Can people change?

[Neon]

Just curious. To what degree can people improve after a certain age?

[iatneH]

They can hate unskippable cutscenes and later love kickass intro and ending cinematics.

I hope you were kidding

[Neon]

They can hate unskippable cutscenes and later love kickass intro and ending cinematics.

I hope you were kidding

It was only a friendly jab at Tehkao of course

[Randorama]

No.


Except for a few enlightened individuals, and of these, a few are aware of their changes. And, of course, i'm not speaking of improvements, just changes.


Enough with this myth of humans as intelligent beings

[CMoon]

Hell, most teenagers I have met are set in their ways (habits, beliefs.)

Although human beings are far more plastic in their behavior than other animals, this does not mean they are likely to change or will do so even when there are drastic consequences hand for not changing.

Rather, I see that there are those who have adopted a habit of change--who analyze and reflect upon their own habits and beliefs and consistantly modify them (ironically, these people are called 'wafflers' and 'fence-sitters'), while the majority of all humans have long ago established the way things will be in their life, and it is very unlikely there were ever be any real, substantial change.

Except for a few enlightened individuals, and of these, a few are aware of their changes. And, of course, i'm not speaking of improvements, just changes.


Enough with this myth of humans as intelligent beings

I pretty much agree. It gets worse depending on your view of consciousness. If you see it as something where you are reflecting and reasoning, many humans go days without being conscious. I think this aspect of consciousness, personality/identity, and a soul are mostly an illusory concept which has arisen from the collective human herd. The truth is that the psychological human 'world' (or umwelt) is constructed upon so many tiny, individual flickerings of consciousness (no more than a chimpanzee inventing the 'termite probe'), that it is hard to say any particular member of the herd has any real individuality at all. Rather, the illusion of dynamic intellect is created through mass communication, and each individual (wrongly) assumes some sense of ownership and a false sense of self-worth.

We can also bring up dozens of absurd counter-examples of how 'consciousness' has not functioned at all (slavery, genocides, etc.), where large groups of people accepted (without thinking) that another group of people were bad/had no souls/etc. and deserved to be enslaved or killed. Suddenly, one person among the herd has a tiny flickering of consciousness and says 'my god, what are we doing?' What was everyone else doing the whole time? Moo?

I think in this way Dawkins is right and 'ideas' are like viruses (IE his idea of mimetic evolution), that move through human populations just like real viruses. If humans were indeed mostly conscious, this would not be possible (at least not on the same scale); and because of that I think we can safely say that humans are only occasionally consious (some more than others). Even more important, what people are conscious about seems to vary. There are some things I will never pay attention to, and in response to those stimuli, I might as well be a planaria.

So, can humans change? Maybe with great difficulty, but sometimes not at all. As far as being intelligent, it is greatly overrated isn't it?

Me, I'm rooting for the bees and ants. I feel by circumventing the whole consciousness problem, they've probably got it down to a finer degree than any mammal ever will.

[Acid King]

Hell, most teenagers I have met are set in their ways (habits, beliefs.)

...but they're teenagers. In 20 years they will most likely not even resemble what they were as teenagers.

What humans can do and what they choose to do are two entirely different things. People CAN change, a lot choose not to. Just because people choose not to do something doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.

[CMoon]

Hell, most teenagers I have met are set in their ways (habits, beliefs.)

...but they're teenagers. In 20 years they will most likely not even resemble what they were as teenagers.

Actually, in their core beliefs and habits they may remain entirely the same. That's why the children of KKK parents often end up with the same beliefs. That's why the nazi youth program worked. Because the habits young people establish can very easily stick with them the rest of their lives.

Edit: It is also partly why the children of abusive parents are often abusive themselves.

Like they say, times change, people don't.

[Valgar]

So the few that can reflect and change, these "wafflers", do you consider them above others?

