Do you believe your type changes during your life?

[xyz]

You're making too much sense.

[Minde]

The truth is, type is in the mindset. If the mindset changes then, by definition, so does the type.

Interesting... Do you really think that?

[Creepy-male]

I know that many different people have different views on whether one's type can change; I'm skeptical about gradual type changes, myself. But what about in reponse to a traumatic event?

For example, say something happens to an outgoing and open Extravert that leaves him grief-stricken and largely unable to trust people. He withdraws and spends significant amounts of time alone, much of this fostering an 'inner world' that is typical of Introverts. His image of people and ideas about societal expectations change as a result of this event as well, and he finds that he now has a lower threshold for external simulation and much more Introverted thought procceses- this way of thinking and behaving is now natural to him, and does not consider this a loss.

Is this plausible? Can gradual type changes happen, drastic ones like these in which thought processes are changed, or both or neither? I'd be very interested in hearing some opinions on this.

I believe your explanation answers your question for you, this is something I have observed before... people withdrawing more when something bad happens in their life. Anyways maybe I'm biased to the "changing type" idea because I support it and maybe others are biased against it because they don't. Either way what you explain I've seen before, call it a type change, call it not a type change, its a reality that this happens to people.

[bibliophile8]

The truth is, type is in the mindset. If the mindset changes then, by definition, so does the type.

So do you think that if I believe that I am INFj, then I will act as an INFj, even if I was an ESTp before this?

[Jonathan]

I know that many different people have different views on whether one's type can change; I'm skeptical about gradual type changes, myself. But what about in reponse to a traumatic event?

For example, say something happens to an outgoing and open Extravert that leaves him grief-stricken and largely unable to trust people. He withdraws and spends significant amounts of time alone, much of this fostering an 'inner world' that is typical of Introverts. His image of people and ideas about societal expectations change as a result of this event as well, and he finds that he now has a lower threshold for external simulation and much more Introverted thought procceses- this way of thinking and behaving is now natural to him, and does not consider this a loss.

Is this plausible? Can gradual type changes happen, drastic ones like these in which thought processes are changed, or both or neither? I'd be very interested in hearing some opinions on this.

Personally, I don't think isolation will make a Socionics extravert into an introvert. It's the structure of the person's thoughts that determines type, not whether the person is with people or not. There have been lots of cases where people have been forced to live lives of isolation. It might build their reflective side, even their introverted functions, perhaps (depending on the person); but the way people of different types approach the situation will be different.

One case where I do see a phenomenon of apparent type change caused by a traumatic event is when a logical type encounters failure and depression. The emotions that come from feelings of rejection, etc., may overpower the ability to use Ti and Te, and, depending on the social environment and the intentions of the person, he/she may use such time to focus more on interpersonal relationships and developing his/her "emotional side" and basically adopt ethical type behaviors.

[tcaudilllg]

Personally, I don't think isolation will make a Socionics extravert into an introvert. It's the structure of the person's thoughts that determines type, not whether the person is with people or not. There have been lots of cases where people have been forced to live lives of isolation. It might build their reflective side, even their introverted functions, perhaps (depending on the person); but the way people of different types approach the situation will be different.

One case where I do see a phenomenon of apparent type change caused by a traumatic event is when a logical type encounters failure and depression. The emotions that come from feelings of rejection, etc., may overpower the ability to use Ti and Te, and, depending on the social environment and the intentions of the person, he/she may use such time to focus more on interpersonal relationships and developing his/her "emotional side" and basically adopt ethical type behaviors.

You mean as in, a nervous breakdown? I experienced one of those once, over an INFp. Really dreadful experience, that. I remember being extremely clingy and desperate for emotional comfort; which if I think about it, amounts to a full-court press for dualization.

[FDG]

Personally, I don't think isolation will make a Socionics extravert into an introvert. It's the structure of the person's thoughts that determines type, not whether the person is with people or not. There have been lots of cases where people have been forced to live lives of isolation. It might build their reflective side, even their introverted functions, perhaps (depending on the person); but the way people of different types approach the situation will be different.

