Personality modification

[Arden]

But Arden, we've all seen people go through personality changes (maybe not at the core) in both relationships and in therapy; not to say in the military, in seminaries.

I was not speaking as a dom, but as an experimenter.

I have no trouble with the idea that some doms might know some subs of theirs rather well, better than s/he knew herself; all the while depending on the sub for info; that is the same position as a teacher, trainer, or therapist.

regards,
J

Call me a pessimist, then, lol.

With regard to military, I've seen both positive and negative changes. Some may benefit from the rigid disciplines of military life. I've seen it bring out the best in some, those that could see it as a positive influence on their lives. I've also seen some come out of the military bigger jackasses then when they entered. Harder, colder, more self-centered than ever. (One cousin of mine, in particular, but I've seen others as well) In the end, I don't know if the military experience alters one's personality or behavior in a positive manner unless they are open to that change.

Those that enter seminaries for religious training seem to be a breed of their own. Most already seem to posses a strong conviction to serve, and willingly adapt to their roles. In my family, we've had two Catholic priests, and another 'almost' priest. The one still living never changed his personality in order to conform. He has an endearing old Irish family type of charm. Always the most fun to talk to at family gatherings, he took the time to converse with the kids where the other adults were too busy to bother. It wasn't beyond him to drink a beer or smoke his favorite stogie while watching the Thanksgiving Day football game, and then recite a beautiful pre-meal prayer just a while later. He may have given up sex, but didn't modify his personality. The 'almost' priest in the family left before he completed instruction. He met a woman that he fell in love with, and could not commit to the life of a Catholic priest after that. To this day he is still a deeply religious man, but he could not alter his personality to the point of ignoring his need to love another, and to be loved in return.

More pessimism here. In relationships, it's my gut feeling that if you enter one with the intent of altering someone's personality to suit your needs, you need to have your head examined. Think of all the women who married someone thinking they were going to change him with time. Not. Only if the two are like-minded, and want change to occur, can change be successfully accomplished.

Therapy. A patient has to want and need change in their life to reap therapeutic rewards. It can be done, but I can't see it as a change in personality. They may understand themselves better, alter their behavior and strive to live life differently, but they still have the same personality. Perhaps they become an enlightened version of the person that they are inside. In the back of my mind, though, I see the child molesters and rapists that are caught, medicated to suppress their sex drive, given behavior modification therapy and released back into society... only to molest and rape again. Therapy doesn't work well for those that have very warped personalities. Drug & alcohol treatment centers also use behavior modification and therapy. My ex attended a treatment center at one time. He reverted back to his old habits before one year was out. In a sense, he is a personality type that can't be altered because like the molesters or rapists, sees nothing wrong with himself. He's completely unable to look inside of himself and see any character defects. That ability just isn't there for him.

Oh well, I've rambled on way too long. In short, it's my opinion that to modify someone's behavior or habits, you have to have a willing subject -- and one that has the mental capacity for change. I still don't believe you can alter personalities, though, only behaviors.

I'm an opinionated old broad, and that's not likely to change!
But I do still listen and learn...

 

[Ebonyfire]

LOL, and in true pointless education paperwork, there are principals that require objectives in all of Bloom's categories for a lesson plan.



After further thinking about the subject, i think it would be pretty hard for me as a sub to hear from a Dom, "i want you to change this about who you are." It would definitely feel like a complete rejection of who i am.

Yep. I would think it would make you want to look elsewhere for a dominant.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Eb://If there are any trainers or teachers out there, you know that the first two domains [cognitive and psychomotor] are mostly all you can affect with any certainty. //

Not really. In fact Bloom and those following the taxonomy explicity consider and envision changing attitudes [the third domain], though they lie one level up, in the hierarchy. See emphasized portions below.


http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html


The Three Types of Learning

There is more than one type of learning. A committee of colleges, led by Benjamin Bloom, identified three domains of educational activities. The three domains are cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Since the work was produced by higher education, the words tend to be a little bigger than we are normally used to. Domains can be thought of as categories. Cognitive is for mental skills (Knowledge), affective is for growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude), while psychomotor is for manual or physical skills (Skills).

Trainers often refer to these as KAS, SKA, or KSA (Knowledge, Attitude, and Skills). This taxonomy of learning behaviors can be thought of as "the goals of the training process." That is, after the training session, the learner should have acquired these new skills, knowledge, or attitudes.


http://www.humboldt.edu/~tha1/bloomtax.html

Affective Domain of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

The Affective Domain addresses interests, attitudes, opinions, appreciations, values, and emotional sets.
The original purpose of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was to provide a tool for classifying instructional objectives. The Taxonomy is hierarchical (levels increase in difficulty/sophistication) and cumulative (each level builds on and subsumes the ones below). The levels, in addition to clarifying instructional objectives, may be used to provide a basis for questioning that ensures that students progress to the highest level of understanding.If the teaching purpose is to change attitudes/behavior rather than to transmit/process information, then the instruction should be structured to progress through the levels of the Affective Domain:

====

Attitude change is more complex and time consuming but it's within the purview of many teachers.

