Comment by albertTJames | Hacker News Reader

Comment by albertTJames | Hacker News Reader

This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal social experiment studies such as those of Milgram or Zimbardo. The argument that the changes seen there are short lived can be contradicted by the fact that subjects always go back to their normal environment after the experiment. What I believe Ed Boyden would call the illusion of isolation. That is why important changes usually occur at key breaking moments in a life: change of school, leaving home, changing city/country. The social environment has far more power on the psyche than any therapy. But the social environment of an individual usually do not change, and the only real power he has on it is to willingly chose isolation, which is worst of all. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/174569161456835...

Personality disorders, on the other hand, are characterised by fixed traits of personality, rigid in time in spite of detrimental effects on the life of the subject or the life of others.

This reminds me of an article I read which said that 95% of the soldiers in Vietnam who had become addicted to heroin simply stopped when they came back to America.

1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...

I have read about this a few times. I think the main difference is in what the folks are changing: They are changing habits and lifestyle - their input - rather than changing their base personality - their output. Naturally with different input they act differently: Same for dropping a drug that affects the way you act.

And I do somewhat understand - I changed a lot of things when I moved overseas. I likely seem different: But I'm also happier and have a different knowledge base than I did a few years ago. People's expectations of me changed as well: As soon as people realize I'm not Norwegian (the English accent gives me away), it is OK if I break some social norms - those things that I had trouble grasping anyway.

We are, if anything, creatures of habit. Drawn to the safety and the comfort of the similar.

Meditation is one good way to break this. Rubbing your nose endlessly in your own thoughtless patterns can be bloody embarrassing. Certainly life-changing.

I was thinking just this, too; and then fipped my opinion a few seconds ago. What I was thinking at first was "I just changed my tactics, that's all." But of course, that's what others see as our personality; our tactics. Not just our typical tactics, that is; but also what we revert to when pressed. I think I changed both, so I'm not who I was. I seem the same to me, of course... but so what. I still feeling twenty inside sometimes, or younger but that doesn't mean I am - I certainly ain't.

I get a bit antsy when I see big unexpected flips in numbers like that and think Johann Hari oversimplifies the case.

That was the initial study, a followup with 943 Vietnam vets by the original researcher Lee Robins found that:

"In the 8- to 12-month period since their return, about 10% had some experience with opiates, but less than 1% had shown signs of opiate dependence. In the “drug positive” sample, three-quarters felt they had been addicted to narcotics in Vietnam. After return, one-third had some experience with opiates, but only 7% showed signs of dependence. Rather than giving up drugs altogether, many had shifted from heroin to amphetamines or barbiturates. Nevertheless, almost none expressed a desire for treatment." [1]

So the point still stands that environmental factors affect patterns of drug abuse, but it is complicated by two things, the numbers are less dramatic than "95% simply stopped" and also would raise one concern that addiction was clinically tested on return but was self-reported in the interviews.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/99/4/235/13845...

Serious question: why is choosing isolation "worst of all"?

Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings (loneliness, anxiety, sadness, guilt, shame, cynicism, paranoia, listlessness, self loathing, despair, etc.), disrupted circadian rhythms from poor sleep and lack of sunshine, lack of routines and loss of time sense, lack of exercise, unhealthy diet, poor personal hygiene and cleanliness, substance abuse, financial problems, and so on.

Without sources of external correction/feedback/perspective, even tiny negative thoughts can get amplified and spiral out of control, and a human can stop behaving within the range of personhood (that is, the usual social construction of normal behavior). Without any human contact, it is difficult to keep control over the focus of attention, find meaning in daily routines and projects, etc. Even trivial tasks can start to take monumental amounts of mental effort. With sufficient sensory deprivation someone can become dissociated or start hallucinating, or can fall into catatonic depression.

Some people are obviously better at handling isolation than others, but it’s tough for even the strongest willed. Involuntary isolation (e.g. solitary confinement, or long-term homelessness) is a torturous experience for most people, often causing permanent emotional scars. Voluntary isolation (living as a hermit in the woods to write a novel or whatever) should not be undertaken lightly.

Often people isolate themselves after some kind of severe negative shock, e.g. the death of a loved one, a bad break-up, a professional failure, etc. People experiencing strong negative emotions without any social support/comfort from family/friends can get themselves into situations that are difficult or impossible to climb back out of, especially if substance abuse is involved.

Such a great answer. I think it would deserve a little article on its own.

> Isolation often gets a person stuck into positive feedback loops of negative feelings

I became much happier after I chose to be alone. I realized that I'm not meant to have any close friends. I realized that I'm not a likable person. And I realized that it's totally okay. Even if I change to become a "better" (more likable, able to have more friends) person, I won't like myself. I like myself the way I am. Now, if people don't like me, it's their problem: I took every step possible for us to not interact. If they still seek interaction with me and, after it happens, don't like me, well, it's their problem, they chose to seek interaction with me, not me.

