Everyone has 1 type?
I have already said this before in a private message but I care what more experienced users have to say.
Do you think people can change their types as they get older?
I now believe you are naturally the type you were when you were younger but as time went on you adjusted to your environment. So certain functions were raised and lowered depending on what you needed.
Miss babydoll came up with this conclusion and I think it's quite interesting
I think your polr gets smoothened out the older you get.
When you were a kid and you encountered something you didn't like, you cried hysterically and acted very vulnerable, and cried for your mommy and threw a temper tantrum. As an adolescent it made you broody and withdrawn, but you were able to control how you felt about it a little better. As a young 20something adult, you gossiped about what you hated and it still annoyed you but you developed self-control you never had before. You begun to develop strategies in your head on how to get over it without reacting emotionally. By your early 30s, you begin to face what you were always afraid of and learned how to turn the struggle into an opportunity. It won't ever be 'fun' (it's your polr) but you worked towards a more adult and mature understanding. As an adult and elderly person, you are able to share this wisdom with others.
Your polr is like a defense stat in a video game though. It tests how much you're willing to take, but it's not your natural gift- what you can dish out in the world. So through all this, it's still important to be childlike and innocent and teenager-y and to show the world who you really are and throw your punches. And this is how you make your mark in the world, and how other people have to put up your shit just like you had to put up with theirs. To bulldoze the competition down and actually damage the monsters, you still have to put most stats in your ego (main offense) stat.
So you don't change much, but your ego and vulnerable functions both become less intensified. Your demonstrative function keeps shooting out into the cosmos probably.
basically - it's like adjusting the equalizer to find the balance you think you need to achieve in order to have the best personal performance in realm of your potentialOriginally Posted by truck
Its all experience points.
The more time and effort you put into any given thing, the better you'll get with it. Your Type is just what you've put the most time into. For me that's Ni+Fe, because i learned those when i was young, and thus they are my highest level "stats".
I do think Temperament is something that does not change.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Type may be very fixed at a very young age baring mental illness and other extreme factors. Technically type change is something that is possible since brain manipulation is possible at a physical/chemical level but the how and the quality of the change is something that is unknown.
Well Socionics is merely a model which classifies people's personality/type around the notion of information metabolism and Jungian function. But its important in my opinion to remember a person is more than some robotic categorization of what type of information they metabolize-- for example two people may share the same type but be very different in terms of how they are as people. What they will share in common is how the metabolize information, which isn't everything and Socionics is only a model-- not reality.
One thing to consider is two ILE's may share the emphasis on Ne and Ti in the ego, but as people have very different tastes in terms of music/food/art/culture. They may have very different cultural backgrounds and be engaged in very different activities or hobbies. In terms of people Socionics suggests that SEI's will have a good relationship with ILE's based on how their information metabolism compliments each other, but something seems a little ridiculous about any given SEI out of the bunch will absolutely appreciate every single ILE they come across exactly equally. It also seems ridiculous that certain types very similar to the ILE, like adjacent types which look very similar and share certain characteristics and differ will become absolutely less preferred to the ILE in every single circumstance. For example the SLE being the emphasis of Se in the ego versus Ne-- would think in some cases the SEI would run across the occasional SLE they in practice prefer to some other ILE. However on average, if typed properly I tend to think the SEI will prefer the ILE.
I account for this because to me it's like the ideal gas law in physics. It's an idealization, a model of a perfect situation to explain reality. There is so much more detail in a person that distinguishes them in these odd ways from a type. Two people of one type can be vastly different individuals, but obviously have to share something in common due to the shared type. This leaves the space to ask the question, what are those distinguishing factors. Many personality theory guru's would claim it's as simple as some subtype or various emphasis on functions, but I think that doesn't seem quite sufficient. If you study physics you run across all these revised laws on more detailed aspects of how things work, better models that can distinguish the nature of reality even further. I feel like personality is like this, Socionics is a really good theory and model but it's not perfect.