[Randorama]

I pretty much agree. It gets worse depending on your view of consciousness. If you see it as something where you are reflecting and reasoning, many humans go days without being conscious. I think this aspect of consciousness, personality/identity, and a soul are mostly an illusory concept which has arisen from the collective human herd. The truth is that the psychological human 'world' (or umwelt) is constructed upon so many tiny, individual flickerings of consciousness (no more than a chimpanzee inventing the 'termite probe'), that it is hard to say any particular member of the herd has any real individuality at all. Rather, the illusion of dynamic intellect is created through mass communication, and each individual (wrongly) assumes some sense of ownership and a false sense of self-worth.

I'd add: the cultural/intellectual level doesn't really matter.As i see the University world from its inside (grad student...), i can safely say that most of my colleagues are more or less highly-specialized termites. The hierarchical mechanics go on with the lapha male being just the guy with the bigger theory. I had a few arguments in which i clearly pointed out that people were arguing without any awareness of what they were doing. Add that too often i see people who get upset when you challenge their goddamn ideas...have those persons (from the latin "persona, personae" mask) no personality, that they have to identify with their theories?

What was everyone else doing the whole time? Moo?

Without a doubt, but please, please!More respect to the cows

I think in this way Dawkins is right and 'ideas' are like viruses (IE his idea of mimetic evolution), that move through human populations just like real viruses. If humans were indeed mostly conscious, this would not be possible (at least not on the same scale); and because of that I think we can safely say that humans are only occasionally consious (some more than others). Even more important, what people are conscious about seems to vary. There are some things I will never pay attention to, and in response to those stimuli, I might as well be a planaria.

Dawkins' theory is a bit on the platonistic side (i.e. are ideas entities by their own? I don't really think so), but yes, it can be said that most of the time someone invents the wheel and everyone else uses it without a clue. It's not entirely wrong (else we'd spend uor lifetimes to recupitulate history to cook a couple of eggs), but often most people mechanically learn a set of instructions to use the termite probe, and that's it, regardless of the complexity of the tool.

The core problem is that, well, the design behind a solution can be difficult to understand, and at the same time it may give the possibility to people to change said tools. The way society (because it is society) works is simple: it allows only to specific individuals, mostly for their relationships (parenthood, political/religious/criminal whatever), sometimes for their merits, to learn how tools work. But, and this is critical, they will let them learn without the full theorical background, and this has one specific effect: it makes the learning person to think that the proposed solution is the only possible one, so any changes can, to the most, be improvements.

Boiled down to common English, it can be said that most of us are fully embedded in a double thought system (in the Orwellian sense), in which one level is bent to perfectly rationalize the operations we do, and the other is used the bare minimum to justify them in the most abstruse ways. After all, we now have machines to be smart in our place, no? (original phrase by Andy Klarke was "We have developed intelligent machines so we can finally be stupid in peace". Not because we weren't stupid already, but now we can get the peace we were so much fighting for.

If all of this makes sense to you, dear reader, it means that i'm not that tired and uncomprehensible, right now

[Acid King]

Actually, in their core beliefs and habits they may remain entirely the same. That's why the children of KKK parents often end up with the same beliefs. That's why the nazi youth program worked. Because the habits young people establish can very easily stick with them the rest of their lives.

Edit: It is also partly why the children of abusive parents are often abusive themselves.

Like they say, times change, people don't.

Those are both probablistic examples. One doesn't determine the other. Many people who are abused (I'd guess the majority but am not familiar with the statistics) do not abuse. I'd also say that many of those former nazi youth are no longer nazis (Maybe they're even pope). As for beliefs... why would you use that as a measurement of whether or not people can change? Beliefs and opinions, unlike behavior, are subjective and squishy. You can't prove a KKK member he's wrong just like you can't prove to a Christian that god doesn't exist. These things develop in some and fade in others. Neither of these prove that people can't change.

Edit: As for habits, just because someone carries a habit all their life, smoking cigarettes for example, doesn't show it either since all smokers actively choose not to quit. The capability is there, what they do is up to them.

[The n00b]

What can change the nature of a man?

[Acid King]

What can change the nature of a man?

This is where the argument gets confusing because really, what the hell are we talking about? Are we talking about preferences? Are we talking about beliefs? Are we talking about the mystical nature of man? Or are we talking about what Neon was probably referring to, whether or not someone can develop from an annoying jerk in the adolescent years, to an amicable person as an "adult"?

