View Poll Results: Is one's type inherent or is it nurtured?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • People are born a type.

    13 68.42%
  • Functions are determined by an individual's upbringing and environment.

    6 31.58%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: Type: Inherent or Nurtured?

  1. #1
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type: Inherent or Nurtured?

    I might've posted something on this before, but this is now; different people and opinions. Plus, I'm sure I didn't do a poll.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post

    Why isn't there a choice for 'some combination of both'? I'm sure it isn't exclusively due to environment/upbringing, but I also think its unlikely that environment/upbringing does not play any role

  3. #3
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, uh, how about you are born with instinctual characteristics regarding your perceptual capabilities/inclinations which are either fostered or punished by your surrounding environment? A perfect development keeping with your instinctual self is hardly possible, so the extent to which you are challenged creates psychological obstacles that are in turn dealt with varying levels of success (or, alternately, suppression into the unconscious). Thus we have people who grow to be who they always were, and others who lose themselves in the muddle of a world telling them who they should be or what they should want.

    So, uh, yeah. How bout that?
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  4. #4
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have absolutely no evidence for this theory, but I bet it's actually almost entirely nurtured in a sense. But not in the sense that type is changeable practically. I guess I'm going to go all Locke tabula-rasa on your arse and guess that we all come into the world without functional preference but by sheer accident stumble across some function or another that we use successfully. And with that comes pleasure, so we start using that function more often than others, and hone it moreso than others. If that's the case, after a point it would be very inefficient to try to be another type, so we tend to focus on our strengths rather than weaknesses (when possible). So I might make a sucky SLE or whatever, but I could try to be one if I wanted to. The opportunity cost (I'm doing economics HW in another window) of being SLE would be not-being-whatever-type-I-am, where my true skills lie. If this were D&D, it would like focusing all of my stats on Intelligence as a Wizard and then going Barbarian. As I said though, that's purely speculation.

    Another thing I've thought about is how each type sort of has its own general philosophy, and perhaps that is how type is derived. I'm not sure if that's a byproduct or a cause, or something else, but hey, I'm just rambling haphazardly, so what does it matter?

    Edit: I'm not saying SLEs are Barbarians, the two examples were completely unrelated, but it is still kind of funny that it played out that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I really like imfd95's post

  6. #6
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    As a shorthand response, may not just be genetic, there's evidence to show personality/temperament develops in the womb. Usually as people get older they become more natural in their skin, gradually shaking off whatever their upbringing tried to make them, so upbringing seems to be limited in correlation. Ie does a leopard change it's spots.

  7. #7
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it makes sense that our personalities are nurtured because if that were the case, how is it we all fit so neatly into 16 types? Why would we all happen to be these certain combinations of functions? Why wouldn't it be more of a potluck? Couldn't there be some of us running around who for example are equally proficient in Fe and Te - saying that we were exposed to circumstances that made it necessary for us to be strong in both? And if our personalities are indeed nurtured, then what it is the cut-off date when our personalities are considered 'formed'? Is there a cut-off date? And being that our experiences never fail to affect us in some way, at what point would they be said to start affecting our behaviour and not our innate personalities? Or maybe our personalites just continue to evolve the longer we live - being that our experiences will always have a profound effect on our lives - in which case there's no point in typing.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    however even if you restrict the variables to what is hard-wired, because those hard-wired variables might not all be alligned - some people more than others could fall into a gray area. additionally i wonder whether most people (even unaware of socionics) try to specialize in their type or to be more well-rounded.
    I think we can be well-rounded even by focusing on our strongest functions, given that functions can be applied to a wide array of different activities. Sure, there will always be some blind spots but not excessively detrimental to making a person "well rounded"

    Anyway, my opinion is that temperament (EJ IJ IP EP) is inborn, wheras the functions used can be a byproduct of the environment.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Actually, I think type is a constant, but sub type (if it exists) would be influenced by environment.

  10. #10
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    parents vary in that respect. and so do competiting influences like peers.



    Circumstances like those of Expat suggest that Expat can't be "conditioned" into being a particular sociotype.
    Sure, but personally I've seen other examples of the same phenomenon. For instance, there's a family I've known all my life:

    LSI father
    SEI mother
    SLI son
    ESI daughter (3 years younger)

    This combination was particularly negative for the ESI, with parents who couldn't provide Te and whose low focus on Ne made them see her as "chronic underachiever".

    Another one (I also know them very well):

    LIE father
    ESI mother
    EII son

    Where the disagreements are precisely on the EII's lack of interest in Se matters (ie giving low priority to making money).

