Can Humans Change Their Nature?

[Chaco]

We often hear the words,"I can change.". But how many of you believe those words?

I stand by the side that people can change. My main reason is this:

"Do past behavior(s) absolutely predict future behaviors? No."

It’s apples and oranges when you compare thoughts versus deeds. Anyone can experience immoral, illegal, compassionate, or selfish thoughts…it’s the ACTION one takes on those thoughts, that makes the difference is the change. Whether they act on them or not.

So what do you think, can humans change their nature?

Here are some examples of how labels stick, i.e

A sober alcoholic is still labeled as an alcoholic.

A sex offender shall always be labeled as a sex offender.

But what if this said sex offender, has changed his ways. NO, that doesn't matter. It's the past they hang onto.

 

[Amide]

Yes and no. People can change, but it's hard to, and a lot of people don't. 42% of people that leave prison will be back there within a year. You would think that wouldn't happen. But I've heard stories of people that have done awful things, turn good. Unfortunately, there's no way to test if someone has changed.

 

[doom dragon 105]

Human nature cannot change.

its how we deal and manipulate our nature thats makes us different from one and other.

thats my firm belief

 

[Chaco]

Human nature cannot change.

its how we deal and manipulate our nature thats makes us different from one and other.

thats my firm belief

Ultimately it is your decision though, if you decide to change you can. You even said it is how we deal with our nature.

 

[Eor]

You seem to be confusing titles with how a person acts. If somebody stops being a sex offender, they still are, but their nature did change. But because they're still registered and still thought of as an offender doesn't mean they are one.

So, yes, I think the majority of a persons nature can change. When it gets to chemical dependencies and other things, then no. But I do believe someone who murders can later come to regret their past life and truly be a different person.

 

[mzink*]

I think those with the will power have the power over their nature to change it, even if it is very slowly and gradually. Any small change is still change. True it is no easy task.

 

[Eriatarka]

You're dead right to differentiate between actions and thoughts of those actions, but are we taking someone's nature to be what they consciously decide to do, or what thoughts and impulses they just 'get' without necessarily acting on?

In my opinion a person's actions can always be changed, it's just a matter of how much will-power they've got. But as for unplanned thoughts and such, I don't think people really have to the ability to consciously change those.. even if a murderer, for example, is truly repentant for what he has done, he may still get violent impulses which he can't help. Sure he can control them, but he's still getting them.

Whether those can change is down to how deeply the thoughts/impulses are ingrained in the person, I suppose.

 

[Moustachio]

Hmm...from what I have seen and experienced, humans seem to be able to change their nature only through harsh circumstances or if survival depends on it. Otherwise it appears to me that it happens through...well difficulties I suppose. (Side note: Yay, first post in the Debate Hall for me).

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Changing is easy, not changing back is the hard part.

I don't know who said that I heard it years ago but its stuck in my mind ever since because I've seen it come true. My father is a hardcore alcoholic some people can't even believe how much he drinks a day when I tell them. I really hate it when he drinks and as a kid I tried my best to get him to stop drinking but at most he would do it for a day ( and those are some of the best memories that I have with him ) but eventually he would start up again.

About two years ago he moved to away to California and one day I just decided to call him and he told me that he had quit smoking for almost a month. (hes a heavy smoker too) I was really happy I thought that maybe if he could quit smoky drinking wouldn't be a dream any more but alas when I went to visit him last thanks giving he either had a bear in his hand or a cigarette between his fingers. He would even light a cigar when he got off the car to get gas and smoke it all while he went to the cashier. ( I have no idea how he could do it that fast)

anyways for me people can change but they rarely stay that way and usually end up reverting to there old habits I've seen it everywhere not just with my dad.

 

[link6616]

Forcing a change is hard, and for somethings nearly impossible without extreme measures (electric shock styled therapies for instance) But I don't think its impossible, not that I have any really reason

 

[Squidster]

To understand your question we'd have to define human nature. The difference between thoughts and actions is important because I believe that human nature involves both of these.
Anyone can force themselves to change their actions, but if it is indeed forced then I do not believe they have changed their nature. This is why its so easy to fake being a "good person,” you simply go against your instincts and people praise you for it. But you never actually changed.
For this reason I think that an actual shift in human nature is rare, but I wouldn’t call it impossible. People often have conflicting thoughts on issues and being convinced by an outside event that a certain side is stronger than another can lead to the person changing what they believe entirely, therefore affecting their actions. Yes people can change, but it is really uncommon.