[iatneH]

What can change the nature of a man?

Woman.

Well, maybe woman just brings out either the best or worst of what's already there...

[Icarus]

What can change the nature of a man?

Money.

[sethsez]

Rando, I thought you were of the opinion that people have complete control over themselves, right down to personal taste. What happened?

[BulletMagnet]

As with most anything else, some people change quite a bit over time, while others stay much the same; I wouldn't be able to produce a percentage of each or anything, but I've seen instances of both, and everything in between. As to exactly why this is, who knows?

[Neon]

Or are we talking about what Neon was probably referring to, whether or not someone can develop from an annoying jerk in the adolescent years, to an amicable person as an "adult"?

YES! Exactly. Uhm, how did you know?

Though I don't want to limit the discussion. I've just noticed that I can't get rid of a few personal quirks, often keep making the same mistakes I always make, people whose opinions I respect wind up hating my guts, etc. I have a niece now and she's not gonna be an infant forever. Doubtless I'll have some effect on the child and I can't be a piece of crap for the rest of my life.

Rando, I thought you were of the opinion that people have complete control over themselves, right down to personal taste. What happened?

Well, when I first came here, I thought Radiant Silvergun was teh best evar!!11one. But I gradually started playing for score, reading ST's, things like that. Now Battle Garegga is my favourite.

Though maybe that doesn't count.

[Randorama]

Rando, I thought you were of the opinion that people have complete control over themselves, right down to personal taste. What happened?

...and do they know it? Down to a slogan, it's "you're in charge.Just find the "you" in question". Core issue:

1. There's one level of intelligence/awareness that relates to your perception of the self and how it interacts with other, uh, selves.If you believe that the moon is made of cheese, this level is "where" you say that "this is my belief,it may be wrong" and so on.
2.There's one level of intelligence/awareness that relates to the ability of dealing with problems. These problems may actually be other selves, in the sense that you can treat everything as a matter of mechanical solutions.You may not know that "the moon is made of cheese", but you can solve any problems like no one else.

Let's start from a practical example: some colleagues of mine are formidable in their own field. However, i had more than one discussion in which they staunchly supported a theory producing problematic results because they kept using it without realizing that it must have been improved. Did anyone stopped them from sitting down, saying "look, the theory must be improved, it's not that Rando is trying to own me and prove that he's the alpha male!!1!"?

I hope it is pretty clear ...



If things keep going in this way, though, i will soon a fatalistic view of the world, wear only black and try to look like an early John Deep.

[sethsez]

I... don't follow. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that people hold some beliefs that they're open to discussion on, and others they aren't. Then, as an example of this, you bring up a time when people disagreed with you.

I don't really see what this has to do with someone's ability to change. Willingness, possibly, but that's a seperate issue. You seem to be arguing that a lack of desire to change is proof of a lack of ability to change, and that's not really a convincing argument.

[Randorama]

I... don't follow. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that people hold some beliefs that they're open to discussion on, and others they aren't.

No. The level of awareness of a person of what he's doing may be close to zero, while the level of padronance of what he does may be extremely elevated. This basically means that you may be faultless in what you do but you may never change your method, if you need it or not. The former is the, uhm, "meta-context" of the other, in the sense that your beliefs, world knowledge, and other facts will define the reasoning base of the latter.

Then, as an example of this, you bring up a time when people disagreed with you.

EDIT: added this passage for great justice!

Issue: the solution of problem x. Other persons: they used theory y which didn't work entirely. My proposal: let's change these axioms of theory y (correct, technically speaking), and see if it works (it did). Others proposals: let's keep theory y as it is, it can't never be wrong, and you're saying that theory y is wrong because you're a a semanticist and we're syntacticians.Result: i was right and my proposal worked. When dealing with facts, some "opinions" give results, other don't. Defending an "opinion", or a given theoretic model, even if doesn't work, has more to do with said awareness than with ability to compute informations.

