[HN Gopher] I changed my personality in six weeks
___________________________________________________________________
I changed my personality in six weeks
Author : andsoitis
Score : 99 points
Date : 2026-01-04 20:02 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| reprom wrote:
| Given that these are malleable I'd be interested in data on how
| the pandemic affected people's personality measurements.
|
| My bet is loads of people would have shot way up on the
| neuroticism scale.
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| The strange thing is, whilst I found the pandemic itself very
| difficult, I came out a much more confident, extraverted
| person. Actually quite the opposite from my pre COVID
| personality.
| wincy wrote:
| My wife became much more assertive and disagreeable after we
| had a special needs child in the NICU for nine months and the
| constant pressure from doctors to get unnecessary procedures
| like a tracheostomy. They also said we didn't have to
| resuscitate her if we didn't want to. Constant battles and
| pressure and my wife can be a stone cold bitch now when she
| needs to be, where she used to just say "okay".
|
| Our daughter is seven now, she does use a wheelchair, but is
| normal intelligence and just went in her cute little electric
| car she got for Christmas with her big sister to a friend's
| house down the street. I'm so proud of her, and my wife.
|
| So sometimes these traumatic events improve your personality in
| the sense that they give you a more realistic way of how the
| world actually works, and how to achieve your goals (especially
| when those goals are dearly held, like "I want my child to
| survive and have the best quality of life possible).
|
| Also, with COVID I'd imagine a lot of the neuroticism going up
| or down depended on where you were and your philosophy. For me,
| and a lot of people leaning conservative, living in the
| Midwest, I think it is less neurotic, perhaps to our detriment.
| Totally disregarding health warnings, and being insubordinately
| against precautions rather than becoming more neurotic. Many of
| these people got covid. One died. Most were fine. There is
| likely a "correct" amount of neuroticism, although that
| obviously changes depending on your circumstances.
|
| Extremely high neuroticism would help someone who was Jewish in
| 1930s Europe decide to get themselves and their family out of
| there at any cost, but extremely high neuroticism might not be
| great during the Pax Americana of the last 60 years.
| thisoneisreal wrote:
| Daniel Nettle gives a great layperson's explanation of the
| Five Factor model in his book "Personality," and the first
| thing he explains is in line with exactly what you ended on.
| We exhibit a variety of personalities because different
| personalities are useful in different environments. Sometimes
| it's GOOD to be highly neurotic, or low extraversion. Natural
| selection doesn't care about your internal conscious
| experience of life, it will make you miserable if that helps
| you survive.
| fragmede wrote:
| Depends which side of Pax Americana you were on in those 60
| years. If you're gay or black (or both!) in the Midwest,
| being neurotic and avoiding getting lynched or smeared rates
| a lot higher than if you'd be the one doing the smearing. If
| your mom was almost the victim of a serial killer, she'd be
| neurotic as hell! And she wouldn't even be wrong about it.
| These are corner cases of course, but the past 60 years
| haven't been all gravy for everyone, so we shouldn't think
| that it was.
| Talanes wrote:
| >Totally disregarding health warnings, and being
| insubordinately against precautions rather than becoming more
| neurotic.
|
| It's not such a clean map between neuroticism and reaction
| there. My father was very against the precautions in a
| clearly neurotic manner. To the point where he was just
| sitting at home ranting about how he couldn't go anywhere or
| do anything without the vaccine, months after anywhere except
| a few voluntarily strict venues had stopped checking.
| lisbbb wrote:
| It's highly questionable whether she changed her personality at
| all. Why is being extraverted so highly praised, anyways?
| dryarzeg wrote:
| I guess it's because being extroverted is more positive for
| society as a whole than being introverted. And so society is
| trying to -- even if it's not always a conscious efforts made
| -- kind of encourage and reward this type of behaviour.
|
| EDIT: of course it's not all that simple. IMHO a society of
| pure extroverts would be an unstable network of salespeople
| with nothing to sell and no one to engineer and manufacture the
| things needed. I'm joking here, but... :)
| NeutralCrane wrote:
| I'm not sure the statement "being extroverted is more
| positive for society as a whole than being introverted" is
| true.
| dryarzeg wrote:
| I'm not a psychologist, neither I'm a sociologist, so I may
| be wrong. It's just my guess, don't take it too seriously.
| grugagag wrote:
| Society does need quiet thoughtful people even though they're
| usually outside the spotlight and harder to get their
| recognition.
| dryarzeg wrote:
| No one says they are not needed. It's just that extroverted
| individuals typically create more relationships within
| society, and those relationships are usually stronger.