 

[e__]

A sober alcoholic is still labeled as an alcoholic.

A sex offender shall always be labeled as a sex offender.

But what if this said sex offender, has changed his ways. NO, that doesn't matter. It's the past they hang onto.

I am aware this is picky and taking your examples a little literally, but alcoholism is considered a disease; you can be an alcoholic and never had a drop of the liquid, you just won't find out until you do.

A sex offender is defined as someone who has at one point made an offense sexually. It doesn't matter when it happened or how they changed, if at one point someone has done this, they are forever a sex offender.

To answer your question more directly though, people are seen as being able to change their nature legally, as I believe that once you reach 18 your past criminal record is cleared.

Personally, I believe that people can change certain natures about them, like how often they drink and how they can control drinking so it doesn't become a dominant force in their life, but deep down they're still an alcoholic. A sadist may tell himself that it's wrong to enjoy people suffering and causing them to suffer and therefore avoid instances with it, but when it happens he will still enjoy it. He knows that it's wrong, but cannot stop this basic instinct, although he can change how he handles this instinct to make it managable.

 

[blazedaces]

There is no such thing as human nature. We, as humans, are not born with almost any instincts. We do not have innate characteristics besides those provided by genetics and they only have to do with how we look. They have nothing to do with how we act.

If you're going to say otherwise, you must provide evidence (it does not exist, but please, I implore you to try).

Knowing this one realizes this entire discussion is pointless. People have a hard time changing, but they can change. That's it.

-blazed

 

[e__]

Knowing this one realizes this entire discussion is pointless. People have a hard time changing, but they can change. That's it.

That's like saying that a gay man can change himself to be sexually attracted to women and a straight man can change himself to be sexually attracted to a man.

 

[blazedaces]

That's like saying that a gay man can change himself to be sexually attracted to women and a straight man can change himself to be sexually attracted to a man.

Do you agree or disagree that many people who claim to be homosexual once claimed they were heterosexual? Do you agree or disagree that many people who claim to be bisexual once claimed to be homosexual or heterosexual?

-blazed

 

[e__]

I agree, but that claim is a lie; they always were homosexual, bisexual, or straight, they just changed how they let others percieve them.

 

[blazedaces]

I agree, but that claim is a lie; they always were homosexual, bisexual, or straight, they just changed how they let others percieve them.

What evidence do you have to support this conjecture?

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Do you agree or disagree that many people who claim to be homosexual once claimed they were heterosexual? Do you agree or disagree that many people who claim to be bisexual once claimed to be homosexual or heterosexual?

-blazed

that doesn't mean it's a choice. if that were the case, there would be a LOT less homosexuals

 

[blazedaces]

that doesn't mean it's a choice. if that were the case, there would be a LOT less homosexuals

Again, I think this was mentioned even in this thread, the word choice is very vague.

Do you chose who you fall in love with (not even talking about gender)? Do you think that who we fall in love with is innate somehow? Seriously, think about it.

I'm not talking about choice and non-choice, I'm only talking about environmental vs. genetic. Is it only influenced by environmental factors? The evidence says so (evidence shown in the homosexuality thread)...

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Again, I think this was mentioned even in this thread, the word choice is very vague.

Do you chose who you fall in love with (not even talking about gender)? Do you think that who we fall in love with is innate somehow? Seriously, think about it.

I'm not talking about choice and non-choice, I'm only talking about environmental vs. genetic. Is it only influenced by environmental factors? The evidence says so (evidence shown in the homosexuality thread)...

-blazed

i don't really know what your stance is anymore. are you saying that if a trait is environmentally caused it is reversible?

and if you're talking about the article about chemical changes in the womb, a conclusion has not been finalized. you can't go around saying "sexual orientation is 100% environment" because we just don't know yet.

 

[blazedaces]

i don't really know what your stance is anymore. are you saying that if a trait is environmentally caused it is reversible?

Can we influence genetics? At this point, no.

Can we influence the environment. Yes.

This is my answer. Can we reverse an environmental trait with 100% accuracy by any given method? No.

and if you're talking about the article about chemical changes in the womb, a conclusion has not been finalized. you can't go around saying "sexual orientation is 100% environment" because we just don't know yet.