> cynicism

Cynicism is not a feeling. Cynicism is a belief that people always act selfishly. And such a belief has a lot of supporting evidence. Also, cynics are not always negative people. You can be a positive cynic.

It's easy to say that you're happier alone. It's much more difficult to admit to yourself that you have social anxiety that keeps you from making relationships. A human that does the first will decay over time. A human that does the second can be anything he/she wants to be.

There is enormous supporting evidence that quantity and quality of relationships are directly correlated to happiness

There's enormous evidence for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean it's equally applicable to every individual. I see no reason to think that some small percentage of people truly are happier alone even if the opposite is true for the large majority.

But the human brain is mostly dedicated to socializing and interpreting social signals. If you don't even stretch out those parts of your brain, you're not even satisfying intrinsic human needs.

Do you realize how infuriating your attitude is to people who prefer solitude?

I like people. I have no trouble speaking in public, making new friends, or just engaging in small talk. I enjoy it, so it comes easily.

I simply enjoy being alone more, so I often am, and there is nothing wrong with me for choosing so. Nor is there with any of the other mostly-hermits I know.

Your description of your solitude is quite different than the one by xkxx, so your comment seems a bit off the mark.

I think the advice given comes from a place of wanting to help, but it's the same mistake I see natural extroverts make time and time again- that solitude is itself a sickness.

The fellow with low self-esteem may have other issues at well, but telling him that the desire for distance from others is innately wrong isn't going to help him become healthier.

I think a lot of people with social anxiety would feel better about themselves if they were, instead, told that it's OK not to be more social than you want to be. There are still behavior rules to be followed; this isn't license to be a jerk. But for many people, they honestly don't do best with too much contact with others, and that is OK.

Does social anxiety involve wanting to tell people to fuck off and leave you alone? I don't feel anxious about social interactions. I'll get up and give a speech in front of 400+ people at the company. I don't get panicky or nervous - I just want to go home and do things I want to do instead of what others want me to do.

Other people want me to come mini-golfing. I want to go home and play with my kitten. Other people want me to go to a party. I want to stay home and have a nice bath. Other people want me to come to the beach. I'd rather put on some music and clean my house. Fuck what other people want me to be doing. A 9-5 is as much as I'll let other people control my life and only because that much is necessary until I'm financially independent. I lack the drive to work towards that and am happy with my job, so a 9-5 it is.

I agree with Baeocystin. This sort of "Literally every human must be enjoy being social/around others!" is infuriating at best. No. Not every human who dislikes other people is broken.

I haven't had a friend in 11 years. I haven't bothered looking because I'm content with my life. I do the things I want to do, I game when I want to game, I code when I want to code, I go for walks when I want to go for walks. I don't need to worry about making plans. If I want to go see a movie - I just go. I don't have people trying to call me/text me/email me. It's absolutely wonderful.

As a counterpoint to this, see the many excellent articles on The Hermitary.[1]

Also see Anthony Storr's Solitude: A Return to the Self.[2]

Many people have historically chosen solitude for religious or spiritual reasons, to focus on something they wanted to achieve, because they just preferred being alone, or for many other reasons.

Many societies have stigmatized solitude and those who choose it, but on the other hand there have been social movements which have praised and advocated solitude.

[1] - http://www.hermitary.com/articles/

[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Solitude-Return-Self-Anthony-Storr/dp...

I don't think GP is saying solitude or isolation is necessarily harmful. But for a member of a pack-ape species whose default mode for the individual is some varying degree of gregarity, isolation isn't something to be considered lightly, because it carries significant risk along with potential benefit.

I'd suggest the key difference is that one is a conscious decision, often taken with prior thought, and often some proactive mental preparation - that could be as simple as reading scripture.

The other is typically unconscious, often exacerbated by anti-social behaviour.

Please note the second word of this summary is "often".

If you want to know why its "often" and not "always" visit your nearest library and take a look at the size of books on the subject.

And here lies the problem with the internet today and the comment boards such as these. People will actually walk away reading these kind of 2 minute summaries thinking they know something about the subject at hand. And on top of that you can get yourself a great rep "educating" and "informing" the public without ever actually "educating" and "informing" the public.

Which is greatly eased by dropping citations or a link, refining or contradicting what others have said - if you would care to do so. Education happens one page and one book at a time, and one can and should start anywhere. That at least some others don't understand as much as you do is inevitable; but don't disdain them for that, help them along.

