Character Hypocrisy - How can individuals have both consistent character traits and inconsistent actions? Is it not a contradiction to have a trait but not always act according to it?

I don't know if there's a specific name for this yet, but I couldn't seem to find any relevant information about this phenomenon in Philosophy Stack Exchange or various internet searches. I am going to call it "character hypocrisy." I'm mostly looking for how we can describe this phenomenon, and what philosophies may already discuss it.<br><br>The examples below are fictional illustrations of character hypocrisy:<br><br>Case A: David is a generous person, but does not donate to every single gofundme page linked on Facebook.<br><br>Case B: William is a selfish person, but always lets a pregnant woman take his seat on a crowded train.<br><br>Case C: Kelly is compassionate and a pacifist, but is fiercely defensive when her loved ones are targeted.<br><br>Case D: Daniel is impulsive and reckless, but is careful and meticulous when handling vital information needed that can ensure the success or failure of his life goals.<br><br>Case E: Sylvia is a perfectionist, but is terrible at her job.<br><br>From Case A, we can conclude that having a character can be independent of always acting according to the character. By saying that David is generous, we are merely saying that he has a higher probability of donating to gofundme pages over a person that is not generous. David can still remain a generous person but have situations where he does not act generously. One can say that generosity is the trait and that the action is to donate to gofundme. I'd like to debate whether that is actually true, because we determine if someone has a character based on the history of their actions.<br><br>We seem to have an inconsistent framework for how we evaluate the people's characters and their action's consistency with their character. For Case B, we would seem to evaluate William as selfish because of his past actions. However, if he gives up his seat to a pregnant woman, we would all praise his action as selfless, while condemning his past actions as selfish. Case C seems to reverse the situation: Kelly is compassionate and a pacifist, but her ferocity is justified. David (Case A) is still a generous person because of the history of how much he has donated to charity, even if he doesn't donate every single time.<br><br>The real issue arises in Cases D and E, because we seem to have a contradiction between David's traits and his actions. Daniel is impulsive, but can be careful and meticulous. Sylvia is a perfectionist, but she is terrible at her job. Does it not make sense that Daniel is impulsive all the time, and that Sylvia is imperfect? I know that a person can have multiple traits, but at a certain point, wouldn't the contradictory trait of carefulness be more dominant than impulsivity?<br><br>Another issue is that this seems to contradict itself: If people can have a history of actions that determine their character, why do we not consider a person selfish if they exhibit a single selfish trait, despite having a history of selfless acts? Why is it that each action is independent of a person's character? Why do we consider a person selfish if they have a history of selfish acts, but then call them selfless if they exhibit a single selfless act despite their past history?<br><br>One discursive way to explain this is to say that traits merely describe someone's general disposition. But disposition towards what action? Generosity, that is, the trait, is merely an evaluation of someone's disposition to donate to charity. Does it not make sense that the action follows the disposition: if Sylvia is a perfectionist, then she is disposed to be perfect. My guess is that a person can have multiple dispositions, but this seems not to be fully fleshed out by philosophers.<br><br>tl;dr: Why are actions not always aligned with a character's traits, despite the history of those actions are what determines someone's character?