[spyckie2]

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 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

[akvadrako]

> One idea defines personality as an innate wiring of your cognitive processes given to you at birth.

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.

[personlurking]

Recently, I heard an interesting concept from a long-time clinical psychologist:

"Society constrains and kills you even. You die into your neural configuration. When you're first born you have more neural connections than you will ever in your life, and most of them die. And so, you die into your four-year old self, and between ages 16 and 20, you die into your adult self."

[wincy]

I don’t think you should be afraid to mention Jordan Peterson here.

[gaius]

What do you think of the Jesuit saying that a character is fixed in the first 7 years? Is there any truth in it?

[spyckie2]

For the sake of stronger definitions I have clarified the sentiment to express this point.

[rwnspace]

What is personality except a set of cognitive biases? The narratives we use to inform our perceptions, influence the priority of memories/associations, and inspire future decisions are as much our own making as they aren't. If there is friction between views of personality because one group prefers to look at innateness and another looks at influences - and intelligence doesn't seem to determine which group you're in - what other indicator of personality differences do you really need? For me it plugs into that external/internal locus of control stuff, messy as some of the research/conceptions of it are.

I'm of the opinion that most views we think we hold 'philosophically' are, well, personality tendencies expressed formally.

It all gets a lot easier to conceive if one doesn't assume there is such a thing as a unified self, just a bunch of modules our self-describing narrative inhabits depending on what the environment asks for at the time. Specifically 'training your pre-frontal cortex' seems easier to me than 'becoming a more organised person'. Sorry if that seems a little rambly/obscure.

[spyckie2]

I wanted to mention that these two views were actually just the philisophies of differencent personality tendencies but felt that it was a side point.

[rwnspace]

Pardon me, I understood you correctly, and that it's a side-point -- I just went off on my own tangent...