| However, it's not always the case -- for example,
| introverted individuals may have a smaller number of
| relationships, but those relationships may be much
| stronger.
|
| Society exists _because_ of those relationships, and so it
| is good for its survival and success if the number of
| relationships or connections within society is growing and
| they are becoming stronger. It is basically the existential
| need for any society.
|
| (I'm sorry if I'm wrong, I'm not a specialist in this
| field, it's just a bunch of guesses based on my
| observations)
| grugagag wrote:
| Personally Im more on the introveted side and that is due, I
| think, to a sensory sensitivity. I could switch extroverted but
| it's exhausting, possibly less if I drink but it's still
| taxing. No amount of personality retraining would change that
| for me
| pedalpete wrote:
| My question exactly. They place extraversion as if it is a
| positive trait, which automatically suggests introversion is a
| negative trait.
|
| It's probably just poor choice of langauge.
|
| Sociability may be a better term. We benefit from relationships
| and hermits are unlikely to form close relationships. I feel as
| if the person is suggesting that being sociable and being
| extraverted are the same thing. They are not.
|
| But also, how silly is the recommendation of how to be more
| extraverted. "Go to events and meet new people". I stopped
| reading at that point.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think "sociability" would be a bad switch because the
| intuitive meaning of "sociability" would also imply some
| amount of agreeable-ness, right? Better to keep the basis
| orthogonal!
|
| Sociability also sounds... good, right?
| Extroversion/introversion sounds more neutral to me.
|
| Anyway, whatever we call it, I don't think the author was
| trying to call extroversion universally good. Rather, they
| had identified their level of introversion as a problem, so
| the correction they wanted to apply was in the direction of
| extroversion. They just wanted to move closer to the middle,
| from an extreme.
| bee_rider wrote:
| > It's highly questionable whether she changed her personality
| at all.
|
| She's offered her strategy and provided some measurements. It
| is fair to question the results, but what specifically are you
| questioning?
|
| > Why is being extraverted so highly praised, anyways?
|
| In general I think introversion is a fine trait to have, but
| some of her descriptions in the text made it seem like she was
| introverted to the point where it was causing her problems.
| Everything's a spectrum, I wouldn't want to be an extrovert,
| but it is nice to be able to strike up a conversation in a
| social setting instead of playing with one's phone.
| PKop wrote:
| I think it just strongly translates into a significant ability
| to "win friends and influence people" and so on, relative to
| the alternative or in other words mastery over social
| interactions and empowerment for an individual to do with it
| whatever they choose to, while introversion is limiting in this
| or that way even just making one be viewed socially "less than"
| in relation to peers.
|
| I see it as almost no different than "why would someone want to
| be more physically attractive". And, not exactly the same as
| but close to "charisma" which having more of makes someone more
| admired, liked, attractive etc.
|
| Having said all that, regardless of other people's perception
| of you, It seems like being naturally extroverted makes social
| interactions come easier, effortless, while being introverted
| and _still having to interact socially_ requires much more
| effort and is less enjoyable. So having fun and being at ease
| doing something is better than not.
|
| This is the main problem with talk of being able to "change
| your personality". It is almost self evident this isn't
| possible to any significant degree because the thing about
| extroverts doing something that introverts want to be able to
| do is, for extroverts or those with social charisma, it comes
| _naturally_. They don 't have to work hard at it. They are not
| thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do
| it without thought. Their mental process around these things is
| much more efficient in other words. It is akin to someone who
| knows a language well vs someone with limited mastery of a
| foreign language, having to constantly exert mental effort to
| translate thoughts words by word in their head. Some people are
| also naturally funny; someone who is not can not really change
| their personality to become this, they would be working hard at
| something that the other one does not really have to "try" to
| do.
| jiscariot wrote:
| Additionally, the author seems to be placing value judgments on
| agreeableness and neroticism. That's fine they if want to
| change their personality, but I would be very hesitant to argue
| that turning up the agreeableness and down the self-awareness
| dials, are a net benefit to society.
| cornhole wrote:
| tl;dr cbt + exposure therapy
| matsemann wrote:
| Hmm, but I don't want to change it. It's me, for better or worse.
| And since these are often two things on a sliding scale (like
| agreeableness/assertiveness), there is no right or wrong. Maybe I
| should be more assertive some times, but that also comes with
| some drawbacks. I'm fine with where I am.
|
| Or maybe that's just my personality speaking, being stoic and
| content.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Sounds like you're content with yours and shouldn't change it!
| But many other people aren't content with theirs, and find it
| brings them a high level of suffering.
