From 2012 to 2014 this blog’s project was a large number of pieces on ideology, and quite a few have been about character: how it is created by experience, and how specific types of character (like sociopathy) are selected for amongst our leadership classes. I want to reprint some of these, because they’re fundamental and at least half my readership has never read them.
We’ll star with “Matters of Character”.
Let’s parse this out:
1) Character (personality), determines how people act.
2) While part of character is clearly genetic, much of it forms out of our experiences. Different experiences create different types of character. As a simple thought exercise, you would be a very different person if you had been born five hundred years ago in, say, Central Africa, than you are today.
3) As children, our primary experience is of school. We are a very schooled society, with the upper classes starting school at age 5 or so, and continuing into their mid twenties. Twenty years of schooling is not uncommon. Fifteen to sixteen is completely normal.
4) This schooling takes place when we are forming much of our character, when we are most susceptible to having our character changed.
5) In addition to this, we are influenced by media of various kinds (including books), our parents, and our peer group.
6) Different time periods form different characters, as do different nations, because people born in those times and places have different experiences. The more synchronized events are, as Newberry has noted, the stronger this is. In a mass media society, with relatively fast technological and social change, it makes sense to speak of generations. The character of people born 20 or 30 years apart in modern societies will be different, and within cohorts similar experiences will tend to create somewhat similar patterns of character.
7) Society is nothing except people and their creations and interactions over time. Walk around an old neighbourhood one day, and look at the buildings, the road, the trees and think about all the people who made everything you see, and all the people behind those people. Read the laws, and know that people made those, and enforce those.
8 ) Because society is just people, past and present, the nature of society is formed by our character.
9) If we want a different society, we must deal with matters of character.
10) Because we should be leery of engaging in eugenics, for reasons which should be obvious, changing society involves changing character through changing our lived experiences.
11) Everyone’s character matters, but some people’s character matters more than others. The more power someone has, whether that power comes from political position, charisma, force, or money, the more their character matters.
12) Leaders inform the character of people. People tend to act up, or down, to their leadership.
13) Money is permission. The more money you have, the more you get to decide what other people do. This can be directly through hiring them, or indirectly by buying the products of other people’s time. As the market society has spread to more and more of our lives, what we do is what gets paid for.
14) Who we give money to, and be clear that what banks, government and financial institutions do is decide who gets money, and what they get to spend it on, determines much of the lived experience of adults, and indeed of children outside school, and with the rise of for-profit schooling, inside school.
15) Money positions are of three main types. Elected (taxes); officers (CEOs and so on who control a lot of money that isn’t theirs); actually rich (the money is their own).
16) In all three cases who gets that money is a social choice. Billionaires are a social choice, created by government policy including tax policy, and the entire structure of how profits are booked. Multi-millionaire CEOs are a social choice, created by tax and other laws as well as social norms. And politicians are a social choice, especially in a democracy, but even in autocracies, though in such societies few people’s active and passive consent is needed.
17) If we select for positions of power, whether monetary, political, or charismatic, people whose character is such that they do not insist on good outcomes for the majority of people, then those outcomes will occur only by chance, if the happenstance of technology and environment aligns in what amounts to random fashion. Having not been planned, having not been understood, any such prosperity and freedom will not last.
18) If society is just us, and is a matter of our character combined with environment and technology, then we must consciously choose what we want our character to be. If we look at how we raise children and see that it is not creating the sort of people required for a happy, free, healthy, and prosperous society, then we need to change how we rear children. This is a social decision, not an individual one: we can choose a different type of learning (not necessarily schooling), we can choose a different type of media, we can choose to encourage different types of parenting (parenting styles have changed massively over the last 100 years, more than once).
19) We can also change how we select our leaders, both political and economic, to whom we give money, and for what purpose. We already do: Who makes money is a social choice, embedded in our tax code, laws (like “IP”), and monetary system. We can make other choices and create a system where people make money because they do good, not because they do evil (see “bankers”).
20) We can change our adult experience of the world, and when we change how goods and services are distributed (note that I did not use the word “money”), we will change our experience of the world, and in so doing we will change our character.
21) We can do so even if our current character is flawed. The politicians who ended Jim Crow were themselves mostly racists. They were racists who knew that racism was wrong. It is possible to look at one’s own character and know that it is simply a product of experience: to say “I am racist and sexist but I still know that is wrong.” It is possible to be involved in corruption (Kennedy Sr., the first SEC chairman) and decide to help clean it up, to end it. It is possible to have all the accoutrements of privilege (FDR) and turn around and change society mostly for the better.
We are all products of our time and place. We are all products of our parents and our experiences; millions of small events which shaped our character, for good, for ill, for kicks.
All of us (except maybe a few enlightened sages).
