What is personality?
Personality is a set of psychological traits that include all or most of our emotions and perceptions. It is a structure that shapes your behavior and how you interact with others and yourself.
Personality is also your self-esteem and the image you present to the world. In this sense, personality is like a mask that you show to everyone else. It is a kind of strategy that you use to hide certain things about yourself in order to gain social acceptance.
In fact, the word "man" comes from the Latin word "persona", which means an actor's mask. Actors in ancient times used masks to be able to portray multiple characters in one play.
When you need to change your personality
As we mentioned above, age can make change more difficult because your personality is more deeply ingrained. But that doesn't mean you can't make some changes as an adult.
We've all heard people say things like "I am who I am" or "I'm too old to change." In some cases this is partially true, but each of us can change our personality if we put in the effort.
Making changes like this is actually a therapeutic necessity for people with personality disorders. These are people who have a number of behavioral patterns and psychological mechanisms that create serious problems for themselves or for others.
- How marriage changes your personality
These problems typically lead to distress, anxiety, aggression, loss of self-control, and frustration, among other things. Personality disorders also affect their relationships with other people and can make it difficult for them to integrate into society, ultimately leading them to become isolated and lonely.
Chapter 11. Personality change in psychotherapy
This article presents some of the most important aspects of a large-scale study conducted at the University of Chicago Counseling Center between 1950 and 1954. It is made possible by the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation and its Division of Health Sciences. In 1954 I was invited to give a talk at the 5th International Congress on Mental Health in Toronto, in which I decided to describe parts of the research program. A month after this report, the University of Chicago Press published our book, which described the entire program. Although Rosalind Diamond and I did most of the work on the book, as co-editors and contributors, the other contributors to the collection also deserve thanks for their contributions. They are John M. Butler, Desmond Cutright, Thomas Gordon, Donald L. Grummon, Gerald W. Haig, Eve S. John, Essilyn K. Rudikoff, Julius Seaman, Rolland R. Tages and Manuel J. Vages.
The special reason why this work is included in this book is that it gives a partial glimpse of the exciting progress that we have made in measuring that changing, obscure, extremely significant and defining aspect of the personality that a person calls "the self." .
* * *
The purpose of this work is to present some features of my and my colleagues’ experience when, using objective scientific methods, we were able to evaluate the results of one of the types of individual psychotherapy. To help you understand these features, I will briefly describe the conditions under which this study was conducted.
For many years I worked with my fellow psychologists in the field of psychotherapy. In our experience of conducting psychotherapy, we tried to find more effective methods of achieving constructive changes in the personality and behavior of a person who turned to us for help, poorly adapted to life or with a disturbed psyche. Gradually, an approach to psychotherapy based on this experience was formulated. It has been called differently - non-directive or client-centered. This approach and its theoretical basis have been described in many of my books ([1], [2], [34], [5], 6]) and numerous articles.
One of our ongoing goals has been to subject the development of psychotherapy and its results to rigorous scientific study. We believe that psychotherapy is a deeply subjective, direct experience experienced by both therapist and client. This experience is filled with the complexities, subtleties and nuances of personal relationships. However, we are convinced that if this experience is so significant, if deep familiarity with it causes personality changes, then these changes should be amenable to scientific research.
Over the past 14 years, we have conducted much research on both the process and outcome of this form of psychotherapy7. To shed light on the results of this type of psychotherapy, over the past five years we have expanded our research through a number of related studies. I would like to present some significant features of this particular research program currently underway.
Three aspects of our research
In my opinion, the following three aspects of our research would be of great importance to our readers:
- The criterion we used in the study of psychotherapy does not coincide with the traditional opinion about criteria in this area.
- A research structure in the development of which some difficulties that previously stood in the way of obtaining accurate results were overcome.
- The progress we have made in objectively measuring elusive subjective phenomena.
These three elements of our program could be used in any attempt to measure personal change. Therefore, they are applicable to any type of psychotherapy or to the study of any method used to change personality or behavior.
Let's now go back to these three elements that I mentioned and look at them one by one in more detail.
