. Now, if people don't like me, it's their problem: I took every step possible for us to not interact. If they still seek interaction with me and, after it happens, don't like me, well, it's their problem, they chose to seek interaction with me, not me. > cynicism Cynicism is not a feeling. Cynicism is a belief that people always act selfishly. And such a belief has a lot of supporting evidence. Also, cynics are not always negative people. You can be a positive cynic.
    - aoeu345 10y ago
      It's easy to say that you're happier alone. It's much more difficult to admit to yourself that you have social anxiety that keeps you from making relationships. A human that does the first will decay over time. A human that does the second can be anything he/she wants to be. There is enormous supporting evidence that quantity and quality of relationships are directly correlated to happiness
      - ams6110 10y ago
        There's enormous evidence for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean it's equally applicable to every individual. I see no reason to think that some small percentage of people truly are happier alone even if the opposite is true for the large majority.
- quickben 10y ago
  We did not evolve in isolation, or cope well with it. Find your tribe, whatever it may be, and you'll be happier.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Or find a way to fit well enough into the tribe at hand that your pack-ape instincts are satisfied.
bjterry 10y ago
This reminds me of an article I read which said that 95% of the soldiers in Vietnam who had become addicted to heroin simply stopped when they came back to America. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I have read about this a few times. I think the main difference is in what the folks are changing: They are changing habits and lifestyle - their input - rather than changing their base personality - their output. Naturally with different input they act differently: Same for dropping a drug that affects the way you act. And I do somewhat understand - I changed a lot of things when I moved overseas. I likely seem different: But I'm also happier and have a different knowledge base than I did a few years ago. People's expectations of me changed as well: As soon as people realize I'm not Norwegian (the English accent gives me away), it is OK if I break some social norms - those things that I had trouble grasping anyway.
  - johnchristopher 10y ago
    We are, if anything, creatures of habit. Drawn to the safety and the comfort of the similar.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      Meditation is one good way to break this. Rubbing your nose endlessly in your own thoughtless patterns can be bloody embarrassing. Certainly life-changing.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    I was thinking just this, too; and then fipped my opinion a few seconds ago. What I was thinking at first was "I just changed my tactics, that's all." But of course, that's what others see as our personality; our tactics. Not just our typical tactics, that is; but also what we revert to when pressed. I think I changed both, so I'm not who I was. I seem the same to me, of course... but so what. I still feeling twenty inside sometimes, or younger but that doesn't mean I am - I certainly ain't.
dan00 10y ago
> This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal social experiment studies such as those of Milgram or Zimbardo. These experiments first of all show how people react in highly stressful situations. To equalize this with changes in their personalities doesn't seem right to me. The hardest part of these artificial and mostly extreme experiments - because you want to see reactions in a short amount of time - is what kind of conclusions you can take out of them.
- mjmasn 10y ago
  I agree, this is confusing actual personality changes with stress behaviour. Obviously if you reduce stress you can remove unproductive behaviours such as neuroticism but the persons fundamental view of the world hasn't necessarily changed, even if it seems that way if you didn't know the person before the stress behaviours began to dominate. Look into the Birkman Method, it's a psychometric personality assessment that, unlike other pop-quiz type tools (MBTI et al), distinguishes between your usual behaviour, your fundamental expectation of the world (needs) and your reactions (stress) when those expectations aren't met. It's unlikely that your usual behaviour changes, although it's quite possible that your stress behaviour could mask that (even for years on end) if you're in an environment you can't cope with.

atis 10y ago

Serious question: why is choosing isolation "worst of all"?

