Type changing

[Computer Loser]

I was wondering,

Which types are more inclined to constantly switch their type? Why?

Which types are more inclined to stick with their type? Why?

I would say Ti-types are more likely to stick with their type because they:
1) are decisive, and
2) like to eliminate things that seem inconsistent

Yeah, yeah, yeah?

[Lobo]

Haha, I've also thought about that, but sometimes I think people do it because they are bored. I've always typed myself INFj, fwiw. Maybe I should start a thread at some point, just out of curiosity lol.

[ashlesha]

interesting question. for me, when i've questioned my own type its been mostly out of boredom and the latent potential that there are things i'm not realizing. idk if certain types are more or less likely to switch self-typings or not, but it might be interesting to consider the likely reasons different types would have for reconsidering.

[ashlesha]

also, i can see the reasons you pointed out for Ti types not changing, but i wonder if they might be quicker to change if their conception of type characteristics isn't nailed down into a system they are totally comfortable with yet, or if a few details might cause them to rearrange the framework they have, causing them to reconsider. idk...?

[EyeSeeCold]

[Slacker]

I think the real question is which types are less likely to have an easy time figuring out what type they are.

[Pa3s]

I would say Ti-types are more likely to stick with their type because they:
1) are decisive, and
2) like to eliminate things that seem inconsistent

In a previous discussion someone stated that especially Ti types would constantly re-evaluate their self-typing. I think he didn't only mean Ti-leading types, and he was probably also focused on intuitives. However, I think Ti types could actually be tempted to include every fact that can be gathered from the given information. That means the right type must be a 100% fit in their minds. I actually think this confused me the most. The jungian and the reinin dichotomies, temperaments, quadra values, romantic styles, ect. All this is a huge pile of information to process, which is also partly contradicting in my opinion. This led to an uncertainty about the own judgement because there were always so many traits to mind. Instead of finding the most important traits to judge about my type I was overwhelmed by the various possibilities.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think the real question is which types are less likely to have an easy time figuring out what type they are.

Even I wasn't sure until after some months, and still I had doubts that lingered.

[Slacker]

I don't think it's a bad thing, just I wonder if it might be type related. Maybe not. It could be a lot of things. I wonder if being young can affect it, like some things about you might be more about being young than being a particular type, but then the same could be said for any stage of life maybe. Or if someone is in a bad relationshp, or has psychological problems like depression or something, or is still living with parents. I think living with your parents can cause confusion becasue it's like you've grown up being taught to accommodate them, and I think sometimes it isn't until you're on your own that some aspects of your true self become more apparent. But some could be type related. It seems like theoretically Ne could be a cause, but I've personally always been pretty sure of my type.

Anyway, I think it's more about having trouble figuring out what your type is than "changing" your type.

[FDG]

Lack of experience with duals.

[Crispy]

The only related correlations I've found:
EXFx's usually have a phase of switching a lot before settling (Time it takes varies widely)
ESTj's are (initially) skeptical of the practicality of boxes and often think they're typeless.
INTp's are (latently) skeptical and have phases of "socionics doesn't work" but they don't usually change types.

[Jarno]

I was wondering,

Which types are more inclined to constantly switch their type? Why?

I'm always pretty focussed on these kind of members, so I think I have some knowledge about this. And my conclusion so far is that there is not a clear pattern. Though most of the people who like to switch often, are very young. So its not so much type related, as it is age related.

[Computer Loser]

Haha, I've also thought about that, but sometimes I think people do it because they are bored. I've always typed myself INFj, fwiw. Maybe I should start a thread at some point, just out of curiosity lol.

Boredom? What's the fun in constantly changing and reconstructing all your relationships!? Sigh...Whatever floats your boat, I guess. lolz

also, i can see the reasons you pointed out for Ti types not changing, but i wonder if they might be quicker to change if their conception of type characteristics isn't nailed down into a system they are totally comfortable with yet, or if a few details might cause them to rearrange the framework they have, causing them to reconsider. idk...?

