It irks me that you would rebut this guy with this argument simply because I know that the empiricism strongly leans toward personalities remaining very stable throughout the lifespan, and that changes move together as a population than within-individual. Academics might not have yet built consensus on a general personality theory (Big 5 is more a descriptive research framework than a theory), but there is consensus on personality empiricism.

Surely there is another angle of counter. I don't believe in winning argumentation by any means, especially by scientific disinformation without empirical cause.

I think the guy just grew up. People say dumb stuff when they're young. Not much need for empirical backing when the heuristic (in this case: people mature as they grow older) explains it well enough.

Your narrowly crafted argument is the proper response, but this guy made an empirically testable statement relevant to the sciences. You might not have clicked his profile, but he's also a PhD student of the sciences, meaning he has institutional access.

You won't find adequate empirical backing on personality change over the lifespan, because the ecology of the evidence suggests that personality is stable. Disciplined speech is difficult and worthy.

Fair enough. I was just suggesting a possibility.

Show me someone whose personality has changed without significant personal struggle and I'll show you a lobotomy.

And who are you to say whether Zuck has had that struggle? Furthermore, who are you to assume that one chat log from college is representative of Zuck's personality as a whole, and a fair datum to use against his character forever?

People do mature, and people do change.

Isn't the onus of proof on you in this instance? That's what Paul Graham just came and told me. (Who are you to say he didn't?)

I'm not making any assertion about Zuck, so no. Your comment implies that he didn't have the struggle that you referenced. I was indicating only that this implication is unfair, not that Zuck had necessarily had it.

That's true, you're right.

This is a fair point, but why do we as hackers and entrepreneurs place so much importance on what's in a company's "DNA" then? Because right here, you have a pretty damn stark view of the founder's mindset at the genesis of his startup before and as it was taking off. It isn't like he was chastened by external forces along the way or since - ostensibly everything that's happened since has only been positive reinforcement (A billion+ users, 45 billion dollars).

I'm not saying he still feels this way or didn't or couldn't change his thinking and attitude. Common decency would behoove him to and it's reasonable to grant that. I'm happy for him and his new family, but away from all that and his foundation (which sounds very positive), It's hard not to view a lot of what Facebook does with its users through the kind of cavalier attitude embodied in that old chat log. In fact, it helps makes a lot more sense of some of their moves if you do.

Counter evidence with counterevidence; it could be a good assumption. Even if someone's personality is not static, it doesn't mean that the variation is large enough to be significant, either.