Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Study Says Your Personality Doesn't Change After 1st Grade 221

Posted by samzenpus
from the everybody-I-ever-needed-to-be-I-was-in-first-grade dept.
A study authored by Christopher Nave, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, says that our personalities stay pretty much the same from early childhood all the way through old age. From the article: "Using data from a 1960s study of approximately 2,400 ethnically diverse schoolchildren (grades 1 - 6) in Hawaii, researchers compared teacher personality ratings of the students with videotaped interviews of 144 of those individuals 40 years later. They examined four personality attributes - talkativeness (called verbal fluency), adaptability (cope well with new situations), impulsiveness and self-minimizing behavior (essentially being humble to the point of minimizing one's importance)." This must explain my overriding need to be first captain when we pick kickball teams at the office.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Says Your Personality Doesn't Change After 1st Grade

Comments Filter:
  • Not true (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stanlyb (1839382)
    Yes and no. Yes, it does not change, in fact it does not change since your first day, simply because your DNA is already setup, and ready to go. And NO, it does change, if you are willing to learn.
    • by Thelasko (1196535)

      in fact it does not change since your first day

      Interesting hypothesis. This study does not examine children before the 1st grade. If it were possible to perform such an examination at birth, would they conclude that personality doesn't change after birth?

      Let the nature vs. nurture debate begin!

      • Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Belial6 (794905) on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:37PM (#33191764)
        The question of whether people are shaped by nature or nurture is easy. The answer is "yes".
      • Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)

        by INT_QRK (1043164) on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:59PM (#33192096)
        Having raised a significant number of children to adulthood and through college, I feel qualified to contribute the following anecdotal observations to such a debate: (1) each child arrives shrink-wrapped with his/her own unique personality from birth, with high-order traits ranging from fussy to content, alert to no-so, timid to adventurous, more verbal to more physical, etc.; (2) that basic personality evolves through childhood and is shaped by experiences and interactions with parents, siblings, and childhood friends; (3) in retrospect one can see (or at least rationalize) the evolution, but such evolution seems by no means so smooth or constraining as portrayed by such studies; and, most significant, (4) such studies appear every bit as absolutely worthless in any practical sense as nearly all books on child rearing. Yes, as a new parent I went to classes, read books and even "coached" ridiculously with "he-he-hoo-hoo's" with the best of them. I rushed the first baby to the doctor at every sniffle or fervor, and fretted every "percentile" comparison chart entry by every "peeds" nurse. By the 3rd, 4th and 5th kid, one progressively realizes that most of the anxiety is worthless. As a parent, one can only do what one can do and hope for the best. Any experienced parent will eventually throw away all parenting books and ignore most psychological studies unless medical in nature and directly relevant to a specific issue. But then again, even social scientists need to eat, I guess...
        • Re:Not true (Score:4, Interesting)

          by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:20PM (#33193552) Homepage
          Yes, but.... as the (by far) oldest of a family of 7 kids (12 years between me and my closest sibling, 29 years between me and the youngest one), I have some experience in this area myself. The thing with your insight about the anxiety of the new parent being useless is that there are also a fair number of studies which show that birth order DOES make a difference in the personality of children. I think there is plenty of room to wonder whether the lessening anxiety you describe (like the old joke... first kid, the pacifier falls on the floor, you sterilize it before giving it back; 2nd kid, you rinse it off then stick it back in his mouth; 3rd kid's lucky if you wipe it off before you give it back) does have a significant impact in how the child develops.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by clone53421 (1310749)

            there are also a fair number of studies which show that birth order DOES make a difference in the personality of children. I think there is plenty of room to wonder whether the lessening (parental) anxiety you describe...does have a significant impact

