Type Change

[Amber]

Opinions : is innate type fixed e.g. can an irrational type raised by an Activity Partner or married to a Benefactor / Supervisor change and become more like its Mirror / Comparative? I can barely think of the reverse, given the Rational's oughts and shoulds and their rigidity.

[kadda1212]

First the question has to be solved whether the personality type is really innate. And I suppose noone really knows it, how much is innate and how much depends on the way you have been brought up.

[Amber]

First the question has to be solved whether the personality type is really innate. And I suppose noone really knows it, how much is innate and how much depends on the way you have been brought up.

I'm pretty sure type is inborn. You do have kids of obviously different Sociotypes leaving the same core-family at 18-20 to make a life on their own, don't you?

[kadda1212]

I'm pretty sure type is inborn. You do have kids of obviously different Sociotypes leaving the same core-family at 18-20 to make a life on their own, don't you?

I'm an only child and my parents are very similar to me. So, I'm not sure. :/

[strangeling]

I think people have an innate motivation to differentiate; and through this differentiation, types become apparent in many ways, even if in abstract ways; their fixations become very real through its personification. Maybe that's why old age is said to give someone a kind of wisdom about life in general. They would know about this process better than someone who is very young.

So yes, sure, it could change depending on motivations.

[DirectorAbbie]

Socionics type is fixed. Enneagram may not be.

[MisterGrey]

Stratievsky describes an activation relationship between ESI and ILI as one where ESI becomes a pseudo-form of SEE:

http://translate.google.com/translat...20%26bih%3D917

Dreiser completely forgets about the ethics of their relationship - on cycle, to exercise restraint and delicacy. And here is a manipulative character acquires sensory Dreiser assertiveness and obsessions Caesar - that is, begins to dominate the very model of its behavior. Thus, "demure" and "modesty" Dreiser very soon turns into a compulsive and assertive "conqueror." (I could cite many examples of how a representative of this charming sociotypes pursued its "impregnable" activators, harassing their care and attention. But we have a better known "classic" example of the kind of relations: Tatiana Larina and Eugene Onegin - "Dreiser" and "Balzac." How could a discreet and well-bred girl openly ask for a wife barely familiar young man? Whatever puzzled over this head of literature - this action can only be explained psychologically (more precisely - socionically) and only the mechanism of activation of relations.)

Eventually Dreiser begins sober "cooling" Balzac and an ever increasing its resistance. But, unlike Caesar, Dreiser and does not try to overcome this resistance (somewhat disappointing than its activator). It was at this point Dreiser "remembers" about his "soft" ethics of their ethical principles that he never tries to change. Analyzing the "excesses" of his behavior, he begins to be ashamed of their obsessions, and moving away from Balzac.

Therefore, further develop relationships here under the old scheme as soon as Dreiser activity reaches a certain point, it starts to slow down Balzac, cooling and erect obstacles. Dreiser again did not realize that he is expected to overcome these obstacles and departs from the goal, because it is - not its purpose, not his program because he does not want and do not want to be a conqueror. His goal - is to create a harmonious relationship, and if despite the apparent mutual desire partners this does not happen, and there is no "mutual desire" and then you just have to step aside because neither coercion nor to the "conquest" of Dreiser partner in principle not capable.

ILI is more unrelenting in this case. In cases where the irrational type is an extrovert, it might be easier for them to initially adapt to the rational type, before rejecting them completely and rebelling against their demands.

[Amber]

Stratievsky describes an activation relationship between ESI and ILI as one where ESI becomes a pseudo-form of SEE:

http://translate.google.com/translat...20%26bih%3D917

Dreiser completely forgets about the ethics of their relationship - on cycle, to exercise restraint and delicacy. And here is a manipulative character acquires sensory Dreiser assertiveness and obsessions Caesar - that is, begins to dominate the very model of its behavior. Thus, "demure" and "modesty" Dreiser very soon turns into a compulsive and assertive "conqueror." (I could cite many examples of how a representative of this charming sociotypes pursued its "impregnable" activators, harassing their care and attention. But we have a better known "classic" example of the kind of relations: Tatiana Larina and Eugene Onegin - "Dreiser" and "Balzac." How could a discreet and well-bred girl openly ask for a wife barely familiar young man? Whatever puzzled over this head of literature - this action can only be explained psychologically (more precisely - socionically) and only the mechanism of activation of relations.)