Research criterion
So, what is the criterion in psychotherapy research? This question raises many difficulties, which we encountered primarily when planning the work. It is widely believed that the purpose of research in this area is to measure the "success rate" of psychotherapy, or the "degree of cure achieved." Although we have not escaped the influence of this opinion, after careful consideration we have abandoned these concepts because they are undefinable, are essentially value judgments, and therefore cannot be part of science in this area. There is no general agreement on what “success” means—whether it is expressed in symptom relief, conflict resolution, improved social behavior, or other changes. The concept of “cure” is completely unacceptable, since in most of these disorders we are not dealing with a disease, but with behavior developed as a result of learning.
Because of these considerations, we did not ask in our study, “Was psychotherapy successful? Was the client cured? Instead, we asked a question that is more scientifically justified, namely: “What are the circumstances surrounding psychotherapy? "
To get a basis for answering this question, we turned to the theory of psychotherapy that we were developing and took from there a theoretical description of the changes that probably occurred during psychotherapy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether the changes we hypothesized could be measured. Thus, based on the theory of client-centered psychotherapy, we put forward the following hypotheses. During psychotherapy, feelings that were previously not allowed into consciousness are experienced and included in ideas about oneself, in the “I-concept”. During psychotherapy, self-image approaches the idea of the “ideal self.” During and after psychotherapy, the client's observed behavior becomes more socialized and mature. During and after the psychotherapy process, the client begins to increasingly accept himself, his "I", and this correlates with an increase in acceptance of others.
Here are a few hypotheses that we were able to explore. It is probably clear that in our studies we have completely abandoned the idea of one main criterion, and instead used a number of well-defined variables, each of which was precisely formulated for the hypothesis under study. This means that we hoped that in the study we could express our conclusions something like this: client-centered psychotherapy leads to measurable changes in variables a, b, d, and f, but does not produce changes in variables c and e. When such statements obtained, both specialist and non-specialist will be able to make a value judgment as to whether they consider the process that caused these changes to be successful or not. Such value judgments, however, will not change the hard facts in our slowly increasing scientific knowledge of the effective drivers of personality change.
Thus, in our study, instead of the usual global indicator of “success,” many specific variables are used as criteria, each of them operationally defined and derived from our theory of psychotherapy.
This solution to the problem of evaluation criteria greatly helped to wisely select research tools for conducting a number of tests. We were not looking for an answer to the unanswerable question: by what means can success or cure be measured. Instead, we asked specific questions relevant to each hypothesis. What tools can be used to measure an individual's self-concept? By what means can behavioral maturity be satisfactorily measured? By what means can you measure the degree of acceptance of yourself and others? Despite the difficulty of these questions, it is possible to find operational answers to them. Thus, our decision regarding the evaluation criterion greatly helped us in solving the whole problem of research tools.
Research Design
Many thoughtful psychologists have noted the fact that there is no objective evidence that psychotherapy causes constructive personality change. Hebb8 argued that “there is no evidence to show that psychotherapy is beneficial” [9, p. 271]. After reviewing several works available to him, Eysenck10 pointed out that the data “do not prove that Freudian or any other psychotherapy accelerates the recovery of neurotic patients” [11, p. 322].
With this situation in mind, we really wanted to design our study with sufficient rigor so that when our hypothesis was confirmed or rejected, two things would be established: 1) whether a significant change had occurred; 2) if it occurred, was it due to psychotherapy and not some other factor. In such a complex field of research as psychotherapy, it is not easy to create a research design that will achieve these goals, but we believe that we have achieved genuine success in this direction.
Having chosen the hypothesis to test and the tools most suitable for operational measurement, we were ready for the next step. A selected range of objective research instruments were used to measure various characteristics of a group of clients before, immediately after, and 6 to 12 months later (see Figure 1). A medium-sized group was created of specially selected twenty-five people, similar to those who come to the University of Chicago Counseling Center. Studying a medium-sized group allowed for more detailed analysis. With a larger number of subjects, the analysis would have been more superficial.
Fig.1
Study design
The portion of the group that then received psychotherapy was selected as a control group. This group was subjected to exploratory testing. Then a two-month break was taken, which served as a control period. The clients were then tested again before psychotherapy. A reasonable explanation for this action is that if change occurs in individuals only because they are motivated by psychotherapy, or because they have a certain type of personality structure, then such change should occur during this control waiting period.
The other portion of the group not receiving psychotherapy served as an equivalent control group. In terms of age, socioeconomic status, ratio of men to women, students and non-students, both groups were equivalent. At appropriate time intervals, this group was subjected to the same testing as a control group participating in psychotherapy. Part of the second group was tested four times to be strictly comparable to the control group participating in psychotherapy. A reasonable explanation for the need to create this equivalent control group is that if changes in individuals occur due to the effects of time, random variables, or as an unnecessary consequence of repeated administration of tests, then such changes will appear in the results of this group.
