I think for most people, personality, memory, and physical appearance (especially facial appearance) are what they think of when they're forced to ultimately explain what actually constitutes a person.
Most people consider these things unchangeable because the effort and potential risks involved are, to them, unreasonable to the point of being unthinkable. Extensive therapy, psychological conditioning, chemical experimentation, surgery...
Generally, I think people just don't want to change, but they use the argument that it's impossible to change these things as a defense. Then they fall back on "well no one should need to change themselves".
They're perfectly fine as is, after all. How dare anyone say otherwise? You just have to accept them as they are, and if you can't deal with it, that's your problem.
I would pull up a huge debate right here. Who's perspective are we using? What if people have different perspectives even after knowing the person in the same capacity? What about what the person is biologically dispositioned towards? What about mental illnesses? The list of questions goes on, none with good answers I think.
> Generally, I think people just don't want to change, but they use the argument that it's impossible to change these things as a defense. Then they fall back on "well no one should need to change themselves".
This is again proving the original comments point. In order to make this claim true, you have to assert that you can change your personality. We first have to agree on what personality is, and then see if we can change it. We do not really have good answers for either of these. This paper is an attempt but as summarized well, far from conclusive or without flaw. I would argue that people are changing their actions, not their personality.
I would include all of these things under my definition of "personality".
>I would argue that people are changing their actions, not their personality.
Yes, you're right. I'm thinking purely in terms of internalized thoughts and externalized actions. Going from "I want to do X but I will be punished for it even though it's my first inclination, so I will do Y instead", to no longer thinking of X at all and your first inclination is Y (the "right") thing. To me, your internalized thoughts and the decision-making behind your actions are part of your personality.
The realized actions that actually occur are separate from that. Changing your personality means removing branches from your internalized decision-making that would have existed previously, so they're no longer considerations.
This will mix subjects and I don't know enough to plant a flag on this hill let alone die on it, but imagine the moral serial killer who has urges to kill but never acts on them. They can't change who they are (as an adult as far as I know from current research), but they can try their best to affect actions. But their traits underneath are not changing.*
* Ignore the actual claims re serial killers, changing, and how that actually probably isn't personality traits, or maybe it is. Point being, it highlights a key difference between the state / biology of a person and how they act in the world.
As for changing your personality, it's extremely hard and frustrating even if you're not a criminal, and your traits are, for the most part, harming only yourself. I've tried an extensive array of approaches... Nothing has been able to fundamentally change who I am in a way that will lead me to a happier, more successful life. Having done all the "right things" that people say are supposed to work and having them all fail, it then gets very tempting to go down a darker path.
I fucking wish it was as simple as just making a decision to change, carrying out some well-defined plan, and arriving at the destination. It is definitely not.
I firmly believe there is a way to change/cure those traits/urges given modern means, while still allowing the subject to possess complete freedom and agency.
