I’m not convinced that any psychological behaviour is unchangeable in itself, although conceptualised behaviour patterns require more self-conscious or at least meaningful effort over time to shift. I think we need to be careful what we label as ‘natural’ or ‘intrinsic’, even beyond the level of volition - as Feldman-Barrett demonstrates with emotions. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Do you have any examples of that?

Yes, all is changeable, but world health can paralyze you. Makes sense doesn't it.

Otherwise, you're saying you can change from hot to cold through the harshest conditions; where it is imposed upon you that you are not able to you cannot change something.

It is viewed as a statistical universe.

The universe is the freak but also the perfect school. In some artistic way.

Technology is a huge factor of existence, you can create good and evil technology. Isn't the universe just technology discovered by pre-existence? Accept this information.

Consider a well-respected and popular high school teacher who is very active and visible in leadership roles and community service. You could ask him to stand up before a group of unruly teens, his peers or complete strangers in almost any situation, and he’ll conduct himself with confidence and soon have the situation well in hand. He’s never been described as shy or quiet. People seem to naturally gravitate towards him, they find him knowledgeable, capable, friendly and willing to help, and he easily gains their respect.

Most people that meet him would disagree that he’s an introvert. But if you get to know him, you’d realise that he often prefers to keep to himself, his hobbies and social groups all involve solitary activity or at least require limited numbers, he has no interest in trends or popular opinion at all, and he ‘naturally’ gravitates away from crowds or people in general.

Introversion/extroversion is often seen as a dichotomy at the level of certain psychological behaviour, but it’s more fluid than that. Not all introverts are shy and disconnected, for instance, and not all extroverts aim to be the life of the party. The distinction occurs at a much deeper level than volition, allowing for far more variation and change than people might think. What is ‘intrinsic’ in my view is not any psychological behaviour, but a one-dimensional qualitative distinction in where we perceive potential in the world.

While it’s the potential for attention and connection that energises extroverts, it’s the potential for collaboration and achievement that energises introverts. In this way they complement each other, but in a way that often works like an electromagnetic force. Extroverts are drawn towards the quiet achievement of introverts, who back away from this attention and ‘trivial’ connection. Inversely, extroverts back away from a need for unheralded action, which draws introverts like a vacuum to make productive connections. So an introverted child living in a loving house full of extroverts learns to be highly capable, confident and conversational, or an extroverted child who grows up isolated and abused learns to be shy, reserved and limited in their perceived capacity to connect with the world.

The way I see it, all patterns of behaviour are changeable - we are capable of self-reflection beyond volition to evaluate and adjust the conceptual and value structures we employ in determining our own potential in relation to the world and initiating action. In the same way that we can increase and adjust potential interactions in physics to create a more effective action, we can also increase and adjust our own perceived potentiality in how we conceptualise psychological patterns such as ‘introverted’ or ‘shy’, for instance. So, an introvert is capable of developing more awareness and diverse connection with the world, and an extrovert is capable of achieving a deeper connection and collaboration with the world.

Hi Possibility!

I can certainly appreciate the dynamic associated with our learned responses from environmental stimulus or conditions. And completely agree how 'awareness' is absolutely critical in effecting change. I too believe that self-knowledge is the first step.

I caution you on suggesting that "...all patterns of behavior are changeable." I don't believe one can dichotomize that into an either/or choice. I think there are core homeostatic conditions that cannot be changed, both psychologically and physiologically.

Physiologically:

Body temperature, blood pressure, glucose levels, at al. We know that living organisms need to maintain homeostasis constantly in order to properly grow, work, and survive. Homeostasis is essential for normal cell function and balance for maintenance stability, as they need to resist any change that happens within and outside the organism’s environment which might be harmful.

Psychologically:

A person is born with a musical, mathematical, etc. talent, but their parents want them do be something else. They try other things, but revert back to their intrinsic way of being. How homeostasis relates to love can be demonstrated in the in the following phenomenon. When a person keeps choosing the wrong partner and doesn't know why, and also a person who chooses the right partner and still doesn't know why. Hence: I don't know why I love him/her I just do. I feel very comfortable with him/her. He/she validates my sense of Being.

A combination of both is parsed here:

And what would humans be without love?"
RARE, said Death. — Terry Pratchett, Sourcery

I understand where you’re coming from, but I stand by my position. I think there is more to motivation and emotion than these basic theories suggest, and that Feldman-Barrett’s theory of constructed emotions is worth reading on this topic. I also see plenty of experiences in the world to demonstrate that, despite our apparent ‘needs’ and motivations, humans have the capacity to reject homeostasis and safety, to freely risk harm or seek life-threatening situations in pursuit of information, awareness, connection, love and collaborative achievement.