            It could also have just as much to do with having older siblings.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by ppanon (16583)
              More to the point, there's evidence that subsequent births affects the womb and hormonal mix in ways that affect child development and personality in at least one significant way [wikipedia.org]. So it wouldn't be surprising if it had other developmental effects.
        • by sarysa (1089739)
          Having been a child and making it well enough into adulthood, I can understand why your post was marked Insightful. My first response to the article was denial, but one second later I realized that I've thought in line with the article fairly often in the last few years. In a superficial way, I have changed a lot, but base aspects of my personality are still there. To name a couple, first-run timidness/caution, sense-of-humor, and an innate desire to explore are a few I could think of off-hand. Personality
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darinbob (1142669)
        I was certainly not a curmudgeon in the first grade!
    • Re:Not true (Score:4, Informative)

      by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:28PM (#33190480)

      Yes and no. Yes, it does not change, in fact it does not change since your first day, simply because your DNA is already setup, and ready to go. And NO, it does change, if you are willing to learn.

      A couple of years ago, I bumped into an old friend that I lost touch with. Long story short, he said that I am a completely different person than the guy he met 15 years ago. I believe I am an outlier, though. I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

      A person can and does change when they want to.

      On the other hand, I was told by a professional that I really didn't change, per se, and that the old person was really a "false self" and that I becoming the real "me".

      • Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)

        by oldspewey (1303305) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:46PM (#33190826)

        I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

        I'm trying really hard not to be cynical here, but how does somebody spend $70K on personal growth? I've had the occasional habit throughout my life of being a bit of a rube, and spending money on "experts." My observations so far have been:

        1. People who claim to be able to help other people are generally very good at helping themselves, and not really very good at helping others
        2. Unless you are committed to change, there are no people, systems, books, or retreats that are going to do a damned thing no matter how expensive they may be
        3. Numerous people in my life who care about me would have had me stripped naked and publicly flogged - for my own good of course - before I got anywhere close to spending $70K on "personal development"
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hedwards (940851)
          Depends, 70k in education would be personal development money. And depending upon what you spent it on, that could be money well spent. Or it could be pissing it down a hole as well. Really depends.

          Also, if being stripped naked and publicly flogged is your thing, you can get a lot of that action for 70k.
        • Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jockeys (753885) on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:06PM (#33191216) Journal

          I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

          I'm trying really hard not to be cynical here, but how does somebody spend $70K on personal growth?

          college?

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Weirsbaski (585954)

            I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

            I'm trying really hard not to be cynical here, but how does somebody spend $70K on personal growth?

            college?

            scientology?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

          I'm trying really hard not to be cynical here, but how does somebody spend $70K on personal growth?

          My guess would be L Ron Hoover's First Church of Appliantology.

      • by Bengie (1121981)

        It's possible for the personality to be the same, but the person to know different information which changes their actions.

        eg. Most people who only saw me from time to time use to think I was quiet, but my friends thought I was very talkative. I didn't get out much, so I didn't know how to act around people which caused me to be quiet.

        After college and meeting lots of new people in class/etc, I've learned more about what I can/can't talk about with people I don't know. I am now fairly chatty around new peop

        • by Belial6 (794905)
          Ironically enough, your explanation as to why you might fit the description in the 'study' also points out why the study is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
      • A couple of years ago, I bumped into an old friend that I lost touch with. Long story short, he said that I am a completely different person than the guy he met 15 years ago.

        This is a very difficult discussion to have without defining the difference between 'personality' and 'behaviour'.

      • I was sent ot dale carnegie class by my work and I changed slightly from an INTP to an ENTP.
        I think I used to be 60/40 I/E and now I'm a 48%/52% I/E (or results around that range when I take tests).

        The training gave me skills that made new people less painful for me so I started to value meeting new people over spending time alone.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by default luser (529332)

        I'm a changed person from when I was in high school. Back then, I was an asshole who craved attention - so I egged people on and played the victim card. I was loud and obnoxious, but I actually wasn't very happy.

        Fifteen years later, you wouldn't recognize me. I've made an active effort to bury my asshole urges - they're still there, but I don't give in to them very often. Also, I've found reasons to love myself (work out regularly, accomplish career goals, meet new friends, etc.), and that's made me a h

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by twitchingbug (701187)

        Why is everyone slamming this guy for spending 70k on himself? It's his money, obviously he thought it was worth it. Sounds like he is a better person for it all around. I applaud you, sir. Not everyone is as brave as you are. Not everyone has the strength to face their own demons.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by stupkid (16083)

        I spent over a decade and almost $70,000 of my own money on personal growth.

