can a leopard change its spots?

[miss fortune]

can we change our innate natures?

 

[Snow as White]

can we change our innate natures?

Hmmm.

I want to waffle on the fence and say yes and no.

I think we all have a natural trajectory through the air and our experiences and way we choose will affect if we get more lift off or aim back towards the earth.

I think we can modify our trajectory within a certain range. But that it is more difficult to do so the further out we get as gravity and other forces take over. As in. The choices we make stop being choices and instead become who we are as we become them.

 

[rav3n]

Sure, with brain damage.

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

Yes and no. There are things we can work on and change, but it can happen that we will have to fight certain tendencies of our personalities for the rest of our lives - of course not everyone feels they have to fight certain tendencies. But there are people, not the exactly what I mean but a good example in the wider sene of the context to show, alcoholics who will have to fight the urge to drink in certain situations. For some it's a never-ending battle.
But there are also things we can gradually change or through certain experiences, which opened our minds to the decision it'd be better/wiser/ just in some way neccessary to change certain aspects of ourselves, or things we work on for years till it becomes a habit.

So yes and no.

Ultimatively, from experience I'd say that some kind of "core" in people often doesn't fully changes. Fragments of our core might, or may not. But "deep inside" we'll probably change, but still you could track down who we used to be. That's the core, that may change a bit or not or just fragments or not, kind of as if a ghost of who we used to be was still living in us.

Of course mental illnesses can change people dramatically. But also traumatic experiences and etc.

Now, that got out of hand pretty fast.

 

[rav3n]

How behavioural genetics works is that in order for the genes to express, they require environmental triggers. What's interesting is that RNA can influence gene expression. Also consider neuroplasticity and the impacts of trauma.

 

[Qlip]

I think the answer is no, because innate natures are, well, innate. But there are so many behaviors we exhibit that are due to our non-innate natures, like our understanding of the world, environmental stresses, addictions, societal requirements. Changes in those things can result in changes in us, or from a more essentialist point of view, revelations of our real spots. We may also have innate brain chemistry imbalances which can be effected and result in a new person, but what's more innate, unhealthy us or healthy us?

 

[á´…eparted]

To answer the question directly: no, we can not change innate nature. It's innate, and thereby immutable. The more appropriate question here is what are those innate unchangeable thing. I'd also argue it's a much more interesting question too. Not sure what things though, since we are speaking mostly of personality. I'd first say sexual orientation, and gender, but that's all that comes to mind unquestionably, and sort of doesn't fit here since that isn't personality.

 

[xXxXx_wEltschmErz_xXxXx]

If you're put in a situation where you need to change for "survival" I imagine you could change drastically in nature, or at least in some aspect of it. As in sometimes you just can't progress in life (work/ school/ relationships/ health/ bla bla) without changing a very central part of yourself and it seems a lot of people are able to do this stuff. Or maybe they just pretend they've changed successfully and end up suffering for going against their nature, I don't know.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think people can evolve and grow in ways they themselves might not even expect. I've seen it happen. Although, this might relate to the question of what exactly our true nature is that [MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] brought up.

 

[Lark]

I think if you look at just how far everyones actual existence has strayed from their essence already you'd have not problem believing that people change their innate natures.

However, I figure, there's got to be a limit to how adapted anyone and everyone can be or become when its really maladaptation when you think about it. Eventually the distance between essence and existence causes some sort of break down, either individual or social, more often individual.

As to whether or not a leopard can change its spots? The best predictor of future behaviour IS past behaviour, still, I mankind is adaptable in all sorts of ways, the motivation has to be right and even then its not sure but its possible, or at least I think so.

 

[Mole]

Under natural selection adaptation means survival.

And those who can't adapt don't survive and don't reproduce.

So we have evolved to adapt.