Maslow’s pyramid, for instance, is a perception of value structure, not a set of ‘natural’ limitations. The more we understand how we construct this perception, how we evaluate experiences that don’t fit the pyramid, as well as alternative ways to structure these values that motivate similar behaviour, the better positioned we are to critically evaluate the accuracy of the conceptual structure itself. I have argued elsewhere on this forum that Maslow’s theory is individualistic and built on an assumption of abundance. An isolated community suffering from widespread famine, for instance, whose individuals subscribe to Maslow’s theory will destroy itself. It is only when they invert the pyramid - when they’re prepared to risk what little security and comfort they have in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the reach of famine that they gain the capacity to escape it (although those who give assistance too often take self-actualisation credit for the result).

Thank you Possibility! I will definitely check-out the theory you mentioned, and report back my interpretation. And I certainly get where you are coming from, particularly as it relates to breaking through intrinsic fears to arrive at change. Just a couple quick questions if I could regarding homeostasis:

Professionally: How do you reconcile the person born to be a doctor, musician, lawyer, etc. from some other profession?

Interpersonally: How do you reconcile the person who is intrinsically affectionate, and searches for a partner who is also affectionate, rather than someone who is not affectionate?

In both cases, mitigating fears for the sake of changing would not be germane or appropriate, unless they themselves want change. In other words, using your explanation, change for the sake of change is virtuous or good?

Regarding Maslow and the hierarchy of needs, why would people destroy themselves? The hierarchy is really simple. The gist is that once one need is met, another takes it place (indicative of an ordinary life of striving/in our stream of consciousness). And in turn, lower basic needs will dominate over other needs like the meaning of life stuff. So basic needs like food clothing and shelter, etc. need to be met before other things like debating philosophy, playing sports, going to school, searching for a higher love connection; uncover/discover one's own passions for life, abilities, gifts, strengths and weaknesses, ad nauseum.

And so, how does your definition of change effect uncovering one's strengths and weakness? In other words, idealistically, are you thinking there exists some sort of perfection that is attainable here (ie, a perfect Love)?

Professionally: How do you reconcile the person born to be a doctor, musician, lawyer, etc. from some other profession?

Interpersonally: How do you reconcile the person who is intrinsically affectionate, and searches for a partner who is also affectionate, rather than someone who is not affectionate?

In both cases, mitigating fears for the sake of changing would not be germane or appropriate, unless they themselves want change. In other words, using your explanation, change for the sake of change is virtuous or good? — 3017amen

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Both the examples you give seem too simplified or conceptual to answer. I don’t believe anyone is necessarily ‘born’ for a particular career - there are a lot more factors that go into choosing a profession than genetics, and I think looking for dichotomous traits such as affectionate/not affectionate isn’t an effective way to determine a life partner.

We like to think there is an actual essence to who we are - something intrinsically unique about us that nothing in the world can change or take away, that no amount of terrible parenting or circumstances in life can spoil. I think in psychology there is often a sense that we can get back to that essence and start over, rather than recognise these ‘good’ and ‘bad’ influences as intrinsic to who we are at any one time. I tend more towards a process philosophy: that the structured relations between the unique circumstances of our birth, each of our past interactions with the world and our current experience are continually negotiable, but that ignoring, isolating or excluding them from our perception of reality limits our potential in the world.

I don’t think change for the sake of change is virtuous, but that the world effectively consists of change, or potential for change, depending on how you look at it.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Both the examples you give seem too simplified or conceptual to answer. I don’t believe anyone is necessarily ‘born’ for a particular career - there are a lot more factors that go into choosing a profession than genetics, and I think looking for dichotomous traits such as affectionate/not affectionate isn’t an effective way to determine a life partner. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I don't understand why you are not able to respond to my questions about homeostasis. You are too intuitive for that. Respectfully, is your acquiescence by silence something I should take as a denial of some sort? Again, I'm asking this with the utmost respect.

This is an important topic in the Love equation. Personally, I know of too many people divorcing over homeostasis (both men/women who can't and won't change, fortunately/unfortunately). Indeed it is true, there are many things we can correct by first having awareness of a [the] problem, then by overcoming our fears to break through and effect change.

But, you seem to be denying inborn gifts, natural talents and even to some degree wants and needs. We have both core or intrinsic ways of Being ( that you seem to be denying), as well as discoverable truth's about the world and ourselves in it, through volition. Life then, is indeed both a discovery and uncovery of Being, from which choice plays an obvious role. But, not a mutually exclusive role, as you are suggesting.

Accordingly, we are back to trying to explain why there are only a few Einstein's, Picasso's, Hitler's, etc. in this world. Are they that way exclusively by choice? Using your theory, they chose to be that. Your theory also suggests all people can be musical geniuses.

