4 ms·

There is also evidence to show that we retain 25% of the same personality traits that we had as 20 year olds, as we age. I think David Epstein's book, Range, re

There is also evidence to show that we retain 25% of the same personality traits that we had as 20 year olds, as we age. I think David Epstein's book, Range, references this. So we really do become a different person.

habeebtc 5y ago
Thank God for that.
ekianjo 5y ago
> 25% of the same personality traits Good luck quantifying that without too much snake oil.
- dougSF70 5y ago
  I think they used the well-established and well-researched personality methodology called OCEAN. This has been well documented as being able to identify the big five traits (OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM) and its sub traits. This framework was then used by Aleksandr Kogan to profile and harvest facebook users - who then sold it to Cambridge Analytica..etc. By relying somewhat on self-selection Aleksandr's firm was able to profile facebook users. Since there was no second-guessing by the subject of the test as what a "question might say about them" I think it was pretty robust methodology. And then when you look at the impact of his work, you can see it was effective. Not sure there is any snake oil to be found here.
  - anotherman554 5y ago
    I've taken one of those big 5 tests, it's based on self reported answers to survey questions. While I would not call it snake oil, if self reports are not a reliable method of understanding people, it's fancy nonsense. (Like most psychology, it seems it may or may not be B.S.) I googled the Cambridge thing you mentioned and the first article that came up said it wasn't particularly accurate and was mostly just profiling based on demographics. (Shrug).
    - dougSF70 5y ago
      Yes that article, sponsored by Cambridge Analytica, does play it down :)
      - anotherman554 5y ago
        There's no such article that came up. There's a long tradition of psychologists making grandiose claims that are short on facts. B.F. skinner claimed "Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything." Not sure why you would assume the Cambridge thing did what someone selling it said it could do.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > By relying somewhat on self-selection Aleksandr's firm was able to profile facebook users. Since there was no second-guessing by the subject of the test as what a "question might say about them" I think it was pretty robust methodology. Having worked in adtech, and as a psychologist who's attempted to use OCEAN for said adtech, I never found it to work better than standard approaches. Additionally, Costa and McCrae created the Big 5, found it didn't replicate in confirmatory factor analysis, so they created a new method of CFA which did replicate it. Like, E O and N are probably real, but the overall structure does not replicate and should not be taken very seriously.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > This has been well documented as being able to identify the big five traits (OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM) and its sub traits. It's just a simplified model to put personalities in a certain bucket, typical PCA-style. This has limitations just like everything else that uses self-reporting to make a judgment/categorization. it's not like we are able to observe the structure of someone's brain and confirm that with actual facts. In other words, that's not even remotely what you call Science.
- matthewaveryusa 5y ago
  Some authors simply don't understand the importance of factual statistics. I see a lot of it in psychology. Your choice as a reader is to close the book, or change your frame of reference with regards to the statistics in the entire book. In this case, the author is probably trying to convey that for a lot of people their personalities will change over the course of 30 years such that at the 20 and 50 year mark a minority of ones personality is still present. Don't get me wrong, I hate fake stats, but at least changing _my_ expectations allows me to enjoy more books without zeroing in on what could be a minor issue in a much larger and interesting point.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    It's hardly surprising that people change over time. What surprises me is the extent to which I have become like my father, as I have aged. When I was 20, I despised my father. I haven't adopted my father's political or social attitudes; but I'm pretty horrified at the extent to which I've become like him in my personal attitudes and dealings.
lastofthemojito 5y ago
I haven't read anything else by the self-help author it's attributed to, but I've seen this quote multiple times recently: "To love someone long term is to attend a thousand funerals of the people they used to be". Which seems like a healthy thing to acknowledge - people constantly change in small ways, which add up to big changes over the years. It's also healthy to expect and not be disappointed by such changes in one's self.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > to attend a thousand funerals That is a perspicacious remark! You change, and your lover changes, and that is all good and natural. So you both adapt to one-another, or you have to move on. I for one do not expect the road to be free of potholes and bumps. If it were always smooth and flat, the journey would become dull.

