Is human behavior fixed or subject to change?

Do you believe people's core preferences are primarily fixed or subject to change based on experience or reason?

By core preferences, I do not mean a preference for diet coke vs pepsi. I am referring to things like core attitudes (such as political, philosophical, moral, etc outlook). Preferences for one type of reasoning over another. Self centered vs society centered viewpoint. And other basic assumptions people take into consideration when processing the optimal solution to a problem whether personal or world wide (or anything in between).

Subject to change - not always, not for everyone - but for a vague percentage things do change.

I have completely different political and other such views than I use to - not much stayed the same as I separated from my parent's upbringing and set out on my own.

Aunt Spiker said:

Subject to change - not always, not for everyone - but for a vague percentage things do change.

I have completely different political and other such views than I use to - not much stayed the same as I separated from my parent's upbringing and set out on my own.

Click to expand...

I have completely different political views than I did ten years ago as well. I am much more liberal and less (small l) libertarian. However, ultimately, this is because I used to believe that my old views were the best way to achieve the most good for the most people (in terms of prosperity and a chance at happiness) and now I believe my current approach is the best way to achieve that same goal. Tomorrow, I may approach things completely differently as new information comes to me.

However, I suspect my goals for society will never change. One thing I wonder about is people who have different stated goals (1700s concepts of political freedom for example, which is popular among certain segments here), if those goals will remain static over time, but approach may vary or if goals will change over time for other people too. So, I suspect some things change, but other, more fundamental things, probably are set for people (and my suspicion is that its a biological rather than a choice thing, but thats just a pet theory). However, if this is true, there is probably very little point in trying to convince people of the superiority of one approach or goal over another.

Good Question...I was raised in a working man democrat house.. back in those days they worked you like a dog for peanuts, there were no laws that made them adhere to anything, unless you were in a union. Being in a union was the only way anyone remotely came close to making a living.
When I left the house at 17 and went in the military, I changed and became a republican in attitude and voting and stayed that way for decades, until recently when I realized that everything I saw and knew as a kid was the real truth.

Highly subject to change early in life, but as you age, probably becoming more rigid.

If you ever want proof, try to argue a 70 year old about anything, especially views that are totally jacked up.

Subject to change based on your changing experiences.

Individual: very subject to change
Humanity: not subject to change


So, for example, a person might switch from being a radical communist to a radical libertarian; but humanity's inclination to follow incentives remains fixed.

megaprogman said:

Do you believe people's core preferences are primarily fixed or subject to change based on experience or reason?

By core preferences, I do not mean a preference for diet coke vs pepsi. I am referring to things like core attitudes (such as political, philosophical, moral, etc outlook). Preferences for one type of reasoning over another. Self centered vs society centered viewpoint. And other basic assumptions people take into consideration when processing the optimal solution to a problem whether personal or world wide (or anything in between).

Click to expand...

All things are given to evolve.

I think people are subliminally driven by sexuality, personal comfort, hunger, and social interaction. Politics and religion can seem to override any of these drivers for the most comfortable social interaction, right or wrong. People will adjust accordingly. Not everyone, but many.

DaveFagan said:

I think people are subliminally driven by sexuality, personal comfort, hunger, and social interaction. Politics and religion can seem to override any of these drivers for the most comfortable social interaction, right or wrong. People will adjust accordingly. Not everyone, but many.

Click to expand...

well there enters in the 'nuture or nature' debate - I think both win out favor in varying amounts.

Humans evolve as they mature, grow and have varied experiences. Most of us are not the same people at 30 that we were at 15, and are not the same at 50 that we were at 30. Experiences change our perceptions and beliefs, both political and ideological. At any given time in our lives, we are the sum of what we have experienced up until that point. Most people, in my opinion, continue to evolve throughout their lives.

The OP question sort of reminds me of free will vs. determinism. Isn't it a bit of both? There are so many factors at work in life, no one ever has total control.

It's about 50/50. Even my politics have evolved over time. I certainly do not like the things I liked in high school. Things that haven't changed revolve around my taste buds and slight movement in my moral compass.

At this point, with what we have learned about human behavior in terms of cause and effect, the jury is out - If we are talking "nature versus nurture"; I don't know of many scientists who do not believe that behaviors are the result of a gene-environment interaction, so in that sense it's 50/50. There are many genetic characteristics that contribute directly or indirectly to human behavior and there are many environmental situations that can elicit different behavioral responses in individuals. Individuals become who they are as an adult via complex gene-environment interactions - certain environments are more likely to elicit certain characteristics and behaviors and certain genetic traits that affect behavior are highly determined by genetics. Some things are more determined by genetics, such as personality traits, and some things are less determined by genetics. However, it is not believed that there is any behavior that does not have both a genetic and environmental cause (direct or indirect).