 

[Forever_Jung]

No, with a caveat. I think we vastly overestimate how much of our selves are REALLY innate or essential. I've died and been reborn many times, and I'm often surprised to see qualities/attitudes I thought were essential to who I was, burn away! I thought it was steel, but it was just dead wood waiting to be cleared out

 

[highlander]

Yes and no. Our behaviors are a result of habit. Our reactions are a result of habit. We can form habits that help us or harm us. I do think there is a lot of stuff that is innate - like I'm going to always think about how to do things better and improve stuff. I'm not going to change that. Negative things though, I would endeavor to change.

 

[Coriolis]

No. We can learn to make the most of our strengths and understand and compensate for our weaknesses.

 

[Cellmold]

Empirical science appears to put the boot on yes pretty hard.

But nevertheless I do have a longing for a triumph of transformation as a concept. The epistemologists of the world know well that knowledge itself..or rather it's acquisition as a road to truth is, a priori, something that may be without an end and that this speaks to a longing within ourselves for something that is always 'other' or beyond what is immediately understood.

That curiosity is something which may (perhaps cannot) be settled with a set answer to a singular conclusion. It's in this ambiguity, and the degree of tolerance an individual has for it, that we find our epiphanies and through this, an ability to change.

You'd be amazed to what lengths a person might go when motivated by that impulse, even if it later turns out to be wrong or false.

But if it should run true in some form then, causally or not, something imperceptible will have changed on some level, for better or worse.

 

[The Cat]

Only a few find the way; some don't recognize it when they do; some don't ever want to...

 

[Typh0n]

It's kind of a trick question because if who we are is equal to our "innate nature", then that implies no change is possible. I think it would be interesting to ask: "What about myself is innate and what is malleable? How much of myself is something I can change, and how much of what I am is actually nurture not nature?"

I think this question is ultimately for each person to answer. It is very personal, people who don't want to change or are too lazy are always going to invoke biology and determinism as an explanation for everything.

 

[Polaris]

I don't believe that people have innate natures.

 

[Lark]

Under natural selection adaptation means survival.

And those who can't adapt don't survive and don't reproduce.

So we have evolved to adapt.

How far can existence stray from essence?

 

[Lark]

Yes and no. Our behaviors are a result of habit. Our reactions are a result of habit. We can form habits that help us or harm us. I do think there is a lot of stuff that is innate - like I'm going to always think about how to do things better and improve stuff. I'm not going to change that. Negative things though, I would endeavor to change.

Even if the majority of character is determined and not ontologically a priori there still remains some behaviour that is, attachment behaviour, for instance, is just one example, its come a long way from the first observations of ethologists, or Darwin's observations of emotion in man and animal, and evolutionary psychologists.

The thing about that "some behaviour" though is that I suspect its consequences are massive, even if the development of habitual behaviours as a consequence of attachment styles and internal scripts stemming, attributional or explanatory styles as compensations for attachment deficits or disordered traits is hugely exaggerated its pretty significant.

No one interrogates the whole Skinner Box mentality of "its all nurture" the way they are willing to dismiss "its all nature", which I think it telling.

Personally, I think its because a lot of natural law or naturalistic theorising just does not sit well with a lot of modern manners or fashionable opinions, now, there's a lot of different reasons for that. I think most of it is reflects hopeful, best/good intentions, I wouldnt fault it but its a little like honestly and seriously expecting a wonder drug which will guarantee longevity akin to immortality and eternal youth with it, its a really nice idea, I just dont think its anything other than imaginary. Also some it is an addiction to novelty, perpetual change, the shock of the new, leaving no avenue unexplored or unexperienced, directly, which I think in turn is a result of consumerism and its unconscious engineering.

I'm not saying you're doing it but I encounter the "its all beliefs anyway, none of it is fact" all the time, its short hand for not wanting to think too hard or too long or too deeply about any of it. Its one of my triggers because while skepticism and doubts and falsifiability are all great things up to a point, after that point the denaturing of mankind is nothing short of flat earth thinking. Often by people who'd pride themselves on being anything at all but capable of that sort of thing.