[dschuetz]

This paper is dangerous. It lets an ignorant mind assume that personality is a choice in some way, so a person with unpopular (e.g. more personal) personality traits will need to change those to more popular and sociable ones. People refusing to do so will be considered selfish and will be punished/excluded from society. Welcome to Orwellia!

[racer-v]

What you're describing is actually the way the world is. People who find it easy to be pleasant get further in life, while those with antisocial tendencies experience rejection - even when they're make more of an effort to be pleasant than those for whom it comes naturally. On the other hand, the unpleasant person may discover a billion dollar idea thinking alone in his basement. So it goes.

[J-dawg]

> even when they're make more of an effort to be pleasant than those for whom it comes naturally

Have you got a source for this? It sounds plausible but also difficult to prove.

[MadSudaca]

I suggest an experiment. Find someone with a trait you admire and lack, try as hard as you can to be like them. Check your results.

[watwut]

Being pleasant is not in opposition to ability to think or creativity. You can be both and world is not fair.

[MadSudaca]

I agree. Being pleasant is probably a mix of having a good dose of the agreeableness and extroversion personality traits. Both of which are uncorrelated to creativity and IQ, other two traits.

[racer-v]

I know, but the possibility of getting rich is a nice booby prize for the unlikeable and unattractive.

[MadSudaca]

It’s definitely not impossible. You probably won’t have an easy time if you’re someone who requires the approval of a lot of people, for example, being a public figure or exploiting your image.

[0xBA5ED]

This is an alarmist response. From my own experience, a person CAN change their personality traits dramatically over time. Simply acknowledging that this is within your power doesn't change anything. Socially imposed "personality requirements" already exist anyway.

[geff82]

Thanks for pointing out the „over time“ aspect! Many people with problems want to do some kind of 30-day-program to get rid of problematic traits. Yet it might take years to really change how you think and what the outcomes are. I, for one, have had active bad personality traits that were holding me back (I wanted to overcome them, but couldn‘t), yet when in my early 30s, I came into a peer group that was very supporting, I finally got the grip and was able to reveal the better parts of me and had good success in life (and boy, life feels so good now). I certainly have not deleted the bad traits, but learned to work around them so they do not affect me much. Time and people were my key factors. Who wants to join a 3-year-program... does not sound that sexy, but is what it often takes to change.

[0xBA5ED]

Yes, it definitely takes time. You're right, it requires that you "change how you think". From my experience, the easiest way to do this is to surround yourself with people who have traits you admire. They'll rub off on you!

[mapcars]

>so a person with unpopular (e.g. more personal) personality traits will need to change those to more popular and sociable ones.

There is a whole bunch of assumptions here. Why need? If you are ok with the way you are (you chose you are) why do you think people should pursue social status higher than their own choice and views? Also, social and popular traits are constantly changing, it requires enormous energy to keep up with trends. They also depend on society, culture, and a billion of other factors.

The way you should look at it is it gives you an idea that you can adapt your personality the way you want it. You want to be social - get some social traits. Want to be respected - another bunch of traits. Want to be a somebody else - do it accordingly.

>People refusing to do so will be considered selfish

People who want to judge and "consider" other people selfish just chose this trait, aren't they? So it's their own problem, not anybody else's.

>will be punished/excluded from society

Which one? There is a bunch of societies out there, you are probably excluded from many of them already today. Are you in a society of richest people? politicians? religious groups? street junkies? criminals? probably not, you are already excluded. This is how society works, you want to be among a certain group of people - get certain traits. As easy as that.

[stordoff]

Is there any reason to think it's not a choice at some level? I doubt it's a conscious choice, and almost certainly guided by environment and habituation, but I also suspect it's malleable to at least some extent.

I'd also say that what you describe is just a more extreme version of how the world currently is - people with more popular personalities _tend_ to get further.

[dschuetz]

At some point you can consciously reflect on what those personality traits actually are, but you can't be sure what they are exactly. Personality traits are not directly observable, whereas behavior can lead to observation of trends, from which a personality trait can be deducted. So, the first and most difficult part of changing a certain trait is to identify it thoroughly. Also, it depends on who is observing whether a personality trait is actually likable or not. Extreme expressions of such traits are the most obvious. But aren't all traits to be taken into account, because the extreme ones always stem from myriads of nuanced trends in behavior? See, it's not at all that easy to identify a certain trait, not to speak of consciously changing a certain behavior over a long period of time.

Why are some traits more likable than others? Which ones are real and which ones are faked or biased (actors, salespeople, etc)? This paper goes far deeper into those questions than I intended to do. My point was, that there are people out there (and also here) who will take this paper, read the abstract, assume that changing one's personality traits is as easy as drinking a beer and go tooting that misinterpretation of actual facts as alternate facts. It's not a yes or no choice. It's not as quantifiable as a beer. It's an expression of behavioral trends.

[JohnBooty]

Anecdotal: I've found that personality is a choice, to an extent.