Why? Because it implies that your set of beliefs, knowledges and inference schemes must be changed in order to adapt to a new situation.Whereas the typical core notion of society is that you have shared (collective) beliefes, knowledges and inference schemes.Not bad, it can save you time. But, exemplifying things, if the alpha male goes wrong, will you go wrong too? The other mechanism is, if you challenge these beliefs, you may even be a member of an external tribe, potentially an enemy. Maybe not, of course.

I don't really see what this has to do with someone's ability to change. Willingness, possibly, but that's a seperate issue.

How to change, if you don't really know other options?

You seem to be arguing that a lack of desire to change is proof

It isn't, as always: can you re-read what i'm writing?

of a lack of ability to change, and that's not really a convincing argument.

That's not what i said. Honestly, this is not the first time that i write A and you understand B. If you argue that B is not a convincing argument, well...i don't have time for this,ok? Thanks.

[99pence]

NEIN!!!

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=04292003

[CMoon]

So the few that can reflect and change, these "wafflers", do you consider them above others?

No, because the 'wafflers' typically only waffle along certain dimensions. I may be amazed by the insensitivity of certain people to particular 'obvious' stimuli, while those same people may be equally surprised to see my own dullness to other stimuli. This is no different than studies in animal behavior, where cubs/chicks/whatever learn from their parents what constitutes 'food', and it is highly unlikely after that learning process that an animal will become aware of 'new' food sources--and in fact, potentially viable new food sources will be ignored. In this same way, I think consciousness does not turn on for people unless there is some particular reason for it to turn on--the right stimuli have to present themselves (I imagine since the brain is the most costly organ in the human body there is probably a good reason for this; never mind the incessant exploration and experimentation is not necessarily productive). While for most animals, those stimuli may pretty much be the same across a species, only in higher animals and humans are these more freely programmable, and for humans especially can it be completely vast.

Perhaps an avid foodball fan might turn into a super-scientific human calculator when the games come on, crunching statistics and making hyper-complex predictions, but when something when it is time to do taxes, all those numbers are too hard, or when there are politics on the news, it is just too overwhelming and the stimulus is ignored.

I would like to say then that everyone spends time 'reflecting, re-evaluating, etc.' in at least some aspect of their life; and hence we'd all be equal--but that probably isn't true. There probably are a good chunk of people who are just 'stupid'

[CMoon]

Actually, in their core beliefs and habits they may remain entirely the same. That's why the children of KKK parents often end up with the same beliefs. That's why the nazi youth program worked. Because the habits young people establish can very easily stick with them the rest of their lives.

Edit: It is also partly why the children of abusive parents are often abusive themselves.

Like they say, times change, people don't.

Those are both probablistic examples. One doesn't determine the other. Many people who are abused (I'd guess the majority but am not familiar with the statistics) do not abuse. I'd also say that many of those former nazi youth are no longer nazis (Maybe they're even pope). As for beliefs... why would you use that as a measurement of whether or not people can change? Beliefs and opinions, unlike behavior, are subjective and squishy. You can't prove a KKK member he's wrong just like you can't prove to a Christian that god doesn't exist. These things develop in some and fade in others. Neither of these prove that people can't change.

Edit: As for habits, just because someone carries a habit all their life, smoking cigarettes for example, doesn't show it either since all smokers actively choose not to quit. The capability is there, what they do is up to them.

What you seem to be saying is that since it is complex and impossible to eliminate all variables that we cannot show causality. While I buy into that, the fact that behaviors, habits and believes largely remain the same based on those behaviors, habits and believes that were established during youth. I can settle for correlation here, causality is pretty irrelevant. I am not saying WHY behavior has or has not changed. I am merely establishing that between point A and B, those things are very likely to remain unchanged, and I think we can say that deep-seated change in human beings is rare.

There are actually plenty of good evolutionary/biological reasons for this lack of change as well if you are willing to think in this way. Why should an organism suddenly change its thought patterns/habits halfway through its life-cycle? The old 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' mentality was around long before there was human language (or humans for that matter) to say it. It is for precisely this reason that mental plasticity in our closest relatives (chimpanzees) closes at a very early age (older chimpanzees have extreme difficulty learning news tasks as compared to younger ones). This might even parallel the window of language in human beings that closes somewhere between 5 and 7, such that the fundamentals of language themselves becomes impossible to learn after that point. Why should these abilities close down so early?

