• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not The Man You Used To Be

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,720
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not The Man You Used To Be: You’re a completely different person at 14 and 77, the longest-running personality study ever has found


By Olivia Goldhill

Look at a photo of yourself as a teenager and, mistaken fashion choices aside, it’s likely you see traces of the same person with the same personality quirks as you are today. But whether or not you truly are the same person over a lifetime—and what that notion of personhood even means—is the subject of ongoing philosophical and psychology debate. The longest personality study of all time, published in Psychology and Aging and recently highlighted by the British Psychological Society, suggests that over the course of a lifetime, just as your physical appearance changes and your cells are constantly replaced, your personality is also transformed beyond recognition.

The study begins with data from a 1950 survey of 1,208 14-year-olds in Scotland. Teachers were asked to use six questionnaires to rate the teenagers on six personality traits: self-confidence, perseverance, stability of moods, conscientiousness, originality, and desire to learn. Together, the results from these questionnaires were amalgamated into a rating for one trait, which was defined as “dependability.” More than six decades later, researchers tracked down 635 of the participants, and 174 agreed to repeat testing. This time, aged 77 years old, the participants rated themselves on the six personality traits, and also nominated a close friend or relative to do the same. Overall, there was not much overlap from the questionnaires taken 63 years earlier. “Correlations suggested no significant stability of any of the 6 characteristics or their underlying factor, dependability, over the 63-year interval,” wrote the researchers. “We hypothesized that we would find evidence of personality stability over an even longer period of 63 years, but our correlations did not support this hypothesis,” they later added.

continued at link above.....
To a large extent, our environment and experiences shape our personhood. Enjoy the article :)
 
The fact that life experiences change personality is not the least bit surprising.
 

I know of at least 4 phases I've gone through between 14 and 54. So, I'd agree we are not even close to the same person today as we were 40, 50, and 60 years earlier.

My roughest stretch was the phase I went thought during the 15 years after I finished college. Nothing made me happy. I hated my job, my wife, my parents, my hobbies, my lot in life...you name it. All that started to change at 40. Suddenly things started looking brighter. It's almost as if a light switch suddenly on and I saw my life for what it really was---not half bad at all.
 
i would have been in the camp which believed that the change was modest over time
but then i reflected on the "six personality traits: self-confidence, perseverance, stability of moods, conscientiousness, originality, and desire to learn" as i recall how i likely would have self-evaluated those criteria then and now, 50 years later than that 14 year old person
using a scale of 1-10 for each of those designated traits i now believe each would have changed as follows, with the first entry of each numbered pair being the perceived 14 year-old's rating: 4-8, 8-4, 3-6, 9-8, 4-8, 9-6
that appears to align with the article. maybe Buddha was correct and the notion of a stable self is nothing more than an illusion, as was conveyed in the cited article
 
Back
Top Bottom