        That's a lot for "male enhancement". :p

    • I was going to write a big long thing about how I made the conscious decision to change my personality when I was a teen, but I suppose it'll all boil down to statistical outlier and anecdotal evidence stuff.

      In all honesty though - perhaps its only true in the environment they tested it in. I mean todays schools pretty much reinforce the claim: those quiet and shy will remain so throughout their school years because of the loud and proud psychologically keeping them in that place. Then once you remain the s

    • by erroneus (253617)

      I simply can't agree with this at all. While many of my personal traits have persisted, I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt, my military experience has changed my personality considerably and frankly, I am a better person because of it. (Anyone who knows me or even follows my comments here knows that I am absolutely not a "flag waiver" of any sort. This is my own objective opinion of myself if such a thing is possible.)

      But, if any of this is true, and I suspect a strong contributor to the truth of the

  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:20PM (#33190330) Homepage Journal

    took acid later in life?

    • by Abreu (173023) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:29PM (#33190498)

      Or how many suffered a deeply traumatic experience later...?

      • by Steauengeglase (512315) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:51PM (#33190940)

        Namely Middle School for boys and High School for girls.

      • That's what I was wondering, too. There's no denying (as far as I know, anyway) that childhood trauma can impact someone's personality dramatically. From what I've read, sexual abuse, in particular, can have a big impact on talkativeness and self-minimizing behavior. The article doesn't seem to say that the study denies that, exactly, but it certainly seems to minimize it. I was fascinated by this passage:

        Talkative youngsters tended to show interest in intellectual matters, speak fluently, try to control situations, and exhibit a high degree of intelligence as adults. Children who rated low in verbal fluency were observed as adults to seek advice, give up when faced with obstacles, and exhibit an awkward interpersonal style.

        So less talkative youngsters tend to grow up to be socially awkward? Gee, you don't say! Astound

        • Do people really get paid to produce studies as daft as this?

          Yes, but you can see how far down the "intellectual food chain" they are. [xkcd.com]

        • by siride (974284)
          You can't just say "that's common knowledge" and call it science. Everything must be tested. Even Galileo was dropping rocks and things off a tower to see how they'd fall. I'm sure if you were around back then posting on Il Slashdotto Vecchio, you'd be complaining about how much of a waste of time his work was.
          • I think you're missing the point. Being less talkative is being socially awkward. It's like saying "Caucasian children grow up to be white men." It's not actually saying anything. If the study had ventured a guess as to what makes children less talkative, that might've been worthy of a study. But saying shy children grow up to be socially awkward isn't just common knowledge. It's a tautology.
            • by siride (974284)
              No, "less talkative" does not automatically mean "socially awkward". Those phrases by themselves state two different, albeit related things.
              • I should've actually said "Caucasian boys grow up to be white men" in my example. As to the relationship between "less talkative" and "socially awkward", how, exactly, are "less talkative" and "shy" different concepts? Or is it your position that "shy" and "socially awkward" are two different things?
        • by timeOday (582209)

          So less talkative youngsters tend to grow up to be socially awkward? Gee, you don't say! Astounding insight, there. Do people really get paid to produce studies as daft as this?

          1) I guarantee there will be a lot of responses to this thread from people who claim to have willed their personality to be different.

          2) If this were strictly true it would imply that parenting kids older than 7 or so makes little difference - agree or disagree?

          3) Since you used the British slang "daft," I will also go out on a

          • 3) Since you used the British slang "daft," I will also go out on a limb and speculate that Americans will be more resistant to the idea that personality is immutable. We're all about the self-reliant personal re-invention.

            I'm actually an American. :) I was trying to avoid using even less flattering words. ;)

    • Article mentions they were in Hawaii. I'm guessing if I stayed in Hawaii since first grade, I too may have been just as relaxed and carefree as I was in first grade, playing on the beach every day.

