Do you believe your type changes during your life?

[Gilly]

If you argue that a type change occurs in this phenomenon, then all this really goes to prove is that the only way that type could change would be a massive restructuring of perception and personality. It says absolutely shit about the possibility of such a phenomenon in psychologically "healthy" individuals. We already know that the brain has the capacity to actively use all of the functions, so arguing that this has bearing on the possibility of type changing actually being possible in the brain of your average Joe is laughably redundant.

[marooned]

I thought the idea behind Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Disorder) was that the person's personality has been split or fragmented into multiple "personalities." As such none of their "personalities" are entirely them but are just all fragments of what used to be their single unified personality. It's not that they've retained their whole personality and then taken on additional personalities, but that they no longer have a whole personality (having instead been split into pieces). I don't think they keep a single unified personality that just morphs into another type when "triggered" either, but that they instead jump between fragments of what used to be their whole/unified personality.

Their tendency to switch between "personalities" when under pressure or stress only shows how non-cohesive the pieces of their personality are... the person isn't whole anymore. Nothing has changed necessarily about the nature of what used to be their whole person(ality); it hasn't necessarily switched types--it has simply been broken up into two or more pieces. Although each distinct piece may appear to be a complete personality when "active," it most likely isn't.

Take this with a few lumps of salt since I'm not a psychologist (or an able socionist :wink: ), but I don't think the existence of Dissociative Disorder in any way proves that people can switch types. For instance, people/characters appear in my dreams that have personalities very different from my core persona, but that doesn't mean I've switched types because I was able to create dream characters that are "unlike" me. To elaborate, we don't always act like our types 100% of the time, as everyone uses all 8 information-gathering elements (just to different degrees)... sometimes certain situations may call for us to act in ways that aren't characteristic of our types, but that doesn't mean we've switched types either, just that we're temporarily using IM elements which we aren't as strong in more dominantly. A whole person can act in a way that isn't typical of them and flow back into their primary mode(s) of behavior. A person with dissociative disorder can't... they supposedly may jump between modes of behavior and be unaware that they have done so, not even being conscious of what they did or how they were when in a different or previous mode of behavior. This makes it appear like they carry more than one "personality." The split helps them to cope with terribly traumatic situations as their other split identity (or identities) retain almost no memory of the trauma.

I would guess that the one personality they have that can remember whatever it was that caused their split into multiple identities is their core persona. And that it would have the same "type" as it always had. But this is getting into even more speculation based on little knowledge, so I think I'll quit.

In any case, I do not know if people can switch types... so I'm not saying that it's not possible. I simply don't think Dissociative Disorder can tell us anything definitive about whether or not type switching is possible, at least not without further study.

[snegledmaca]

If you argue that a type change occurs in this phenomenon, then all this really goes to prove is that the only way that type could change would be a massive restructuring of perception and personality.

No it doesn't. Not the only way. It would show that one possible way of changing type include developing another identity or as you call it a massive restructuring of perception and personality. For example another would be what some claim to be possible, a massive restructuring of perception and personality where identity remains the same. The type change through life.

It says absolutely shit about the possibility of such a phenomenon in psychologically "healthy" individuals. We already know that the brain has the capacity to actively use all of the functions, so arguing that this has bearing on the possibility of type changing actually being possible in the brain of your average Joe is laughably redundant.

No, it's not redundant. Ok, several things. The thing is that you are right that the brain can use all IME-s but the functions remain stationary, that is, according to the models you cannot use your, let's say dual function as your dominant. If that were not the case entire socionics would fall apart as that is the basis of the relationships. What this shows us is that yes, it is possible to use your dual function as your dominant function. These alter ego-s are just that, individual ego-s. With their individual IM. With their individual structuring of psyche. Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to this there was no tangible proof that it was possible for the same brain to switch the usage of IME-s. There was only speculation. And how this reflects on the average Joe is how every biological research has, you first start by observing the sick and you gain a better understanding of the healthy. But in the mean time it just shows that the brain has the ability to change it's usage of IME-s.

[spoil:e55a876eaf]I thought the idea behind Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Disorder) was that the person's personality has been split or fragmented into multiple "personalities." As such none of their "personalities" are entirely them but are just all fragments of what used to be their single unified personality. It's not that they've retained their whole personality and then taken on additional personalities, but that they no longer have a whole personality (having instead been split into pieces). I don't think they keep a single unified personality that just morphs into another type when "triggered" either, but that they instead jump between fragments of what used to be their whole/unified personality.