There is a general theme in developmental psychology that in fact how we are raised as children is of course one of the most fundamental things in our entire lives. Neurological psychology studies show that teenagers with insufficient childhood upbringings revert to pre-teen problem solving strategies when under stress--that is to say, they psychologically revert to acting like children. Why is this important? Because the impact of childrearing begins to become evident, because the impact of nurturing, a sense of security and the beliefs instilled upon us from very early on shape with no uncertainty who we will become.

Perhaps what makes humans different is the rebellious years when one's behavior is often quite the opposite of their upbringing, but this too is a response to the upbringing, meaning that the person is still taking part of it with them, that ultimately it is still weighing heavily upon their lives, and their actions can at times be better understood as a response to the past than as an intelligent response to present stimuli.

[JigsawMan]

What can change the nature of a man?

Planescape Torment?

[Randorama]

More than stupid, they don't act in more complex way than specialized drone. Aside that, it is not that easy to say that change is usually shunned by social animals (like us). Most of the time, changes are shunned in non-critical situations, but once you have a member of a group that possesses (does he, really?) the critical solution to a survival problem, change is usually systematically embraced by the members of its group. If the solution, though, turns out to be rubbish, it is not easy to point it out and say "look, we're halfway through our suicide, let's go back".

Human beings seem to be the only ones who, statistically speaking, can have a few members turning around the back of their alpha male. Whales, for instance, will arenate on beaches, if the alpha male gets disoriented. This is more even critical when dealing with non-adult human beings: teenagehood is the age of crisis and sudden changes, and it is the moment of weak identities. Your body is changing and you also go under a number of critical choices for your future, not to mention that you continually fight for your place in hierarchies of various kinds.

A weak identity seems to be the key to herd-like behaviours, as you tend to resort to collective solutions instead of individual ones...let's jump to a different issue. Why the historical dictatorships held in high regard the complete brainwashing of youths? Why the " HitlerJugend", the "gioventù del fascio"? Because teenagers are the ones who are more easily malleable, apparently. Of course, there's a specific problem in what i'm saying (which is linguistic, and i don't want to bore you with details): is "teenagers" all the teenagers? Of course, not. But, of course, the interaction between individual and society is a much complex issue.

[The n00b]

What can change the nature of a man?

Planescape Torment?

Well yeah that's where I got the question from so I guess it really did change my "nature" since I was reminded of the game when I read this topic.

[Acid King]

What you seem to be saying is that since it is complex and impossible to eliminate all variables that we cannot show causality. While I buy into that, the fact that behaviors, habits and believes largely remain the same based on those behaviors, habits and believes that were established during youth. I can settle for correlation here, causality is pretty irrelevant. I am not saying WHY behavior has or has not changed. I am merely establishing that between point A and B, those things are very likely to remain unchanged, and I think we can say that deep-seated change in human beings is rare.

There are actually plenty of good evolutionary/biological reasons for this lack of change as well if you are willing to think in this way. Why should an organism suddenly change its thought patterns/habits halfway through its life-cycle? The old 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' mentality was around long before there was human language (or humans for that matter) to say it. It is for precisely this reason that mental plasticity in our closest relatives (chimpanzees) closes at a very early age (older chimpanzees have extreme difficulty learning news tasks as compared to younger ones). This might even parallel the window of language in human beings that closes somewhere between 5 and 7, such that the fundamentals of language themselves becomes impossible to learn after that point. Why should these abilities close down so early?

There is a general theme in developmental psychology that in fact how we are raised as children is of course one of the most fundamental things in our entire lives. Neurological psychology studies show that teenagers with insufficient childhood upbringings revert to pre-teen problem solving strategies when under stress--that is to say, they psychologically revert to acting like children. Why is this important? Because the impact of childrearing begins to become evident, because the impact of nurturing, a sense of security and the beliefs instilled upon us from very early on shape with no uncertainty who we will become.