No, that's not the article I'm talking about. I honestly don't know what article you're talking about. There were a number of articles shown in the thread.

This is the truth: there is nearly an overwhelming amount of evidence that the environment can influence one's sexual preference, but no convincing evidence showing it is influenced by genetics (and the more people try to show this, the more they show this to be less and less true).

Even if you somehow were to prove that genetics influences sexual preference in some way, how could you deny that one could simply make the choice to be attracted to a different sex? Do you think our fetishes are also innate? Do you think sexual interaction we have at a young age might not heavily influence our sexual preferences at a later age?

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Can we influence the environment. Yes.

This is my answer. Can we reverse an environmental trait with 100% accuracy by any given method? No.

This is the truth: there is nearly an overwhelming amount of evidence that the environment can influence one's sexual preference, but no convincing evidence showing it is influenced by genetics (and the more people try to show this, the more they show this to be less and less true).

there are some traits where environmental influences are irreversible

Even if you somehow were to prove that genetics influences sexual preference in some way, how could you deny that one could simply make the choice to be attracted to a different sex? Do you think our fetishes are also innate? Do you think sexual interaction we have at a young age might not heavily influence our sexual preferences at a later age?

-blazed

you can't seriously be suggesting that people can change their sexual orientation at will

 

[blazedaces]

there are some traits where environmental influences are irreversible

I agree that certain environmental variables can be too strong to ever be countered by another, but I don't believe any trait is completely irreversible for all people if it's only influenced by the environment.

you can't seriously be suggesting that people can change their sexual orientation at will

This is the problem with the word choice. You're making it sound as if all choices can be made at will. A very simple counterexample: love at first sight. It mirrors sexual preference perfectly. We think we can't control it, but I don't think you'll try and suggest it has anything to do with our genetics. Yet if certain things never happened, we might never have fallen in love.

Is your favorite color your choice? If today your favorite color is blue and tomorrow you claim it's red, did it really change? Can people change their favorite color at will? Is your favorite color influenced by genetics?

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

This is the problem with the word choice. You're making it sound as if all choices can be made at will. A very simple counterexample: love at first sight. It mirrors sexual preference perfectly. We think we can't control it, but I don't think you'll try and suggest it has anything to do with our genetics. Yet if certain things never happened, we might never have fallen in love.

Is your favorite color your choice? If today your favorite color is blue and tomorrow you claim it's red, did it really change? Can people change their favorite color at will? Is your favorite color influenced by genetics?

-blazed

i never said that traits outside our control is governed by genetics

ah i don't even know what we're debating about anymore. it seems like you switched sides, although it's probably just my misinterpretation of what you said earlier.

 

[blazedaces]

i never said that traits outside our control is governed by genetics

ah i don't even know what we're debating about anymore. it seems like you switched sides, although it's probably just my misinterpretation of what you said earlier.

Let me make something clear, that most people don't seem to understand:

I don't care about "sides". I make conclusions based on evidence and I reject all conclusions not based on evidence (or based on faulty evidence). That's it. I don't care if it works. I don't care if it helps one "side" or the other. I'm not supporting "you" or "them". I don't care. I'm just saying the evidence says what you claim isn't exactly the truth.

And I do still think that if something is completely influenced by the environment then it can be altered again by the environment.

And what was this topic about again? Oh yeah, human nature. The evidence suggests there is no such thing as human nature. We all have our own preferences, some harder to change then others. If you want to suggest that such a thing as human nature exists you must provide evidence for it.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

And I do still think that if something is completely influenced by the environment then it can be altered again by the environment.

children will lose irreplaceable brain cells if they are not used.

but do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

And what was this topic about again? Oh yeah, human nature. The evidence suggests there is no such thing as human nature. We all have our own preferences, some harder to change then others. If you want to suggest that such a thing as human nature exists you must provide evidence for it.

-blazed

nah, i agree with this.

 

[blazedaces]

children will lose irreplaceable brain cells if they are not used.

but do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

To me, this is only logical. If it can be changed by the environment, it can be changed by the environment. It's as simple as that.

What evidence would persuade you? All I can really provide evidence for is examples of things you might find irreversible as being reversed.

But this would not persuade you because you could either claim the evidence can be explained by some other means (like saying that the person controlling their actions, but not having really changed) or that the evidence only rules out one example.