Their tendency to switch between "personalities" when under pressure or stress only shows how non-cohesive the pieces of their personality are... the person isn't whole anymore. Nothing has changed necessarily about the nature of what used to be their whole person(ality); it hasn't necessarily switched types--it has simply been broken up into two or more pieces. Although each distinct piece may appear to be a complete personality when "active," it most likely isn't.

Take this with a few lumps of salt since I'm not a psychologist (or an able socionist :wink: ), but I don't think the existence of Dissociative Disorder in any way proves that people can switch types. For instance, people/characters appear in my dreams that have personalities very different from my core persona, but that doesn't mean I've switched types because I was able to create dream characters that are "unlike" me. To elaborate, we don't always act like our types 100% of the time, as everyone uses all 8 information-gathering elements (just to different degrees)... sometimes certain situations may call for us to act in ways that aren't characteristic of our types, but that doesn't mean we've switched types either, just that we're temporarily using IM elements which we aren't as strong in more dominantly. A whole person can act in a way that isn't typical of them and flow back into their primary mode(s) of behavior. A person with dissociative disorder can't... they supposedly may jump between modes of behavior and be unaware that they have done so, not even being conscious of what they did or how they were when in a different or previous mode of behavior. This makes it appear like they carry more than one "personality." The split helps them to cope with terribly traumatic situations as their other split identity (or identities) retain almost no memory of the trauma.

I would guess that the one personality they have that can remember whatever it was that caused their split into multiple identities is their core persona. And that it would have the same "type" as it always had. But this is getting into even more speculation based on little knowledge, so I think I'll quit.

In any case, I do not know if people can switch types... so I'm not saying that it's not possible. I simply don't think Dissociative Disorder can tell us anything definitive about whether or not type switching is possible, at least not without further study.[/spoil:e55a876eaf]

Yes, I see your point. If these personalities are not whole type vise then it just shows that type is a cohesive unit and that it can decompose. And from observation if that happens each of the fragments becomes an ego. Well, if that is the case then one must still examine whether it is possible to reassemble these fragments into a type again. If not type change is impossible. Otherwise it's possible.

For instance, people/characters appear in my dreams that have personalities very different from my core persona, but that doesn't mean I've switched types because I was able to create dream characters that are "unlike" me

If they have their own IM then that's exactly what you've done. I think what one needs to do here is determine if these alter ego-s have a fully functioning IM. If they do then type change is a fact, if they don't then type is a cohesive unit.

[marooned]

The way I see it, the core personality in a dream is me... my personality... it's the dream persona that is "me" that I experience, and that holds my core qualities. Although I know the other dream characters, they often seem like other shades of me, latent shades, low-key elements that don't surface much... underlying... When I'm conscious I am all of these things, but in my dreams these other parts of me are personified... Everytime I interact with these other characters in a dream, I am only interacting with parts of myself. And through the process of the interaction in dreams information is channeled, internal conflicts and confusions are resolved, so on. I never experience the dream from the point of view of these dream characters (or elements of me) that are not a part of my core being (but are there inside me nevertheless). But what if you could? If you could experience consciousness via those other points of view? Then something would be terribly wrong with you psychologically, yes? You would no longer be sane. In this whole process you never would have switched types... you would just be insane. To be more specific, sometimes in dreams these animus-like characters appear... and they are often very ST or SF-ish, though most usually ST. They are like this small part of me that can be that way, this underlying part of me dwelling beneath... that is in the background somewhere... if I could experience consciousness from that sort of point of view... I'd still be the same "type" as I am now, but very badly psychologically screwed up. All IMO.

[liveandletlive]

Can your type change or do you just evolve within your own type? Can you change subtypes? Can you change just one day and the next day be another type? does that explain moodiness?

[Joy]

My personal belief is that you can change subtypes, but not types. Most Socionists believe that one's type does not change. Some Socionics hobbyists think type can change (I think they only think that because they never figured out their actual type).

However, I don't know of anyone who thinks type can change moment to moment or day to day. If you understand your type well, moodiness or day to day changes should theoretically make sense.

[FDG]

My personal belief is that you can change subtypes, but not types.

Isn't though the rationale behind changing subtype the same that would apply to changing type?

[BLauritson]

I think if one trained themselves, they could emulate another type for a period of time, but I don't think your natural type would ever change. That's not to say I reject the theory of changing types though, I just haven't seen any evidence for it IRL.

[liveandletlive]

i agree- thats one of the flaws that i find with socionics though is that you can rationalize almost anything to being about your type- even if you're mistyped.

[Jarno]

Can your type change or do you just evolve within your own type? Can you change subtypes? Can you change just one day and the next day be another type? does that explain moodiness?