Perhaps what makes humans different is the rebellious years when one's behavior is often quite the opposite of their upbringing, but this too is a response to the upbringing, meaning that the person is still taking part of it with them, that ultimately it is still weighing heavily upon their lives, and their actions can at times be better understood as a response to the past than as an intelligent response to present stimuli.

All good points, however, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, per se. All I'm trying to do is punch holes in the notion that change is very difficult and doesn't happen often. This is due to the fact that there is no defined behavior/belief/whatever that we can use to really measure change, we're just using a highly generalized idea. What kind of change are we talking about? For example, is the fact that a person who grows up in a racist environment, becomes and stays racist til they die an example of mans inability to change or is a person who quits smoking or drinking when they find out or feel that it is becoming detrimental to their health an example of mans ability to change? Is the fact that I have played shooting games and listened to metal since I was a little kid an example of mans inability to change or is the fact that my personality and outlook on life has changed dramatically over the years an example of mans ability to change?

Basically, a separation of what is developmental (people grow and develop over time, some change drastically, others do not) and controllable personality traits (how we treat other people, how we act). I'm with you that people's habits, preferences and personalities grow overtime, I just don't think that that should be a measurement of change. We've all changed enormously overtime and I don't think the fact that we may have the same opinions about certain things, or the same preferences we had as kids negates the growth and change that has occured.

[CMoon]

It isn't that I don't believe in free will, rather I just think it is a smaller/more restricted thing than most people think. The huge sweeping idea of free will is sort of an illusion created by a collective vision of the herd. But I think for all of us, free will is restricted to a very small volume contained by transparent walls (...we could chose to do that but we never will...

[Randorama]

the quote is by Andy Clark, CMoon

Well, the issue of free will is tricky. Free will is something that i would relate to the ability to make different choices when different (but equally worth, or not) options arise. If i choose between rice or pasta (as trivial as the example may be), when in need of carbohydrates, by considering that both will give me the same amount of nourishment (or basically the same result), i would say that i'm using my free will. If i bind my choice to uncessary beliefs, like "eating pasta will kill me!", i doubt that i'm exercising fully my free will.

Of course, i'm already talking about needs: the degree of freedom may be lower than, say, choosing among any possible food as my next lunch. However, i keep in consideration a number of factors that can be collectively labelled as "heallthy diet", which technically narrow my freedom to a specific set of choices. I wouldn't talk of free will if someone doesn't choose and allow a social structure to do this for himself. Then again, wouldn't be a choice for him to follow a specific collective solution and save time? Am i a blathering fool if i follow a successful diet?

I would say: no, as long as i know that i'm using someone's else solution to a problem. The core problem, i think, is that pin-pointing the specific level at which constraints and rules are individual instead of collective...well, it's pretty difficult. I don't think it's even fixed, and it seems to represent a sort of Sorite paradox: when i stop decidin for "myself" and i start doing it for "ourselves"?

On historical level, when the changes that i may (or may not) opt for myself are enough to say "i am different"? The shmups example is quite useful. I really wonder how could have i liked some shmups, when i was a kid. Are my tastes different? Well, i still like shmups, but what type of shmups? I think that the ability to move across levels of of "comprehension" (better word needed here!), instead of just talking about macrosystems (...or single elements instead of sets, or even sets of sets), could be a solution. In general, i wouldn't talk about separations, though, but of distinctions, regarding these issues.

[CMoon]

The examples that come to mind about free will for me are atrocities in the US. It is all nice and good to watch 'dances and wolves' and think, 'wow, if I lived back then, I might have sided with the native americans too', but the truth is that might not have been a viable option due to the constraints put upon free will (especially at a time when native americans were not thought to be human beings, and blacks were not considered to have souls). There is only a certain degree of freedom, but people rarely are capable of jumping out of a reigning paradigm of thought.

How much did it take George Crook for instance to realize that Native americans were human beings? No doubt a series of life-death situations in his war with the indians. Mindsets certainly aren't easily broken.

Haha, look at how the US is still trying to wrap its mind around evolutionary theory...we still can't change!