If you've ever known somebody who served in the military, you know that they often come back a changed person. I'm not talking about PTSD in combat vets, I'm just talking about simple personality traits like neatness.

On a more self-driven note, I became a less patient person in some specific ways after I lost a parent some years ago. (Because it become painfully obvious how limited our time is...)

[xor1]

>People refusing to do so will be considered selfish and will be punished/excluded from society

There's nothing wrong with expecting someone to change their personality. Even if you want to claim that it's not a choice, it is a choice to at least attempt to change your personality, and that's the very least we should expect from anyone who has negative personality traits.

[dschuetz]

You certainly mean behavior. Personality traits aren't as easily switched on and off. But you're actually confirming what I just criticized about this paper.

[xor1]

No, I mean personality. Do you think of personality as something being intrinsically tied to a person?. Is a person's personality ultimately what we think of as "them"?

I think for most people, personality, memory, and physical appearance (especially facial appearance) are what they think of when they're forced to ultimately explain what actually constitutes a person.

Most people consider these things unchangeable because the effort and potential risks involved are, to them, unreasonable to the point of being unthinkable. Extensive therapy, psychological conditioning, chemical experimentation, surgery...

Generally, I think people just don't want to change, but they use the argument that it's impossible to change these things as a defense. Then they fall back on "well no one should need to change themselves".

They're perfectly fine as is, after all. How dare anyone say otherwise? You just have to accept them as they are, and if you can't deal with it, that's your problem.

[adjkant]

> Is a person's personality ultimately what we think of as "them"?

I would pull up a huge debate right here. Who's perspective are we using? What if people have different perspectives even after knowing the person in the same capacity? What about what the person is biologically dispositioned towards? What about mental illnesses? The list of questions goes on, none with good answers I think.

> Generally, I think people just don't want to change, but they use the argument that it's impossible to change these things as a defense. Then they fall back on "well no one should need to change themselves".

This is again proving the original comments point. In order to make this claim true, you have to assert that you can change your personality. We first have to agree on what personality is, and then see if we can change it. We do not really have good answers for either of these. This paper is an attempt but as summarized well, far from conclusive or without flaw. I would argue that people are changing their actions, not their personality.

[xor1]

>What if people have different perspectives even after knowing the person in the same capacity? What about what the person is biologically dispositioned towards? What about mental illnesses.

I would include all of these things under my definition of "personality".

>I would argue that people are changing their actions, not their personality.

Yes, you're right. I'm thinking purely in terms of internalized thoughts and externalized actions. Going from "I want to do X but I will be punished for it even though it's my first inclination, so I will do Y instead", to no longer thinking of X at all and your first inclination is Y (the "right") thing. To me, your internalized thoughts and the decision-making behind your actions are part of your personality.

The realized actions that actually occur are separate from that. Changing your personality means removing branches from your internalized decision-making that would have existed previously, so they're no longer considerations.

[adjkant]

A hard second to this. I would make a clear distinction between personality traits and actions.

This will mix subjects and I don't know enough to plant a flag on this hill let alone die on it, but imagine the moral serial killer who has urges to kill but never acts on them. They can't change who they are (as an adult as far as I know from current research), but they can try their best to affect actions. But their traits underneath are not changing.*

* Ignore the actual claims re serial killers, changing, and how that actually probably isn't personality traits, or maybe it is. Point being, it highlights a key difference between the state / biology of a person and how they act in the world.

[simen]

Yes. You could be be born with pedophilic tendencies, but through active effort, avoid harming children in any way.

As for changing your personality, it's extremely hard and frustrating even if you're not a criminal, and your traits are, for the most part, harming only yourself. I've tried an extensive array of approaches... Nothing has been able to fundamentally change who I am in a way that will lead me to a happier, more successful life. Having done all the "right things" that people say are supposed to work and having them all fail, it then gets very tempting to go down a darker path.

I fucking wish it was as simple as just making a decision to change, carrying out some well-defined plan, and arriving at the destination. It is definitely not.

[xor1]

>This will mix subjects and I don't know enough to plant a flag on this hill let alone die on it, but imagine the moral serial killer who has urges to kill but never acts on them. They can't change who they are (as an adult as far as I know from current research), but they can try their best to affect actions. But their traits underneath are not changing.*

I firmly believe there is a way to change/cure those traits/urges given modern means, while still allowing the subject to possess complete freedom and agency.

[adjkant]

Do you have anything to back up that belief? That's an incredibly strong unsubstantiated belief as presented.

[chesimov]

Are all unpopular personality traits also negative?

[naasking]

> that's the very least we should expect from anyone who has negative personality traits

Who gets to decide the class of negative personality traits? Is there some objective measure of this "negativity"? It seems there are some gaping holes in your position which are probably impossible to fill.

[xor1]

>Who gets to decide the class of negative personality traits?

In this context, negative personality traits are generally decided based on group consensus.

>Is there some objective measure of this "negativity"?

Sure. Do people like you? Do they like to be around you?

[naasking]

That's not objective, that's subjective. Objective means mind-independent.

Also, tyranny of the majority.