An article in Yahoo.

news science section this past Friday had this amazing title , Personality Set for Life By 1st Grade, Study Suggests. The authors relate that in an article to be published in the upcoming issue of the journal Social Psych ological and Personality Science the findings of a new study will be presented w hich show that Our personalities stay pretty much the same throughout our lives, from our early childhood years to after were over the hill. The following excerpts are from the article: The results show personality traits observed in children as young as first grade rs are a strong predictor of adult behaviorThey examined four personality att ributes talkativeness (called verbal fluency), adaptability (cope well with new situations), impulsiveness and self-minimizing behavior (essentially being humbl e to the point of minimizing ones importance).We remain recognizably th e same person, said study author Christopher Nave, a doctoral candidate at the Un iversity of California, Riverside. This speaks to the importance of understanding personality because it does follow us wherever we go across time and contexts. The article again raises the question of nature and nurture that perennially reapp ears in educational and psychological circles, and seems to confirm that there i s now scientific proof that nature, in this instance the person/childs innate or na tural personality, is the dominant deciding factor. Of course many will argue to the contrary that neither personality nor potential is set so early on. Others will argue with their findings, or want to debate the academic rigor of their st udy. I am not surprised by their results though. Certainly there is an argument to be made that people often maintain distinctive personality traits throughout their lives. And aside from the obvious fatalistic impression that such conclusi ons would seem to imply, and my strong disagreement with them, I am not academic ally qualified to question their methodologies in reaching their conclusions. Wh at I do question is the perspective. When Richard Bandler and John Grinder first began the work of uncovering what wo uld develop into NLP they consulted the DSM Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorder s, which is a huge volume of a book that basically lists all the ways in which d octors and psychiatrists/psychologists have determined that people can be messed up in the head. It is essentially the bible of psychology and psychiatry. What imme diately struck them was that the entire volume was a study in how people dont work right, and yet there was not a page on what right should be, or how some people ma naged to achieve and maintain it. They reasoned that unless the intention was to help create more messed up people, it would make good deal of sense to study the people that were doing great, and see how the were doing it, instead of studying the sick and hoping to find out how to be well? My initial reaction to this article is similar. They have spent years and resour ces to conclude that personality endures. Okay. That seems somewhat self-evident , and I think any mother would be able to tell you the same, that children can a nd often do exhibit personality traits that continue into adulthood. What would have been a better perspective or objective, from my point of view would have be en to conduct a study on how and why those with winning personalities are able to do what they do. The last line of the article gives a cursory nod in this direct ion, quoting the studys author as saying that future research will help us underst and how personality is related to behavior as well as examine the extent to whic h we may be able to change our personality, this should have been the starting po int. This study notwithstanding, people do change. It may seem to happen infrequently once we are grown, but it does happen. The article does acknowledge this but on ly with this less than hopeful one-liner, Previous research has suggested that wh ile our personalities can change, its not an easy undertaking. (Emphasis mine.) Th e studys author is quoted that personality is a part of us, a part of our biology, and that although, Life events still influence our behaviors, yet we must acknowl

edge the power of personality in understanding future behavior as well. These cou ld be very dangerous thoughts in a number of ways, at the low end this could lea d to the tacit acceptance by educators and administrators of the prejudicial not ion that some students, those with the wrong personality types, are naturally illequipped for success, and therefore less worthy of their attention and effort, a nd at the extreme end it could be the necessary proof needed to fuel another spate of Nazi style eugenics and superior people/superior race ideology in the world. In spite of their findings it seems the height of pessimism to believe that if my child is a bit shy in first grade, she is doomed to be a timid, insecure and unsuccessful human being as an adult. I would love to see the study that addresses these questions instead: 1) What were the environmental similarities between those with the right kind of personality? Certainly there should be clues, patterns and relevant informati on there for replication of their achievement. 2) What influences existed in the environments before the first grade betwee n the different personality types? 3) When people have made radical positive changes in their behaviors or pers onality, how does it happen? How may it be replicated? One of the primary ideas of NLP is that the kinds of questions you ask determine the nature and usefulness of the answers you will receive. So if you ask the qu estions how early does personality form, and does personality persist through out a lifetime? You may indeed come to the same pessimistic conclusion as the author of the study, that personality is set by first grade, and that it determines futu re happiness, social aptitude and success. If you instead start with the question of how do those that seem to be happy, well-adjusted and successful in life accompl ish this, you will end up with a very different set of answers, which will not o nly be more optimistic but can serve as a blueprint for action. Donovan Whylie Director of Educational Programming Foundations For Life www.foundationsforlifelearning.org