Do Leopards Really not Change their Spots?

It all depends on the context.

I've never appreciated the view of a 'static personality'.

There is no I in me.

Basically what matters is not who we are. Nothing is permanent. There are personality traits, everyone has their temperament, but how it manifests in the world is extremely dependent on the surroundings.

More on this in 'The Nurture Assumption' by Judith Rich Harris.

 

I'm not the most outgoing person in the world, so I don't know many people, especially ones I could observe as "has changed" or not, but I can give one example. My brother has changed substanitally and, considering the bulk of that change happened in his first year in college, I don't think I can count that as "growing up". Also, the nature of the change is more than just maturing (plus, he hasn't really matured one bit).

So, all in all, I have to say that, yes, people can change. From the level of debate on the topic, though, I have to conclude it must be a rare occurance.

Iku, psychologically speaking, your true "personality" is set at a very early age and does not change. This is why personality disorders are untreatable. That being said, even psychologists recognize that there is much more to a person's character than this base "personality". As you hinted at, it's what you do with it that matters.

 

Hm, maybe this article might help: A Theory of Personality Change

 

Totally with Nog, here. Said exactly what I would have (minus the brother part, of course...never met the man ).

Myself, I'm definitely not 100% the same person I was in high school - and that's only 10 years ago. Friends I meet from back in those days say I'm still me, but different - like a new version. My life experiences and the places I've lived since then have definitely made a mark on me. But I think it's safe to say I'm more or less who I've always been, just, well, evolved. I have known people, though, who've changed so much as to be almost unrecognizable - if not in appearance, in mannerism and attitude. Rare, certainly - but not unheard of. Most people I know from high school that I still keep in contact with or have run into are exactly as I remember them.

 

I think outwardly it is very easy to change who/how you are and many people around you can change you, but I think at your heart and core you still the same person, even if the level of maturity changes temperament. I have had many people close to me have an idea of how I should be and have often tried to fit that ideal, I have found that simply attempting to revert to my core nature has got me further than any attempt at what people expect of me.

This may just be the views of an Aspergers person though, soon after diagnosis in the UK you are referred to a psychologist who tries and teaches you to be normal and what is acceptable and how to pretend to be like every other person your age. Maybe it works for some people, but just going against my nature to please other people has simply led to more pain.

I have grown up and matured, but I have not changed.

 

People's personalities rarely change. Their sensibilities, worldviews and life-styles, on the other hand change all the time...and are often in a state of constant flux. I can honestly tell you that I would never be able to get along with a man who views the world in exactly the same way now as he did 5 years ago, because that man clearly refuses to challenge his own ideas and beliefs -- and won't listen to the challenges offered by other people. Sure, some people don't change, but not changing is a very. bad. thing.

 

One of the fundamental theories behind personality test (credible ones such as Myers-Briggs and Kersey) is there are traits which are hardwired into us. These are big picture traits such as how organized we like to be or our decision making process. I found it interesting that a simple test could fairly accurately pick my motivations and what made me happy (in a very general sense).

So the outgoing guy who make friends easily and was able to read people to put anyone at ease around him is still like that 20 years later -- those traits are hardwired. During those same twenty years he's changed religions three times and shifted his career choice from activist for homeless animals to fundraiser to attorney -- because these traits are learned and changable.

Many people undergo a complete shift in ethics and beliefs -- which was me at my reunion. Nobody recognized me. They all remembered the 5' nothing, 75 pound runt who spouted his Mormon religious beliefs at the most awkward times. They had no idea who the 6'3", 200 pound guy drinking Jack Daniels was.

 

I think we all have our unique manorisms, that are like a personality 'fingerprint'. We also gather other personality traits over time, that are worn and shed like a glove, to serve us in our situation. It's important to know which personality traits you are focusing on, because mostly it's the acquired traits that are considered more relevant.

Montresor's situation, a highschool reunion, is different though. He met these people first when they were young, and the hardwired traits are well-known to him, and it will be what he is focusing on. No doubt he sees them from the same perspective as he did when he was younger, and maybe he even (unwittingly) reverted to his old persona around them.

Next year will be 10 years since graduation at high school; I'm dreading the reunion already. I hope it doesn't get organized, or they forget to invite me or something. It will be a class full of people measuring eachother's achievements. I'll probably have to explain like 10 times why I chose to stay in security after getting my master degree. Everybody will be showing off, I think it will be like going to a car show. Pretty damn boring. Come to think of it; I'm not going regardless.

 

At the same time, the maliable traits being on many levels a product of their envioronment mean that, when we are thrust back into a certain environment, some of them will revert as well. Essentially, you become more who you were in high school at a reunion, simply by being put back into that setting with that crowd. Of course, everyone brings their own changes along as well (such as T2 and his Jack Daniels) as well as the simple fact that, at 18, your brain still hasn't finish maturing, while at 38 or so, it has.

Essentially, the answer is both yes and no at the same time, and due to a great many factors.

And Iku, where did you find this stuff? From the home page:

Now, I'm not calling them liars or con artists or anything, but it does kind of hurt their credibility.

 

@NOG: Umm...University of Chicago?

Maybe this'll help: Gendlin in google scholar.