One case where I do see a phenomenon of apparent type change caused by a traumatic event is when a logical type encounters failure and depression. The emotions that come from feelings of rejection, etc., may overpower the ability to use Ti and Te, and, depending on the social environment and the intentions of the person, he/she may use such time to focus more on interpersonal relationships and developing his/her "emotional side" and basically adopt ethical type behaviors.

There is a reason why the left type in the ring of a thinking type is always an ethical type, eh.

[Ezra]

What kind of trauma... do you mean break up with girlfriend trauma or death of a parent trauma. Rape? Schizophrenia? Incest? Drug Abuse? Murder? Getting shot in the head and surviving? 500 kilo bombs dropping on their head?

The first is not trauma. One has to be a weakling to see that as trauma. The rest I'd agree with, save 500k bombs dropping on one's head, because you'd be dead, and hence could not experience trauma. However, in some cases, said occurrences may not be traumatic.

Incest: sometimes, consenting adults (e.g. brother and sister) are not traumatised by it, and actually enjoy it as much as any non-related couple would. This is inspired by a philosophical question I looked at a year ago, whereby the man couldn't cum, and the women had a problem with having kids, so there was no risk involved of creating a retard. They both consented freely, and both enjoyed it. Is it wrong? was the question.

Getting shot in the head and surviving: two words: 50 Cent.

I have a lot of them covered little boy, but what is this you mean by trauma.

Only as little as your dick.

[Charismatik]

Here's an interesting thought that all this discussion has sparked; if a person undergoes a trauma and then starts to behave differently, they may adopt a thinking style coherent with those new behaviors and the way they approach life CAN change, therefore changing their type.

I think what determines if type changes or if they're just acting against their dominant function, is how they go about adapting. What if a person has been behaving like an Extravert their entire life, isolates themselves, adopts Introverted behavior and upon reflection of this, starts adopting an Introverted approach to life and, after overcoming the shock of the trauma, prefers this approach and decides to stick with it?

But then again, would this constitute a type change or is it just an Introvert discovering his Introversion? :\

[Minde]

The first is not trauma. One has to be a weakling to see that as trauma.

Such a position indicates not strength but heartlessness or ignorance (or deception). Evidently you've not experienced a deep personal relationship.

[iAnnAu]

This topic has intrigued me ever since I was intro'd to MB (a few years ago), because I had a car wreck that nearly killed me when I was 19 that took a lot to recuperate from, and it made me wonder how much the experience changed me ... and then I came across socionics, which openly states that the temperaments represent how our brains are hard-wired.
If the hard-wired theory is true, it would probably take brain damage to change type. However, given that recent research shows that even into old age humans *are* still growing new neural pathways (just not quickly like when we're children), there seems to be room for "re-programming" yourself - although it would likely take years of concerted effort, or a traumatic event that changes the way a person lives his/her life from that point on.
In my case, the car wreck paralyzed my left leg from the hip down, collapsed my lungs, damaged my pancreas & left kidney, destroyed my spleen, and I lost over half the blood in my body with no transfusion given. Luckily, the use of my left leg slowly returned (nerve trauma v/s spinal damage), but it still took years before I could use it with confidence. I had to build myself back from being extremely weak, with certain things returning to near-normal relatively quickly (could barely breathe (lungs collapsed); passed out when I stood up because of so little blood in my veins - less than two months to build back) and others becoming more or less permanent alterations in my lifestyle (have to watch when I get sick (no spleen); have to take possible urinary tract infections very seriously (damaged kidney); have to eat a pretty damn restrictive diet (damaged pancreas)).
How does this relate to my type? Well, I type as SLI (ISTp). Which for the purposes of this discussion means I am highly aware of what goes on in my physical body. Over the past 13 years I have (in my own lazy, indulgent manner) experimentally refined how I take care of myself so that instead of aging more quickly & living with my internal organs functioning erratically, as the doctors in the hospital told me to expect, I am in far better shape than almost all of my friends, most of whom are 2-7 years younger than me! (Of course, this may also have to do with most of my friends not being as focused on their physical health ...)
But in almost every test that I take, socionics-based or MBTI, results come up as INTp. Then I read the descriptions & know that ISTp fits me far better. I went from being an extremely solitary and imaginative child who befriended mostly adults & was always serious around others (although I still spent most of my time outdoors doing daring things like climbing the very tree I fell out of the previous day) to being much more practical, in-the-moment and even goofy - and almost all my friends are younger than me (although maybe it's more significant to say they're in my age group rather than belonging to a totally separate generation).
So, did I change, or did I just grow into myself? I suppose the only definitive proof would be provided by having brain scans of before and after, but even then our interpretation of the results falls short of conclusive with the data we have so far ...
It also seems to me that most of the rest of the responses have focused on this question in a totally different way. I suppose my personal experience shapes the direction of my interest ...