The full realization of how shaped we are is one of the watersheds of any voyage worth having. If you cannot look at yourself, and see how shaped you were, then you are trapped by those experiences, an even more limited and finite being than you need to be.
Once, however, you see the shaping, feel it, know it, and acknowledge it, then you are not free, but you have the potential to be more free, to change what you are and who you are, both individually, and as a group.
Character matters. It is destiny. Change your character, change your destiny. Change the character of nations; change their destiny.
Change the character of humanity; change our destiny.
What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.
bruce wilder
Back in the day, I expect I dismissed this post, if i read it. More fool, me, I guess.
Today, it highlights the dystopian nature of 2026.
Schooling was authoritarian. Smartphones and ChatGPT have made it a ruin and students illiterate. The ambitious could aspire to become productive; now they aspire to be influencers making content.
Jan Wiklund
Since character is created by society, more or less, changing society by changing people’s character will achieve nothing.
Society changes through mobilizations of interests, and the subsequent compromises between the mobilized interests. Get the majority in movement to promote their interests, and the characters of elected people will change.
I agree it’s difficult. Western people, and anglos more than others, are stuck in the individualist myth, that everybody can be richer than everybody else. But I suppose that myth is waning by now.
It’s time to organize.
mago
Growing up, whenever faced with adversity and hardship the common refrain was, it builds character. It became a running joke to refer to a challenging situation as a character builder.
Judging from our leadership class, they’ve lived some pretty pampered lives.
KT Chong
I remember that, some 10–20 years ago, women loved to say: “I want a man with a good personality.” (I haven’t heard that line in a long while… do women still say that?)
Which, by the way, was a lie anyway. That was NOT what women really wanted.
And it was not even a good lie. Women said “good personality” because they wanted to avoid sounding materialistic or superficial. The problem is: the correct lie would have been to say they wanted someone with good CHARACTER, not a “good personality.”
Personality and character are not the same thing. Personality is charisma, confidence, excitement, extraversion, humor, and social smoothness. Character is honesty, integrity, loyalty, responsibility, and self-control.
It just shows how shallow women — or just people in general — are; or maybe just Americans. They certainly voted for Donald Trump to be President twice not for his character, but for his personality, (i.e., charisma, confidence, excitement, extraversion, humor, and social smoothness.)
Mark Level
All good comments to a well-organized, clear post.
The famous cliche about character is that it’s seen in how you act “when no one is looking.” My parents really forced me to develop character, but much of it was in contradiction to their values, specifically enforced conformity, high levels of materialism, and on my dad’s part, white superiority. Mom being Spanish and French, she wanted to be white, was obviously teased as a “spic, wop” as a child in the 1940s, ridiculous that she internalized it, but when you’re socially abused when young, it’s hard to drop a defensive response over time.
In any case, my character was naturally pretty good, in terms of not lying. My sis and I were very close in age, 18 months. When we got caught age 6-9 doing dishonest things, stealing cookies or watching what we weren’t supposed to, my sis would always lie, I never did, I just said “Yeah, I did it, punish me if you have to.”
My sister got caught her freshman year of college stealing a nice dress from some fashiony store, was prosecuted. I think my parents helped her with money, but made her pay it back, and being privileged by the time she was 21 or so, she got the conviction removed from her record. Made to walk the straight and narrow for 2-3 years, probably internalized doing so, no criminal acts later.
Moving away from anecdotal, great laugh today that Trump is saying the UFC Ring he’s installing on the White House Lawn may be “permanent”, he’s just trashing the White House’s former gravitas, dignity. Knocked down the entire East Wing, trashed all that sacred “history.” Maybe somebody should do an AI video based on that Disney bimbo’s “Wrecking Ball.” Trump may be a looting billionaire, but he’s still Mafiosi white trash. Making the White House a trashy, sub-Las Vegas, golden toileted joke. Shitting all over that “City on a Hill” bullshit. (Alright, I’m glad that he’s doing so, it’s overdue.)
Lauren Oyler covered the 2024 Rethug convention in Milwaukee. Trump called it a shit place (too many blacks!!), but they needed that Wisconsin vote bad, and got it. The cheeseheads. Less self-hating than they used to be, when they had Governor Scotty Walker, “I take Koch money to destroy unions and lower your wages, filthy badgers, suck it up!!” And they did, but no longer so much. Elon trying to buy the Supreme Court down there with direct payments for voting R. in 2022 was too insulting, and backfired. The Lib, pro-choice woman won in a landslide.
Back to Oyler though, she had pics of the grotesque folks at the (R) convention, and she noted that the people there were far more unattractive and badly dressed than the Dimmies, despite also being wealthy enough to attend. The Dimmies are more upscale, of course, you had obese Illinois Governor Pritzker roaring from the Stage, “I’m a Reallllll Billionaire!!” (Nepo-baby, born on 3rd base like Bush Jr., feels he hit a home run with his billionaire sister.)