The general logic behind this dual control design was that if the psychotherapy group experienced changes during and after psychotherapy that were significantly greater than those observed during the waiting period in the psychotherapy control group or the equivalent control group, then it would be reasonable to attribute these changes to influence of psychotherapy.
I cannot describe in a nutshell the complex and extensive details of the various studies that were carried out as part of these experiments. A more complete report [7] describes 13 projects completed to date. Suffice it to say that complete data were obtained from 29 clients treated by 16 psychotherapists, as well as complete data from a control group. A careful assessment of the research data allows us to come to the following conclusions: during and after psychotherapy, the client experiences profound changes in self-perception; constructive changes occur in the qualities and structure of the client’s personality - the qualities of his personality approach the characteristics of a fully functioning person; changes are observed in the direction of increasing personal integrity and adaptation; The client's friends report changes in his behavior towards maturity. In each individual case, the changes that occurred were found to be more dramatic than those observed in the control group or in the same clients during the control “waiting period.” Only in relation to the hypothesis put forward in connection with the acceptance of other people and a democratic attitude towards them, the findings are ambiguous and unclear.
In our opinion, the research program just completed is sufficient to change the statements made by Hebb and Eysenck. At least with regard to psychotherapy, there is now objective evidence of positive changes in the client's personality and behavior in directions that are generally considered constructive, and these changes are due to psychotherapy. It is the adoption of a specific, complex research criterion and the use of a strictly controlled research design that makes it possible to make these claims.
Measuring Changes in the Self
Since I can only present a very small sample of the results, I will select from the area where the greatest advances in research methods have been made and where the most intriguing results have been observed. This area includes our attempts to measure changes in the client's self-perception and the relationship of self-perception to certain other variables.
To obtain an objective measure of the client's self-perception, we used the recently proposed Q-method developed by Stephenson [12]. From conversation notes and other sources, a large set of statements was obtained by which clients describe themselves. Some typical statements include: “I am a submissive person,” “I don’t trust my emotions,” “I am calm and nothing bothers me,” “I am afraid of sex,” “I usually like people,” “I am an attractive person.” , “I worry that other people will think badly of me,” etc. A random sample of hundreds of these redacted statements was used as a research tool. Theoretically, we had a sample of all the ways in which a person can perceive himself. These statements were typed onto cards. The client was asked to sort the cards into nine approximately equal parts, starting with those cards on which the written statements were most consistent with his personality at the moment, and ending with those that were less characteristic of it. The client did this before psychotherapy, after, in the subsequent period, and also several times during psychotherapy itself. Along with this, clients were asked to sort the cards in such a way as to imagine the “ideal self” that he would like to be.
As a result, we obtained detailed and objective data about the client’s self-perception at different points in time and about his ideas about the “ideal self.” Correlation coefficients between these different sorts were then determined. A high correlation between two classifications showed similarities between them or no change, a low correlation showed differences between them or significant changes.
To show how this method was used to test some of our self-related hypotheses, let's look at how some of the data obtained from studying one client relates to several hypotheses [from 7, ch. 15]. I think this will better show the intriguing nature of the results than if I presented the general conclusions from our study, although I will try to mention these general results in passing.
The client from whose data I will take material was a forty-year-old woman who was very unhappy in her marriage. She felt guilty for her teenage daughter's breakdown. The woman was quite profoundly disturbed and, according to the diagnostic scale, was considered severely neurotic. She was not part of her own control group, so she began participating in psychotherapy immediately after the first testing. This woman came to conversations 40 times over 5.5 months, after which she completed psychotherapy. Follow-up tests were carried out 7 months later, at which time she decided to return for 8 more interviews. The second study was conducted 5 months later. The consultant decided that very significant progress had been made in the psychotherapy process.
In Fig. Figure 2 presents some data related to changes in the client's self-perception. Each circle represents sorting data for certain qualities of the “ideal self” or the “real self.” Sorting was carried out before psychotherapy, after the 7th and 25th conversations, at the end of psychotherapy and 6 and 12 months after psychotherapy. Correlations between many of these sorts are given.