    And some others.

    The point I'm making is that, according to my experience, there seem to be a lot of people who can't be conditioned into becoming like their parents.

    My personal impression is that types are either inborn or defined irreversibly at a very, very early stage in life.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  11. #11
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    the functions may fit model A not because of how they "happen" in the brain necessarily. but because they are most effective that way in real life.

    say for example -- something in my brain makes me really favor Fi-base in myself. but that there's nothing inherent in there to make me Te-dual seeking. then i might come to adopt Te dual-seeking simply because given the way activities proceed in real life -- i am fated to do so if i am to proceed myself in real-life most effectively. if i am to find a niche where my base goes to the best use, pleasing the dual, accomplishing mutually-compatible goals, etc.
    Yeah, I see what you're getting at. But say that this Fi-base-favouring person grew up in an environment in which the use of Te was discouraged - well surely that would have to be a strong deterrent to Te dual-seeking.
    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    approximations don't have to be useful on every person for them to be useful on some persons. (say, those who have stabilized into a "niche" earlier.)
    On some persons - so do you think it's possible that some people may never 'stabilise' - e.g. a person who is constantly subjected to changing circumstances?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salawa View Post
    Not necessarily, but parents will do their best to reinforce behaviours they find desirable (or discourage those that they find undesirable). Circumstances like those of Expat (a Gamma in a purely Alpha family) suggest that people at least can't be "conditioned" into being a particular sociotype, even if they are consistently "punished" for basically being themselves.
    I agree. In my family irrational behaviour was strongly discouraged, and yet 3 out of 4 of us are irrational.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    parents vary in that respect. and so do competiting influences like peers.
    Yeah, I think its important to remember that immediate family/parents aren't the only influences in your environment

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    say for example -- something in my brain makes me really favor Fi-base in myself. but that there's nothing inherent in there to make me Te-dual seeking.
    That's a bit too much of a devil's advocate position. Or, rather: if you accept such positions, then socionics makes no sense. Otherwise (if socionics makes sense), Fi-base implies that a person is Te-dual-seeking as well as it implies Ti-role. There's no separation.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    That's a bit too much of a devil's advocate position. Or, rather: if you accept such positions, then socionics makes no sense. Otherwise (if socionics makes sense), Fi-base implies that a person is Te-dual-seeking as well as it implies Ti-role. There's no separation.
    Well yeah I agree that socionics wouldn't make sense if such situations do/did exist. My point was (I think ) that if our personalities are shaped exclusively by our environments and experiences, then why the hard and fast rules? Why must Fi-base imply Te-dual seeking? But yeah - I am taking a devil's advocate postion.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  15. #15
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    Well yeah I agree that socionics wouldn't make sense if such situations do/did exist. My point was (I think ) that if our personalities are shaped exclusively by our environments and experiences, then why the hard and fast rules? Why must Fi-base imply Te-dual seeking? But yeah - I am taking a devil's advocate postion.
    From my POV, it's because of a systemic "internal coherence". If Fi is Ti dual seeking, then Fe must be dual seeking of something else, otherwise the system it's not symmetrical anymore because somebody has dual relations with two different types? So one "change" would render necessary changes in all the other positions; in the end, somebody would end up being in the "Te dual seeking position" in every case. We can choose to call it "Fi" or "Fe", however the properties of the type and the relationships between the two types wouldn't change at all.

    Now if you're speaking instead about specific instances in which a person is typed as Fi type and instead seems to be Fe-dual seeking - I'd say this only means that in the socionics "language" that person is a Ti type. It's just a matter of labels.

    whether or not these things are always in sync -- as the system progresses dynamically: that's another issue. implication in a model is a lot different from causality in real life,.
    you can attach the labels you want to things that happen in real life, but it really won't change the fact that they happen, will it? You can say that if somebody is dual of Fe types he'll be a Fi type. This won't change the group of people we refer to (that in socionics are named Ti-dominants)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    Well yeah I agree that socionics wouldn't make sense if such situations do/did exist. My point was (I think ) that if our personalities are shaped exclusively by our environments and experiences, then why the hard and fast rules? Why must Fi-base imply Te-dual seeking? But yeah - I am taking a devil's advocate postion.
    I'm probably being really daft, but say our personalities were shaped exclusively by our genes/or whatever, i.e. we were born with them, how does that imply hard and fast rules should exist?