I can also provide evidence that shows that certain traits that some people think are innate have evidence of being heavily influenced by the environment and no evidence of being influenced by genetics.

To be honest I feel that the default stance is to say a preference can be changed and you must provide evidence for a specific preference that shows it can not be changed... Because I can not possibly prove to you that all preferences ever exhibited can be changed...

Note that I am willing to provide said evidence. And if you specify further what exactly you want proved (more specific than all environmentally influenced preferences being reversible) I will happily do my best to provide evidence or retract my statement.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

What evidence would persuade you? All I can really provide evidence for is examples of things you might find irreversible as being reversed.

-blazed

ah, that was silly of me; i should have realized that.

but i did mention something caused only by the environment that could not be reversed. but since you ignored it i'll assume you did not think it was acceptable. so what's wrong with it?

 

[blazedaces]

ah, that was silly of me; i should have realized that.

but i did mention something caused only by the environment that could not be reversed. but since you ignored it i'll assume you did not think it was acceptable. so what's wrong with it?

Sorry, that's my fault. I didn't realize you were providing a counter-example. My bad. I assume you're referring to this:

children will lose irreplaceable brain cells if they are not used.

Well, at least for right know (someday maybe we'll have the technology to replace brain cells), this is a perfect counter-example to "something" influenced by the environment that can not be reversed.

Still, are our preferences controlled by such things? That's a question I'll admit I can't answer with 100% certainty. I think that the answer is no. That our preferences are not so complicated. That they are not "hard-wired" into us, but are simply belief values of sorts.

What do you think? Because if we consider our preferences, and we try to imagine they are only influenced by our environment, then they must be held inside our brains. Only existing brain cells can store these preferences.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Well, at least for right know (someday maybe we'll have the technology to replace brain cells), this is a perfect counter-example to "something" influenced by the environment that can not be reversed.

well if you get to the point where you need to add or take away brain cells to change someone, it feels um kind of like cheating. because then everything that has to do with brain activity will be able to be "environmentally influenced". just get rid of the part of the brain that makes someone gay and replace it with a "straight" one (this is assuming technology will eventually allow for this).

Still, are our preferences controlled by such things? That's a question I'll admit I can't answer with 100% certainty. I think that the answer is no. That our preferences are not so complicated. That they are not "hard-wired" into us, but are simply belief values of sorts.

What do you think? Because if we consider our preferences, and we try to imagine they are only influenced by our environment, then they must be held inside our brains. Only existing brain cells can store these preferences.

-blazed

i think some preferences are just harder to change than others (ranging from easy to perhaps impossible) but i don't know why and i can't explain anything.

just try to make yourself hate chocolate. forever. i doubt you'll be able to do it unless you hate chocolate to begin with

 

[blazedaces]

just try to make yourself hate chocolate. forever. i doubt you'll be able to do it unless you hate chocolate to begin with

Very easy. I once saw a movie (I can't recall the name) where someone was given a million dollars in cash and told if they could spend it in two weeks (or something like that) then they would be given a billion dollars. By the time the two weeks were over they hated money.

It's not that great an example, but perhaps you see my point.

Give a person nothing but chocolate. Put chocolate in EVERYTHING they eat. Then put chocolate in plain view everywhere they go. The average person would end up hating chocolate and thinking afterwards if they never saw chocolate again it would be too soon.

Another way: put them through a life and death experience that involves chocolate in some way or put a loved one through such a thing.

Or how about beating them with chocolate? Take a sane person and just have a mob of people beat them with chocolate (not ethical, but it would work).

Any of these would make someone (the average person) hate chocolate who previously loved chocolate...

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Very easy. I once saw a movie (I can't recall the name) where someone was given a million dollars in cash and told if they could spend it in two weeks (or something like that) then they would be given a billion dollars. By the time the two weeks were over they hated money.

It's not that great an example, but perhaps you see my point.

Give a person nothing but chocolate. Put chocolate in EVERYTHING they eat. Then put chocolate in plain view everywhere they go. The average person would end up hating chocolate and thinking afterwards if they never saw chocolate again it would be too soon.

Another way: put them through a life and death experience that involves chocolate in some way or put a loved one through such a thing.

Or how about beating them with chocolate? Take a sane person and just have a mob of people beat them with chocolate (not ethical, but it would work).