No your type doesn't change. This is my personal experience, and the experience of Jung, MBTI and most Socionists.
Subtypes don't change either.

simply stated:

Your behaviour is based a couple of ingredients: the information element you perceive, but also your mood etc etc.
The information element stays always the same. Your mood etc etc can change and is therefor responsible for change in your behaviour.

[Jarno]

I think if one trained themselves, they could emulate another type for a period of time, but I don't think your natural type would ever change. That's not to say I reject the theory of changing types though, I just haven't seen any evidence for it IRL.

I would like to take this even a step further. I don't think you can emulate another type.

It's like when a dog walks on two legs. It's still no human, it's just a dog on two legs.

[implied]

I would like to take this even a step further. I don't think you can emulate another type.

It's like when a dog walks on two legs. It's still no human, it's just a dog on two legs.

very true. a duck with a hat on is still a duck.

[liveandletlive]

definitely... however i wonder if when one is trying to emulate a type in the presence of their dual how the dual would react... any ideas?

[Ezra]

Think of it this way: everyone uses functions. Now, can you change the functions you use so significantly that you can go from Ti to Fe, for example? Can your personality change so dramatically?

[Khamelion]

behavior can change. it can be very affected by environmental aspects. so types may appear to change.

also, people learn things with age, which causes changes in behavior (as in acting more maturely etc).



*shrug*

[Joy]

My personal belief is that you can change subtypes, but not types.

Isn't though the rationale behind changing subtype the same that would apply to changing type?

It depends on what you believe subtypes to be. I tend to think of them as your developing the strengths and view points and characteristics of one of your first two functions more than the other due to environmental responses to your behavior. Essentially, if subtypes are not inborn, then they can change if your environment changes.

[Joy]

No, no one KNOWS. But if type is determined by your environment, why would there be people whose parents are their conflictors?

[Animal]

Type is an inexact designation superimposed over peculiarities of temperament that describe what types of information one prefers to concentrate on. I believe there are some aspects of type that can can change and morph depending on chemical and environmental influence. Generally, the hardest aspect of your type to change would be who is your dual.

[Joy]

Type is an inexact designation superimposed over peculiarities of temperament that describe what types of information one prefers to concentrate on.

I would tend to agree.

I believe there are some aspects of type that can can change and morph depending on chemical and environmental influence. Generally, the hardest aspect of your type to change would be who is your dual.

Wouldn't having the same dual mean being the same type?

I believe that behavior can change, but functional arrangement doesn't, no matter how much you focus on a different aspect of reality.

[Joy]

I could sort of see one's type changing between mirrors.

[Animal]

Wouldn't having the same dual mean being the same type?

Yes and no.

[FDG]

I could sort of see one's type changing between mirrors.

Then you've understood nothing

[Joy]

Understood that type is or isn't fixed? Socionics isn't an exact science or a religion. If someone asked me if I think type changes, I'd say no. But if it did, that would be the only change that I could see happening, and it would have to be the result of some major change in someone's environment or body. Even that seems really unlikely to me though.

[Ezra]

everyone uses every function.

If that was in reply to my point: true, but no one uses more than one dominant function. My point was about whether or not you can change this function.

[guynoir]

So from my experience, as you grow up, your non-prefered functions begin to strengthen, and at times they probably overshadow your natural type. Your true type probably doesn't changes, as its the type that is most comfortable. However, I definitely felt like other types in my life, and those around me have noticed it too. I tend change over the course of a few weeks and then for a while I seem completely different. At various times I've felt ESTj and even ENFJ. Sometimes I consciously fake a ENTp type around alpha/delta types, in a slightly mocking way. Personally, I'd like to believe it is a function of intelligence how quickly one develops their various functions, but changing type like this is probably more of a characteristic of being dynamic. (heh, dynamic changing, how redundant).

*edit* I think the first part of my post was more of what I wanted to say. It says so in my post, but i just wanted to emphasis that any "change" in type I experienced were simply changes in the functional expression of my natural type. My "ESTJness" was more of an extreme expression of my base function, and my "ENFJness" an the expression of my role. *edit*

[Expat]

I don't think type changes, simply because I have never observed or experienced it, over decades. My personal opinion is that those who refer to type changing are confusing changes in personal circumstances, and in superficial behavioral traits, with change in type.

As for subtypes, I'm not sure that subtypes even "exist" to the extent that I think that types do. Sometimes I think that subtypes are just a very convenient way of describing people who are of the same type but do have some differences in behavior. I also refer to subtypes, quite often, as if they existed but in fact I'm not sure.