One of the major problems I see is how rigid these personalities theories are, it is much like classical music with horizontally built architecture, it starts in the same key and ends in the same key-- occasionally you will see the odd picardy third. While it completely ignores the concept of CHANGES and vertically built music, in fact it's almost afraid of this. It's like that sort of fluidity would seem to imply a lack of cohesion and insanity-- if it changes key it will loose it IDENTITY! OH NO! When in reality life and a person is more like a song with changes in so many ways. In some ways when you zoom out and study a melody from start to finish that has changes it is not the same as every other melody. It still retains its unique character, because of the specific sequences of changes and the way the melody fits over the top of these. I think a person's identity is much like this. Personality is so hard to characterize because it isn't so static, there is a good combination of nature and nuture. Like a song a person has their key but there are all these alterations and changes. Further even if these changes are very similar you may find the notes that are selected out of these to form a melody are vastly different. I think personality is somewhat analogous to this.
Identity is very fluid and as people go through life they have experiences and those experiences shape them. We like to think at the core these experiences are all being sorted and observed by some steady fortress of identity, our essence, which like a lighthouse remains stable and experiences are sort through and made sense of by this, but in reality I do think in small ways this changes. Even the foundation of identity on which we are born, our genes, our unique humanity is the result of biological evolution and the influence of our ancestors. We aren't this separate thing that came from another universe, but something that is a product of the universe, created from it, and shaped by it. Like a thread in a massive weave people play a unique part to it, but its like one melody being stitched into a larger mosaic.
I tend to see personality theory as an attempt by people to reflect on this and attempt to apply rigorous language to explain this weave. And most of the time, like classical music is focused on expanding complexity horizontally around a single type ("key") versus working with changes. Although I personally would think that the view of life in which we examine the changes could be very beneficial to self-understanding as well.
Also I tend to think the perception of an unchanging essence is more of an illusion created by a resistive psychological force, it's what causes us to resist certain influences to preserve certain things about ourselves, but even this motive to preserve can be traced back to it's inception of some more fundamental thing. And in some ways that inception is so instinctive and engrained in our subconscious as a result of nature/genetics/evolution that it's almost taken for granted that this itself was the result of being formed from the universe. Also the understanding of this is not really needed because understanding how a human evolved into its present form is not really required for everyday questions which arise with the personality.
Last edited by male; 07-30-2014 at 06:43 PM.
As discussed with a socionist, there is a theory of 3 layer personality which is:
the born type
the type formed in the early childhood directly influenced by the closest person (mostly by one's mother)
the type where we molded to due to life experience.
I find it rather interesting.
We may be born our type or at least early on in life but our personality itself is also influenced by our environment, culture, upbringing, experiences, etc. I'm not sure if our core type changes but I do think there is some meaning in subtypes because it's more realistic to me that we won't all be the same given what I mentioned, even if we're the same core type.
There's 6-7 Billion people, that all fit into these 16 types. Of course the cumulative people in a type(or subtype) are going to be different. They're going to be different unless you have 6-7 Billion types for that many people. The goal of archtypes is to highlight that golden thread where things are alike, because its a given that we're all different.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Yea I agree pookie, it's just that I don't know why socionics claims to have captured that golden thread where all other ideas are flawed. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good concept and all but I don't see why it's the golden way of sorting those 6-7 billion people into groups or categories.
Oh yeah, sure. I'm aware of that and agree. I just mentioned that because I'm also aware that some people look at type rather rigidly or stereotypically, like based off of the type descriptions. Like if they see someone being tough or territorial, they may think they have Se in their ego when that can be a product of their environment (being raised in the hood or ghettos, for example). In essence, if you're IEI that means your base and creative are Ni and Fe which can manifest as more than just a calm, submissive idealist. The golden thread is more so about how you perceive and judge information, right?
yeah, I find it interesting toois there any chance that you could please expand on this? or was it just a general statement of that socionist without going into further detail? I'm really curious.