  • Nature wins?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Da Cheez (1069822)
      Only if personality were set at conception. This is saying that personality is set well after first grade. The personality formed by that stage of life could be due to nurture or nature. It's only nature that makes it stick after it's been set.
      Just my .02 cents.
  • by e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:25PM (#33190416)
    I still pull girls hair and play with my wiener.
  • Not true (Score:2, Funny)

    by XPeter (1429763)

    In 1st grade... I was quiet and geeky.

    10 years later... I'm still quiet and geeky.

    Damnit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Does this mean I've just been a jerk since the first grade? No wonder I don't like my inner child.
      • by genner (694963)

        Does this mean I've just been a jerk since the first grade? No wonder I don't like my inner child.

        Stop giving your inner child wedgies.

  • ...going around like that and showing results possibly pointing also to few early formative years, and surroundings back then.

  • Hawaii? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) * on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:26PM (#33190452) Homepage Journal

    Hawaii, yeah that's a pretty typical place, I'm sure it being studied in Hawaii won't skew the results.

    It probably won't because the results sound right, but still, in the interest of science, I would have been more satisfied if they would have done the study in more than one area of the country/world.

    I was also annoyed by my 1st grade teacher not teaching us the Cyrillic and Japanese alphabet as well as the Latin one.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I distinctly remember my Second Grade class and how much I preferred to be alone. We had group reading assignments but I didn't enjoy them, nor did I enjoy many other group activities. In Fifth grade I had a psychological assessment (for Gifted/Advanced students, but I was nothing special). The report, which I read many years later, said that I was quiet, quite shy, but had exceptional command of language, and so on. This was before autism was readily diagnosed, and I suspect that had I been tested 15 yea

    • by Abstrackt (609015) on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:39PM (#33191796)

      I distinctly remember my Second Grade class and how much I preferred to be alone. We had group reading assignments but I didn't enjoy them, nor did I enjoy many other group activities. In Fifth grade I had a psychological assessment (for Gifted/Advanced students, but I was nothing special). The report, which I read many years later, said that I was quiet, quite shy, but had exceptional command of language, and so on. This was before autism was readily diagnosed, and I suspect that had I been tested 15 years later, I would be labeled mildy autistic.

      In college, though I was involved in many groups, I still preferred to run off by myself. Fast forward 20 years and it's still the same. I'm involved in a sports team, clubs, etc., but it's almost as if I'm pretending. I do the team activities, give talks, am involved in film making (one of the most extroverted activities I can imagine). People tell me that I am a great speaker and they feel that I relate well, but even to this day I approach conversations in a methodical way: listen, confirm understanding, ask questions, repeat. This pretense is precisely because I enjoy being alone and I found it much easier to pretend to be well-adjusted and sociable than to just tell everyone how I really felt.

      It's sad that introverts have to pretend to be extroverts to get by in so many situations. You're not maladjusted or broken just because you don't want to be surrounded by people at all times, despite what people might say. I'm a strong introvert (I don't hate being around people, it just drains me) but I love giving speeches or acting because it lets me bring my thoughts and emotions out in a way that doesn't directly involve interaction with others. At the end of the day, nothing makes me happier than getting the hell out of the office where everyone and everything is clamoring for my attention and reading a book or playing a game of chess with a stranger online.

      If you're looking for a good read, I'd like to recommend Introvert Power by Laurie Helgoe. It is a self-help book but it provides some very interesting insights into how you operate, it will make you feel a bit better about it as well as offer ideas on how to deal with the rest of the world. The short version is this: introverts make up approximately half the world's population, setting up a quiet space in your home will go a long way (earplugs work wonders at home and the office, seriously), and it's okay to stay home instead of go out.

      • Though I've not read the book you've mentioned, The Introvert Advantage, by Laney, sounds similar. Specifically, it talks about introversion as the state of being depleted by large numbers of people being around, and restored by being alone or w/ one or 2 good friends. Extroversion is just the opposite, and despite no true benefit to either personality type, there has been a strong selection bias in society to make extroverts feel "right" and introverts "wrong".
    • My case is similar. In high school, I was a classic nerd; sharp in class, totally clueless socially. Nowdays, I have no problem appearing to fit in socially, but I'm still an introvert, even if I can act extroverted.