[leckysupport]

My personal belief is that you can change subtypes, but not types.

Isn't though the rationale behind changing subtype the same that would apply to changing type?

Rationale, yes. But I just haven't seen with my eyes the actual change from one clear type to another clear type.

I have seen a ESI who had very obvious Ne type behaviours and views (valuing Ne as well as Se, possibly Se less then Ne) but I'm still skeptical since I didn't see a change from one clear type to another. Also speaking to him about his parents (in great detail), they seemed very LSE-EII.

His actions where Se (very comfortable with the use of it), but a lot (not everything he said) of what he said erred on the Ne side.

I'm also very skeptical of reasons for smilingeyes motivations. So IDK, to me the whole thing is up in the air.

[FDG]

My personal belief is that you can change subtypes, but not types.

Isn't though the rationale behind changing subtype the same that would apply to changing type?

Rationale, yes. But I just haven't seen with my eyes the actual change from one clear type to another clear type.

I have seen a ESI who had very obvious Ne type behaviours and views (valuing Ne as well as Se, possibly Se less then Ne) but I'm still skeptical since I didn't see a change from one clear type to another. Also speaking to him about his parents (in great detail), they seemed very LSE-EII.

His actions where Se (very comfortable with the use of it), but a lot (not everything he said) of what he said erred on the Ne side.

I'm also very skeptical of reasons for smilingeyes motivations. So IDK, to me the whole thing is up in the air.

Well at every point in time a person is of a given type. If you see a Fi IJ flip-flopping between Se and Ne, between negative and positive, then you are effectively witnessing changes in time.

In any case, I believe I have witnessed it in myself, and in others too. For example, have you ever seen an old friend changing completely the kind of company he hangs around over time? Many times that reflects a quadra change.

I myself this winter and past autumn was far more Ni. I used to easily hang out around Betas for good amounts of time. Now I don't find myself having much in common with any of them (a group of betans in my classes), instead I've been spending more and more time with an ISTp-Te, ISFj-Fi and INFj-Fi. This change was coincident with me dedicating an higher amount of time to work rather than socialization.

[aut0]

I don't think type changes throughout your life, I think that it may seem like your type changes when you're unhealthy, or un-confident.

[munenori2]

As I said before, type does not seem to change - like, I do not honestly see myself as "an INTj who morphed into ESTj" - that seems rather absurd. I think Rick's Awakening the Ego article on his site is great. Not everyone meets their dual or a situation where they are needed to be "themselves", and I believe people can compensate for this by developing pseudo personality sets and so on. But I have never seen anyone's type change. I have seen major life changes that bring someones type awareness more fully into their consciousness, but honestly

....

I think a lot of this type changing stuff just stems from people's lack of understanding about socionics types itself, and the limitations of the theory. I thought I had it down -- and I did understand a great deal of it. But in terms of myself, I just based my observations on what I had done in the past, and never understood that I had not been in other situations that needed me to be "who I am". One personal example is being surrounded by caregivers in my upbringing - so until recently I was never needed to be one even though I am one.

SO part of it is that you need to have real experience in multiple areas, quadras, and life settings to really know your own type, and part of it is lack of understanding. The trouble is, you can only really understand the theory after you back it up with real life experience, consistently. IT is like getting a map and studying it, but never walking the land. Until you walk the land, and compare it to the map, can you tell how accurate the map was, and so on and so fourth. Even more so, the map may be accurate, but you may simply just not know what everything means in relation to yourself.

...and so on...

I would agree that there are aspects of the self that are unconscious and remain so, barring extraordinary events or circumstances to bring them to the surface. In this respect, I think you're right in bringing up that our self-knowledge isn't complete or infallible. We can be wrong about ourselves. What is meant by the perceivable changes in one's type is probably equally explainable in this manner, as it is to assert the physicalist basis for change (destruction or change to the material system). This position also seems to allow a better account of personal growth (if by this we are to understand the overall development of one's ability to process information).

In other words, we're laying a framework for the initial inherent capabilities of an individual (their type) as well as the uneven development they experience throughout life (such as your example where one's strong points are not required and find fewer occasions to be fully utilized). As an aside hypothesis, I wonder if this is compatible with the general phenomenon of homesickness/depression that seem to be very prevalent amongst beginning college students. It seems intuitively plausible that an individual who is surrounded by a close set of significant others might rely on them more for covering their weaker points (or in some cases, perhaps even an underutilized strong point), whereas when that support is removed abruptly, the individual finds themself required to exercise a whole set of abilities that may be (woefully) undeveloped. In such a case, I think we could expect that their stronger functions would be where we would observe the less problematic (less stressful) development, while they may feel hopelessly lost with regard to their naturally weak areas in the absence of another's help.

