41–50 of 120 posts
I believe that anybody who has put in any effort into bettering themselves knows for a fact one can completely change his/her own self-perception, and in-turn, their personality.
You can execute patches but they don’t run as fast or as reliably as your underlying personality. Over a long period of time, the patches can become habituated and a kind of hybrid personality results. The underlying code remains.
Did you find that the generalisation of this model of software development was supported/not-supported in some way by the results being discussed here?
1) This is a tech-focused forum.
2) It was perfectly obvious that he was being clever.
3) The analogy was quite amusing.
4) The analogy does ring true... and even this research paper concedes the point that personal change is difficult and has proven elusive.
5) I imagine that if a wealth of actionable research results existed on this matter, that personal change and growth would have become more accessible already.
"We are what we repeatedly do." -Aristotle
Read through the paper. It doesn't reveal anything really surprising, but it's a start. Conclusion was: - Most people want to change their personality - People with personalities that are considered "negative" by society (ex: introversion) wanted to become more extroverted - People that wanted to change their personality, did change their personality slightly, and self reported daily behaviors that worked toward the…
One idea defines personality as an innate wiring of your cognitive processes given to you based on your genetics.
The other defines personality as the sum of all factors leading up to your current personality state (including your innate wiring).
Both of these ideas are true - there are some innate dispositional tendencies that are very observable, and there are also lots of things (structure, habits, practice, and improvement) that you can do to change yourself.
IMO, most of the arguments in the personality space come from the fact that the word "personality" is defined so loosely.
edit clarified based on comment
> A longitudinal study (or longitudinal survey, or panel study) is a research design that involves repeated observations of the same variables (e.g., people) over long periods of time, often many decades (i.e., uses longitudinal data).
Read through the paper. It doesn't reveal anything really surprising, but it's a start. Conclusion was: - Most people want to change their personality - People with personalities that are considered "negative" by society (ex: introversion) wanted to become more extroverted - People that wanted to change their personality, did change their personality slightly, and self reported daily behaviors that worked toward the…
In my personal observation a lot of discourse over personality stems from the fact that there are two differing ideas that both use the same word - personality - to define themselves. One idea defines personality as an innate wiring of your cognitive processes given to you based on your genetics. The other defines personality as the sum of all factors leading up to your current personality state (including your innat…
AFAIK, there isn't anything special about birth which would freeze brain development at that point. Baby brains are quite undeveloped - they don't experience the world like we do.
Your genetics do fix something at the time of conception, but otherwise it's a continual process based on experience.
I'm a personality type coach and I help people implement the kinds of changes described in the paper. There are many different models that deal with this kind of change. But taking one step back, I think it should be made more clear up front that "having a desire to change one's personality traits" itself is a trait. There is no need to pressure (most) people to change, and many good people feel a strong pressure to…
Given your description of your job, I have a quick question: I have found that when I speak, I rarely command attention and captivate as some others do. Probably something in my speech patterns. Perhaps they are slightly more apologetic / geeky / nice than others. People may interrupt me or turn away, even people who respect me. When I do get rapt attention, such as teaching a class, I get an impostor syndrome becaus…
Also for the impostor syndrome, do this once in a while and compare old videos with the new ones; you'll be surprised with the result ;)
You can execute patches but they don’t run as fast or as reliably as your underlying personality. Over a long period of time, the patches can become habituated and a kind of hybrid personality results. The underlying code remains.
Read through the paper. It doesn't reveal anything really surprising, but it's a start. Conclusion was: - Most people want to change their personality - People with personalities that are considered "negative" by society (ex: introversion) wanted to become more extroverted - People that wanted to change their personality, did change their personality slightly, and self reported daily behaviors that worked toward the…
The real question, which is unanswered, is whether it's possible to change a personality when that person doesn't want to be changed.
I'm a personality type coach and I help people implement the kinds of changes described in the paper. There are many different models that deal with this kind of change. But taking one step back, I think it should be made more clear up front that "having a desire to change one's personality traits" itself is a trait. There is no need to pressure (most) people to change, and many good people feel a strong pressure to…
Given your description of your job, I have a quick question: I have found that when I speak, I rarely command attention and captivate as some others do. Probably something in my speech patterns. Perhaps they are slightly more apologetic / geeky / nice than others. People may interrupt me or turn away, even people who respect me. When I do get rapt attention, such as teaching a class, I get an impostor syndrome becaus…
So taking your one sentence:
> I have found that when I speak, I rarely command attention and captivate as some others do. Probably something in my speech patterns. Perhaps they are slightly more apologetic / geeky / nice than others. People may interrupt me or turn away, even people who respect me.
You could rephrase (and speak) this as:
> When I speak, I rarely command attention and captivate as some others do. People interrupt me or turn away, even people who respect me.
People have a short attention span. I myself tend to mostly ignore this one colleague I have because pretty much half of what he says is filler, like, a ramp-up to his point ("so uhh, basically, like"), his main point (stuttering and lots of uhs), and end-filler ("you know?"). Mind you that he's not a stutterer as such, he just needs to make noises while he's trying to think of what to say next (like uhs). Not speaking in his native language is also a factor there.
TL;DR: Firm, short, unapologetic statements. "We should do this" instead of "Uh, guys, excuse me but, like, I think we should sorta lean towards this?"