  • Why I can't put down Super Mario Bros 1. :|

  • I have 100% changed. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gapagos (1264716) on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:42PM (#33190770)

    In high school (aged 12 to 17) I was an extreme introvert, talking to nobody and never doing sports, only playing video games.

    Since I'm 18 (I'm now 24) I'm meeting plenty of random people all the time on CouchSurfing, while travelling and even organizing events in my city, and am constantly physically active, practicing parkour, biking, taekwon-do, rock-climbing and alpine skiing.

    I think this study is totally bogus.

    Granted, I still play video games. But they're a minority of my lifestyle, when they used to be the majority.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hedwards (940851)
      I tend to agree as well, I've gone through massive swings in personality and interest over the years. It took a lot of work, but I am very different than I was back then. There probably is an element of truth in that inertia is likely set by that point. In that one tends to have to fight if one doesn't want to be type cast permanently. There's a lot of reinforcement that goes on and a lot of pressure not to rock the boat by changing.
      • YOU may be odd and not fit into any profiles so this stuff only sometimes generally applies to you but much of the time seems totally wrong-- but that would be a result of you being in the fringe or not existing in their sampling because you are even more rare. I'm usually one of these people who don't fit into any of the normal groups.

        "Soft science" doesn't deal with concretes or literals. Its fuzzy. They look for trends in groups and try to define groups from generalized descriptions. To the untrained eye

    • by DrMaurer (64120)

      Well, considering you're one data point...

      Shy and introverted since forever...but that's not even relevant.

    • by clifyt (11768) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [rettamkinos]> on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:13PM (#33191330) Homepage

      "I was an extreme introvert...I'm meeting plenty of random people all the time"

      Wait? How does this disprove or prove your introversion and or change to extroversion?

      People think not being around others is introversion...and it isn't. It is where do you get your energy from. An extrovert will find energy by being around people in ANY activity...not just ones that are hand chosen. An introvert generally has to be in their comfort zone before they can deal with others...they are able to gain more energy from their comfort zone that they may now expend on being around others.

      I am a HUGE introvert...and I was a stage performing / touring musician for years. Being an introvert, it make aquiring people skills a little harder, but I made them...and when I did I was able to seem very outgoing under certain circumstances.

      BTW -- the sports you list? Very introvert friendly...they are all about being able to focus on you internally, and less about the external.

      That said, personality generally is set early on...but people can make a concerted effort (or even a situational one) and change with time. If you were in one of my grad courses, my profs would have used you as an example of not knowing what introversion and extroversion are...then again, unless you are in the field, I wouldn't expect someone to require in depth knowledge (and yeah, the standard def is pretty accurate for 90% of what people use it for).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thePig (964303)

      The point might be that - your behaviour at 40 is the same as your behaviour at 5. The in between stages are not considered - since people do change a lot through the years. But in the end, you mostly reach your behaviour back at 5.

    • by mattdm (1931)

      But what were you like in 1st grade? (Or earlier?)

      I too went through an extremely introverted phase, but in retrospect, that was largely because my elementary-school experience was terrible and soul-crushing, so I went from being a fairly buoyant, outgoing kid to being rather awkward and alone. It took me all of late high school (and dropping out of college; wow, I'd do that differently were I to go through it again) to realize that this wasn't really me.

    • You are trying to assert your position through a false dichotomy.

    • Considering the %*^&ing idiotic rat bastards I went to school with.

      They made my life a living Hell.

      I don't think that anybody would want to live in a town full of these low-life pond scum without being heavily armed and under a regime of outlawry*.

      Although I know of two brothers who played "Cowboys and Indians" using real .22 caliber pistols and liked to go to the town dump and "fish for rats" from the overpass, they eventually disappeared from town never to be seen again.