Eventually Dreiser begins sober "cooling" Balzac and an ever increasing its resistance. But, unlike Caesar, Dreiser and does not try to overcome this resistance (somewhat disappointing than its activator). It was at this point Dreiser "remembers" about his "soft" ethics of their ethical principles that he never tries to change. Analyzing the "excesses" of his behavior, he begins to be ashamed of their obsessions, and moving away from Balzac.

Therefore, further develop relationships here under the old scheme as soon as Dreiser activity reaches a certain point, it starts to slow down Balzac, cooling and erect obstacles. Dreiser again did not realize that he is expected to overcome these obstacles and departs from the goal, because it is - not its purpose, not his program because he does not want and do not want to be a conqueror. His goal - is to create a harmonious relationship, and if despite the apparent mutual desire partners this does not happen, and there is no "mutual desire" and then you just have to step aside because neither coercion nor to the "conquest" of Dreiser partner in principle not capable.

ILI is more unrelenting in this case. In cases where the irrational type is an extrovert, it might be easier for them to initially adapt to the rational type, before rejecting them completely and rebelling against their demands.

oh yes. Cool, ty for posting. Now I've also read Strati's scenarios for Activity SLE-EIE and it's kinda weird that apparently EIE takes on a more playful, less stubborn / serious and less "bossy" Fe, adapting to the Sle . My theory would have been that Irrationals bend easier . Or Ethicals --- they can tune into people's expectations and wishes better and even change their personalities to reach a zone of meeting them half-way. Actually maybe that's why ESI becomes a "pseudo-SEE".

[silke]

Opinions : is innate type fixed e.g. can an irrational type raised by an Activity Partner or married to a Benefactor / Supervisor change and become more like its Mirror / Comparative? I can barely think of the reverse, given the Rational's oughts and shoulds and their rigidity.

In his lecture below on this very same subject, Gulenko is saying that type is inborn and that one can even determine the temperament of an unborn child by the behavior in the womb. By such signs he was able to predict that his unborn child will likely be on linear-stable temperament (IJ). Now that the boy has grown he says he is of type LSI.




Gulenko: "We know that type is for life. However, when it forms we don't know, whether it is set at the time of birth, or before birth, or during the time of child's development."
Audience: "Perhaps it is set during the first five years of birth?"
Audience, another member: "I think children are already born as extraverts or introverts, one can tell for the little ones by the way they are crying ..."
Gulenko: "Yes, I, for example, know that by the behavior inside the womb temperament, at least, can be determined. When my son was born I knew he is of linear-stable temperament".
Audience: "What type is your son?"
Gulenko: "Inspector (LSI)"
Audience: "And daughter?"
Gulenko: "The Mentor (EIE)"
and so on.

[Reficulris]

In his lecture below on this very same subject, Gulenko is saying that type is inborn and that one can even determine the temperament of an unborn child by the behavior in the womb. By such signs he was able to predict that his unborn child will likely be on linear-stable temperament (IJ). Now that the boy has grown he says he is of type LSI.




Gulenko: "We know that type is for life. However, when it forms we don't know, whether it is set at the time of birth, or before birth, or during the time of child's development."
Audience: "Perhaps it is set during the first five years of birth?"
Audience, another member: "I think children are already born as extraverts or introverts, one can tell for the little ones by the way they are crying ..."
Gulenko: "Yes, I, for example, know that by the behavior inside the womb temperament, at least, can be determined. When my son was born I knew he is of linear-stable temperament".
Audience: "What type is your son?"
Gulenko: "Inspector (LSI)"
Audience: "And daughter?"
Gulenko: "The Mentor (EIE)"
and so on.

OFC no-one can be sure he actually predicted that when his son was born. Also, since he's the authoraty in that room AND probably the only one to know his son his typing could be biased after the fact too. Finally, his believe that his son would be temperament IJ could have affected saids kids development towards IJ.