So far so good, the guy seems to be for real, cited in APA pages, his books are quoted by APA researchers. Admittedly, his in the far reaches of the mainstream psychology, but seems to be accepted in his own right...

His book is used as course material in Helsinki University in the Faculty of Behavioral Sciences...

 

Ah, ok, that's encouraging. I just looked at the home page of the site you linked.

As for this coming from a university, that's not always encouraging. In the 70s and 80s, a number of them were doing studies in telepathy, telekenesis, precognition, "spirit walking", etc, and I'd bet a few programs like that still exist today. The point is, especially in psychology, the fringe elements that most of us scoff at can be accepted in the university setting.

 

Quite right, but how about Carl Rogers who's apparently collaborated with Eugene Gendlin (or, as Roger's the bigger name, the other way around)?

Phenomenology as one point of view connects both Gendlin and Rogers, they both work for a more humanistic approach to psychology as opposed to the traditional clinical pshychiatry-driven model on psychotherapy. And they both have merit, to their names and apparently to their approaches to psychotherapy.

Here:

And the source to that article...

 

I think the problem you're running into now is that psychology, on many levels, is a very subjective science. The "gestalt" that he's talking about is not actually the "personality" that other psychologists call unchanging. It overlaps in a number of areas, but he's basically re-subdivided the mind (hardly uncommon in psychology) to gain a new perspective. From that perspective, nothing is unchangable.

 

Iku: Chicago University and University of Chicago are two different things. One does not exist (although there is a Chicago State University) while the other boasts several Nobel laureates.

 

Hmm, here's another quite good article about Rogers.

Personality, as defined by many personality psychologists isn't there in the same sense as many other personality theories present. Yet, his view is a valid standpoint, in the field of psychology and in the field of psychotherapy.

Here's Steven Pinker on personality, ctrl-f 'personality' if you can't be bothered to read the majority of the article...

@T2B: Well, that'd explain some the difficulties of finding about the guy...another query then...aand yeah it was University of Chicago...

More about Gendlin on Univeristy of Chicago's webpages. I know, I know, it's an article about developing artificial intelligence and human-computer interactions, but search for 'Gendlin'. (...and there'd you find that Gendlin was in fact Rogers' student at one point...)

 

I truly hate this saying "the leopard cannot change his spots" -- it seems to me to be either a cop out for bad behaviour ("I CAN'T change, I have no control over myself, and nothing's my fault!") or as a way to degrade, insult, demoralize and humiliate a person who is trying to make a change in their lives. An a$$**** counselor used this ******* line on me during my divorce when I demonstrated that I was making legitimate progress toward being a better husband. He totally blew off the facts (facts agreed to by my ex, mind you) and just pissed on my efforts with this useless, pithy, dimestore pop psychology BS line. I hope he burns in hell.

 

Wow, LKD, that may explain some of your feelings toward psychology...

That said, yeah, the guy should have been fired on the spot.

 

Spots don't change.

My grandfather was born in '29 in Arkansas. We celebrated his 80th birthday yesterday. He is an exceptional source of wisdom and general information - he was born into the depression, was shot twice in the Korean war was married twice, had many children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, worked in many fields and lived in a majority of the states here in the U.S - etc.. He is also an exceptional source of racism. He absolutely despises african americans....and he voted for Obama. I am here to tell you that he has not changed his spots, merely his behavior.

Humans do not change their spots - that is to say their fundamental genetic and early socially constructed makeup does not change. Their behavior may change due to new circumstances but what they *are* is static.

LKD can sacrifice himself to be the husband that his first wife requires, he can modify his behavior to try to satisfy his couselor - a true credit to his will, but he cannot change 'his spots' - who he really *is*. The counselor did him a favor, albeit likely unwittingly, by separating him from his first wife and sending him on a path to his second wife who finds his *spots* more acceptable.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying that humans with 'spots' that lead them to despicable behavior should be excused. As sad as it is, they should be held accountable and be punished for what they cannot help being. My brother is one of those and I willingly break my own rule for him by keeping him from trouble as is within my power. In absolute honesty, and as has come to my realiztion as typing this, he would most likely be dead now without my intervention. Also, come to think of it at this hour, his spots have not changed at all. His *take no prisoners* attitude has been in place since forever. His spots have not changed....God I wish they could, he ages me more than is fair.

 

Nunsbane, I find two problems with your statement:
1.) You are blending "who" with "what". I will agree that "what" we are generally doesn't change (there can be some radical surgories), but "who" we are seems more and more disconnected from that as psychology moves into the international range of study.
2.) You come to a conclusion that I cannot agree with, that people should be punished for things they cannot change. If that is the case, what is the purpose of punishing them? You can't say to dissuade future actions, as they won't change. You can't say to deter other offenders, as those other offenders can't change either.

Anyway, in the end, we are talking about behavior (both intentional and unintentional, the behavior we work at and the behavior we relax with). You seem to link the unintentional, or relaxed, behavior with "what" we are. I think that is a cop-out. There's no genetic code for being a thief, or a bum. There may be upbringings that make you that, but there are plenty of real-world stories of people who have changed themselves (and lastingly, over decades) that I can't consider that an unchangable feature.

Also, ultimately, no number of people who haven't changed can prove that it is impossible, while it only takes one instance of someone who has changed to prove it is.