But back to Love: if someone is driven-in their professional life-by their desire to practice science, and their love partner abhors such activity, why should they change if they have the potential for great discoveries ( the theory of relativity, as Einstein did)?

Maybe I'm not making my point clear enough, I'm not sure. However, if I try to use your reasoning. I arrive at an answer that precludes things like predisposition and natural aptitude which in turn can be extremely useful and virtuous.

Perhaps your response is an exclusive fight against those unfortunate memes and dysfunctional behavior resulting from early childhood/bad parenting. But I hope you will allow yourself to see that's not all that we are talking about here.

This is an important topic in the Love equation. Personally, I know of too many people divorcing over homeostasis (both men/women who can't and won't change, fortunately/unfortunately). Indeed it is true, there are many things we can correct by first having awareness of a [the] problem, then by overcoming our fears to break through and effect change.

But, you seem to be denying inborn gifts, natural talents and even to some degree wants and needs. We have both core or intrinsic ways of Being ( that you seem to be denying), as well as discoverable truth's about the world and ourselves in it, through volition. Life then, is indeed both a discovery and uncovery of Being, from which choice plays an obvious role. But, not a mutually exclusive role, as you are suggesting.

Accordingly, we are back to trying to explain why there are only a few Einstein's, Picasso's, Hitler's, etc. in this world. Are they that way exclusively by choice? Using your theory, they chose to be that. Your theory also suggests all people can be musical geniuses. — 3017amen

I don’t see it as denying them - I’m arguing against the consistency we tend to attribute to them. The idea that ‘this is who I am in my core, and you have to accept that’ is a misunderstanding that leads to us limiting our capacity to relate to the world. I’m not saying that’s wrong - only that it is a limitation we’re not always aware of. When we are aware of it, then we still don’t have to change, but it then becomes a choice that we make.

Life, as I see it, is increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with potential - our capacity to relate to the world. ‘Being’ is a limited, temporal awareness of that capacity. Beyond this concept of ‘Being’ is an awareness of infinite potential, and our capacity to relate to it. It’s beyond the awareness of most people, for whom Being is a universal condition. But this awareness that we have vastly different ways of Being broadens our capacity not just to discover or uncover our own unique way of Being, but to uncover the relational structure between various ways of Being. In doing so, we recognise that what we once saw as an intrinsic way of Being is in fact relative to our unique relations with the world, all the way to the quantum level - to how we perceive or relate to potential.

I’m certainly not saying that Einstein, Picasso or Hitler were aware of the choices they made at all - only that the intrinsic capacity was there to choose otherwise, despite their level of awareness. I don’t believe Hitler was ‘born’ to commit mass genocide or even to go into politics, but neither do I believe his path (or Einstein’s) was entirely nurture. I just don’t think our potential is as limited as we seem to think. It was a particular awareness of their potential and the choices available that ‘made’ them who they were.

Yes, I do believe that all humans can potentially become musical geniuses - but by the time most of us are aware of what it would take for us in particular to become a musical genius, our focus is elsewhere. Do you think if Mozart wasn’t thoroughly immersed in music and nurtured in his interest and ability from such a young age (when children can still firmly believe in their capacity to become a dog, for instance) he would have become the composer he was? I’m not saying he wouldn’t have yearned to make music, but if he’d never heard music until his twenties, I’m not sure he would have automatically given up a banking career, for instance, to become a composer.

But that’s all speculation. That there is more uncertainty, potential or relativity in our way of Being than we’re often aware of is my point - not that we have no particular way of Being.

But back to Love: if someone is driven-in their professional life-by their desire to practice science, and their love partner abhors such activity, why should they change if they have the potential for great discoveries ( the theory of relativity, as Einstein did)? — 3017amen

It’s a two way street: love is not an individual action, but more of a dance. It’s about making allowances that maximise a collaborative potential, not about changing to please someone. To love someone and abhor what is their passion doesn’t make sense to me. To abhor the practise of science is to limit your perception of human potential - to relate to someone only within that limitation is a reduction of Love, and to accept that limited relation as Love without challenging it is a choice you make to limit your potential as well as theirs.

I’ll offer another personal example: I am currently working part time and raising two teens, while I am driven to practice philosophy: a motivation that I have been aware of only in the last few years, although I realise it has always been there. But in a marriage with children at school, it’s not only about my potential. Love is sometimes recognising that what I want will take time, money and attention away right now from maximising our collaborative potential in the long run, and that it can wait a few years. I’m not changing who I am, and I’m not sacrificing my potential - my family are aware that a career change is on the cards, and are gradually adjusting and contributing to enabling this eventual opportunity for me as much as they appreciate my contributions to their potential.

I think it’s when we don’t share and acknowledge the allowances we make for each other that we lose sight of the capacity for Love in a relationship that must constantly change and evolve relative to each other. When we assume a level of consistency in a relationship, we limit its potential.