So, i'd say that fragment doesn't tell us too much about inborn-ness of types/temperaments, although it does say something about Gulenko's believes about the topic..

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Something only becomes "real" once it repeats itself. That's all a pattern/reality is. The weird/strange/magical/bizzarre/unusual, magical side of this world never happens like this, it can't be proven because it can't be reproduced.

So therefore, one changes without thinking they have changed and without noticing they have changed. I still like romantic movies and Fefe Dobson and superhero adventure stories, but I have learned to appreciate/tolerate math and 'getting a job' stuff and I don't really like Buffy anymore like I used to, and I don't like heterosexual sex either when before I enjoyed it more. Though going through all of this was a process.

I just realized that depression happens when you literally don't keep up with yourself, when you don't realize you've changed, you're just not the same person anymore and you might feel like you should like the same things all the time or be the same person with the same responses... well that's just a way to make you feel sad and stuck is it not? Though it all happened with the good intention of wanting things to stay the same because it was comfortable. Yet we only grow when we're uncomfortable. =)

[Amber]

OFC no-one can be sure he actually predicted that when his son was born. Also, since he's the authoraty in that room AND probably the only one to know his son his typing could be biased after the fact too. Finally, his believe that his son would be temperament IJ could have affected saids kids development towards IJ.

So, i'd say that fragment doesn't tell us too much about inborn-ness of types/temperaments, although it does say something about Gulenko's believes about the topic..

I agree with the part that he could have also raised his son in that direction. But overall this take is a bit too relativistic. After all Gulenko is an "authority" in his own way when it comes to socionics. So far most of his type portraits and theories are not just ramblings, they seem spot-on. I'm assuming he investigated lots of people before speaking about personality stuff.

[Leader]

type is inborn,cannot be changed..but functions can be enhanced based on life experience...enneagram from my experience is useless

but gulwnko said you can determine type within the womb? I like that..interesting, the implications...means there's more purpose then meets the eye. I want someone to go further and figure out what criterias determine type

I'm not just talking hormones..genetics..etc. i now know that nothing is ever just a coincidence, people come into this world for a reason

[FDG]

The only acceptable theory of type change was an extension of Smilingeyes' core theoretical explanation; it postulates that type may change, but only inside a given temperament ring (EJ-IJ-IP-EP). Namely, an ENTj may become ESTj or ENFj, an ISTj may become ISFj or INTj etc. but temperament cannot change.

[wacey]

Gulenko states one can type the temperament of an unborn infant in a mothers womb by how the baby moves!


What the f*ck am I doing with my life?

[silke]

OFC no-one can be sure he actually predicted that when his son was born. Also, since he's the authoraty in that room AND probably the only one to know his son his typing could be biased after the fact too. Finally, his believe that his son would be temperament IJ could have affected saids kids development towards IJ.

So, i'd say that fragment doesn't tell us too much about inborn-ness of types/temperaments, although it does say something about Gulenko's believes about the topic..

Your guess is as good as anyone else's on this topic. Until studies are done to establish when this actually occurs all we can do here is throw out some hypothetical thoughts on the subject matter. I must say I was surprised when I heard him say that he could determine type in this manner, by child's behavior in the womb. Nevertheless, it's an interesting notion that I thought I'd share with the rest of you for further discussion.

but gulwnko said you can determine type within the womb? I like that..interesting, the implications...means there's more purpose then meets the eye. I want someone to go further and figure out what criterias determine type

At some point someone may investigate his claim. There were a couple of people in the audience saying how some traits described in socionics can be discerned in very young children. Besides Gulenko, Filatova has also commented in one of her papers that she considers that type is inborn according to her own studies.

[mu4]

Your guess is as good as anyone else's on this topic. Until studies are done to establish when this actually occurs all we can do here is throw out some hypothetical thoughts on the subject matter. I must say I was surprised when I heard him say that he could determine type in this manner, by child's behavior in the womb. Nevertheless, it's an interesting notion that I thought I'd share with the rest of you for further discussion.


At some point someone may investigate his claim. There were a couple of people in the audience saying how some traits described in socionics can be discerned in very young children. Besides Gulenko, Filatova has also commented in one of her papers that she considers that type is inborn according to her own studies.

