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

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.

Not true

[stanlyb]

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.

Hawaii?

[suso]

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.

Re:How many of those kids ..

[Abreu]

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

Re:Nature vs Nurture

[Da Cheez]

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.

Re:Not true

[oldspewey]

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"

Most likely true for Conservatives ...

[Anonymous Coward]

• they still believe in God
• they are mostly xenophobes (afraid of strangers/foreigners)
• they cannot adapt to new developments and want their surroundings to stay as they are (hence conservatives)

Not meant as an inflammatory remark at all ...

Re:How many of those kids ..

[Steauengeglase]

Namely Middle School for boys and High School for girls.

Re:I have 100% changed.

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Not true

[jockeys]

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:Not true

[Belial6]

The question of whether people are shaped by nature or nurture is easy. The answer is "yes".

Re:Not true

[Sir_Lewk]

That may be a realistic figure, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

Re:Not true

[INT_QRK]

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

[P0ltergeist333]

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.

Re:Not true

[Darinbob]

I was certainly not a curmudgeon in the first grade!

Re:Perhaps...

[Belial6]

I have known many women that followed that same path. They were generally sociopaths when they are young, and wanted the baby for selfish reasons. Some of them skip the bible thumping stage, but that seems to be a 50/50 mix. Just count yourself lucky. A sociopath ex-wife that ignores their kids is DRAMATICALLY better for you and your kids than a sociopath parent that sees personal benefit in using the kids.

Re:Not true

[twitchingbug]

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.