It may be taboo to talk about causation in this instance, since its really impossible to know, but I often question the implicit assumption that personality traits come first, followed by beliefs, followed by behavior, followed by life outcomes.

I envision a 'beliefs-theory' of behavior and I wonder if there is science or method already for linking specific beliefs and sets of beliefs to particular behaviours... based on the frequency of how often they are thought about, based on their disposition (positive/negative) and based on their content (content analysis); amongst other variables.

It seems to me there's little on this, with methods that overwhelmingly focus on grouping beliefs and behaviours by personality traits; as a result of personality traits.

Perhaps we have it all backward, and perhaps that seemingly insignificant belief that 'people are hopeless' is more significant than the corresponding and highly touted and diagnosed personality trait - neuroticism.

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of sets of beliefs, with each step on the ladder more dangerous than the next.

Perhaps psychological therapy is yet to be revolutionized by a new method of addressing highly specific and harmful beliefs. Or perhaps, its all been tried already?

Perhaps my head is getting smaller. Or perhaps my brain is swelling. Can't wait for epic shrink nerd off.

Aren't there like 573 bazillion self-help books on the power of positive thinking? I mean it's not exactly what you're saying,but the idea of changing thought patterns away from reflecting on particular destructive beliefs (and effectively neutering the strength of the belief eventually) is not at all new.

Positive beliefs are beneficial overall, yes. And there's nothing new in that.

What would be new, would be analysing the structure and commonalities between individual beliefs and sets of beliefs that individuals hold. For example, maybe there is a common theme running through an entire set of beliefs that one particular individual holds. Apart from whether they're positive or negative. This commonality could then be identified and a psychological therapy intervention devised to help with it.

The problem is, we don't know of these commonalities since we don't study beliefs individually or as belonging within a set of other beliefs. Instead, we study psychological traits (as more general heuristics for how we interact with the world) and assume that based on a set of given traits, people are inclined to adopt particular beliefs. We then look to address those personality traits, as an exorcist would address demons inside a depressed woman, rather than addressing the specific beliefs one-by-one.

Perhaps there is something rationally, or inherently incorrect about the belief that 'people are hopeless', for which some type of philosophical demonstration can demonstrate. Perhaps it is not the personality that's the problem.

Sure there is therapy that addresses beliefs too, but none whose entire focus is on beliefs. And as far as I know, there's very little science that considers psychology from this perspective.

Let's take something topical- Trump supporters (as of a month or two ago) had a strong tendency toward authoritarian beliefs. What are you saying or suggesting about those people?

Gandhi put belief first also. Change it, an you may be changed!

Simply, I don't know.

I'm not aware of any methodology that has considered the relation between authoritarian, or any other type of beliefs, and life outcomes or behavioural outcomes.

There's likely to be a relation between authoritarian beliefs and neuroticism - as a psychological trait. Looking at this relation, modern psychological methods would typically place neuroticism as the driver for adopting authoritarian beliefs. What if this works the other way around instead?

Why isn't it more seriously considered that it is not the psychology or personality of people that requires therapy, but rather, the intricately complex and often contradictory web of beliefs? and their structures?

We at least have enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that a change in beliefs can cause a change in habits and ultimately personality. This line of inquiry seems so obvious, yet it baffles me that there's so little research on individual beliefs and their associations.

So many possible beliefs an individual can have.

Psychology itself has a range of beliefs from which the various schools within the field rest upon. Which leads to belief being a cause which directs action ( effect) towards confirming or falsifying the belief. However it's not quite so neat and tidy as each confirmation or falsification can become a cause for further action.

See the works of Jonathan Haidt. I'm a bit too drunk to get into it all, but a factor analysis can show that certain types of beliefs/attitudes go together.

Kind of like how peanut butter and jelly go together, and chicken and mayonnaise go together and mayonnaise and ice cream don't go together.

A belief is just a thought that you have a lot.

Again, see Haidt's work.

I really like this guy.

I've seen him in a few documentaries as well. Fascinating work on moral beliefs and intuitions. Wish he could mentor me in his line of research.

Also, I understand that beliefs and attitudes/dispositions go together, but I am curious as to the direction of their causal connection.

Beliefs are more heteregenous, and thus more difficult to link directly to behavioural or life outcomes. But I think that with the right theory (separate to theories on personality), this could be done. I don't feel too easy about psychologists categorizing people based on their personality. Some of my closest and oldest friends have depressive personalities. Society somehow deems it acceptable to quickly put this in a box of 'illness' before its even considered how or whether it affects the people around them. Variation in personality is necessary, and it is perhaps not the personality we should be looking into, but rather the specific beliefs that drive their dispositions.

In any case, I could be completely off the beaten track here, and many may have considered this line of inquiry before me.

Feelings lead to beliefs which lead to thoughts which lead to behaviors that maintain the feelings. That is all a personality is.

So, for someone who has a depressive personality, they do things that end up making them depressed. The feelings do have to start things off, but after that it is self-reinforcing in personalities that are unhelpful.

The non-depressive personalities are not reinforcing of the feelings by doing/thinking things that make you depressed. "Life sucks, so there is no point in getting out of bed" vs "I'll feel better if I just get some fresh air even though I really don't want to." So, if they get depressed, they eventually pull out of it.

Gotta love this reductionist view. Carlo?

It is interactionism, not reductionism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactionism

Only that mind and body are the same.

It isn't dualism. It is the interaction between the various things the body is doing (thinking, in this case) and the state of the body.

There is the thing and there is what the thing is doing. Those interact.

Clearly better.

You're the king, Brian

Even in this proposed causal model (open to dispute of course), my suggestion can be that: when it comes to intervention efforts, the 'beliefs' category of the causal chain, is the one that is most amenable to change.

For example, I see people change their beliefs about health and healthy habits on a fortnightly basis almost. This change often leads to behavioural changes, which further lead to improved life outcomes (generally).

Yeah, isn't the essence of our being human that we* allow reason to influence our behavior, and that effects outcomes, also producing nice feelings?

* the royal we, not including me.

Well, in REBT and CBT, part of the idea is to change your beliefs. So, there you go.

Most people don't have excessively self-reinforcing beliefs.

Strength- based approaches to psychology might ask what makes a person feel strong ( or where does a person find strength)? A belief or set of beliefs is in the range of answers.

I was reading an article just the other day in this magazine commentary magazine and Jonathan Haidt's name came up and one of his studies was referenced. Good stuff.

I might only like his research because it confirms my intuition that emotions are the very seat on which morality sits.

Snakes scare the bejesus out of me, therefore spaghetti deserves to be eaten.

What is emotions and morality?

I've considered this too, since it may perhaps be easier to get someone to adopt a new belief (such as a belief that makes them more mentally resilient) than it is to get them to drop a belief. Unfortunately, it is more often the case that the new belief is mutually exclusive to an existing belief, requiring both the adoption of a new belief and the removal of an existing one. This isn't so easy.