| the-smug-one wrote:
| Maybe it's useful to consider it a way to practice being in
| different ways? To be good at being agreeable and assertive,
| neurotic (someone tell me why that's ever good), and so on,
| would really give you an edge at life.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > (someone tell me why that's ever good)
|
| there's a quite a few benefits to it. Neurotic people tend to
| be more self aware, more attuned to danger, more open to
| recognizing risks than most people. It also often correlates
| with high conscientiousness.
|
| The very thing you're arguing for, being willing to practice
| different ways that is to say be unstable, is a feature of
| neuroticism. With neurotic people in particular in our age
| the fault often isn't so much the person as it is that they
| don't fit in environments that demand compliance, reliability
| and a kind of industrial standardized behavior.
| wincy wrote:
| That's great, for me that sliding personality scale
| (particularly of conscientiousness) was at a point of "we have
| a serious cockroach infestation, despite having been a licensed
| exterminator in the past, I think I'll play video games all
| weekend" or "I don't feel like filing my taxes for five years".
| For people wondering, we have been cockroach free for several
| years and I ended up hiring a CPA to file all five years of
| taxes (after the government came banging on my door saying I
| owed a considerable amount of money which I didn't actually
| owe, thank goodness).
|
| The thing is, I was content to just ignore these problems as
| they didn't affect me MOST of the time. I only got a few
| cockroaches on me while I was sleeping, and the government
| won't bother you for a few years. In retrospect I'm disgusted
| by the former especially, and annoyed about the latter, but
| when you're living in that situation it's hard to get yourself
| out of it. To be clear, I wasn't particularly depressed, I just
| would get annoyed when I thought of doing anything other than
| exactly what I wanted to do at any given time.
|
| I guess you can argue there's no right or wrong when your life
| is in relative order but I think it's naive to use this as
| general advice.
| PKop wrote:
| > I just would get annoyed when I thought of doing anything
| other than exactly what I wanted to do at any given time.
|
| Can relate strongly to this, especially when it involves
| other people's whims or need for you to be involved in some
| such that you just don't care about nor want to be bothered
| with.
| fastball wrote:
| The Big 5 is a sliding scale with no clear "right or wrong",
| but something like _being an asshole_ has little upside and it
| might be good to change.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I don't know, the way things are going, being an asshole
| seems to bring the most "success".
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Hmm, but I don 't want to change it. It's me, for better or
| worse._
|
| That's certainly your prerogative, but I think there are a lot
| of people who have identified traits in themselves that they
| believe are negative forces in their lives, and would love to
| change them if they could. "For better or worse" is the issue;
| some people do want to better their worse-ness, even if it
| might change what "me" is to some extent.
|
| But I don't really put much stock in the "it's me" declaration.
| I'm in my mid-40s, and if I look back on just the last 20 years
| of my life, I have changed _so much_ over that time. Taking one
| example from the big five, I would have scored low on the
| extraversion scale in my 20s, very high in my 30s, and today I
| 'd say I'm somewhere in between. I've changed in other aspects
| as well.
|
| These changes were for the most part not conscious changes. I
| don't think I ever set out to change these personality traits,
| but they changed all the same. How is that better or more
| "natural" than making deliberate choices and taking specific
| actions in order to change, instead?
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I assume that what really happened is that the author was more
| capable of answering the questions they way hen wanted to.
|
| A year from now, it'd be interesting to see how hen is doing.
|
| (I'm not asserting that personality is fixed; rather, I'm
| asserting that 6 weeks is too short a measurement period, and
| that most of us are not very good at self-assessment)
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah since it's self-reported and they had been taking actions
| to change the results that they self-reported, there's a pretty
| strong "I'm sure it did something" incentive to say it worked
| when it didn't really.
| Jach wrote:
| The way I'd phrase it is personality is stable, not fixed. But
| I would also be interested in a followup in a year or two. I
| also misread the bit at the end first: the partner tested and
| re-tested themselves and got pretty much the same thing, this
| is rather expected when you're not in the process of trying to
| "change" and also gaming the test to get results you want
| rather than what's true. I would have liked to see the partner
| take the test but fill in the answers for the author -- that
| way we have both the author's assessment of their own
| personality and the partner's assessment of the author's
| personality, before and after.
| ryandv wrote:
| People have been doing this for millenia.
| labrador wrote:
| > _Although most people profess to want to change at least one
| aspect of their personality, those who will put the effort in are
| surely far fewer_
|
| Many people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't actually do the 12
| steps as designed by Bill Wilson. They don't understand that it's
| a piece of spiritual technology designed to produce a spiritual
| awakening and a reorganization of personality. I've met many
| people who have become better people through the 12 steps.