In my experience, this separation from the people one depends on typically leads to a significant amount of internal growth. However, it's probably better to envision this as exemplifying a more general category of experience, whereby one's environment is altered and thus so are the demands on the individual. Where this focuses on areas that are new or foreign territory, one might feel psychological distress at having to deal with a perceived dilemma (say a conflict arising between some unconscious habit which one comes to consciously consider as incompatible or contradicting some belief or propositional attitude). The extent to which this is dealt with successfully is likely what we mean by personal growth.

That concept, in the manner we typically use it, would seem to be necessarily something conscious (unconscious growth isn't unintelligible by any means, but it would be something along the lines of us becoming better without being aware that we had grown or, if we were capable of becoming aware of it, being unable to explain or account for it in any way, which would seem to indicate that such growth was merely accidental). For a theory which is involved with explaining what is meant by personal growth (an improved ability to take in and give out information of variegated kinds), how it may be supported or sublimated (the proper/improper provision of assistance to the areas we need it), and encouraging such growth to take place, accidental or unconscious growth, while it shouldn't be rejected on this basis, might not be the most fruitful subject to concentrate on.

Wow, well I know all that was really dense (and I remain eternally an amateur), but as you can see I've been giving some thought to this and would be interested to see what everyone else thought of these intuitions. I tried to keep a relatively tight logic throughout, but feel free to ask any questions if something is unclear, confusing, or problematic. Thanks!

[Ezra]

Something has made me think about type-change. When I was a kid, especially up until a few years ago, I think one could EASILY have me down as an IEI or even ESE. It was only in recent years that I really began to look like an SLE.

[Ezra]

I was VERY different to how I am now. I used to attract people instantly. Now, I scare people off.

[Ezra]

I was VERY different to how I am now. I used to attract people instantly. Now, I scare people off.

If you note machintruc's Asperger thread, you'll also note that I have this conception that I used to be aggressive etc., though it's very likely a ego type would have laughed at me.

No, I know I'm aggressive because people have told me that I am. Many are put off by me, because I can see that they are.

[Ezra]

I was VERY different to how I am now. I used to attract people instantly. Now, I scare people off.

If you note machintruc's Asperger thread, you'll also note that I have this conception that I used to be aggressive etc., though it's very likely a ego type would have laughed at me.

No, I know I'm aggressive because people have told me that I am. Many are put off by me, because I can see that they are.

I was referring to your comment that one might have seen you as IEI or ESE, that you might be overestimating your amount of or .

Ahh, yeah, that's perfectly plausible.

[Charismatik]

I know that many different people have different views on whether one's type can change; I'm skeptical about gradual type changes, myself. But what about in reponse to a traumatic event?

For example, say something happens to an outgoing and open Extravert that leaves him grief-stricken and largely unable to trust people. He withdraws and spends significant amounts of time alone, much of this fostering an 'inner world' that is typical of Introverts. His image of people and ideas about societal expectations change as a result of this event as well, and he finds that he now has a lower threshold for external simulation and much more Introverted thought procceses- this way of thinking and behaving is now natural to him, and does not consider this a loss.

Is this plausible? Can gradual type changes happen, drastic ones like these in which thought processes are changed, or both or neither? I'd be very interested in hearing some opinions on this.

[Charismatik]

Oh sorry, let me clarify: this did not happen to a friend or family member or anything. I deliberately took a different scenario to function as an analogy because I was interested more in the possibility of such a change rather than an exact analysis of the one I observed. I didn't want to get bogged down with "maybe your friend thought THIS!" comments because the real-life event simply sparked the curiosity.

[Ezra]

where are you getting that number from?

From his imagination.

The truth is, type is in the mindset. If the mindset changes then, by definition, so does the type.

[Ezra]

I've never seen it happen.

Have you ever known of anyone who has suffered trauma?

[FDG]

Every time an ESFj uses Ni his-her type changes, every time an ESTp uses Fi his-her type changes, etc etc

[Slacker]

No, if a person of any given type becomes emotionally unhealthy for any reason, that person's type remains the same, and for that person to be emotionally healthy and happy again he/she would have to behave in the way most natural for him/her again. IMO.

Also, when an ESFj uses Ni, it is an ESFj using Ni. I use Ti and when I use Ti I am an ENFp using Ti. I generally use it poorly, but everyone uses every function. It's about what functions we value and are strong or weak in, not what functions we use.,