jacobolus 10y ago
Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings (loneliness, anxiety, sadness, guilt, shame, cynicism, paranoia, listlessness, self loathing, despair, etc.), disrupted circadian rhythms from poor sleep and lack of sunshine, lack of routines and loss of time sense, lack of exercise, unhealthy diet, poor personal hygiene and cleanliness, substance abuse, financial problems, and so on. Without sources of external correction/feedback/perspective, even tiny negative thoughts can get amplified and spiral out of control, and a human can stop behaving within the range of personhood (that is, the usual social construction of normal behavior). Without any human contact, it is difficult to keep control over the focus of attention, find meaning in daily routines and projects, etc. Even trivial tasks can start to take monumental amounts of mental effort. With sufficient sensory deprivation someone can become dissociated or start hallucinating, or can fall into catatonic depression. Some people are obviously better at handling isolation than others, but it’s tough for even the strongest willed. Involuntary isolation (e.g. solitary confinement, or long-term homelessness) is a torturous experience for most people, often causing permanent emotional scars. Voluntary isolation (living as a hermit in the woods to write a novel or whatever) should not be undertaken lightly. Often people isolate themselves after some kind of severe negative shock, e.g. the death of a loved one, a bad break-up, a professional failure, etc. People experiencing strong negative emotions without any social support/comfort from family/friends can get themselves into situations that are difficult or impossible to climb back out of, especially if substance abuse is involved.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- albertTJames 10y ago
  Such a great answer. I think it would deserve a little article on its own.
- xkxx 10y ago
  > Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings I became much happier after I chose to be alone. I realized that I'm not meant to have any close friends. I realized that I'm not a likable person. And I realized that it's totally okay. Even if I change to become a "better" (more likable, able to have more friends) person, I won't like myself. I like myself the way I am. Now, if people don't like me, it's their problem: I took every step possible for us to not interact. If they still seek interaction with me and, after it happens, don't like me, well, it's their problem, they chose to seek interaction with me, not me. > cynicism Cynicism is not a feeling. Cynicism is a belief that people always act selfishly. And such a belief has a lot of supporting evidence. Also, cynics are not always negative people. You can be a positive cynic.
  - aoeu345 10y ago
    It's easy to say that you're happier alone. It's much more difficult to admit to yourself that you have social anxiety that keeps you from making relationships. A human that does the first will decay over time. A human that does the second can be anything he/she wants to be. There is enormous supporting evidence that quantity and quality of relationships are directly correlated to happiness
    - ams6110 10y ago
      There's enormous evidence for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean it's equally applicable to every individual. I see no reason to think that some small percentage of people truly are happier alone even if the opposite is true for the large majority.
quickben 10y ago
We did not evolve in isolation, or cope well with it. Find your tribe, whatever it may be, and you'll be happier.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Or find a way to fit well enough into the tribe at hand that your pack-ape instincts are satisfied.

bjterry 10y ago

This reminds me of an article I read which said that 95% of the soldiers in Vietnam who had become addicted to heroin simply stopped when they came back to America. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I have read about this a few times. I think the main difference is in what the folks are changing: They are changing habits and lifestyle - their input - rather than changing their base personality - their output. Naturally with different input they act differently: Same for dropping a drug that affects the way you act. And I do somewhat understand - I changed a lot of things when I moved overseas. I likely seem different: But I'm also happier and have a different knowledge base than I did a few years ago. People's expectations of me changed as well: As soon as people realize I'm not Norwegian (the English accent gives me away), it is OK if I break some social norms - those things that I had trouble grasping anyway.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  We are, if anything, creatures of habit. Drawn to the safety and the comfort of the similar.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Meditation is one good way to break this. Rubbing your nose endlessly in your own thoughtless patterns can be bloody embarrassing. Certainly life-changing.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  I was thinking just this, too; and then fipped my opinion a few seconds ago. What I was thinking at first was "I just changed my tactics, that's all." But of course, that's what others see as our personality; our tactics. Not just our typical tactics, that is; but also what we revert to when pressed. I think I changed both, so I'm not who I was. I seem the same to me, of course... but so what. I still feeling twenty inside sometimes, or younger but that doesn't mean I am - I certainly ain't.

dan00 10y ago

> This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal social experiment studies such as those of Milgram or Zimbardo. These experiments first of all show how people react in highly stressful situations. To equalize this with changes in their personalities doesn't seem right to me. The hardest part of these artificial and mostly extreme experiments - because you want to see reactions in a short amount of time - is what kind of conclusions you can take out of them.

mjmasn 10y ago
I agree, this is confusing actual personality changes with stress behaviour. Obviously if you reduce stress you can remove unproductive behaviours such as neuroticism but the persons fundamental view of the world hasn't necessarily changed, even if it seems that way if you didn't know the person before the stress behaviours began to dominate. Look into the Birkman Method, it's a psychometric personality assessment that, unlike other pop-quiz type tools (MBTI et al), distinguishes between your usual behaviour, your fundamental expectation of the world (needs) and your reactions (stress) when those expectations aren't met. It's unlikely that your usual behaviour changes, although it's quite possible that your stress behaviour could mask that (even for years on end) if you're in an environment you can't cope with.