[anndelise]

I believe that
• Outside perceptions of a person's type can change
• A person's behavior/focus can change
• A person can develop awareness and/or skills of different functions
• A person can compensate for and/or enhance one's natural tendencies

Does this mean that their information metabolizing pathways have changed?
Not necessarily.

Traits may change, but socionics isn't a trait theory (though it seems to be becoming one on this forum).

External perceptions of someone may change depending on the "perceiver", the external behavior, and the situation,
but these say nothing about the underlying approach nor the internal struggles nor of any negative consequences to the individual for making such changes.

Can one's natural approach change into developing a different natural approach?
Particularly in the face of trauma?
I don't know.
But I think it would be harder to develop a different natural approach than it would be to alter lifelong habits.
Sudden trauma could encourage faster changes, but I believe that any changes still get processed through the initial natural approach (aka type).


I have mentioned the above here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...d.php?p=222710 (and you can find other thoughts on type changes in this thread)




iAnnAu: I have given more detail about myself and some of the issues I've dealt with regarding my own trauma and "changes" here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...d.php?p=256723 (thank you for sharing yours)

[tcaudilllg]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/02/11...nes/index.html

This landmark study demonstrates that liberalism and conservatism are genetically coded typological dichotomies. Although liberalism and conservatism only affect the manifestation of type and do not correspond to functions, the larger implication (and it is there) is that stable psychological dichotomies -- to a person -- correspond to definite neural correlates. The nurture aspect is practically irrelevant.

Let all talk of "type changing" cease. You cannot change your type anymore than you can change your genes. Anyone who says different doesn't understand what they are talking about.

And another thing, too. Socionics is gonna be getting a lot more popular. All dichotomic personality typologies will be will be re-evaluated by the mainstream; Yung's image will be restored even among cognitive psychologists. Non-dichotomic typologies will become suspect. (and rightfully so)

As for the conservative types who didn't want this time to arrive, ...sorry, but it's just over the horizon, so you'd better buckle down and start thinking about it. :wink:

Oh, and stop calling us liberals crackpots, because god knows we were right.

Let me say it again: YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR TYPE. TYPE IS GENETICALLY CODED. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO BE INTJ, ENTP, ISFJ, ETC.. YOU HAVE ONE TYPE AND THAT IS IT. END OF STORY.

Now, the first order of business with this knowledge, is to recognize that you have very definite kinds of flaws owing to your specialized GENETICALLY CODED typological traits. So do other people. You cannot make people be what you want them to be if they are not GENETICALLY DISPOSED to the same. NOR SHOULD YOU TRY. INSTEAD, YOU SHOULD OBSERVE YOURS AND OTHERS' WEAKNESSES, AND ASK YOURSELF HOW YOU CAN HELP OTHERS WITH THEIR WEAKNESSES AND, HOW TO ASK FOR THEIR HELP IN SURMOUNTING YOURS. The better your awareness of yours and others' weaknesses, the better you're going to understand how people relate to sitautions and the better choices you can make with your own relations.

This is the substance of your life's challenges from here on out. (actually it probably always was, but now you have PROOF of it.)

[marooned]

I don't see how that proves anything.

I do think that the reasons *behind* whether one is liberal or conservative may very well have something to do with personality traits that arise in part out of one's genetic make-up.