Probability of type change probably drops over time if it's possible at all. Epigenetics does cause some variations within identical twins and such. Temperament seems very fixed at a young age, but I can't be sure about type. Subtype imo can change a lot.

[Leader]

it is inborn. I have baby cousins who I've typed before they were even the age of one...I'm talking about even when they were first just born (give or take a month or two since their body is still rapidly developing). they just have the look of their type. they act like them as well in terms of attitude, and as they mature they grow into their personality.

my mother said I was VERY active in the womb..couldn't keep still in her womb, always punching and kicking and as a child growing up she said i was too hyperactive and alert. I'm EP, so there is definitely something to it

[Beautiful sky]

Type is innate

[Radio]

~break free of the paradigm that type is deterministic, it's very probably not~

[Pookie]

I think Temperament is something you're born with. The 2 letters in the middle develop very early in life, and the base is the first IM noticable in babies/toddlers.

I think those two letters are a mix between nurture and nature. It's all experience points. You do what comes natural, but you also fall into patterns of behavior. The more something is done, the more comfortable you become doing that same thing. This is how the Base develops into the dominant function. It's simply what you have used the most in your life. If something is reinforced with positive incentive(in the mind of the child) the behavior is more likely to develop. Those middle two letters fill out by the time the kid is entering kindergarten, through this method.

Now, i think type rarely changes. But it is possible. You just act in a manner seperate from your normal ways, and the functions being used will develop. Do it enough and you might eventually get more experience points in one of your initial super-ego functions, and thus fall into the pattern of using that.

The more you use something, the more control you have with it. Counter-phobic way of dealing with the "shadow" aspects of our consciousness.

[Amber]

I think Temperament is something you're born with. The 2 letters in the middle develop very early in life, and the base is the first IM noticable in babies/toddlers.

I think those two letters are a mix between nurture and nature. It's all experience points. You do what comes natural, but you also fall into patterns of behavior. The more something is done, the more comfortable you become doing that same thing. This is how the Base develops into the dominant function. It's simply what you have used the most in your life. If something is reinforced with positive incentive(in the mind of the child) the behavior is more likely to develop. Those middle two letters fill out by the time the kid is entering kindergarten, through this method.

Now, i think type rarely changes. But it is possible. You just act in a manner seperate from your normal ways, and the functions being used will develop. Do it enough and you might eventually get more experience points in one of your initial super-ego functions, and thus fall into the pattern of using that.

The more you use something, the more control you have with it. Counter-phobic way of dealing with the "shadow" aspects of our consciousness.

"counter-phobic" mental attitudes do not guarantee the enactment of a type change or the development of "lower" functions. I do agree that practice may improve things though.

[Suz]

Opinions : is innate type fixed e.g. can an irrational type raised by an Activity Partner or married to a Benefactor / Supervisor change and become more like its Mirror / Comparative? I can barely think of the reverse, given the Rational's oughts and shoulds and their rigidity.

I think generally people of the same type can manifest differently, to a large part, because of such external influences. E.g. someone raised by a supervisor or conflictor might end up with a different demeanor than someone of the same type raised by an identical or dual. Additionally, someone raised by an identical would be different from someone raised by a dual.

Certain strengths might be devalued, or taken offense at, teaching the individual to stifle themselves in certain ways. I dont think someone can morph into a type more compatible with a less compatible parental type, though the individual will probably aim to do so, to some extent (depends on the type too). It's hard (impossible?) to shift focus to an IE one doesn't value, even worse if that IE is also weak, so that's where that effort sort of has to fall apart.

For identicals, even though the IE's are shared, there will be a void as far as the weak valued functions are concerned. In such a case, if the void is bad enough, the weak valued functions may end up strengthening some? IDK if it really plays out that way, but i think it's conceivable that a weak valued function can be learned from others' example.

[Sigh]

Something like a hit to the head could change someone's type, maybe. Besides that, I don't think it's going to change.

[Amber]

Something like a hit to the head could change someone's type, maybe. Besides that, I don't think it's going to change.

i´m planning to send an experiment proposal to Russian socionists about that. I ´ll recommend bricks.