The idea that ‘this is who I am in my core, and you have to accept that’ is a misunderstanding that leads to us limiting our capacity to relate to the world. I’m not saying that’s wrong - only that it is a limitation we’re not always aware of. When we are aware of it, then we still don’t have to change, but it then becomes a choice that we make. — Possibility

Sure, agreed. However, if one were to treat like cases likely, and different cases differently (by positing some reasonableness here), one would say to Einstein in parody: "Please don't change Mr. Einstein, we like you for who you are. And the reason we appreciate you is because we consider your work most helpful to us, and your accomplishments and contributions to society quite ubiquitous."

Therefore, there is no need for him to change certain aspects of himself that comes naturally to him; his virtuous self or way of Being is good. And in turn, he should similarly feel good about that relative to his self esteem needs. We want to celebrate that.

I’m certainly not saying that Einstein, Picasso or Hitler were aware of the choices they made at all - only that the intrinsic capacity was there to choose otherwise, despite their level of awareness. — Possibility

This is where your argument strengthens. Awareness is key, particularly if harmful to oneself or society. To embellish what Aristotle said, the best gift we can give to ourselves and each other is to 'know thyself'. So in the case of Hitler, change would have been obviously paramount.

Do you think if Mozart wasn’t thoroughly immersed in music and nurtured in his interest and ability from such a young age (when children can still firmly believe in their capacity to become a dog, for instance) he would have become the composer he was? — Possibility

I see that you used the word immersed. Indeed the right terminology for parsing human creativity, as studies have shown one typically has to be immersed in the genre to be creative in it. But, once again, extraordinarily novel ideas typically cannot be taught. And that would seem to lend itself to the notion of a type of virtuous homeostasis, or way of Being.

It’s a two way street: love is not an individual action, but more of a dance. It’s about making allowances that maximize a collaborative potential, not about changing to please someone. — Possibility

Love being a 'two way street' as you well put it, maybe just be what the doctor ordered here. No exceptions taken! Also, perhaps your personal example is inspiration to those who don't understand Love as being a multifaceted dynamic (like the Greeks thought), including the phenomenon of altruism.

I think it is safe to say we arrived at an equilibrium of sorts, where there might be a balance between the need to change and the need to say the same (change and acceptance). This could be considered a planting-of-the-seed toward heathier growth viz a type of self Love or self esteem, not sure. But it seems that learning to Love oneself, in a healthy way, as well as Loving others for who they are, indeed has its virtues. Ideally, I would like to think that through Love itself, awareness of both good and bad can be discovered and/or uncovered.

I think it is safe to say we arrived at an equilibrium of sorts, where there might be a balance between the need to change and the need to say the same. This could be considered a planting-of-the-seed toward heathier growth viz a type of self Love or self esteem, not sure. But it seems that learning to Love oneself, in a healthy way, as well as Loving others for who they are, indeed has its virtues. Ideally, I would like to think that through Love itself, awareness of both good and bad can be discovered and/or uncovered. — 3017amen

I think there is a kind of dynamic balance to be achieved, recognising that there is always change as we interact with the world, but that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration enables us to negotiate that change. We don’t always get to choose what stays the same - it’s all very well saying to Einstein ‘don’t change’, but he’s dead. The idea is that in striving to understand all the little contributions that helped to nurture and realise his potential along the way, as uncertain as it may have been at the time, we learn to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with this uncertain potential in ourselves and others, and to correct instances where that potential has been ignored, isolated or excluded. We can look at Hitler’s potential in the same way - recognising that ignoring, isolating or excluding the uncertain potential in ourselves and in current or future leaders to orchestrate mass genocide, for instance, would be as detrimental to our future as ignoring, isolating and excluding an equally uncertain potential for impressive collaborative achievements. That your potential and mine is essentially as adaptable as Hitler, Mozart or Einstein is something I think we struggle to get our heads around.

I think an important part of Love is coming to terms with the uncertainty of potential as an irreducible aspect of reality. When we focus on trying to reduce that uncertainty - rather than on our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the irreducibility of that uncertainty - then we ignore, isolate and exclude information, limiting our capacity to Love: to relate without fear to the possibilities (‘good’ or ‘bad’) in ourselves, each other and the universe.

Hard to say, being "in love" is more akin to a state of mind or consciousness, while "love" is an abstraction which various philosophers have written about.

Being in love is an interesting experience. When you lust for someone, you just have an increased heart rate, blood rushing and a quick urge and rush or whatever. And then you move onto other things. But being in love is like your whole being is totally enthralled to the idea of being with, connecting with, thinking of, and focusing on the other. It's very interesting.

I'm not big on love, because I think there's too much superficiality to it in our society, but I do experience the emotions of love.