[consentingadult]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/02/11...nes/index.html

This landmark study demonstrates that liberalism and conservatism are genetically coded typological dichotomies. Although liberalism and conservatism only affect the manifestation of type and do not correspond to functions, the larger implication (and it is there) is that stable psychological dichotomies -- to a person -- correspond to definite neural correlates. The nurture aspect is practically irrelevant.

I quote from the same article:

"Many scientists believe how our brains work is influenced by our genes -- that to some extent we're hard-wired from birth to process information in a certain way."

"This doesn't mean, these scientists say, genes dictate how we think; environment clearly plays a huge role."

"The study showed identical twins, who share all the same genes, are more likely to share political views than fraternal twins" (CA: 'more likely' raises the question 'how much more likely??' 55% in identical twins versus 50% in fraternal twins, or 20% in fraternal twin and 80% in identical twins?)

So explain: why is the nurture aspect practically irrelevant? I don't read that in this article.

Also: what is landmark about this study? I don't see anything mentioned about longitudinal research, and everything else points to research done at a specific moment, as if a snapshot was taken. Also, as far as the identical twin study is concerned, it does not say if the identical twins grew up together, or separated. Scientist are typically very interested in studies in separated identical twins, because that often rules out the nurture factor. But the article doesn't say that.

This article is not prove you can't change your type. To me it seems you seem to have extrapolated from your own belief system.

Besides all that, there's nothing new in the story, I've heard it all before.

[Joy]

Two problems:

1.) There's no way to prove this sort of thing (that is, stuff related to theories such as Socionics) in the first place.
2.) You assume that political orientation is type related.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The study only says that your genes are part of the determining factor of your political leanings - i.e. it does not say having particular genes guarantees a particular persuasion...so there is still the possibility that you can change your type in the same way you can change your party.

[tcaudilllg]

Would you change your type of sexual gender preference for a million quid?

I don't think that's a type. It's a gene, a recessive gene no doubt. But it's not a type because type traits are dominant: just as you have a "blue eyed" type gene and a "brown eyed" type gene, so are your chances of blue or brown eyes pretty well equal as a standard distribution. (not quite the same thing, but you get the picture.)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't think that's a type. It's a gene, a recessive gene no doubt.

It's only a joke really, and your saying sounds a bit semantic to me, but I'd still be interested to know why you think its down to a gene?

But it's not a type because type traits are dominant: just as you have a "blue eyed" type gene and a "brown eyed" type gene, so are your chances of blue or brown eyes pretty well equal as a standard distribution. (not quite the same thing, but you get the picture.)

Just to keep you right here, current research has identified sixteen genes that affect eye colour. I think some school biology curriculums still focus on the mendelian approach of B Brown and b blue, but thats out of date.

[tcaudilllg]

It's only a joke really. What your saying sounds a bit semantic to me, but I'd still be interested to know why you think its down to a gene?
[/QUOTE=tcaudilllg]
But it's not a type because type traits are dominant: just as you have a "blue eyed" type gene and a "brown eyed" type gene, so are your chances of blue or brown eyes pretty well equal as a standard distribution. (not quite the same thing, but you get the picture.)

Just to keep you right here, current research has identified sixteen genes that affect eye colour. I think some school biology curriculums still focus on the mendelian approach of B Brown and b blue, but thats out of date.[/QUOTE]

Sixteen eh? :wink: How coincidental do you think that is? Are they still using Punnett squares, or are they using some different model now to study their interrelations?

[consentingadult]

In science it's not the size of the number that gives it significance, but the imbalance of probability compounded over time.. generations and so forth.

What is your knowlegde of methods of social sciences?

[consentingadult]

But the article points that gene may be statistically significant in the way people are politically.

aren't you confusing "statistically" with "correlation" here?

[consentingadult]

I don't think that's a type. It's a gene, a recessive gene no doubt. But it's not a type because type traits are dominant: just as you have a "blue eyed" type gene and a "brown eyed" type gene, so are your chances of blue or brown eyes pretty well equal as a standard distribution. (not quite the same thing, but you get the picture.)

Why, and how do you know this?

[Joy]

And that's exactly what a conservative, like you, would say.

Politically I'm definitely a liberal.

I guess you're comfortable with me having an advantage over you, huh?