|
| I've rewritten them here to give a basic outline and remove any
| mention of a theistic god. I am not a professional so please
| forgive me if I've over-simplified or got something wrong. This
| is how it worked for me at a basic level.
|
| 1 - Take a look and see if you have a problem. Admit you have a
| problem if you have one. You can't fix a problem you refuse to
| recognize.
|
| 2 - Recognize you've tried to solve it by yourself and have
| failed. You need help from others.
|
| 3 - Humble yourself enough to ask for help and be ready to follow
| direction
|
| 4 - List all the complaints people have about you and analyze
| what you might be doing wrong
|
| 5 - Share your failings, no matter how embarrassing, with a
| trusted other on the principle that confession is good for the
| soul and sunlight is the best disinfectant
|
| 6 - Ask yourself if you're really willing to change. That's not a
| given. Maybe you aren't.
|
| 7 - If you are then do what it takes to change. This is going to
| be different for everyone.
|
| 8 - Look at step 4 and see who you need to apologize to
|
| 9 - When you feel you are ready and sufficiently reformed,
| apologize and make restitution to those on the list you made in
| step 8. To those that aren't willing to talk, let it go and don't
| bother them.
|
| 10 - Make it a practice to do steps 4 through 9 as needed. We
| believe in progress not perfection.
|
| 11 - We need to remind ourselves daily that we have a problem
| that we can't solve alone and that we may need the help of others
| on any given day. I've heard it called a disease of
| forgetfulness. We may need to wake up in the morning to read and
| pray if so inclined. As one person told me, "carve out a little
| piece of each day for the 12 steps"
|
| 12 - Carry this message to others who are still suffering
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The 12 step program is rooted in Christian theology and treats
| alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem so I
| can understand why some don't want to fully follow it.
| stuffn wrote:
| Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common
| sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating
| pork, which was notoriously hard to make sanitary. Others are
| to insure a society functions well, like for example not
| banging your neighbors wife or not causing harm to people.
|
| So, in this light it makes sense to treat it like a sin. And
| to be fair, it is a sin in modern society as well. We even
| have "sin taxes" for such vices we determine can be used for
| tax gain.
|
| I see no real problem with this. I am unaware of any large
| program that forces you to give yourself up to the Christian
| God, but most require you to give yourself up to a higher
| power. This is obviously designed to give you a release from
| things you can't control so you can use that mental power to
| help yourself get better.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a
| moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body
| causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and
| medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to
| significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying
| getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative
| solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher
| power.
|
| [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullart
| icle/...
| criddell wrote:
| It's foolish to ignore the social component of addiction.
|
| Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most
| promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are
| accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat
| alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the
| meetings there isn't a whole lot of judging going on.
| It's mostly mutual support and compassion.
| cess11 wrote:
| "which was notoriously hard to make sanitary"
|
| Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their
| neighbours manage it?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to
| distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.
| miki123211 wrote:
| > Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just
| common sense health advice.
|
| And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup
| from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in
| mind.
| mlyle wrote:
| > treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health
| problem
|
| This is contrary to my understanding of 12 step. Silkworth's
| framing (which heavily influenced AA) was that alcoholism was
| the result of an individual's physical reaction to alcohol,
| not a moral failing.
|
| > rooted in Christian theology
|
| They were absolutely influenced early on by the Oxford Group,
| too, which did provide some of the context and language.
| labrador wrote:
| It's true that the 12 steps emerged from Christian thought.
| Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob were influenced by the Oxford Group.
| But similar frameworks exist in other traditions: Buddhism's
| Eightfold Path, for instance, offers a comparable structure
| for addressing suffering through right understanding,
| intention, and action.
|
| It's not accurate to say AA treats alcoholism as a sin. The
| Big Book describes it as "cunning, baffling, and powerful."
| Something beyond ordinary willpower, which is precisely why
| Step 1 acknowledges powerlessness. The theological framing
| isn't about moral failing but about the need for what Carl
| Jung described a "vital spiritual experience." A psychic
| reorganization that ordinary self-will couldn't produce.
|
| https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-
| wil...
| robocat wrote:
| > rather than a health problem
|
| What makes you define it is a health problem? Does that help?
|
| Maybe calling booze a sin helps people.
|
| Most importantly, you are answering someone who defined the
| steps without reference to sin or Christianity.