The preceding point about billionaires and money directly relates to points of Ian’s post. Hillary’s sneering about “the Deplorables”, a basket of ’em (like Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women”) is both true and untrue at the same time. Dimmies may’ve dressed and looked better than the CHUD crowd, but are even uglier when they put fingers in their ears or laughed in the faces of protesters against Genocide Joe’s genocide. R’s can be mega-rich like Trump and still lack both character and culture; Dimmie Elites (and even the voters) do somewhat better on a surface level. But sometimes there’s nothing beneath the surface, no actual character. Killing children? But “Israel has a Right to Defend Itself”, brown children’s lives a small (human) sacrifice.
To Bruce, my schooling was sometimes authoritarian, but more often Liberating to me. I loved school, a refuge from my dad’s contempt that I never wanted to be a 1950s Man in the Gray Flannel Suit in the 1970s, post-Vietnam, the idea of listening to Frank Sinatra (his favorite, esp. My Way) held no attraction. I belonged to the Blank Generation, and could Take it or Leave it each time. Ideologically I linked up with those “snooty Jews from the ACLU”, dad hated, admired Emma Goldman and Abby Hoffman by my late teens.
But yeah, “influencers”!! That’ll age like Cabbage Patch Kids or other defunct ephemera of decades past.
To Jan W., well said. It is past due. Will happen elsewhere, not so sure it will happen soon in US, people too propagandized and divided against one another. And admire billionaires too much!!
mago, exactly. Don’t blame the system, be a good peasant and blame weaknesses in your own character, submit!! This is what corporat HR “trainings” plant into pliable and weak brains. Sometimes it doesn’t take, and it being USA there’s the old, well-recalled people “going postal,” shooting up their workplaces. Can’t get justice, ever, so just go for Payback, vengeance. Kill the pig(s) who destroyed your life, eat a bullet and end the misery of your enslaved life.
To KT Chong, good point. I don’t know how close we are in age, but I witnessed the same thing. Sexual relations are always fraught on both sides, of course, and people suffer from their own projections. Your final point that there is shallowness on both sides is spot-on.
different clue
Way off topic but . . . I am reading that a powerful solar storm-flare could make Northern Lights visible in ” up to 23 Northern States”. And it therefor stands to reason that they would be visible in Canada too. The night of the 4th and maybe 5th. So if anyone reads this in time and can get under a clear night time sky, it might be possible to see them.
“How to Watch the Northern Lights from 23 States Tonight
NOAA forecasters are tracking the potential for a “strong to severe” geomagnetic storm from Thursday, June 4, into Friday, June 5”
https://people.com/how-to-watch-the-northern-lights-from-23-states-tonight-june-4-2026-11990993
As Jack Horkheimer the Star Gazer once said . . . ” keep looking up!” ( Though for some reason I remember him having been called The Star Hustler, but my memory could be wrong). anyway . . .
Make The Stars Your Own – Jack Horkheimer: Star Gazer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AnG2tQVaQ
ventzu
Just a couple of reflections . . .
The objective of advaita – and I think tao te ching – is to attenuate the ego. And character / personality are the outer sheaths of ego.
Character as Ian has described (and I agree) is not in your control – it is an outcome of genetics and environment, Logically therefore, even the urge to change your character to change your destiny, is part of that prior programming.
So perhaps all we can actually do, is to realise that we are no thing.
Like & Subscribe
I remember that, some 10–20 years ago, women loved to say: “I want a man with a good personality.” (I haven’t heard that line in a long while… do women still say that?)
Wow, the sexism pours off this comment. It’s no surprise ML liked your commentary about “women” where you treat “women” as a homogenous monolithic group all acting in braindead unison like Stepford Wives.
Maybe SOME “women” may have said that at one time, maybe, but certainly not all or even a majority but you didn’t end there, no sir. You then proceeded to provide us as factual, your opinion of what “women” meant when they, collectively and in unison, allegedly used to say what you say they used to say.
Hey, I have an idea, let’s ask some of the “women” here at this space what they think. Oh, wait, that’s right, there are no “women” to be found at this space and no, I’m not buying that a couple of the commentators who have screen names that present as “women” are actually indeed “women” and in the off chance one may be, she certainly cannot and does not speak for all “women” for all times.
I chuckled when you asked if “women” still say that. I mean, since you seem to know all things about all “women”, as a self-declared aficionado, their motives and intent and predictable and imitated and repeated behaviors, surely you wouldn’t need to ask this question, unless, of course, you are residing in a cabin in remote Montana with a beard down to your ankles and you haven’t bathed in years and have had no human contact aside from bartering pelts for basic necessities at a distant trading post where few if any “women” folk can be found.