Any of these would make someone (the average person) hate chocolate who previously loved chocolate...

-blazed

has anyone tried these experiments before and had lasting results? i'd imagine that after a while of absence of chocolate the person would go back to liking it.

 

[blazedaces]

has anyone tried these experiments before and had lasting results? i'd imagine that after a while of absence of chocolate the person would go back to liking it.

All of these experiments are too unethical and have too many lasting psychological effects to be done by anyone these days.

Which experiment are you talking about? The first one? Wasn't the best example I gave. But you can't tell me that wouldn't work for a lot of people.

I'm sorry, but as for the life and death experience, most people that go through something like that despise any association that reminds them of the situation.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

All of these experiments are too unethical and have too many lasting psychological effects to be done by anyone these days.

Which experiment are you talking about? The first one? Wasn't the best example I gave. But you can't tell me that wouldn't work for a lot of people.

I'm sorry, but as for the life and death experience, most people that go through something like that despise any association that reminds them of the situation.

-blazed

what i imagine is that liking the taste of chocolate would be the person's "default" position (the default position would be the person's opinion the first time he is exposed to something). environmental factors may change the preference, but if it's not sustained the person would go back to the default preference

i have nothing to back this up though :/

 

[blazedaces]

what i imagine is that liking the taste of chocolate would be the person's "default" position (the default position would be the person's opinion the first time he is exposed to something). environmental factors may change the preference, but if it's not sustained the person would go back to the default preference

i have nothing to back this up though :/

Your initial statement was to "just try to make yourself hate chocolate" based on, I assumed, environmental influences. You agree then that these situations can cause a person to at least temporarily hate chocolate correct?

While I think the change would be permanent, it doesn't really matter. If you want to make it permanent according to you, just repeat the "treatment" every time the preference returns to what you claim is the default though I disagree that there is any such thing as a "default" preference.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

Your initial statement was to "just try to make yourself hate chocolate" based on, I assumed, environmental influences. You agree then that these situations can cause a person to at least temporarily hate chocolate correct?

i added a forever at the end of my statement. but yeah, those would be able to at least temporarily influence preference.

While I think the change would be permanent, it doesn't really matter. If you want to make it permanent according to you, just repeat the "treatment" every time the preference returns to what you claim is the default though I disagree that there is any such thing as a "default" preference.

-blazed

i disagree that to permanently change someone's preference you can just repeat the treatment multiple times. the idea of permanence is that you only need to do it once and the preference is static (until he's treated with something else).

 

[blazedaces]

i added a forever at the end of my statement. but yeah, those would be able to at least temporarily influence preference.

i disagree that to permanently change someone's preference you can just repeat the treatment multiple times. the idea of permanence is that you only need to do it once and the preference is static (until he's treated with something else).

This is sort of going nowhere now. Can we change the subject to something we can actually conclusively prove based on evidence?

Or shall we wait for the next psychological study on forcing people to hate chocolate by any and all means necessary?

-blazed

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

People cannot change their nature, they can attempt to change their behavior. Their nature still exists in them though, they just suppress their natural urges. If humans behaved as "natural" creatures, we would become CEO of a company by fighting to the death. Human nature is suppressed by social expectations and conditioning.

 

[blazedaces]

People cannot change their nature, they can attempt to change their behavior. Their nature still exists in them though, they just suppress their natural urges. If humans behaved as "natural" creatures, we would become CEO of a company by fighting to the death. Human nature is suppressed by social expectations and conditioning.

Do you just read the first post and then respond?

What evidence do you have that "human nature" exists?

-blazed

 

[Squidster]

You have a very limited view of human nature. You are convinced that human nature doesn't exist because you define it as something that cannot be affected by the environment. If we define "human nature" just as how someone acts in general (if you want to be scientific about it... take situations and record the behavior... the results are that person's "human nature").

This is an important distinction to realize if you want to stay on topic because the OP brings up the question "does the past predict the future." You may be right that the environment is the only thing affects a person's choices, but to go so far as to say people don't have a human nature is simply short sighted. Their human nature MAY be influenced by the environment, but its still there.

You're stance seems to be that any trait can therefore be changed because if it was brought up by the environment it can be removed by the environment, but i'm not so sure thats true.

If you want to base things solely on evidence, why are people who have the same, or very similar environments different? 2 people living in the same home eating the same food should have the same food preferences, no?