| naryJane wrote:
| This is an extremely powerful rephrasing of the 12 steps, and I
| seriously appreciate you for sharing this with all of us.
| iberator wrote:
| Same here. i HEARD about 12 steps but never actually seen
| them pinpointed like that. Simple yet amazing post
| labrador wrote:
| You're welcome. I had to suffer a lot before I figured it
| out. My purpose in rewriting them was to remove the most
| common objection that they presuppose a Christian God.
| tejohnso wrote:
| Nice summary. Can you explain why someone who has "recovered"
| and is no longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in
| their life still considered an alcoholic? I heard someone on
| the radio today say that they _are_ an alcoholic, but in the
| same sentence said they were 30 years sober, which seemed like
| a massive contradiction to me. I don 't think it was a mistaken
| use of present tense. I've heard similar statements from
| others.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| It's because they know even one casual drink can lead them
| down the same path they were on previously, so it's a
| reminder to themselves and others. It might also be something
| of an absolutionary statement, where they feel guilt for
| their past "sin" of drinking and feel the need to label
| themselves a la The Scarlet Letter to atone for their sin and
| obtain absolution.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| Plenty of people go out the door after X years then go back
| in worse states than when they first showed up. Once picking
| up a drink/drug/whatever, they're off and running again. 10 -
| 12 are "maintenance" to stave that sort of thing off. There's
| no end to working 10 - 12. They're a daily practice of
| continued growth. There's no end point (recovered), recovery
| continues on (recovering).
|
| It's also a practice to keep everyone on the same level.
| Everyone is an alcoholic -- otherwise it'd just be a bunch of
| old farts telling new guys what to do (then hardly anyone
| would come back).
| kelnos wrote:
| I always found this a little odd, even though I understand
| the reasoning behind it. I think it would be more accurate to
| say that they're no longer an alcoholic, but "struggle with
| addiction", or "have addictive tendencies", or something like
| that. But that's a bit of a mouthful, and in part I think
| people continue to call themselves alcoholics even when
| they've been consistently sober is that it's a strong,
| shorthand reminder that even one drink can send them right
| back to where they started.
| rayiner wrote:
| Alcoholism is a genetic predisposition and addictive
| personalities in general probably are too.
| texasbigdata wrote:
| Alcoholic here.
|
| In my AA we say that alcoholism is a chronic disease. The
| same as (some forms) of diabetes, you don't just get rid if
| it. Its something you can manage but not cure. It lies
| dormant inside of you the rest of your life.
|
| My mentor (highly successful and 30 years sober) said it
| nicely: he has an angry tiger inside of him thats trapped
| inside a cage. One that will surely eat him if it gets out.
| His job is to keep the tiger in the cage.
|
| Thats what it feels like. Every day. The cravings go down,
| the thoughts, etc. Self control improves. But the danger lies
| dormant for us.
| samsolomon wrote:
| Alcohol in AA is viewed as an allergy--a lifelong illness.
| Someone may have recovered and dealt with their fears and
| resentments. That doesn't mean they won't slip back into
| negative coping mechanisms though.
|
| For an alcoholic, it takes vigilance every day.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Can you explain why someone who has "recovered" and is no
| longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in their life
| still considered an alcoholic?
|
| I've known people with substance abuse problems, some of them
| recovered and had healthy relationships with substances. Some
| of them stopped using for long periods but touching the
| substance again relit the problem just the same as before.
|
| The latter group even sober for decades are still alcoholics
| (or whatever other substance). There are people for which the
| problem never goes away, they just manage not to indulge it.
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| It is AA orthodoxy that one never truly recovers from
| alcoholism. Many non-AA people disagree. Arguably, the debate
| is over semantics, not substance.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Interesting fun fact: There was a time early in AA history
| where Bill W wanted to integrate psychedelics into The Program.
| But was overruled by others within the organization.
|
| I learned about this from Pollan's "How to Change Your Mind."
| I'm sure it's documented elsewhere.
| kelnos wrote:
| The thing that has always bothered me about the 12-step program
| is that the end goal seems to always be abstinence, at least in
| the context of alcoholism. It seems very strange to me that we
| treat the symptom, here, not the underlying disease. Abstaining
| from alcohol certainly does have positive affects on the life
| of an alcoholic, but the abuse of alcohol is a symptom, not the
| root issue.
|
| Do we just not yet understand addiction enough to treat it
| properly? Are we able to treat addiction (so, for example,
| someone could successfully limit themselves to low levels of
| social drinking that don't cause them harm), but doing so is so
| difficult and hit-or-miss, that we give up and only promote
| full abstinence as the solution?