Oh yes really. Change in the affective domain is only possible if the person wishes to change. In other words if the person DECIDES to change.

I have no intention on arguing this point with you Pure.

Your posting other people's data will not change what I know to be true from 20 years of personal experience gleaned teaching adults in educational settings and the corporate world.

 

[Pure]

Arden said,

//it's my opinion that to modify someone's behavior or habits, you have to have a willing subject -- and one that has the mental capacity for change. I still don't believe you can alter personalities, though, only behaviors. //

But of course the 'willing subject' is virtually a given in this discussion isn't it. We assume this hypothetical sub is willing.

We are not discussing 'against will' change.

I don't have any probs with most of what you say, regarding the difficulty of changing sex offenders and alcoholics (focussing on those who don't want to change or whom someone is forcing to change). Nor do I have a prob with the maxim about not cemeting a relationship with someone based on one's ideas of how they should be changed (to suit oneself). None of these cases--also cited by others, including Eb-- really bear on the original question, which I understand to be "Given a (willing) sub, could a dom/me change his/her personality" NOT "... change her personality in ways she objects to."


Eb said,
//Your posting other people's data will not change what I know to be true from 20 years of personal experience //

I wouldn't at at all try to 'change what you know to be true'; i'd have better results arguing with a lamppost. Bloom recognized attitude/affective change (from teaching), and it seems you do too.

J.

 

[Arden]

Earlier:
Originally posted by Pure
But Arden, we've all seen people go through personality changes (maybe not at the core) in both relationships and in therapy; not to say in the military, in seminaries.

You know, I was only responding to what you brought up here... different scenarios including military, religious and therapy situations. Yes, this thread was intended to be about the possibility of altering a submissives personality, with their consent. Your earlier statement (in italics) did not refer to submissives or consent, willingness or against-will situations.

I'm going to bow out now, I have nothing more to add to the subject that I haven't stated previously.

Good topic of discussion, Des, I've enjoyed reading the various opinions given.

 

[Pure]

Originally posted by Pure
But Arden, we've all seen people go through personality changes (maybe not at the core) in both relationships and in therapy; not to say in the military, in seminaries.

Arden said,
You know, I was only responding to what you brought up here... different scenarios including military, religious and therapy situations. Yes, this thread was intended to be about the possibility of altering a submissives personality, with their consent. Your earlier statement (in italics) did not refer to submissives or consent, willingness or against-will situations.

The statement you quote is clearly about consensual situations: relationships, therapy, etc. Leaving aside the draft, the military situations too are consensual in the sense of contract (not instant opt out, of course).

In relation to the military you spoke of seeing people get
"Harder, colder, more self-centered than ever." And that, you say, is not positive.
We may not like it, but that change is likely the military's intent, hence this counts as 'personality change' (brought about by another's efforts, in part), at least in degree.

A comment on this statement, made also by several folks in this thread:
//I still don't believe you can alter personalities, though, only behaviors. //

I do see an application of this, in respect of faking: a nasty character (seemingly) gets religion in prison, as parole evaluations come up. Behavior can be shammed for a time.

OTOH, leaving aside thoughts, behavior is pretty good evidence, at times, of a psychological (personality) change: someone becomes withdrawn; doesn't go out; doesn't call friends; sleeps a lot; doesn't have much sex. We say "Depression." After the treatment, prozac or whatever, each of these behaviors is changed. We say "No longer depressed." We don't say "It's only alteration of behavior."

Indeed, iirc, "personality change" is listed as a symptom of several psychological disorders. It follows that where they are 'cured'--which ofter requires the willingness and efforts of the afflicted-- there is personality change *back* to the original.

J.

 

[Soron]

~snip~In general, I doubt that you can change the color of a horse, nor it's personality. You can break the horse's spirit and change it's behavior to please you, but it's something learned. Very few horses will change to please you without some sort of positive motivation. If the horse sees nothing gained, it will revert back to it's natural personality and behavior.

In some ways, couldn't it be said that you voluntarily modify your personality somewhat in learning to serve your dominant or master?

How many of us grow up saying 'Yes Sir,' or 'Yes Master'? Is kneeling at someone's feet a part of growing up that I missed somewhere? I'd also guess (yes, an assumption) that most of us didn't like pain or punishment when young. Many of us rebelled at being controlled, but it helped us to grow up if we used what we learned wisely. Some now welcome control, pain, punishment, and enjoy different patterns of speech at times, in private or public.

I'm going to take the stance that personality modification may tie in with behavioral changes that you make to please your dominant, knowingly or not. Maybe it comes so gradually that it isn't perceived as a modification of personality, just a normal progression of the relationship as it may.

I will say, though, that I am grateful for those here (involved in a master/slave relationship) that are able to post in their own voices. Voices we can all understand. For those of us that are relatively new, understanding is everything.