I would have agreed with this view a decade ago but I don't today. I believe the internet can't be used to educate people. It's very similar to sending a kid into a gigantic library. They will be able to tell you all kinds of interesting things at the end of the day. But they don't learn anything. Despite libraries having existed for thousands of years, without a school, a teacher and a systematic process of reinforcement no one learns anything. And that's what we have been getting out of the internet a superficial class of "educated" people.

Disdain has its purpose. I probably should be using it better I will admit.

I have to admit that (likely being even more ancient than yourself) I've actually flipped back and forth on this issue more than once.

Now I think it's like the old Indian metaphor of dying cloth with natural dyes: you dye the cloth and it's bright, then put it in the sun and the UV smashes out nearly all the color. But if you keep rinsing and repeating that process, eventually the color is very bright and doesn't fade.

Remember that even if only 1% of your effort teaches anyone anything, the internet will allow a very large number of people over a very long time to "get it" and will preserve that nugget. So your efforts are actually extremely cost-effective - despite all the waste - even if you can't detect that. Then add in ripple effect outside the internet.

I've seen some of my contributions become part of common discourse, heard phrases I invented pop up on the news in just that context (after decades of slow spread), seen minor inventions of mine end up in common use across many kinds of sports, etc. It just took decades of slow growth as they spread.

I've also watched as reams of old shibboleths and (even academic) ignorance that had persisted for centuries even amongst experts swept away, in most circles anyway, by the gradual power of Wikipedia and Google book search.

Of course there will never be a fool shortage, as Barnum noted, more are born every day. But it's getting harder and harder to stay a complete fool.

Keep teaching!

I experienced a traumatic first love. I was mostly a recluse (or a fake social person, relying on protocols or emotional hurdles among people). I was way happier alone minding my own business before, because the relational part of my brain wasn't really active (to the best of my own introspection that's how I describe it). And now that this other person is gone; it made me into a paradox:

I now know the physical and emotional values of interpersonal relationship, my mean of getting it isn't there anymore, I can't grieve because few people can understand, but I can't go back to the recluse old me after the memory of bonding as set root and left a mark.

The mind is a fascinating thing.

Does anyone have any resources on how to break out of this "isolation cycle" if one is currently already in it?

I think the best way is to find one of your hobbies that has a public group and just force yourself to go, and focus on enjoying the part of it you enjoy. If you like MTG, find a local game night. If you like birds, go to a bird watching meetup. If you like activism, go to volunteering events. If you like spirituality, go to a church. And don't feel pressure to "do it right" or impress people in a certain way or make friends. You're probably going to be a weirdo, and that's ok. The goal is to be a weirdo who is enjoying something in the presence of others. Just go, give yourself a pat on the back for sticking around to the end, and then go again the following week.

But at a higher level, I think the way you break out of cycles is to first just attack one part of the cycle, and then slowly add more and eventually you are attacking it all at once. If part of why you don't like going out is you don't feel good about yourself, just do your laundry, clean your apartment, take a shower, put on clean clothes, and go for a walk. Then (if you're me) go back to binge eating pizza and browsing Reddit. Don't beat yourself up for the parts of the cycle you're not fixing, just give yourself credit for cleaning your apartment and move on.

It won't give way all at once. You've got to basically get practice fixing some parts of the cycle, which will have some small benefit, and over time you'll get closer to having a day where the whole cycle collapses and you do a complete virtuous cycle instead.

TL;DR: just attack part of the cycle, focus on your successes, and don't beat yourself up too much.

It resonated with me. You wrote it very eloquently.

We did not evolve in isolation, or cope well with it.

Find your tribe, whatever it may be, and you'll be happier.

Or find a way to fit well enough into the tribe at hand that your pack-ape instincts are satisfied.

> This is a stale and old debate, personality is extremely flexible and heavily depends on environmental and social constraints, as were demonstrated by seminal social experiment studies such as those of Milgram or Zimbardo.

These experiments first of all show how people react in highly stressful situations. To equalize this with changes in their personalities doesn't seem right to me.

The hardest part of these artificial and mostly extreme experiments - because you want to see reactions in a short amount of time - is what kind of conclusions you can take out of them.

I agree, this is confusing actual personality changes with stress behaviour. Obviously if you reduce stress you can remove unproductive behaviours such as neuroticism but the persons fundamental view of the world hasn't necessarily changed, even if it seems that way if you didn't know the person before the stress behaviours began to dominate.

Look into the Birkman Method, it's a psychometric personality assessment that, unlike other pop-quiz type tools (MBTI et al), distinguishes between your usual behaviour, your fundamental expectation of the world (needs) and your reactions (stress) when those expectations aren't met. It's unlikely that your usual behaviour changes, although it's quite possible that your stress behaviour could mask that (even for years on end) if you're in an environment you can't cope with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com