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    no, i am not changing labels for the same thing. i am decomposing that thing [the person] into different opperations. one operation is what the person might want to with themselves. another operation is what they might want to do with others. these things are not necessarily born into consistency with the model. although the model may be the stable equillibrium.
    Then the person is a different type in different moments, simple. (if the choices between what a person wants to do with themselves and what wants to do with others are different).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    I'm probably being really daft, but say our personalities were shaped exclusively by our genes/or whatever, i.e. we were born with them, how does that imply hard and fast rules should exist?
    It doesn't imply hard and fast rules exist. However what we see in everyday life (intertype relations) is that there appears to be hard and fast rules. It's just an observation of what we see when we study what sort of people are more likely to get on with each other. If there were no pattern we wouldn't objectively observe any pattern.

  19. #19
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    I'm probably being really daft, but say our personalities were shaped exclusively by our genes/or whatever, i.e. we were born with them, how does that imply hard and fast rules should exist?
    That's daft!! Actually a good point. But then, I suppose it's more credible that there's some sort of personality framework in our DNA - given that our bodies are so ordered in every other way.... Whereas experiences can be so random and .... blah blah blah blah blah blah. I'm going to shut up now.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Chopin asked, why, if our personalities are exclusively shaped by our environment, there should be hard and fast rules. I thought this suggested that she thought that if we were born with our personalities then there is some reason to justify hard and fast rules, and I want to know what that reason is (apologies if I've read too much into what you said)

    Edit: woops, looks like she answered my question just then. Nah I thought it might be something like that, and to be honest, I don't think its such a stupid reason

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    1) can't people experience multiple wants simutaneously? (at least until reality painfully demonstrates they contradict)
    Yeah, that's why I think socionics should be better based on behavior. I don't even think wants are type related.

    2) the original anecdote was where one operation implied IFj and another operation implied nothing. (in early stages of development neutral preferences are plausible.)
    We should see if this is realistic or just an hypothesis.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    That's daft!! Actually a good point. But then, I suppose it's more credible that there's some sort of personality framework in our DNA - given that our bodies are so ordered in every other way.... Whereas experiences can be so random and .... blah blah blah blah blah blah. I'm going to shut up now.
    There doesn't need to be hard and fast rules, but apparently they have been observed. Socionics is just a model, models aren't "real".
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    I think i've touched on this before, but as we are social creatures, from an evolutionary perspective it would make sense for our socialness to have some sort of 'rules' or pattern. Structure even.

    @hellothere, sorrythere () I thought it was an open question

  24. #24
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I think i've touched on this before, but as we are social creatures, from an evolutionary perspective it would make sense for our socialness to have some sort of 'rules' or pattern. Structure even.
    Since when did evolution make sense?

    Rhetorical! Rhetorical!
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  25. #25
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    Since when did intelligent design make sense?
    Debates in here are endless, aren't they aha

    I agree with the above 'quoted' statement tho

  26. #26
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Debates in here are endless, aren't they aha
    cheeky cheeky
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  27. #27
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    So, uh, how about you are born with instinctual characteristics regarding your perceptual capabilities/inclinations which are either fostered or punished by your surrounding environment? A perfect development keeping with your instinctual self is hardly possible, so the extent to which you are challenged creates psychological obstacles that are in turn dealt with varying levels of success (or, alternately, suppression into the unconscious). Thus we have people who grow to be who they always were, and others who lose themselves in the muddle of a world telling them who they should be or what they should want.

    So, uh, yeah. How bout that?
    I'm sceptical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro View Post
    I have absolutely no evidence for this theory, but I bet it's actually almost entirely nurtured in a sense. But not in the sense that type is changeable practically. I guess I'm going to go all Locke tabula-rasa on your arse and guess that we all come into the world without functional preference but by sheer accident stumble across some function or another that we use successfully. And with that comes pleasure, so we start using that function more often than others, and hone it moreso than others. If that's the case, after a point it would be very inefficient to try to be another type, so we tend to focus on our strengths rather than weaknesses (when possible). So I might make a sucky SLE or whatever, but I could try to be one if I wanted to. The opportunity cost (I'm doing economics HW in another window) of being SLE would be not-being-whatever-type-I-am, where my true skills lie. If this were D&D, it would like focusing all of my stats on Intelligence as a Wizard and then going Barbarian. As I said though, that's purely speculation.

    Another thing I've thought about is how each type sort of has its own general philosophy, and perhaps that is how type is derived. I'm not sure if that's a byproduct or a cause, or something else, but hey, I'm just rambling haphazardly, so what does it matter?