|
| I also wonder if abstaining from alcohol can have negative
| affects on life for some people. Some people use alcohol as a
| social lubricant; abstaining might mean (detrimentally) less
| social interaction. In some cultures/environments, not drinking
| can be career-limiting (I think this is toxic, but fixing that
| can take generations). I think it's fair to say that, on
| balance, the pros of not drinking to excess all the time will
| (nearly?) always outweigh any cons of abstinence, but can we do
| better than either extreme?
|
| I poked around at some studies, and what I found was
| interesting. It does seem that 12-step programs tend to
| outperform things like cognitive behavioral therapy (though
| there is some disagreement here). But also many of these
| studies are about whether or not a given treatment achieves
| abstinence from alcohol, not if it treats the underlying
| disorder. So I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) can be
| drawn.
|
| (Ultimately, though, if the 12-step program worked for you, and
| you're happy with the results and with your life now, that's
| all that matters! I don't mean to demean what you've
| accomplished or throw shade on the life you have now. I just
| think this is a very high-profile societal/health issue that we
| seem to deal with in a very different way than we deal with
| others, and that seems strange to me.)
| hahahahhaah wrote:
| I think Naltrexone can help.
| rayiner wrote:
| > The thing that has always bothered me about the 12-step
| program is that the end goal seems to always be abstinence,
| at least in the context of alcoholism.
|
| This is where religion reflects cultural technology that gets
| lost in the secular translation.
|
| Secularists vastly overestimate man's control over himself
| and his world. Most people lack the impulse control to
| partake in their vices responsibly. That's why most Americans
| are fat. We have a world surrounded by temptation--snacks
| available everywhere--and we tell people to partake
| responsibly but they can't do that. Most people don't have
| that same relationship with alcohol or cigarettes, but for
| the many people who do it's unrealistic for them to think
| they can just drink responsibly.
| jonahx wrote:
| I am not not saying this to be mean, because these feel like
| good faith questions. But they also sound like questions
| rooted in a purely logical view of the world, divorced of
| experience.
|
| That is, I don't believe it is possible that you've had real
| world experience with alcoholics, because if you had, it
| would be obvious why it doesn't work the way you are asking
| about. Some addictions are just too powerful. It is not a
| matter of having failed to treat the root cause. It's a
| matter of acknowledging that, for some people, the only
| solution to alcohol is not to consume any. It doesn't mean
| they don't also try to treat and understand deeper emotional
| reasons for their drinking.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I recently exited an LTR with someone who was in The Program
| and 6 - 9 yrs sober. The daily meetings routine was certainly
| help but, to your point, it never addressed the root problem.
| Tho to be fair, I'm not sure AA was designed for that as the
| spectrum of underlying problems is many.
|
| In short, my key takeaway (as an outsider) is that with AA
| it's helpful to get people sober and there's value and
| comfort in that. Unfortunately that comfort has diminishing
| return. People (e.g., my ex) put in the time (in a
| comfortable sorta way), but then don't put in the work (read:
| progress to address the root problem).
|
| Finally, as an unrelated / random side note, my theory is
| that if you evaluated late in life alcoholics (read: 30 yo
| and up) most would test positive for NPD. In the hands of
| someone suffering from NPD, alcoholism is one hell of a
| weapon (e.g., manipulation, avoid accountability, etc). Also,
| within the context of The Program you will never be
| encouraged to seek help for your NPD.
| celeries wrote:
| If you've ever tried to stop doing something, going 90% of
| the way (e.g "I'll drink one soda per week") is often much
| harder than quitting entirely. This is particularly true with
| addiction where neural pathways need to be changed.
| samsolomon wrote:
| 12-step programs do treat the underlying illness--fear,
| resentment and negative coping mechanisms for dealing with
| those things. That's why basically all 12-step and addiction-
| recovery programs are the same.
|
| Life is hard. People fall back on bad habits and many won't
| even realize that it's happening until it their life is in
| ruins. If that has happened to you there are often no more
| second chances.
|
| So for some they may be able to recover and have a drink
| every now and then. However, if your life has become upside
| down enough to enter a 12-step program, it's often because
| there were no other options.
| ajam1507 wrote:
| My personal experience is that it does more harm than good by
| having meetings constantly remind people that they can easily
| relapse. It can be good to have structure at the beginning, but
| at some point the best way to stay sober is just to change your
| routine, do your best to stay away from triggers, and never
| pretend that you have an incurable disease.
| labrador wrote:
| The evidence on the ground is the exact opposite. Going to
| meetings reduces the chance of relapse. I've been to meetings
| all over the country and this is a constant refrain. We are
| most at danger when we isolate from sober people and forget
| that we have a problem or think it's cured. There is no cure
| for a real alcoholic.
| jokoon wrote:
| I don't think that's very interesting. Personality disorders or
| mental health, those matter much more and are real problems for a
| lot of people.
|
| Personality matters only because it allows health professionals
| to differentiate what is a problem from what is not.
|
| It's not so hard to change behavior when mental health is not an
| obstacle or is not involved. Changing personality sounds like a
| nice luxury for people who don't have mental health problems or
| personality disorders
|
| And even then, I don't really see the point of changing
| personality, since a personality is not a real problem, only
| personality disorders (the medical term) really are problems.
|
| And then there are thought patterns that can be shaped by mental
| illness that stay even after symptoms go away, those might be
| changed with CBT.
| alonsonic wrote:
| If you read the article you would have seen that researches
| believe adjusting personality traits like neuroticism helps
| treat important mental health conditions more effectively than
| attacking the mental health condition directly.
| zoogeny wrote:
| A couple of anecdata for those interested in this.
|
| The first is the gospel of Mark, which unlike the other synoptic
| gospels starts with Jesus, probably around the age of 30, coming
| across John the Baptist and being baptized. Subsequently, Jesus
| went off into the desert where he prayed for 40 days.
|
| Second is the alchemical process of creating the philosophers
| stone. Jung argued that this was a description of a process akin
| to individuation. He believed that what was on the surface
| metallurgical work (transmuting lead to gold) was actually an
| obscure formula for remaking the psyche, from whatever was pre-
| programmed by society into what the individual actually wanted.
| This process was said to take 40 days.
|
| I think a big trap is mistaking who we are from who we appear to
| be. Some people try to "seem" a particular way, thinking that
| they can only change their appearance, like changing one's
| clothes. The alchemical view that Jung put forward was a bit more
| radical, suggesting that we can fundamentally change ourselves.
|
| Many people in our modern society experiment on themselves to
| change their physical bodies and to change their minds. I believe
| it is interesting to consider similar experimentation on how we
| change our spirit/emotions.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Religious and philosophical pseudo-profoundity doesn't count as
| "anacdata".
| zoogeny wrote:
| You may have mistook my post as advocating Christianity or
| even Alchemy.
|
| In the same way that we realized that the plants people used
| to treat pain contained chemicals that are actually effective
| at treating pain, and in the same way that modern science
| seems to agree that fasting (a once religious practice) is
| effective for health, we can gain some insight on personality
| by looking at how it was addressed in historical contexts.
|
| There was a video posted recently about a Sufi thinker whose
| ideas are quite close to modern CBT practices [1].
|
| I think it is a good thing when we recognize ideas from the
| past as being related to modern ideas. I think we can do so
| without diminishing the modern and also without diminishing
| the past.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26hltikcyk
| semilin wrote:
| Also consider Aristotle who recognized the habituative nature
| of the self much earlier.
| andy99 wrote:
| I heard a story that John Conway decided on the train on the way
| to university that he was going to turn over a new leaf and be
| outgoing and talkative, and then was.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I had a business trip with someone who very easily started
| talking to strangers, but he wasn't even a very fast or smooth
| talker, but he felt very agreeable when communicating.
|
| Back then I felt jealous of that trait. I said to myself I want
| to be like that, just be able to do smaltalk with strangers.
|
| And I simply tried, within weeks I was able to do just that,
| even with people much prettier or confident than me, and I
| never looked back.
|
| Over time a feel i need to hold myself back even. Often I have
| to say to myself: there's no point starting a talk now other
| than my own feeling good about it, so I hold it in.
| wumms wrote:
| From https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/john-
| horton-...:
|
| As he sat on the train to Cambridge, it dawned on him that
| since none of his classmates would be joining him at
| university, he would be able to transform himself into a new
| person: an extrovert! He wasn't sure it would work. He worried
| that his introversion might be too entrenched, but he decided
| to try. He would be boisterous and witty, he would tell funny
| stories at parties, he would laugh at himself - that was key.
|
| "Roughly speaking," he recalled, "I was going to become the
| kind of person you see now. It was a free decision."