In a previous discussion someone stated that especially Ti types would constantly re-evaluate their self-typing. I think he didn't only mean Ti-leading types, and he was probably also focused on intuitives. However, I think Ti types could actually be tempted to include every fact that can be gathered from the given information. That means the right type must be a 100% fit in their minds. I actually think this confused me the most. The jungian and the reinin dichotomies, temperaments, quadra values, romantic styles, ect. All this is a huge pile of information to process, which is also partly contradicting in my opinion. This led to an uncertainty about the own judgement because there were always so many traits to mind. Instead of finding the most important traits to judge about my type I was overwhelmed by the various possibilities.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out guys. The quote "the more you know, the less you understand" comes to mind. For me, I guess its mostly the details that causes me to doubt. When I see that certain facts don't completely align 100%, I'll get thrown off a little. I admit, I do constantly evaluate my "intertype relations," but its mostly the consistency that I see/experience in real life that causes me to stick with my type.

Lack of experience with duals.

True, true. I think real life experience with a dual should be a priority/strong indicator of who you are.

The only related correlations I've found:
EXFx's usually have a phase of switching a lot before settling (Time it takes varies widely)
ESTj's are (initially) skeptical of the practicality of boxes and often think they're typeless.
INTp's are (latently) skeptical and have phases of "socionics doesn't work" but they don't usually change types.

Wow, that's interesting. I've experienced the ESTj and INTp one first hand lol... Reminds me of the time I introduced typology to my ESTj friend and he immediately told me "I think that's garbage, people act different," and he closed it off completely.

I don't think it's a bad thing, just I wonder if it might be type related. Maybe not. It could be a lot of things. I wonder if being young can affect it, like some things about you might be more about being young than being a particular type, but then the same could be said for any stage of life maybe. Or if someone is in a bad relationshp, or has psychological problems like depression or something, or is still living with parents. I think living with your parents can cause confusion becasue it's like you've grown up being taught to accommodate them, and I think sometimes it isn't until you're on your own that some aspects of your true self become more apparent. But some could be type related. It seems like theoretically Ne could be a cause, but I've personally always been pretty sure of my type.

Anyway, I think it's more about having trouble figuring out what your type is than "changing" your type.

I'm always pretty focused on these kind of members, so I think I have some knowledge about this. And my conclusion so far is that there is not a clear pattern. Though most of the people who like to switch often, are very young. So its not so much type related, as it is age related.

Good point(s)...You guys are probably right, perhaps not type-related. I'm thinking that younger people tend to not know their "true selves" until they've gained enough life experience, so they're more prone to be wishy-washy/indecisive when it comes to evaluating themselves.

[Galen]

People who don't understand 1) socionics and/or 2) themselves well enough to create some sort of connection between the two are gonna waffle back and forth between types all the time.

[Pa3s]

Well, another – maybe unpleasant – reason for many type changes might be the unhappiness with the own self. I guess there are a lot people (especially younger ones, which also supports your assumption) who don't like the strong and/or weak points of their personality. Even if they are irrevocably there, aside from Socionics, they might prefer to pretend they are an other type. Or their personal role model was identified as a certain type. Maybe they think 'wow, Neo from The Matrix is cool', find out he's LII and therefore also start to think they're LII. They might not even care that not every single LII is as cool as Neo.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out guys. The quote "the more you know, the less you understand" comes to mind. For me, I guess its mostly the details that causes me to doubt. When I see that certain facts don't completely align 100%, I'll get thrown off a little. I admit, I do constantly evaluate my "intertype relations," but its mostly the consistency that I see/experience in real life that causes me to stick with my type.

Exactly, that's what I meant. Especially Intertype relations can be quite deceiving, at least in my opinion. That's why I don't include them that much into typing except for the very obvious ones. But even then, it's based on tendencies like: 'They argue almost everytime they meet each other.' --> probably a rather negative combination.

[Jarno]

Especially Intertype relations can be quite deceiving, at least in my opinion. Bit's based on tendencies like: 'They argue almost everytime they meet each other.' --> probably a rather negative combination.

1) I think he didn't meant that they are bad

2) they are not deceiving, they are actually the best confirmation typing method

3) argue = conflict,etc. is not the right way to gain understanding relations. You have to compare relationships instead of analysing them one for one, to find the distinctive differences.

4) are your relations deceiving to your type, or is your type deceiving to your relationships? '-)

just my two, uhm four cents.

[Pa3s]

1) I think he didn't meant that they are bad

Okay, if so, I misunderstood him.

2) they are not deceiving, they are actually the best confirmation typing method

That depends on your personal opinion, don't you think so? There are to many unknown variables for me to actually use it for typing. I'm trying it, but it hasn't helped me much until now. Of course, I just need more knowledge about it, but I guess the reason for this is that I don't know many people very good. However, if I type someone I know and compare our types the corresponding relation is often not the most exact one in my opinion.

3) argue = conflict,etc. is not the right way to gain understanding relations. You have to compare relationships instead of analysing them one for one, to find the distinctive differences.

I didn't say constant quarrels necessarily mean that two people are conflictors, I just said this situation suggests a rather 'negative' relation.

4) are your relations deceiving to your type, or is your type deceiving to your relationships? '-)

I guess it's both, alternating.

[Simon Ssmall]

Irrationals

[Galen]

Irrationals

lol sup MBTI

[Simon Ssmall]

lol sup MBTI

Lol, yeh .

Anyway perceiving types

[DirectorAbbie]

I think irrational intuitives are the most likely to change.

[Krig the Viking]

The only related correlations I've found:
EXFx's usually have a phase of switching a lot before settling (Time it takes varies widely)
ESTj's are (initially) skeptical of the practicality of boxes and often think they're typeless.
INTp's are (latently) skeptical and have phases of "socionics doesn't work" but they don't usually change types.

Very accurate.

I think IEE and IEI have the hardest time settling on a type, due to the "perfect storm" of Irrationality, strong Ne (easily conceiving of alternate possibilities), and weak Ti (difficulty categorizing things logically).

On the other hand, LSI is the type most likely to categorize themselves incorrectly, and then dig in and stick with it for a long time, possibly forever. This is due to a combination of Rationality, Causal-Determinism (thinking in a "straight line" and rarely revisiting matters they consider "settled"), and Vulnerable Ne (difficulty conceiving of alternate possibilities). LSE would be similar, except as Crispy said, they're more likely to just scoff at the whole idea of "putting people in boxes" (probably due to Ignoring Ti). Two out of the three LSEs I know had that exact reaction to my babbling on about socionics.

I don't think I'm a perceiving type. I know, I considered ILI for a long time, but not anymore. At the moment, I'm quite confident about my self-typing.

Nice. I've long suspected you were LII.

[golden]

AGE: Mm, age can work two ways. I'm older than the majority here and think it has made no overall difference in self-typing. On the one hand, I'm mature enough to not need to cling to a type in lieu of having life experience. On the other hand, my life experience is confusing enough. I've learned to do a ton of social masking. That said, my first post here was "Am I EIE or IEI?" and you can see my self-type is just Beta NF at this point.

SOCIONICS DESCRIPTIONS: Some of them are better, some are worse and misleading imo, owing to what types of people tend to write them.

POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS: Most of us come here tainted by popular notions of extrovert and introvert, and possibly by MBTI notions regarding the Jung material.

FORUM EXAMPLES AND STEREOTYPES: Some types are more common here, some rarely seen. A person could end up identifying with a well-represented type that isn't his or her own. And if there are a lot of wack ideas floating around about what the type is actually like, the confusion is compounded.

Some of the type descriptions I've read over time at http://www.socionic.ru/index.php point out that XXXx will mistype as XXXx for particular reasons. But I have not noted any clear pattern to it.

[golden]

Also, some definitions/descriptions seem a bit skewed towards gender biases. So, it may be difficult for females, for example, to find their type amongst the logicals.

Yes to this. Certain ethical types don't come across as terribly feminine, either.

[717495]

I think irrational intuitives are the most likely to change.

True. Everyone points to the fact that it has to do with understanding socionics and knowing oneself. More theoretical percievers, namely NP types, don't really "stick" to solid understandings. Most people who are sure of their type have been Js in my experience (at least thats one good way to tell they're J, if they've "come to a conclusion" as well as "are consistent" in their decision, and aren't open to adopting a different perspective.) I think types more than types will change their type too because of the decisive dichotomy. Decisive means you make a faster decision, for irrationals that decision will typically be rather incomplete, and will change around more. If one is a judicious irrational, one will think through the process more, and won't get the chance to change their mind as much because they're still forming a decision.

I think what a lot of people don't understand about perceivers is that it's just as unwise to convince yourself something is true and stick with it, as it is to switch around opinions. They don't think it wise to say something but not really mean it later on, like my current example. There is no harm in either really, I just think that perceivers are more honest about knowledge, and judgers often want to think they're right, when they have many times simply closed off options for no reason ("because everyone else says so," or "but this is how its defined" etc) and they will often be unconscious to those factors, its more of a natural expectation. It is simply the case of Ps having more perception ability, Js having more judging ability. Believing a type for yourself, for instance, is not often right, and people shouldn't praise that over keeping options open, especially if people actually care about the theory. A lot of people here however, have said in that recent thread that they don't really take life seriously (merry vs serious) and that is just another angle on the way people think: Merry Js: "just chose a damn type, it doesn't matter!" <-- this comes across completely illogical to me. In my opinion Socionics is a theory, and it shouldn't be rushed because someone is so sure of something and seeks closure, or wants to be right. There is a good chance you are probably wrong and your mind is a rock.

via 'decisive perception': can make instant decisions about or 'a way' for things from intuition, but doesn't necessarily believe them, so what it ends up doing is follows a long train of thought to see what it might offer or how things might end up. Imagination, living out a possibility or fantasy, mimicking a reality and gaining insight from it.

[krieger]

It took me about 2 years to really settle on a type and eliminate all doubts, but I've never firmly claimed to be anything other than INTj at any point.

I had a crush on my conflictor

I never "get" how this happens. Personally I feel almost acutely repelled from any conflictor that I meet.

[Slacker]

It took me about 2 years to really settle on a type and eliminate all doubts, but I've never firmly claimed to be anything other than INTj at any point.



I never "get" how this happens. Personally I feel almost acutely repelled from any conflictor that I meet.

I've had crushes on my conflictor before. When I get to know them better, the crush seems to go away.

[krieger]

I've had crushes on my conflictor before. When I get to know them better, the crush seems to go away.

I would imagine the negative feelings come before the positive ones, as in, you intuitively "know" the relation isn't going to work out, but you somehow rationalize that you "should" like the characteristics of the person in question.

[Slacker]

Well I think I would just think they were hot, and then I'd get to know them and think, "Oh well, wouldn't work out anwyay."

[Beautiful sky]

Irrational types are more likely and it doesn't matter whether they are E or I because they perceive things.
Rational types are more likely to stick to hard and fast rules and to something they choose to make sense for them.
E types need I subjective help to determine type.
I types need E objective help to determine type.

now, as far as other issues
Yes, I agree that factors such as age, descriptions of types, and other things may make choosing a type confusing but overall, if the person sticks to something like Jung's original work, they can choose a type. They can even reference to it, saying, "according to Jung, I would be Te." etc. It's not hard and it's not brain chemistry. A little objectivity is required for those who are introverts who are subjective and are not able to evaluate themselves objectively.