habeebtc 5y ago

Thank God for that.

ekianjo 5y ago

> 25% of the same personality traits Good luck quantifying that without too much snake oil.

dougSF70 5y ago
I think they used the well-established and well-researched personality methodology called OCEAN. This has been well documented as being able to identify the big five traits (OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM) and its sub traits. This framework was then used by Aleksandr Kogan to profile and harvest facebook users - who then sold it to Cambridge Analytica..etc. By relying somewhat on self-selection Aleksandr's firm was able to profile facebook users. Since there was no second-guessing by the subject of the test as what a "question might say about them" I think it was pretty robust methodology. And then when you look at the impact of his work, you can see it was effective. Not sure there is any snake oil to be found here.
- anotherman554 5y ago
  I've taken one of those big 5 tests, it's based on self reported answers to survey questions. While I would not call it snake oil, if self reports are not a reliable method of understanding people, it's fancy nonsense. (Like most psychology, it seems it may or may not be B.S.) I googled the Cambridge thing you mentioned and the first article that came up said it wasn't particularly accurate and was mostly just profiling based on demographics. (Shrug).
  - dougSF70 5y ago
    Yes that article, sponsored by Cambridge Analytica, does play it down :)
    - anotherman554 5y ago
      There's no such article that came up. There's a long tradition of psychologists making grandiose claims that are short on facts. B.F. skinner claimed "Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything." Not sure why you would assume the Cambridge thing did what someone selling it said it could do.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > By relying somewhat on self-selection Aleksandr's firm was able to profile facebook users. Since there was no second-guessing by the subject of the test as what a "question might say about them" I think it was pretty robust methodology. Having worked in adtech, and as a psychologist who's attempted to use OCEAN for said adtech, I never found it to work better than standard approaches. Additionally, Costa and McCrae created the Big 5, found it didn't replicate in confirmatory factor analysis, so they created a new method of CFA which did replicate it. Like, E O and N are probably real, but the overall structure does not replicate and should not be taken very seriously.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > This has been well documented as being able to identify the big five traits (OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM) and its sub traits. It's just a simplified model to put personalities in a certain bucket, typical PCA-style. This has limitations just like everything else that uses self-reporting to make a judgment/categorization. it's not like we are able to observe the structure of someone's brain and confirm that with actual facts. In other words, that's not even remotely what you call Science.
matthewaveryusa 5y ago
Some authors simply don't understand the importance of factual statistics. I see a lot of it in psychology. Your choice as a reader is to close the book, or change your frame of reference with regards to the statistics in the entire book. In this case, the author is probably trying to convey that for a lot of people their personalities will change over the course of 30 years such that at the 20 and 50 year mark a minority of ones personality is still present. Don't get me wrong, I hate fake stats, but at least changing _my_ expectations allows me to enjoy more books without zeroing in on what could be a minor issue in a much larger and interesting point.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  It's hardly surprising that people change over time. What surprises me is the extent to which I have become like my father, as I have aged. When I was 20, I despised my father. I haven't adopted my father's political or social attitudes; but I'm pretty horrified at the extent to which I've become like him in my personal attitudes and dealings.

lastofthemojito 5y ago

I haven't read anything else by the self-help author it's attributed to, but I've seen this quote multiple times recently: "To love someone long term is to attend a thousand funerals of the people they used to be". Which seems like a healthy thing to acknowledge - people constantly change in small ways, which add up to big changes over the years. It's also healthy to expect and not be disappointed by such changes in one's self.

denton-scratch 5y ago
> to attend a thousand funerals That is a perspicacious remark! You change, and your lover changes, and that is all good and natural. So you both adapt to one-another, or you have to move on. I for one do not expect the road to be free of potholes and bumps. If it were always smooth and flat, the journey would become dull.