Fig.2
Changing the relationship between the “real self” and the “ideal self”
Let us now consider these data in relation to one of the hypotheses that we were interested in testing, namely, the hypothesis that the client's perceived self changed more during psychotherapy than during periods when psychotherapy was not occurring. In this case, the change was greater during psychotherapy (r = 0.39) than during any of the follow-up periods (r = 0.74, 0.70) or at the follow-up 12 months (r = 0.65). Thus, in this case the hypothesis was confirmed. In this regard, the woman's test results were typical of other clients; The overall result was that changes in self-perception during psychotherapy were significantly greater than during the control or follow-up periods, and significantly greater than changes occurring in the control group.
Let's look at the second hypothesis. It was predicted that during and after psychotherapy the perceived self would be rated more positively, that is, more consistent with the “ideal self” or highly valued self.
The client shows a significant discrepancy between the “real self” and the “ideal self” on the first test (r = 0.2 1). During and after psychotherapy this discrepancy decreases, and the greater degree of agreement shown in the final follow-up study (r = 0.7 9) thus supports our hypothesis. This is typical of all the main results, which for the group as a whole show a significant increase in self-ideal congruence during psychotherapy.
Careful study of Fig. Figure 2 shows that by the end of the study, the client in her perception comes very close to the person she would like to be when she came to psychotherapy (rIB.SF2 = 0.70). It can be noted that compared to her initial ideal, her final ideal became slightly closer to her initial self-image (rSB.IF2 = 0.36).
Let me briefly consider another hypothesis, that changes in the perceived self will not be random, but will occur in a direction that expert judges would call "adjustment."
As one of the objectives of our study, Q-sort cards were presented to a group of clinical psychologists not associated with the study and they were asked to sort the cards as a well-adjusted person would sort them. This gave us a triage criterion against which to compare any given customer's perceptions. A simple score was developed to express the degree of similarity between the client's self-perception and this idea of an “adjusted” person. This was called the "fitness score", with a higher score indicating a higher degree of fitness.
In the case of a forty-year-old woman, we looked at fitness scores for six successive sortings in relation to self-perception, shown in Fig. 2, starting with self-perception before psychotherapy and ending with perception in the periods after psychotherapy. They were as follows: 35, 44, 41, 52, 54, 51. Based on the operational definition of fitness, a trend towards improved fitness is evident. This is also true for the group as a whole, with a noticeable increase in adjustment scores occurring during psychotherapy and very little regression in scores during the subsequent period. In control individuals, essentially no changes were observed. Thus, both for this woman and for the group as a whole, our hypothesis was confirmed.
When a qualitative analysis of the various sortings was carried out, a result emerged that further supported this hypothesis. When the initial self-image is compared with the idea after psychotherapy, it is found that after it it changes in various respects. The client feels that he has become more self-confident, can rely on himself more, understands himself better, feels calm, and his relationships with other people have improved. She feels less guilty, less resentful, less overtired and insecure, less secretive. These qualitative changes found in the woman we observed are similar to those found in other clients and are generally consistent with the theory of client-centered psychotherapy,
I would like to highlight some additional interesting results, which are shown in Fig. 2.
Obviously, the idea of the “ideal self” is much more stable than the idea of the “real self.” All correlations between them are above 0.70, and the idea of the person the client would like to be changes relatively little over the entire period. This is observed in almost all clients. Although we did not formulate hypotheses about this, we expected that some clients would achieve greater congruence between their “real selves” and their “ideal selves” primarily as a result of changes in their values, and others as a result of changes in their self-image. So far our data show that this is not true, that, with some exceptions, it turns out that it is the “real self” that changes the most.
The client described in this case does experience some changes in his “ideal self.” Their direction is interesting. If we calculate the previously described fitness score for this client's sequential ideal self, we find that the average score on the first three dimensions is 57, and the average score on the subsequent post-therapy dimensions is 51. In other words, the ideal self becomes less ideally suited or more achievable. To some extent, this is a more realistic goal. This client's data also reflects the group's trend in this regard.