I don't know what you're talking about, but it doesn't matter. I'm sure there are areas in which you do have an advantage of sorts over me. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

[Joy]

fwiw, personally I don't think types change. Personalities do, types don't.

[aestrivex]

i would like to say that the study referenced at the beginning of this thread had people rate their political orientation on a scale of -5 to 5 and used these data solely to determine their political orientation. obviously a highly comprehensive method which allows for lots of variation and very closely accounts for the differing political viewpoints of different people.

also the study had an overwhelmingly large sample size of 43 people. and it is certainly not universally accepted; it sounds like absolute bullshit to me, and at the very least has incited the wrath of some political science people; probably more would attack it if they knew about it.


and it has nothing to do with type; the issue of whether types can change or not is an entirely extraneous issue related not at all to this discussion.

[aestrivex]

Are you just misrepresenting things for fun? The twins study had over 10,000 twins.



And they were correlating the data to physiological difference that were being recorded. The self-reporting is doubtable but that's why in science experiments have to be repeatable and in social sciences it is diffucult to confirm, as voting records are private and sealed. If they wanted to do a long term study, perhaps you could have them unseal their voting record and have someone by their side as they vote/make political choices, but I think that would break few ethical rules. If they repeat this experiment with a larger sample of candidates over a period of time then it will have more weight. A single experiment is usually just the starting point of additional research. A random sampling of 43 candidates is valid in science as long as the candidate list is acquire in a scientific manner.

There were also at least 3-4 studies cited in that article. Detailed peer-reviewed scientific article that CNN report was not, it didn't say very much that is not already know and being researched already.

It's a classic dispute of nature versus nurture, and it was Alford's study on nearly 10,000 twins that started the debate three years ago. The study showed identical twins, who share all the same genes, are more likely to share political views than fraternal twins, who share only about 50 percent of their genes.
After Alford's study, scientists set out to see whether brains of liberals and conservatives look any different.

it's true that i didn't look at the article very carefully, but from the exactly two studies mentioned in the article other than the twins one, it hardly sounds like anything very comprehensive or remotely conclusive is being determined at all.

[consentingadult]

I wasn't talking about social sciences, just probability.

Well, I can and did understand that, but what purpose did it serve in the context of this thread then?

If you want to learn about social research methods, I advise you read everything on this site by Cornell. I am versed in a good portion of it but have not been able to apply some of the methods to my day to day life and experimentations. Cheerios.

Thank you, but I already have quite a sufficient understanding of research methods in social sciences

[consentingadult]

FACT: A correlation may or may not be statistically significant.

So, let's take an example: according to critical research into the MBTI, the I/E scale has a correlation of .74 to the FFM Extroversion scale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that this number may or may not be statistically relevant? If it's not statistically relevant, then we must doubt the validity of the correlation. To me this sound like: "Elephants may or may not be statistically relevant".

Please elaborate and enlighten me...

[hellothere]

So, let's take an example: according to critical research into the MBTI, the I/E scale has a correlation of .74 to the FFM Extroversion scale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that this number may or may not be statistically relevant? If it's not statistically relevant, then we must doubt the correlation. To me this sound like: "Elephants may or may not be statistically relevant".

Please elaborate en enlighten me...

I suggest you read up on hypothesis testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

and the meaning of "statistical significance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

What hkkmr is saying makes perfect sense

As for my view on the original topic, I agree completely with what you (consentingadult) said in your first post in this thread

[consentingadult]

Some people like big and small numbers, I like big and small numbers that mean something.

So do I, it's only significance that matters. And I think we can safely conclude from the data in the article (not necessarily the research itself), that we cannot conclude any significance, because too many critical questions can be asked.

[consentingadult]

I suggest you read up on hypothesis testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

and the meaning of "statistical significance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

What hkkmr is saying makes perfect sense

As for my view on the original topic, I agree completely with what you (consentingadult) said in your first post in this thread

Please come out of your theoretical ivory towers and start thinking practically for a second here: have you ever seen a research paper that concluded: "we found a correlation x, however, it's not statistical significant" ?? Such a thing should not pass a peer review, would it?