      *Outlawry is a legal regime of

    • Same with me... In school I was very much introverted. Two decades later I'm on a couple sports teams, give talks, make films. I've done rock climbing, gojo ryu, dragon boating, and other team/partner sports too. Difference is that I'm still very much introverted and still am more relaxed when I'm by myself. Not that I don't like social interaction -- actually find it interesting -- but I would often rather read a book alone on the beach than mingle at a party.

  • About time (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:44PM (#33190796)

    I've been waiting for somebody to answer the age-old question:

    Were you born an a-hole or did you work on it your whole life?

    • by Abstrackt (609015)

      I've been waiting for somebody to answer the age-old question:

      Were you born an a-hole or did you work on it your whole life?

      It came naturally at birth but was honed to perfection after years of practice!

    • by lennier1 (264730)

      How exactly does this study explain people who aren't assholes until they're halfway through puberty?

  • A priori I wouldn't have been sure that ratings by teachers would have correlated even with contemporary test results.

    Highly skeptical here that "impulsiveness" stays constant with age.

  • Very Very old news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cellocgw (617879) <cellocgw@@@gmail...com> on Monday August 09, 2010 @12:57PM (#33191050) Journal

    Hasn't anyone besides me seen the 7-UP series?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series [wikipedia.org]

  • The seven up [wikipedia.org] series I remember watching as a child.
  • The jesuit monks said centuries ago: "Give me the child till the age of seven and I will show you the man."

    Frankly, this is also a great tip for dealing with people. If you want to understand someone better, try to imagine what they were like as a child. It almost always give you insight into how to deal with them as an adult.

  • I think this premise is demonstrably true. Ask anyone who's ever been to a high school reunion.

  • Work just provided the Strengths Finder 2.0 book to employees (don't know what the distribution was, certainly in our area of the company).

    In the book it claims to have polled 10 million people with regards to their workplace and how they feel about work.

    The main claim seems to be that you have your strengths and weaknesses when you're young and you keep them throughout your life. The book is proposing that we stop trying to strengthen our weaknesses but work in our strengths where we already do a great job

  • ...four elements of your personality as a child strongly predict four elements of your personality as an adult (according to the study.) Headline is misleading.
  • by DCheesi (150068) on Monday August 09, 2010 @01:56PM (#33192058) Homepage

    Temperament doesn't change; that is, your basic innate tendency to react one way or another. However, personality is more than just temperament; it also includes emotional scars, life lessons, and the results of concerted effort to control your innate tendencies.

    Basically, a naturally timid individual will never become a natural daredevil --though s/he might learn to fake it very well. In fact, sometimes people learn to fake it so well that they even manage to fool themselves, with the truth only revealed once the constant strain of impulse-denial and self-deception finally gets the better of them.

    But it's also possible to truly moderate one's responses, given the right life experiences and lots of hard work. It's not a matter of becoming the opposite of what you are, more of learning to rein in your natural responses when possible, and to compensate for what can't be controlled. You may not ever become, say, more extroverted than Mr. Popularity, but you can still make strides toward the middle of the spectrum, sometimes enough to make your old self seem like a completely different person.

    • I agree. I'm not really the same person I was in HS, but my "inner core" is the same. I'm a natural introvert, but I handle myself fine in social situations, which would have been impossible as a teen or even young adult. But I'm an introvert acting outgoing, not an extrovert.

  • As a kid, I was a brat and didn't cope well with new situations and was very poor at verbal communication with those that I didn't know. 'Round about 5th or 6th grade I decided the reason people didn't like me much was because I had a horrible temper and I made a conscious effort to fix that. Now I'm very easy going and adapt well to large scale changes in my life. Additionally, I have no issues with public speaking now, so I'd say I did almost a complete 180 starting in late grade school and really bein
  • I might be totally different if I hadn't had that crazy bitch teacher in first grade who hated smart kids? Man isn't that a figurative kick in the nuts.
  • from TFS:

    A study authored by Christopher Nave, a doctoral candidate at the University of California,

    from TFA (emphasis mine):

    study author Christopher Nave, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Riverside.

    why the discrepancy? is it less legitimate to be from UCR and more legitimate to simply be from a UC?

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Working...