Another result relates to “self-remembering” (see Figure 2). This sorting was obtained when the woman was asked, during a second, subsequent study, to again sort the cards in the same way as she had done at the beginning of psychotherapy. This “remembered self” was very different from the “self” given at the beginning of entering psychotherapy. The correlation with the “real self” given at this time was only 0.44. Further, it was a much less favorable self, much more different from the ideal self (r = 2.1). It had a low adjustment score of 26, compared with the original self's score of 35. This suggests that this sorting of remembered self-representations approximately reflects the objective change in the decrease in defensiveness that occurred over the 18-month period of our study. At the last meeting, the woman was able to give a much more truthful portrayal of the maladjusted, disturbed person she was at the beginning of psychotherapy. This mapping, as we will see, is supported by other evidence. Thus, the degree of change in the “I” over the entire period of one and a half years is perhaps better represented by a correlation of -0.13 between the “remembered self” and the final “self” than by a correlation of 0.30 between the initial and final “self.” "
Let me now turn to consider another hypothesis. The client-centered theory of psychotherapy states that in the psychologically safe atmosphere of the psychotherapeutic relationship, the client can allow himself to be aware of his experiences that he has usually repressed or denied. This previously rejected experience now becomes part of the self-image. For example, a client who has previously suppressed all feelings of hostility may begin to freely feel his hostility. Then his self-image is reorganized to include the understanding that he at times has hostile feelings towards other people. Accordingly, his ideas about himself (his “I-concept”) become more true, representing his entire experience as a whole.
We attempted to transform this part of our theory into an operational hypothesis, which was formulated as follows: during and after psychotherapy there will be an increasing correspondence between the self-concept of the client and the diagnostician. The assumption is that an experienced person making a psychological diagnosis of a client is more aware than the client himself of the totality of his experience - both conscious and unconscious. Hence, if the client assimilates into his conscious self-image many of the feelings and experiences that he previously suppressed, his self-image should approach the diagnostic psychologist's idea of him.
The method for investigating this hypothesis was to take the projective test (TAT13) that was used by the client at each measurement period and allow the diagnostician to analyze these four tests. To avoid any warnings, the diagnostician was not told how to use the tests. He was then asked to sort the Q-cards during each of these tests to gain insight into the client's diagnosis at that time. This process provided us with an unbiased diagnostic assessment expressed in terms of the same method that the client used to express his or her Self. Thus, the possibility of direct and objective comparison through correlations of various Q-sorts was obtained.
The research result for this particular client is shown in Fig. 3. The top part of the diagram is a condensation of the information from Fig. 2. The bottom row shows the sorting data made by the diagnostician; correlations give us the opportunity to test our hypothesis. It should be noted that at the beginning of psychotherapy there is no connection between the client’s self-image and the diagnostician’s idea of him (r = 0.00). Even at the end of psychotherapy, the situation remains the same (r = 0.05). But by the time of the first measurement after psychotherapy (not shown in the figure) and the second, subsequent measurement, the client’s self-image became significantly closer to the diagnostician’s view of him (first measurement after psychotherapy r = 0.56, second r = 0.55). Thus, the hypothesis is clearly confirmed: the correspondence between the client’s self-image and the way he is perceived by the diagnostician has increased significantly.
Fig.3
The relationship between the “real self”, the “ideal self” and the diagnostic psychologist’s image of the client.
The numbers indicate correlation coefficients;
commas separating whole numbers from tenths and hundredths are omitted.
There are other results from this aspect of the study that are of interest. I would like to note that during the beginning of psychotherapy, the diagnostician’s perception of the client is very different from the client’s “ideal self” (r = -0.42). By the end of the study, the diagnostician sees that the client is very close to his ideal at this time (r = 0.46) and is even more similar to the “ideal self” that he had when entering psychotherapy (r = 0.61) . Thus, we can say that objective evidence shows that the client, in his perception of himself and in his general idea of his personality, basically becomes the person he wanted to become at the beginning of psychotherapy.
Another noteworthy problem is that changes in the client’s “I” as perceived by the diagnostician are significantly greater than changes in the client’s “I” in his own perception (r = -0.33 - compare with r = 0.30). This fact is interesting from the point of view of the generally accepted opinion of experts that clients overestimate the degree of changes that have occurred in them. It is suggested that perhaps an individual may change so much in 18 months that his personality at the end becomes more different than similar to his personality at the beginning.
One last note about Fig. 3 refers to the “remembered self.” Want about is positively correlated with the diagnostician's self-image (r = 0.30), thus confirming the previous statement that it is more true and less associated with defensive self-image reactions than the one that the client might have given at the beginning of psychotherapy.