I think human behavior is totally subject to change. As individuals we have autonomy over our beliefs and behaviors.

digsbe said:

I think human behavior is totally subject to change. As individuals we have autonomy over our beliefs and behaviors.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy being able to believe that I have free will (believing otherwise all the time could be a "downer"); however, scientifically speaking, there is much evidence that all of our behaviors are the result of a gene-environment interaction. For example:

A 2 people are running late for class and thus they need to get to class very quickly. They both know that speeding, jay-walking and walking across lawns is frowned upon, however, one each has different personality traits (personality traits have been shown to be highly inheritable-i.e. the result of genetics) and each one has been raised in a different manner. Person A has cautious personality traits and has been raised in a highly structured and strict home. On the other hand, person B has impulsive personality traits and has been raised in a permissive and unstructured home. Given these two facts, any psychologists would say that if you were to bet on who would engage in speeding, jay-walking and or walking across lawns on their way to school (remember they are running late), one should bet that person B would be the one who would engage in those behaviors more often than person A. In this example we see both environmental factors being considered (i.e. style of home) and genetic factors (i.e. personality traits) in order to predict behavior. Because there are many more factors that could contribute to which student engages in said behaviors, it is likely that the betting psychologists will loose a bet or two; however, given more information, the psychologist could make an even more informed bet.

What I was trying to demonstrate in the above example is that, whether we realize it or not (and not realizing it can be less painful sometimes), it is very likely that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to our behaviors and thus, in that sense, the idea of "free will" is a myth. The person carrying out their behaviors believes that they are doing so without any influence of gene or environment, i.e. completely on their free will, however, mounting evidence does not support this idea.

From what I've seen, people are usually pretty fixed. Most people go through a little bit of change, but not too much. However, sometimes people will undergo a complete, 180 degree switch, like when a former crack addict accepts Christ and starts going to church every Sunday or something.

It depends on the personality traits and the other particulars. Some traits have high heritability (0.6 for narcissism) others are in the (0.4-0.6) range, and others are very open to environmental influences,

Political ideologies are subjected to an interesting tug or war between various factors. There is widely noted tendency of young people being more liberal and then becoming more conservative as they grow older. There is the feature of children becoming more like their parents as they grow older, meaning that they're following their natural inclinations more than being influenced by environment.

We're not totally rational/ideological creatures which probably explains a good part of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" thesis which so perplexed liberals a decade ago.

RiverDad said:

It depends on the personality traits and the other particulars. Some traits have high heritability (0.6 for narcissism) others are in the (0.4-0.6) range, and others are very open to environmental influences,

Political ideologies are subjected to an interesting tug or war between various factors. There is widely noted tendency of young people being more liberal and then becoming more conservative as they grow older. There is the feature of children becoming more like their parents as they grow older, meaning that they're following their natural inclinations more than being influenced by environment.

We're not totally rational/ideological creatures which probably explains a good part of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" thesis which so perplexed liberals a decade ago.

Click to expand...

Good points, I don't know what you mean about "What's the matter with Kansas" and liberals, but other than that I agree. Humans are like imperfect scientists. That is, we take in the information that we receive and try to make sense of it, try to make predictions, etc. However, because we have such a relatively small amount of experiences when compared to the overall population, we can make erroneous judgements, which can lead to irrational behavior. We also have memory and perception faults as well which doesn't help things. This is why the empirical method was developed.

As people's education grow they change, they also will change with the wisdom of age and experience.

Human behavior can change, but it is relationships that change it, not willpower.

Councilman said:

As people's education grow they change, they also will change with the wisdom of age and experience.

Click to expand...

For the most part I believe this is true. Receiving more and more information definitely can change people. However, certain core characteristics (such as some personality traits) are particularly hard to change. Another example would be parenting styles. Scientists have found that parenting styles are often pasted from one generation to another; the child grows up and does what he knows how to do. Of course, this is not true in all cases and I can think of a few people I know who this is not 100% true for. Again, behavior is affected by so many different factors that it is not likely that a psychologist, even knowing the majority of key characteristics of a person that would contribute to their behaviors, could predict that person's behaviors at 100% accuracy; however, an informed psychologist would likely fair better than an uninformed one (obviously .. ..)