You hit on it in the first paragraph, darlin'.
If the horse sees nothing gained, it will revert back to it's natural personality and behavior.
I see it as ADDING to your personality, to your behavior. Things like calling him Master or going out of your way to please him. In your case, you do many things automatically and don't even see them. You give of yourself so much and ask nothing in return, but love. Everyone has different needs and desires. Personality modification would only serve to confuse you and many submissives into not being who you are.

 

[Soron]

Re: Re: Personality modification

I spend months talking to subs who are petitioning to be Mine. Why would I spend so much time weeding out those who do not suit Me if I were gonna try to "mold them"?


If a sub does not have a personality that is compatible with Mine, I pass him by.

Can we put that post in stone somewhere?

 

[Pure]

Eb
//I spend months talking to subs who are petitioning to be Mine. Why would I spend so much time weeding out those who do not suit Me if I were gonna try to "mold them"?//

Yes, it's pithy, and who can answer 'why' for someone else's actions. Why does Eb do what she does? Well I suppose it suits her to do so.

But before this quotation is put in stone, let's agree there are numerous 'selective' situations where molding is contemplated, i.e., in officer training in the Marines, in the present day process of entering the RC priesthood, in training CIA operatives.

An individual, likewise, who's aiming to 'create' or mold a certain personality has every reason to be selective, *to maximize the chances that the molding will work.*

 

[Soron]

Eb
//I spend months talking to subs who are petitioning to be Mine. Why would I spend so much time weeding out those who do not suit Me if I were gonna try to "mold them"?//

Yes, it's pithy, and who can answer 'why' for someone else's actions. Why does Eb do what she does? Well I suppose it suits her to do so.

But before this quotation is put in stone, let's agree there are numerous 'selective' situations where molding is contemplated, i.e., in officer training in the Marines, in the present day process of entering the RC priesthood, in training CIA operatives.

An individual, likewise, who's aiming to 'create' or mold a certain personality has every reason to be selective, *to maximize the chances that the molding will work.*

Pure, you'll get no argument from me. However, if you send someone to officer's training school they better already have those leadership skills in their personality already. Would you not agree?

 

[Pure]

Yes, of course some guys 'naturally' seem to be officer material.
For them, the officer training is more like 'dotting the i's and crossing the t's'; i.e., there is some molding. In these cases, we're less likely to say there was 'personality change.' OTOH, a cousin of mine, as wimpy as you can imagine, after enough years in military schools and training, ended up commanding a destroyer. That is close to what would be 'personality change.'

It's not unlike the question of 'natural athletes'. There are some, and training them is much easier. Some others, eventually accomplished in athletics, were not 'naturally' so, but simply trained very very hard.

The original point though is that 'selectivity' has no necesary connection with leaving folks as they are, as was implied by EB, at least as far as I read her.

J.

 

[Soron]

~snip~

The original point though is that 'selectivity' has no necesary connection with leaving folks as they are, as was implied by EB, at least as far as I read her.

J.

The Dominant is always going to want to train the submissive to compliment their wants and needs and desires. The point I'm making, and maybe Eb too, is why have a relationship with someone where personality modification comes in to play. Maybe, I'm a just a lazy old fart at this point in my life. I want someone compatible to me.
I do know, I want Arden just as she is, personality wise. All she requires is the proper training.

 

[Pure]

/I do know, I want Arden just as she is, personality wise**. All she requires is the proper training./

That sounds right, Soron. She's fine and should be left that way.
But .... was that the topic of this thread?


**[Added 10:28 pm edt; 8-10] notwithstanding her hot temper.

 

[Soron]

/I do know, I want Arden just as she is, personality wise. All she requires is the proper training.

That sounds right, Soron. She's fine and should be left that way.
But .... was that the topic of this thread?

~snip~ 1. If you don't like someone's personality, why enter a relationship with that person?


This is more what I was answering to.

 

[Arden]

But .... was that the topic of this thread?

Is this your thread? Were you officially appointed to moderate all thought posted to this thread? Get a life!

My apologies Des...

 

[Desdemona]

ok, so we're having a little family squabble here. LOL.

I must admit, both sides of the discussion makes for thought provoking reading. Thank you all.

 

[Pure]

Soron said,

[Desdemona, original posting:]
~snip~ 1. If you don't like someone's personality, why enter a relationship with that person?

Soron to pure:
//This is more what I was answering to.//

You're right Soron, that was an initially posted question. It's been useful to me to take a look at it, again. My apologies. I'd lost track of it--maybe because it hasn't really been debated.

It's a rule of thumb among psych gurus, counsellors, not to say the 'school of experience,' that it's unwise to take someone as partner or spouse who is far from what you want (by way of personality traits, habits, values, etc.), having the intent to make them over --more or less irrespective of their wishes-- into the person who would suit you better.

Though Des linked this question with the other, given below in my words, I don't entirely see the connection:

Can one (dominant person) 'make over' or substantially alter the 'personality' --whatever that means-- of a willing sub?
(And who would want this, who has tried it.)

The bolded phrases indicate the key difference, imo.

Best,

J.