Conclusion
In this article I have attempted to present at least the basic outlines of the extensive psychotherapy research currently underway at the University of Chicago. Several characteristic features were noted.
The first feature is the abandonment of a global criterion in the study of psychotherapy and the adoption of a specific, operationally defined criterion of change. It is based on a detailed hypothesis that grows out of the theory of the dynamics of psychotherapy. The use of many specific criteria has enabled us to make scientific progress in identifying the types of changes that do or do not accompany client-centered psychotherapy.
The second characteristic feature is a new approach to the hitherto unresolved problem of control in psychotherapy research. The design of the study included two types of control: 1) an equivalent control group, explaining the effects of time, repeated testing, and random variables; 2) own control group, in which each client participating in psychotherapy is compared with himself in the absence of psychotherapy. This group explains the influence of personality and motivation variables. The use of a dual control design made it possible to conclude that changes during psychotherapy that are not explained by controlled variables occur due to the influence of psychotherapy itself.
The third characteristic feature of this work was that, through rigorous scientific research, the development of subtle elements of the client's subjective world was shown. The following evidence of development was presented: change in the client's self-concept; the degree to which the “real self” becomes similar to the “ideal self”; the degree to which the self-image becomes more comforting and accommodating; indicators of correspondence between the client’s perception of himself and the client’s perception by the diagnostic psychologist. These results tend to confirm theoretical claims that have been made regarding the place of self-concept in the dynamic process of psychotherapy.
In conclusion, I want to present two conclusions to you. The first is that the research program I have described seems to demonstrate clearly that objective evidence consistent with the canons of rigorous scientific research can be obtained regarding changes in personality and behavior as a result of psychotherapy. They were obtained for one type of psychotherapy. This means that in the future, similar robust evidence may be obtained regarding whether personality changes occur as a result of other types of psychotherapy.
The second conclusion, in my opinion, is even more important. Advances in research methods in recent years mean that many of the subtleties of the psychotherapeutic process are now widely open to scientific research. I have tried to show this through a study of changes in self-concept. But similar methods make it possible to objectively study the changing relationship between the client and the therapist, study the relationships of “transference” and “countertransference”, changes in the locus of the client’s value system, etc. I think it can be said that almost any theoretical construct that is supposed to be associated with personality change or with the process of psychotherapy is now available for scientific research. This opens up new horizons in scientific research. The search for this new path should shed bright light on the dynamics of personality, especially on the process of personality change in interpersonal relationships.
You can change your personality, but it's not that easy
Correcting and replacing your behavioral patterns with others requires a lot of resources, including motivation and time.
You also have to remember that these patterns are formed by repeating the same behavior in similar situations. For example, some people have behavioral patterns that involve running away from situations.
These people either try to prevent a situation from happening in the first place, or run away if they failed to predict it. They find it difficult to stop, even if they know it will hurt them.
In the short term, they avoid pain and suffering by running away from their problems. But this behavior can lead to more serious problems in the future, and they may even feel unable to lead a normal life.
— How to achieve the desired image?
______
For the desired self-image to become achievable, the following conditions must come into force:
1) Understanding the reasons for what prevents you from turning your plans into reality.
2) Changes don't have to be huge. If you want to change radically, then it is unlikely that you will be able to immediately change the situation and change your usual way of reacting and thinking. Be less ambitious. Outline a few simple steps that can lead you to your cherished goal.
3) Methods aimed at changing you should be easy and simple. The most important thing is to believe in your success and you will certainly succeed.
Representatives of the scientific world also do not consider personality as a static entity. They believe that it can change either under the influence of external circumstances, situations, or purposefully, at the will of the owner himself.
Read the article about personality magnetism.
_______
You can change your personality by throwing out old psychological mechanisms
Changing your personality usually involves uprooting certain mechanisms and replacing them with healthier patterns over time.
You will have to face your problems head-on. This will make you feel like you are truly capable of overcoming difficult situations. It also boosts your confidence. This process helps you learn to face challenges and realize that they have the power to guide your personal growth.
It's also worth remembering that it's easier to change your personality by focusing on specific goals. So this can be a huge help to figure out exactly what you want to change or what will change (specific details).
Also read these articles about personality:
- 7 Personality Traits That Will Make You Invulnerable
- 8 Physical Qualities That Reveal Your Personality
- 5 Truths You Must Learn to Start Your Personal Growth