[hellothere]

Please come out of your theoretical ivory towers and start thinking practically for a second here: have you ever seen a research paper that concluded: "we found a correlation x, however, it's not statistical significant" ?? Such a thing should not pass a peer review, would it?

what do you understand by the term "statistical significance"? It has a very specific meaning and your post about elephants suggest you are not referring to this meaning and hence some confusion is occuring. As hkkmr said, a correlation can be statistically significant or not statistically significant - this is dependent on the size of the correlation, and the size of the sample from which the correlation was obtained.

[MysticSonic]

This is retarded. My genes don't determine whether or not I think welfare is a necessary social institution. My predisposition may have GUIDED me to my position, but it has not DETERMINED my position. We need to kick this nasty black/white way of thinking. It fucking stinks of incomplete conclusions.

[munenori2]

It seems odd to go from saying that you have an innate predisposition to the processing of information to that regardless of the information you process you shall arrive at the same conclusion.

[hellothere]

^ good point.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This is retarded. My genes don't determine whether or not I think welfare is a necessary social institution. My predisposition may have GUIDED me to my position, but it has not DETERMINED my position.

I'm not saying your wrong, but care to explain why your so sure?

[misutii]

I agree that one cannot change one's type and I agree that this article is irrelevent. I see the theory of Socionics as being quite similar to brilliant theories in theoretical physics. It's never going be empirically "proven" true by typical social science experiments. What it needs is dedicated creative minds and enough funds to encourage creative experimentation techniques. Think of the "big bang" theory, that they're actually building a tunnel under Geneva, Switzerland to recreate the conditions immediately after the big bang, conditions that existed 13 billion years ago. Like this theory, and countless others, socionics isn't a perfect model or a perfect solution, but in regards to personality typing, it is our best bet. Socionics isn't really all that new, it's founded upon previous theories from Jung all the way back to Aristotle(or was it Plato?) and with the proper funding and talent it will eventually develop into something else.

I find it ironic when I try telling people about Socionics and they dismiss it as a "pseudo-science". Ironic because science itself owes its very existence to what would now be termed "pseudo-science". Like how not too long ago (a few hundred years is just a blip in human existence) Astrology and Astronomy were one and the same. They've only been differentiated since we learned how to properly look up and observe the stars (funny it took humans a million years to figure out what was happening right over our heads). Like astronomy I think socionics' best bet at being proven is through "proper" observation, we just need to figure out what "proper" observation is, then refine it (kind of like how the telescope was Astronomy's tool, refined from Gallileo's instrument to the Hubble etc.) Relative to Astronomy, Socionics is still at the point where we're trying to prove that there's multiple planets[types] in the solar system[human population], and I need to stop this analogy before my brain explodes.

I mention this because recently I looked up info on Russians that had written articles on Socionics and their credentials and found a number of them were actually trained/educated in Physics, which was odd at the time, but Physics is really science in its purest form, proven by observation and built upon by further observations... which reminded me of socionics.

[MysticSonic]

"I'm not saying your wrong, but care to explain why your so sure?"

I think one needs to only look at one's self and notice how one's positions on things changes over time, as one begins to process new information. This change in yourself, although fueled by some sort of inner-desire for how things SHOULD be(which is probably the part that's pre-determined) is highly malleable and subject to circumstance. Take, for instance ,any sort of mass-political movement in which the majority of the people believed in a certain idea. It was the social effects and the environment, NOT their genetics, which caused that to happen.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

"I'm not saying your wrong, but care to explain why your so sure?"

I think one needs to only look at one's self and notice how one's positions on things changes over time, as one begins to process new information. This change in yourself, although fueled by some sort of inner-desire for how things SHOULD be(which is probably the part that's pre-determined) is highly malleable and subject to circumstance.

Maybe its subject to peer pressure?

Take, for instance ,any sort of mass-political movement in which the majority of the people believed in a certain idea. It was the social effects and the environment, NOT their genetics, which caused that to happen.

Thats true. But maybe people on an individual level within that group do not really believe it, they are just being swept along with the current euphoria. Usually after a while this dies down and then the society moves back to its status quo.