Functional Development

[snowyc]

I would like to know at what age your type generally becomes established i.e. noticable enough for identification.

Is it correct to say that a young child is in some kind of flux of their functions until their type becomes established?

I once read on the Jung that we develop our functions naturally over time so for example, my "midlife crisis" will actually be the rising of my PoLR where I might face the dillemma that I want to start living life more. Does this hold true for Socionics i.e. am i on a natural path of development as well as a nurtured path if i recognise my weak functions and work with them now?

[Hugo]

My opinion is that type is established through nurture, not nature.

But some smart ass will probably say that it's through both, nature and nurture.

[Artemis]

I guess I get to be the first smart ass.

Intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation* are encoded in an individual's DNA. *I believe people are born gay.

Why do all the type descriptions describe facial and body features? My vote is that nature plays much more of a part than nurture . . . . if nuture plays any part at all.

[Darklord]

Nurture is very important. Nurture is what allows for language, etiquette, norms, rules, and quite a big deal of morality. However, I believe that nurture is the framework in which our nature, inborn traits, are allowed to play around. I know that, I, for one, if I could "Choose" my own personality earlier in my life, or if environmental pressure or shaping could mold my personality type, I'd be ESxx. I'd be ESE from my family's pressure and SLE from peer pressure. My nature, however, contradicted both and made me EII.

[tempus]

Nature develops type. Nurture develops personality.

[Artemis]

STEVEN PINKER: The behavioral geneticists . . . with studies of adoptees and twins found that virtually all of the correlation between parents and children, comes from their genetic similarity, that is, if you look at two kids who grow up in the same household, they are no more similar than two children who grow up in different households, on average, in their personality.

Nuture is where we learn social skills.

[Slava]

There's not reason to make guesses, lets just use the "identical" twin example... Many twins have different types, and different personalities, but they are usually closer together from the start than just brother and sister. So its both nature and nurture.

[Artemis]

nature:
genetic material affecting organism: the inherited characteristics of an organism, as opposed to what is learned from experience or the environment.
by nature: as a part of somebody's or something's essential character.

nuture:
take care of young thing: to give tender care and protection to a young child, animal, or plant, helping it to grow and develop.

type:
category or kind: a group made up of individuals or items that have strongly marked and readily defined similarities.
particular kind of person: a person regarded as having a particular temperament or characteristics.

personality:
somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time.
somebody regarded as epitomizing traits: somebody regarded as epitomizing particular character traits . . . ie a difficult personality.

[Rocky]

Nature develops type. Nurture develops personality.

Said perfectly. You are born with a type, and nuture develops everything else around that type.

And you have to remember that your functions are dynamical, not linear.

As for the original question, I hear you can identify people's types from about 6-12 months old.

[Artemis]

Nature develops type. Nurture develops personality.

Said perfectly. You are born with a type, and nuture develops everything else around that type.

And you have to remember that your functions are dynamical, not linear.

If we look at the definition of nurture: take care of young thing: to give tender care and protection to a young child, animal, or plant, helping it to grow and develop.

So if a child is not nurtured in the sense of the above definition then you are saying he has no personality.

[Rocky]

Nature develops type. Nurture develops personality.

Said perfectly. You are born with a type, and nuture develops everything else around that type.

And you have to remember that your functions are dynamical, not linear.

If we look at the definition of nurture: take care of young thing: to give tender care and protection to a young child, animal, or plant, helping it to grow and develop.

So if a child is not nurtured in the sense of the above definition then you are saying he has no personality.

No, I'm saying he has the personality of a packrat.

[stefana]

//

[Waddlesworth]

People that develop in high altitudes, for example, physically develop differently than people that develop in lower altitudes. unfortunately a pair of identical twins have never been separated, one raised in the mountains of peru, the other in the U.S., so there is no clear comparison, but this is what I have read.

So not everything is necessarily "nature" in terms of heredity. Perhaps, for example, J/P are inborn, while the E/I and other dichotomies are established at later periods. Can anyone prove it isn't true?

There is alot about competition of neurons in development of the nervous system. Perhaps this occurs at critical stages and establishes type. Neurons most used establish the most connections sorta like Grof's "Condensed experiences" idea in a way.

If you don't use your right eye at all in infancy, if it's covered with a patch, if I'm not mistaken you will begin to lose use of that eye. The connections will be less and eventually die out.

so, i think this has been said here before "use it or lose it"

[Artemis]

In the field of psychology, the word 'nurture' is commonly used to generally define social/environmental conditioning.

So then wouldn't nurture teach you to simply control/adjust your emotions and actions as to social conditioning/acceptable behavior. This doesn't equate to shaping/attributing to your personality.

[stefana]

//

[Artemis]

So then wouldn't nurture teach you to simply control/adjust your emotions and actions as to social conditioning/acceptable behavior. This doesn't equate to shaping/attributing to your personality.

Hmm.. but over a period of time (say 10 to 15 years) these external influences will shape our personality make-up to a certain degree.

For instance, two ISTps have the same pyschological type but they will not have the same personality make-up. One can be more expressive, friendly and proactive in approaching people whereas the other one can be cold and passive.

Woudln't then personality change over the years also ie when you go to college and out in the world or after years of marriage? I would think the real you would come through most of the time in these circumstances.

[stefana]

//

[Topaz]

I would say that our type is fixed at birth but that our environment wll influence our type. Genetics have a strong say though. One TV show I was watching was about identical twins that were seperated at birth. Many did not even know they had a twin. When the twins were united the results were astounding and emotional. They had so many things in common, it was unbelievable. One set of twins each decided to surprise each other with a gift. You guessed it. They bought the same gift for each other. One set of twins, seperated at birth discovered they had wives with the same name, two children with the same name and almost identical clothes in the closet. It blew me away.
I wondered about somethings and began to compair notes with my brothers and sisters, there are 8 of us. Turns out some of us have the same sureal dream whenever we have a fever. We have all kinds of funny habits that we never shared with anyone and thought we had just made them up ourselves. I believe the basis for many of these quirks are genetic. I agree with Darklord that if most of us were to choose our personality and temperment we would hardly choose the ones we were born with due to outside forces pushing us in very different ways.

Topaz

[snowyc]

The human race is an oxymoron, the only race I know of is the "rat race".

There are many scales or continuum's in life, here are 2 sets in relation to this thread:

Predictable Life <---------------------------> Unpredictable Life
Not Unique <---------------------------------------> Unique

UnAWARE <----------------------------------------> AWARE

From the above I would then say what applies to EVERYONE:

Yes, your life is indeed unpredictable, you are unique and you are aware of your existence. On the other hand, you show behaviour that is predictable in relation to a particular trend, you are not unique to the extent that we can observe certain functions at play that we've seen before. Lastly, you are also unaware of how you're actions and reactions are the result of differences in the psyche.

So if a person became more aware of their predictable/non-uniqueness as defined by tests then they can have a reference point in their life for change.

[Cone]

One TV show I was watching was about identical twins that were seperated at birth. Many did not even know they had a twin. When the twins were united the results were astounding and emotional. They had so many things in common, it was unbelievable. One set of twins each decided to surprise each other with a gift. You guessed it. They bought the same gift for each other. One set of twins, seperated at birth discovered they had wives with the same name, two children with the same name and almost identical clothes in the closet. It blew me away.

Yes, but think of how many twins throughout history weren't as similar. Would that specific occurrence apply to every twin out there, or was that just a coincidence?

It is also common to find twins with the same psychological type but different personalities. There's usually some kind of identity rivalry between them, where one wants to assert his individuality over the other, so a split in personality happens.

[Cone]

So if a person became more aware of their predictable/non-uniqueness as defined by tests then they can have a reference point in their life for change.

But alot of those characteristics are defined by closely-held internal values, those of which define who you are and what suits or disgusts you. So, becoming more aware doesn't necessarily mean you want to change yourself. I sure don't want to change.

[snowyc]

Yeah, true.

I don't think anybody needs to change who they are. Unfortunately due to the nature of Demoracy i.e. the needs of the many, media advertising, branding etc. we are constantly bombarded with reasons why we need to change or be something that others require us to be in order to feel "normal".

When someone questions your normality you should question their sanity by asking what IS "normal"?

[MysticSonic]

I would emphasize the nutritional and physical upbringing of the individual over the psychological one, simply because I see those two as having greater influence upon one's neurological structure; thus, in relation to "eviornmental" deterministic research, I would believe those two fields to be of more importance and hence advocate a shift of focus upon said fields.

[Koneko]

Talking about neurological nutrure~

I've witnessed an ISTj becoming ESTp in less than a year 10 years ago by mala praxis in the usage of heavy anti-depressant drugs.. The person is 26yo by now and still notoriously ESTp.

My typing is based on memory but as far as I noticed the skilled functions were the same, just went to the other side of the axis.

She was shy enough to suggest her parents ask a psychiatrist and that's how it ended up.

Odd thing >.>

This obviously tempts me to imagine as long as your ego functions are the same they can be swapped by using that method.

*holds pills in his hand* who comes first for the test ^____^?

[Topaz]

Yes, but think of how many twins throughout history weren't as similar. Would that specific occurrence apply to every twin out there, or was that just a coincidence?

It is also common to find twins with the same psychological type but different personalities. There's usually some kind of identity rivalry between them, where one wants to assert his individuality over the other, so a split in personality happens.

Some of those twins are fraternal and not identical. Take the Olsen twins for example. I am not saying that our DNA is the complete story but it does have a strong influence. We still have free will and the abilities to make decisions. You can ask many adults if they are basicly the same person they were when they were young and despite all their modified behavior many will say 'yeah pretty much'.

[dudeins]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not very good at this stuff. I just find your discussion very enthralling, esp because I'm a psych/premed major. . So don't be too hard on me I just wanted to ask a question!

I know there was a previous thread about parent/family type correlation (types giving births to certain types) http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1053

Could your parents type influence you/change your type based on genes and/or environment. Could this possibly explain why there are some people who can't determine their types? Because they lived a different lifestyle than their personality would have "chosen". Seeing that have little choice esp when they're young to decide on how they want to be raised or decisions they would have made.

I'm not good at putting my thoughts into words. You guys are really good at delving into ideas. So feel free to chop this one up and let me know what you think.

[snowyc]

Well my theory is, you have the 8 introverted/extroverted functions "up in the air" until the age of like 7 or 8 at which time you can make a diagnosis of their probable type.

[Rocky]

Could your parents type influence you/change your type based on genes and/or environment. Could this possibly explain why there are some people who can't determine their types? Because they lived a different lifestyle than their personality would have "chosen". Seeing that have little choice esp when they're young to decide on how they want to be raised or decisions they would have made.

OOOOOOOHHH, I love that you brought this up!

I have often thought before that the way some people believe that they "should" be affects the way they try and live their lives (or find their own type ). This can be because of either "social programming" (i.e. parents) or looking up to/wanting to be someone else (esp. if that person was born with a diffrent type than yours). If your parents try to raise you to be a certain type of person (probably having the same values as they do) then it can be very painful for you. You would be forced to rely on your weaker functions (and not be able to draw strength from your strong ones). This may even cause you to *try* and be another "type", leading you to ignore your strengths (which leads to a low self-confidence). The same goes for if you have a hero or look up to someone. If someone has strengths that you DON'T have, but you *try* to act like them, then you are again forcing yourself away from your strengths and towards your weaknesses. Alot of the time people forget where there strengths really are, and that's a shame. Sometimes we expect that all people think alike; but we don't. What somebody does may give them strength, energy, and confidence, but have the oppssing affect on someone else. So, diffrent types look at and do things in a diffrent way from each other, even though sometimes we try to convince ourselves otherwise to fit into some sort of ideal we have about living our lives.

but of course i am just an intj who is trying to rationalize his own weird mystical beliefs ( ) so everything i say must be discounted

Yeah, I think we all realized that by now.

Well my theory is, you have the 8 introverted/extroverted functions "up in the air" until the age of like 7 or 8 at which time you can make a diagnosis of their probable type.

I whole heartedly disagree. From everything I've see, it makes sense that your type is as inborn as the nose on your face or the strips on a tiger.

[Topaz]

Almost anyone who has taken care of more that one infant can tell you there can be great differences in the way they behave. Even shortly after birth you can begin to observe each childs distinct traits. It doesnt take till the child is 7 or 8 to know which one is bossy, aggressive, timid, curious, gregarious, emotional, etc.
I do think some (alot) people repress their strengths in order to survive their family but I in most cases it manifest itself no matter what. Its not always appreciated as healthy and all kinds of problems result. Not to mention the fact that both parents are not usually the same type either and so you may recieve very different messages from each one. Just because people get together and marry doesnt mean they share the same values. Its a jungle out there and Im surprised any of us are sane. (he said with uncertainty)


Topaz

[Heimdallr]

A few thoughts about this subject:

1. Do not confuse identical twins with twins. Regular twins are no more similar than regular siblings. The only thing they do have have in common is age, which might make a difference in nurture but certainly not nature. If regular twins would be *very* similar, then one coul argue for that nurture is a very important part of the forming of our persondalities (personality here in a broader context than socionics).

2. Neurological processes as a whole are ridicilously complex, the same goes for genetics. It's not very surprising that the knowledge in these areas is very incomplete. Particularily genetics...

3. Homes for orphans is a perfect proof of that nature plays a very significant role. If nurture was dominant, then you wouldn't find such a large difference in IQ/personality and such there.

If I should write a little about the main topic of the discussion then... My opinion is that we are born with certain patterns that then might be changed slightly according to our upbringing. Generally we could be said to be born with a specific type, which corresponds to a certain organisation of the mind. Most of the pressure do not change this organisation but rather the expression of it. This can be observed in the very odd results people get on MBTI tests that mirrors how "they should be" according to society/their family/whatever.

This could be said to equal changes in the strength of the different functions according to socioncs, and perhaps the surpression of certain functions depending on circumstances. A poster on INTPcentral could be an example of this. He used to test as an ISTJ while in a very rigid envirmoent, then as an INTJ and eventually as an INTP. In the same way his behaviour slowly drifted away from what was promoted in this enviroment to what is typical of an INTP. I find it more plausible that this was a return to his "true self" rather than being caused by pressure from the rest of the world. I could take a similar example here about myself. My dear mother decided that being introverted was a crime and tried to force me to be social throughout my entire childhood. What was the result? Perhaps slightly better social skills but it surely did not make me more extroverted.

On the other hand really strong experiences might very well cause a more permanent and major change in ones personality. Very traumatic events or heavy treatment with drugs might very well do it.

[Topaz]

Very traumatic events or heavy treatment with drugs might very well do it.

So true. I used to be intj

Topaz

[schrödinger's cat]

From my personal experience and from what I've read, I'd say PTSD is likely to interfere with your functional development. I used to be an ENFP, and after the trauma I became INFP - not just as far as type descriptions are concerned; my preferences also changed (FiNe instead of NeFI). Nowadays I'm ENFP again. Socionic tests still say I'm INFP, but only because they don't distinguish between what you would do if you hadn't been traumatized and what you actually end up doing because of your trauma symptoms.

I'd say PTSD symptoms are likely to push you towards I and J, and perhaps towards T. The Introversion comes because PTSD can make you withdraw from the outside world. The Judging comes because you can turn into a control freak (not that Judgers are control freaks, but Perceivers who have a greater need for control can show J type behaviour).

I remember reading somewhere that T develops later than F because children are so dependent on their parents. The text said that children show F type behaviour and become more T when they're teenagers (Tnagers?). I'm not sure if that's true, though. It doesn't tie in with what you see children do.

IMO, as soon as the brain is capable of some new skill, this new skill already shows a preference for a certain way of doing things (E/I, S/N etc). Babies' brains develop more or less like this: As soon as an area of the brain is "finished" and ready for use, the baby thinks: "Fine, I'll use this to learn how to talk."* Then the next area gets finished. "OK, you'll get the motor skills." That's why babies develop in fits and starts. It also explains why abilities (language, social skills, motor skills etc) almost always sit in certain areas of the brain: that's usually the area that gets finished by the time the baby is ready to learn this particular thing. -- Now, wouldn't it make sense to say that the preferences develop during this process?

*sorry if this sounds as if I'm talking down to you - I'm just very tired.

[Creepy-]

oh wow I wasnt even being serious Thats interesting though. Im glad youre back to being ENFP. By the way according to socioncs INFJ ( I should say EII, sorry Rocky ) is FiNe. INFP (IEI) is NiFe. MBTI reconds the funtions differently. However, I believe that dire circumstances can affect our behavior but not truely the way we are wired. Thats why you returned to being ENFP (IEE). You never stopped being IEE you just stopped acting like yourself. Get it?

Topaz

[schrödinger's cat]

oh wow I wasnt even being serious

Don't worry. Your joke made sense, though. Trauma causes people to prefer I to E and J to P, in some ways.

I believe that dire circumstances can affect our behavior but not truely the way we are wired. Thats why you returned to being ENFP (IEE). You never stopped being IEE you just stopped acting like yourself. Get it?

You're right. But I think I focussed more on my second function, so I really was FiNe instead of NeFi for a while. Someone (Cone?) described the difference between NeFi and FiNe, and I went - I was FiNe when I was a teenager. Can't remember what the description was, though.

Im glad youre back to being ENFP.

So am I. Starting to be one's own type again is FUN. That's why I would never try to make an INTx "live in the real world". Their theories seem very unrealistic to me, but if being E is as bad for them as being I was for me, then... well.

Ah, wait, wait! NOW I remember what the description was! FiNe's have strong affections and not so strong a sense of possibilities, and NeFis live in the world of possibilities, but their affections aren't as strong. Yes. I was like that. When I recovered, I stopped being so focussed on my likes and dislikes (all that Fi stuff), and I began to live in the outside world again and to see lots more possibilities. That affected the whole VI side of things. As an INFP, my eyes were unfocussed, dreamy, withdrawn; later on they began to focus and to have this "isn't that exciting!" ENFP kind of look.