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| OT (or CBT) is effectual.
|
| But, open neurotics are the _funnest_ people.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I am not convinced that you can change your personality just like
| that. In fact, I find it striking how little people change their
| core traits. However, people can learn to live with them, and I
| think it is the idea here.
|
| You don't become more extroverted, but you can improve your
| social skills.
|
| You don't become less neurotic, but you can learn to manage
| stress, or just avoid stressful situations altogether with proper
| planning.
|
| You don't become more agreeable, but you can learn to become more
| considerate.
|
| You don't become more conscientious, but you can make a framework
| to complete your tasks: schedules, checklists, etc...
|
| You don't become more open, but you can educate yourself on
| opposing viewpoints.
|
| Also understand that the "big 5" are not stats to maximize, while
| some traits are linked to success, they all have downsides.
| Extroverts and people high in agreeableness tend to follow the
| group even when it is wrong, lacking personal judgment. People
| low in neuroticism can get themselves into trouble because they
| didn't consider the negative consequences of their choices.
| Conscientious people can be rigid and obsessive, and there is
| such a thing as being too open (are you open to murder?).
|
| The idea is: don't change your personality, you will probably
| fail anyways, but make the best of what you have, by making small
| adjustments. Ultimately, I think it is what the article suggests,
| once you take away the "big 5 scoring" bit.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Also if you have learned all the skills appropriate for your
| natural personality, it might be a bit "fish out of water" if
| your personality were to suddenly change. You might change from
| a hermit into an extrovert who really chases human contact but
| poor social skills, say. That sounds like it'd lead to a lot of
| trouble.
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm not sure there's a material difference, though.
|
| > _You don 't become more extroverted, but you can improve your
| social skills._
|
| What's the difference, though? Having well-developed social
| skills _is_ an aspect of extraversion.
|
| > _You don 't become less neurotic, but you can learn to manage
| stress, or just avoid stressful situations altogether with
| proper planning._
|
| Isn't this the same thing as being less neurotic? If the
| overall effect is lower stress when confronted with the same
| situations and stimuli, then hasn't your personality changed?
|
| > _You don 't become more agreeable, but you can learn to
| become more considerate._
|
| Being considerate is just an aspect of agreeableness. If you
| become more considerate, then you do become more agreeable.
|
| > _You don 't become more conscientious, but you can make a
| framework to complete your tasks: schedules, checklists,
| etc..._
|
| I would argue that the act of making those schedules and
| checklists in order to ensure you get your tasks done is, in
| and of itself, an act of being conscientious, so teaching
| yourself to do those things does indeed make you a more
| conscientious person.
|
| > _You don 't become more open, but you can educate yourself on
| opposing viewpoints._
|
| What is the goal of educating yourself on opposing viewpoints
| if not to understand different people better? You may still
| disagree with those viewpoints just as strongly, but the simple
| fact of a newfound willingness to educate yourself is an
| increase in openness.
|
| To me, you are focusing on the mechanism here, and not on the
| outcome. After reading this article I found and took a big-five
| test[0] and found that some questions did try to assess how you
| feel about aspects of yourself, but many (most?) are about
| outcomes in your life. That is, "do you feel like it's easy to
| complete tasks?" is a different question from "do you tend to
| complete tasks?" The first one is about how it feels: even if
| you do tend to complete your tasks, you may feel like it's only
| because you've created your task-completion framework, but it
| takes concerted, difficult effort to stick with the framework.
| The second is about the outcome: you _do_ complete your tasks,
| and the mechanism behind it isn 't relevant. I think both
| things (the feelings and the outcome) are important to
| assessing the personality traits, to be sure, but changing the
| outcome (even if the feelings have not changed at all) _is_ a
| material change. And I 'd suspect that, if you do succeed in
| changing the outcome, the feelings _will_ change over time, at
| least to some extent.
|
| [0] https://bigfive-test.com/ (doesn't require some bullshit
| registration to see your results)
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| After multiple recommendations, recently I finally read "The
| Courage to be Disliked" which is a fictional representation of
| Alfred Adler's view of psychology / human behavior.
|
| Shifting from a Freudian paradigm to an Adlerian one has been
| massive. I'd rather be an accountable self-determining adult than
| an adult who attributes my flaws to traumas long gone.
|
| If you're serious about self-directed change, Adler is a good
| place to start.
| robocat wrote:
| A bit worrying that she measured change by using an "online
| personality test to assess where I currently scored on the Big
| Five".
|
| I do believe that we can change our internal responses by slowly
| teaching ourselves to respond differently.
|
| However I also believe that thinking about thinking is a
| dangerous activity. The risks are training yourself to be
| neurotic, and a habit of overthinking.
|
| We can use our rational minds to change our irrational responses.
|
| However how many people are skilled at teaching themselves? We
| could look at how good they are at teaching others (especially
| emotional kids).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-04 23:00 UTC)