[HERO]

In a few words -- alienation, dissociation, yearning/desire to belong, peer pressure, (unconscious) repression of the vital part of the personality due to unhealed (and often cerebrally forgotten) injuries from childhood and birth...
And then there's the social alter -- what you show to the world (and different worlds) -- the only way you could learn to survive (despite all the blows to one's self-confidence). One feels that if suffering causes one to be fragile and fragmented, one must try to disguise it.
If due to societal, familial, personal, physical, and/or otherwise oppressive conditions you are not able to entirely express your true self, Socionics won't help you find it. At work or when you're volunteering you might be very quiet and obedient. At home (or with people you're close with) you might talk a lot and (unconsciously try to) compensate for your 'neutered' facade in daily/public life.
So it's the search for freedom and social contact, authenticity and happiness that drives people. Yet those needs are often frustrated. Frustrated by repressed traumas, psychosomatic/physical conditions, social handicaps, fear, passivity, emotional blindness, paralysis, pettiness, isolation, etc. And the more certain human needs are ignored, the more the unconscous drives one to seek variety and novelty anywhere it can. Arbitrariness. Why not? Why can't or shouldn't I be this or this, or do this? We dream. Yet it's not serious, right? It's not important. No amount of rationalizing can change or alter reality. Perhaps it's a flight from reality, from the truth. Perhaps there are so many invisible shackles binding us in real life to the extent that we have to compensate for the feeling of imprisonment by indulging in abstract concepts and imaginary theories in order to transcend those boundaries. At least somewhere we think that we truly and genuinely have free choice. Yet is it authentic? I say, just be yourself, whatever that is, and why should there be a need to qualify it. Why should there be this pre-fabricated war full of skillfully built deceit and pre-fabricated truths.
In all fairness, Socionics can be viewed as a rigid dogmatic system (one of millions of many different dogmas and ideologies and schools of thought with their respective leaders, and herd mentalities, and fears of ostracism and loneliness and isolation and not being liked, etc.). People are more complex (and 'rebellious') than a type presupposes. People want to break their chains (whether or not those chains originated with them in the first place, or their families, or their society). They want to have more choices, more freedoms. Not everyone wants to be encapsulated in a terse mathematical equation or sum.

We want to be who we want to be and to be grouped with the people that we like and relate to. We want to conform to something, to be recognized, to count. So we align ourselves with a certain group because we think that's where we belong or that's what we are. Yet what if that group doesn't want us to be part of it. Does that mean that identification (and mirroring and understanding and sense of belonging) we long for is non-existent?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hm. I've considered many types, but I think I've officially typed as only 3 (IEE first, IEI second, EII third). I tend to question my type for various reasons: boredom with the current type; attention-seeking (in bringing it up to others); and honestly not having a good enough grasp on the IMEs. Relying on others to interpret everything for you is a horribly unproductive method, as you can't tell whether they're correct or not.

As far as what types change all the time... I have no idea.

[DividedsGhost]

And then there's the social alter -- what you show to the world (and different worlds) -- the only way you could learn to survive (despite all the blows to one's self-confidence). One feels that if suffering causes one to be fragile and fragmented, one must try to disguise it.
If due to societal, familial, personal, physical, and/or otherwise oppressive conditions you are not able to entirely express your true self, Socionics won't help you find it. At work or when you're volunteering you might be very quiet and obedient. At home (or with people you're close with) you might talk a lot and (unconsciously try to) compensate for your 'neutered' facade in daily/public life.

Yup...basically, that's exactly it.

[eunice]

Based on what I have observed from this forum, the ones who are usually undecisive about their type or/and keep changing the opinion of their types tend to be (1) Ip, or/and (2) Ne or Ne seeking.

[glam]

this thread went really off-topic, so i split the discussions about Krig the Viking & MegaDoomer's types, and about Te & Ti, into a new thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34644