    Edit: I'm not saying SLEs are Barbarians, the two examples were completely unrelated, but it is still kind of funny that it played out that way.
    As a fan of Locke, I like this theory. Parts of it at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    I don't think it makes sense that our personalities are nurtured because if that were the case, how is it we all fit so neatly into 16 types?
    Because Augusta decided so. Why is it any more unlikely that we should fit into sixteen types through being nurtured than it is unlikely that there are only sixteen styles of newborn human beings?
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  28. #28
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Who knows? Maybe the types are all subjective, in the sense that we can't say that there's a definitive, objective, discrete distinction in functional preference. Like we can only say that something is more than , more than , more than , etc.

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

  29. #29
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmmm, i thought the smiley face would show that i was joking

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

  30. #30
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There could be some combination of factors.

    But I voted "born with" because babies have such distinct personalities, and the kids I've known since babyhood displayed at least their basic personalities from birth.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  31. #31
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    JRid -- if that was a joke, then what do you really think?
    I'm still wrestling with it to be honest. I'm comfortable operating amidst a high degree of ambiguity. Clearly, most things about a person are some combination of nature and nuture. I'm inclined to emphasize nature over nurture because I don't like behavioral psychology. (especially B. F. Skinner. What an ass.)

    Actually, I think it's most likely that we are born with type predilections that are reinforced through the benefits of specialization. Essentially, we are reinforced to become better at what we're good at, in most instances, because the marginal cost (in terms of brain power) of generalization is very high. There's little economy of scope available to most individuals. Think Ricardian trade dynamics and specialization of labor.

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

  32. #32
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I apologize for not having a fully formal rigorous logical deduction of socionic theory and how from the basic premise the 16 types are deduced, but I'm working to research this as well as understand it fully myself. So give me sometime and I will post again on this topic.
    no cookies for you!


  33. #33
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I know... I'm a idiot for not being able to figure out something I haven't seen someone else figure out yet. They should put me out to pasture to die.


    you really can have a cookie if you want one you know...

  34. #34
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Inherited. Innate, in-born. You can't change who people are at their very core. Believe me, people have tried to change me and I've tried to change them. Doesn't work. I guess certain experiences will bring different sides out of you, and people are still complex but come on, a fish simply can't fly.

  35. #35
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Inherited. Innate, in-born. You can't change who people are at their very core. Believe me, people have tried to change me and I've tried to change them. Doesn't work. I guess certain experiences will bring different sides out of you, and people are still complex but come on, a fish simply can't fly.
    it can if I pick it up and throw it at you

  36. #36
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Haha. That's unnatural fish cruelty though. =)

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Inherited. Innate, in-born. You can't change who people are at their very core. Believe me, people have tried to change me and I've tried to change them. Doesn't work. I guess certain experiences will bring different sides out of you, and people are still complex but come on, a fish simply can't fly.

    Sure there is something that is innate and perhaps can't be changed, but is that something the sole determinant of "type"?

    And I still don't understand why there is no inbetween option on this poll

  38. #38
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything is learned. A lamp must learn its shape. Learning and being biological are synonyms. Everything is learned. How does one think if there is no data to think about? Something that is possible is that our DNA strands have intelligence. Over years and years of evolutions, our DNA strands have learned what to learn and how to learn it.

    I've never understood the concepts of living v.s. non living. Everything reacts to the environment. Its just that our system is a complex system of reactions that keeps building upon itself.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  39. #39
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    not reading any of the thread:

    I have never seen anything that leads me to believe types are nurtured into being.
    I have seen, extensively, how people have had to adjust to fit in, or alter themselves to survive, basically. These alterations can be detrimental to the person's natural well being, and/or have various other side effects and consequences.

    I've seen SEIs try to be more this way or that way to appease their partner. But in the end the are themselves and never change. I've seen an ESE go from being sporadic and outgoing to more balanced and reserved, after finally settling down and finding a dual. Those are personal examples I've seen very clearly, I'm sure things like that happen all the time.

    But in all my seeings of personal experience, I have never seen anything that made me think someone had a major shift in psychological type (this includes, quadra, temperment, or functional ordering). And I caution that those who do should first be wary that they, themselves, were misinformed or misunderstood the person's type to begin with - that is to say, the error is their own viewpoint. This is something I have done a few times, but I realized it was my own misunderstanding, and, as I have said, it was never that someone had a change of type.

    Furthermore, I have not ever seen anything that supported a change of subtype, even.
    Last edited by UDP; 04-25-2008 at 12:21 AM. Reason: clarity
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  40. #40
    lastdance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    63
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that you are born with your type, but the subtype is determined by enviroment and such stuff.
    Beta extrovert from NF club.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •