Are you seriously asking if brain chemistry changes?Originally Posted by Joy
Did you skip fourth grade science?
Here is a picture of a baby elephant:
Looking at it changed your brain chemistry.
Are you seriously asking if brain chemistry changes?
Did you skip fourth grade science?
Here is a picture of a baby elephant:
Looking at it changed your brain chemistry.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
My point exactly
Allow me explain my musings a little...
I haven't been around much for a while, but when I was, almost everyone was operating from the premise that each person has a type that he or she is born with, and that type never changes. Additional theories, such as subtype, are built on this premise. They further complicate types to explain variations beyond the basic 16 archetypes.
Some other type theories suggest that brain chemistry is the basis of their types, specifically Enneagram if this article is any indication of that community's general consensus: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/ar...p#.UmAilhDh7d4 However, as Scapegrace pointed out, our brain chemistry changes throughout our days and lives. Perhaps the brain chemistry issue isn't as simple as all of that as there are many more "brain chemicals" than just seratonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine, but in any case there seems to be more to one's type than that.
What else is there to explain how our types are programmed into our psyche's before we're even born? Some line of genetic coding hidden in our DNA determining how our brains work? The same thing determines our eye color, shoe size, and sex. Yet eye color often changes during one's life, and there are people with two different eye colors. Some people have webbed toes, or six toes. There are people born with ambiguous genitalia. These are (with the exception of changing eye color) extreme examples of mutations, but they demonstrate that in the genetic coding that determines how a human will grow, there are many things that deviate from the standard variations.
Socionics is a very tidy little hypothesis. It has a perfectly balanced models that fit snugly within perfectly balanced models. It's all very clever and symmetric and beautiful, like intricate geometric architecture. I propose that the human psyche is messier than all of that though. It's a natural thing. Socionics is a construct that attempts to explain common manifestations of information processing and their related outward characteristics, and perhaps most people fit well enough within these constructs and descriptions to make the theory seem pretty damn plausible. I think it's entirely plausible that there are plenty of natural deviations that don't fit cleanly into our pretty little system.
Whether these things change over time or not is a bit of a different matter though I suppose. What I've said above speaks more to the heart of the matter I've been pondering though.
If something liek Socionics deals with information processing, that is, the way you and you process info, a change in processing info, that is type change is very possible and I would say can occur after severe head injury.
I didn't check how many people are brain damaged on here, though, but it is a start.
What about after a trauma?
Heh, what?
Have no data on that, although having some kind of mental issues can obscure things. As for brain damage, that's an irreversible process and I doubt one can change types on whim after...
Brain damage affects personality, I mean.
This assumes that type is intimately related to dna,
And ignores that environment will influence how some parts of dna express themselves.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't think types change. I am still the same interested, concerned person that I was as a child. Just more wary of the world's judgement, and therefore more likely to be silent.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
Perhaps you didn't notice my post after the one you quoted.
Yes. That was my argument. Are you going to take a stance or just dance around the issue in an IEE fashion? Make the argument that it's not related if you want.
No, it doesn't ignore this. You seemed to miss my point. My argument was how the DNA expresses itself DOES change, although the DNA itself is unchanged. Which... it seems you agree with... and it seems you just created a logical circle for no reason.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Typology is present in theology as well, so it is fine study. Would comment further but sexual harassment charges may be pressed against me again. although I still stick to brain damage as major factor in type change, permanent change, that is.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-16-2013 at 07:43 AM.
there are like four layers of "wth?" here lol
Well, I'm certainly no Langan, and the line between total insanity and genius doesn't really describe my efforts well here. Anyhow, I need to appear in a forest now. Going to check this later.
there are like four layers of "wth?" here lol
Types don't change. The strength of functions does change.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
It may perhaps change in the context of temperament, but it's like a ball trying to crawl out of a local minima where the plane is the environment you're in.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If the "the strength of functions does change", type changes, unless you're going to defend it with subtype, in which case it is going to have just a slight deviation from the norm.
That means Ep can become Ij.
The only type changes I can stomach are due to mistypes (mistyping one self/receiving such diagnosis), in that case, type changes. Anyway, it isn't anything malicious at all, but to not offend any one (which is hard):
If, say, chicken decides she/he is SEE for example, and at a blink of an eye ceases to self-type such, embracing LII and 'documenting' their choice with some kind of a reason as to why the confusion first time, to change their mind and self-type LIE this time (again, documenting their findings), I can't really buy anything else from a simple notion that one can mistype themselves and others, and at the same time cling to the decision that there is nothing wrong with that.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-18-2013 at 12:32 PM.
I mean, think of an ILE who sucks at. Then the ILE develops his Fi and this function is no longer "super weak". If the ILE "hides" Ti (stops being blunt) and becomes more
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
I've had a crush on the same types of girls since elementary school.
My taste in music and art has definitely changed. my type... no. Sometimes I see my identicals and wonder, "hmm, I wonder how he still likes that stuff I stopped listening to 20 years ago?"
Sometimes I look at my identical who is still watching movies like "death race" and "gamer" and I'm just wondering where the hell I went wrong.
Oh, I see. Those ILE.I mean, think of an ILE who sucks at
Hiding their Ti from other people, ehh. Wonder whether IEE do that as well (hide their Fi, I mean)...
I think rather than trying to reify the types, it would do better to look at them as being archetypes acting out a narrative as told by some subject. Types change as the way we relate to people changes. Our self-types change as we fixate upon different archetypes being the protagonist of our own narratives. The people who attract our most passionate and intense affections are our Duals, while those that spark the direst of our hatred are Conflictors or Supervisors.
Types change as we reinvent ourselves, and as we grow alongside the people that matter to us. Types appear when Socionics is a point of salience, and an attractor in the chaos of the human mind; types disappear when we cease to consider the theory.
That means people are chameleons, at least some of them...
Doesn't surprise me...
I wholeheartedly agree with this part.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
In that case, it is all about acceptance, that is, a reverend is no longer a reverend when you stop to revere him. No support for a cause - no cause.
Wonder though if I stop supporting it, will it 'disappear', ahem...
Tangible tangibilities.
give yourself one of those on the head...somebody forgot too
Then you need to present a theory about how loss of certain functions in the brain will cause the rest of the brain to reconfigure itself. If brain damage makes you blind, would that change your type? If brain damage makes you impulsive, would that make you change your type? And if so, how does it do that? Imo the example of lack of impulse control due to brain damage is simply a loss of the ability to control impulses which in turn leaves the rest of the brain intact. So when we observe the change in personality (a person that isn't impulsive that becomes impulsive) it is simply a lack of inhibition, not a complete makeup reconfiguration.
Socionics type never changes. Not even after a trauma. Because the physical component of type has never been discovered, I can't give you any tangible evidence of this. But I've never seen it happen. Not even once. You might find that, over time, one's natural behaviors and mannerisms become obscured over time due to being criticized or reviled by those in a different quadra. But people, even screwed up ones, have always seemed like their own type to me.
no, but a blow of hammer to the head can damage the soul
if "type" is an information processing system, i.e. something more analogous to a collection of sensing faculties like sight, hearing , etc. then i think it's harder to make the case that it can change.
if it's strictly a collection of values and personality characteristics (however deeply personal or fundamental to one's day-to-day experience), then it's easier to make the case.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...-Research.aspx
There have been several studies and articles about brain plasticity in the past decade, so yes, as the brain changes, so too can type. Given the ability of the brain to change in terms of personality and cognitive ability in relation to the environment, as well as the long development period, the opinion that type is some hardwired feature of an individual's brain is conjecture. It seems, based on what I've read on the topic of brain plasticity, that a stable environment leads to a stable(static) personality, whereas an instable environment requires the brain to "rewire" itself. see entropy vs. negentropy.
Our information processing system does change, the peripheries do too.
There have been several studies and articles about brain plasticity in the past decade, so yes, as the brain changes, so too can type. Given the ability of the brain to change in terms of personality and cognitive ability in relation to the environment, as well as the long development period, the opinion that type is some hardwired feature of an individual's brain is conjecture. It seems, based on what I've read on the topic of brain plasticity, that a stable environment leads to a stable(static) personality, whereas an instable environment requires the brain to "rewire" itself. see entropy vs. negentropy.The fact that the brain is plastic doesn't suggest that type is capable of change. If information processing can radically change and is as fundamental to the brain as hearing or touch, then both of those can be radically changed as well.
No, types don't change due to the nature of Socionics. Information is "metabolized" a peculiar way that is specific to each of the types. It would be more constructive to simply reject Socionics as a model than to attempt to prove that types change since "type" being ingrained in a person is implicit.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some) I
I honestly don't know what to say. My behavior throughout highschool is incongruous. It's a complete change in mindset and behavioral patterns. I thought it was for the better and could close that chapter of my life for good, but should I regress back? Should I be affable? Complacent? Silly? Scattered? Should I kiss up? I could write out a whole list of the type of shit I used to do then, but it's pointless. A lot of is just bizarre and I'm not even sure that I could assign a type to any of it. I was barely a person, and to think, that's the lasting image that the majority of people I've come across have of me.
I look at myself now and think, was I overcompensating then and am now showing my true colors, or have I just become guarded and repressed? I want to be whatever it is that I was then, just so I could have a peace of mind about this, but I can't bring myself to do it. Whatever wiring I had that found that sort of behavior reasonable is just gone.
Still, the facts can't be ignored. When an ILE was talking shit about me and my pregnant best friend on a consistent basis in 11th/12th grade, my response was to ask someone if I could show up to his party. FiSe my ass.
Last edited by suedehead; 05-21-2014 at 05:31 AM.
A person's type never changes. Enneagram could possibly change. Subtype could possibly change.
There is a wide variety of LSEs, from severe to goofy. A person can change within a type. They never move to a different quadra. Their basic type doesn't change.
agreed. it would be very strange and aggravating to one day go to sleep as an LSE and wake up the next day as an EIE.
I change my type whenever I like.
I don't think this is something to get dogmatic about: it will be easy for most people here to see for example that even with their current personality they may have an introverted and an extroverted side or whatever...there are numerous extreme instances too of people who's "personality" completely changed after some mishap.
However, for most people who continue to remember, they have memories and a certain innate set of mannerisms that they simply do not deviate from very easily.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
I think people tend to be too definitive on this issue. Sure, type changing over time doesn't exactly fit with the theory, but, in the end, we have no clue if type changes, much less under which circumstance or what time horizon. The most we can say is that we haven't heard of it happening with any certainty yet .
I think if you consider that type is some abstract thing that works as a structuring story about why some relationships have the qualities they do, and don't attempt to pin it down to some real thing in the brain or soul, it seems more reasonable that type may change. I actually think it's more likely that Socionics's internal structure is just storytelling made internally rigid as a form of rhetoric, and most of the assumptions don't stand up to evidence, producing artefacts of internal conflict where analysing type from one school or perspective yields one result which is contradicted from another perspective or on considering more evidence.
I mean, there are a lot of structuring narratives out there. Whoever it is who's behind similarminds seems to believe temperament is genetically programmed reward structure, and that the personality lexicon describes inborn traits. I'm not aware of what, if any, the explanations are for why Big Five traits change over time, except in specific cases like depression. As for relationships, my knowledge so far is we lack the ability to describe outcomes and compatibility with the same level of complexity as we do to describe outward personality appearance.
I find it illustrative that pieces of evidence for information processing changes due to disease process are externalised from socionics as disease processes, rather than evidence that perhaps the map needs to be redrawn to fit new information about the territory. Certainly things like depression and emotional dysregulation alter the way our relationships form and develop, and in the case of depression it can be spontaneous. I think if you consider Socionics to be about relationships rather than type, the case of depression is suggestive that type, and thus intertype, can change.
I think it also raises the point that Socionics as a language of describing type and information processing, may be weak and incomplete. I'd actually like to check this out by seeing how many of the Big Five's personality words are concluded to be Not Type Related. I'd certainly like to experiment with a Socionics that makes no assumptions about valued elements concluded from type, and that has as comprehensive a personality vocabulary as possible.
brb, retyping ILI.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