Jung believed the type is not static, and plenty of evidence says the Jungian view is you might start focusing on different functions in various points of life. I'm not sure why this would not to an extent carry to sociotype, but am curious as to naysayers. Even the dimensionality site for sociotype says highly experienced people could use an information element extensively, in a lot of ways
the questions of whether type changes and whether personality changes are two entirely seperate matters. i'd answer them firmly with no and yes.
Your functions change over time by adapting to new circumstances. You need to gain experience and work on your self-development to see a significant result. (Even your ego functions)
Last edited by xerx; 08-17-2014 at 04:21 AM.
Yes, basically you function differently as time goes on, and you do so not because of any reason except that you're adapting. In so much as this adaptation reflects your general conscious psychology quite well, that is your "type" at least as per Jung. One could either say the type changes (in so far as the conscious disposition changes), or say it remains stable (in so far as there exists some rootedness to the psyche which lies beneath all the changes).
It's easier to not make the latter claim perhaps, but the hypothesis of many systems is indeed to identify something stable, innate, fixed beneath all the change.
The dimensionality article for instance would say one tends to acquire information through a certain number of dimensions, and this remains fixed for each IE, however what you actually can do on the other hand can vary vastly, for instance mere personal experience allows you to recognize quite a lot of information.
As an example, one-dimensional Ti will not tend to tune into the situation as is, absorbing all of the needs to create a precise, conceptually coherent system of categorization and so forth naturally. But, in so much as immense personal experience exists, one could use it for doing the relevant categorization. The more someone seeks out Ti in life, the more the single-dimensional Ti can in theory do in various situations.
The one thing I'm not sure I agree with about the dimensionality hypothesis is this idea that your dimensionality is so rigidly fixed.
The key to socionics is information elements in function in blocks. The question is whether the information elements change function or block. In socionics all information elements within their respect function and blocks develop, but that development may be asymmetric. The question that is not answered but assumed to be true is that information elements don't change position within Model A as long as a person maintain a consistent TIM.
Whether TIM changes is open for debate, but generally it's assumed to be static when discussing an individuals personality.
Exactly; my view is that it's possible that this assumption is a product of the need for maintaining a study of a system of typology at all. After all, you can't describe the infinitely many ways development can happen, but you can try to describe and build on the likely foundations/innateness behind that development. Jung's type diagnosis was subjective enough and allowing enough for changes of type pattern that he probably never was motivated to write down a full on static classification system (nor was that his kind of thing).
Unfortunately I think it's hardly reality that there's a clear, obvious reason why someone's IE remain solely explainable from the standpoint of one block or function. You can argue it and argue it and spin it so it works, but I happen to think with development comes not just more nuance and more experience, but also a potential opening up of the person to employ functions from the mindset of a different block, i.e. develop new fundamental patterns resembling other TIM. It's possible some of this is speculated about in the Gulenko multiple types theory, which never seems to have been resolved entirely (?!). As the persona type represents the individual's concrete adaptations to reality's conditions, and as in the original Jungian standpoint, the ego would likely identify at least in part with a healthy persona, with the difference not being between persona=mask and ego=real but rather ego=conscious sense of self vs Self=full sense of self, including the iceberg beneath the ego, it's actually quite likely one develops pretty clear, well-defined type patterns over time.
No. You're stuck with whichever of the 16 you've always had until you die. I don't know whether it'll be the same afterwards or not.
I know if you spend a lot of time with your dual, you can be dualized. I typed one long-time couple Alpha rational, but had some trouble figuring which was which.
I posted about this relatively recently (within the last year and a half) but can't seem to find the post now.
i have three types....tall, dark, and handsome....
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Going to move our discussion to the viewpoints thread. I will address more of your content as well as some of your previous content later. Also it might be better to frame the discussion a bit it may be productive to methodologically discuss(dialectics, etc) vs a free-form discussion.
Finding one type might be hard enough.
Giving it two or three or more...? Makes it easier or harder to live with when you have all these types.
I just reckon find one that you can stick with, you might get confused with type 'personalities' you take on, but if it matters (and none of it does), choose one that makes you happy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
