Do you believe your type changes during your life?

[Galen]

Let's have a discussion on how types can change. Yes, it means you have to throw out the conception that types are cognitively innate, or at least consider that cognition includes a pool of possible types that one can enter into and change, depending. But let's see if the idea has more merit.

Why would I have to throw out such a conception if it hasn't been adequately demonstrated to me as being wrong?

For instance, what if a type suddenly puts more mental focus on their Hidden-Agenda, do they effectively become their kindred type? Or would you still argue that they are the same type? How would you explain the difference then?

The latter. A dog doesn't turn into a fish when it swims, as much as an ENTp doesn't turn Fe leading when simply talking about his objectified sentiments towards things.

What about how some of the functions are viewed? For instance, some functions can be hard for some people to differentiate at times. Ni is often confused as Ti; Te confused as Se; Ne confused for Fe; Si confused for Fi. Are these functions more related than we give them credit? Coincidentally, the confusion seems to stem between the irrational to the rational. What might this mean?

Were one to understand what the IEs actually attempt to define then this wouldn't be a problem. But if I'm gonna play devil's advocate I'd say such correlations would go Se/Te, Ne/Fe, Si/Ti, Ni/Fi (sharing the external/internal and object/field dichotomies).

It also seems that static types have more reliability in terms of their experience or expectations with the world. Can we conclude that dynamic types are more phenomenological? If so, what can we say about a phenomenological type? That the phenomenological is both an attempt to amend an existential crisis, as well as embracing the overall irrational nature of existence, as perceived by the observer, perhaps? And statics perceiving the complete opposite?

I haven't thought about it too much, but I imagine that Je types could be seen as more bent towards phenomenology. Perhaps it applies more to extroverted subtypes in general, if at all.

[EyeSeeCold]

[woofwoofl]

If the line gets hopped, then it gets hopped. Might be rare, will be possible. Asserting that each and every single one of billions of people in the world will remain absolutely and unquestionably fixed in their at-the-moment typing is pure and utter horseshit.

If functions/IMs/whatever get confused with each other, it'll most likely be a result of someone viewing things through the prism of their quadra values. I've seen Se get conflated with Fe from within Beta quite a bit, I get Se entangled with Te from time to time; as for them being related with each other, of course they are, and the manner in which they are should correlate very strongly with the specific individual's quadra...

[Ave]

If the line gets hopped, then it gets hopped. Might be rare, will be possible. Asserting that each and every single one of billions of people in the world will remain absolutely and unquestionably fixed in their at-the-moment typing is pure and utter horseshit.

Well of course it is! I mean typings can be wrong!

[anndelise]

There was recently a thread similar to this.
Do types or subtypes change?

Supposedly, socionics says that the IE are 8 ways of dividing reality.
Some people think a person can only focus on 2 parts of reality, others all 8 but in varied degrees, and then theres inbetween 2-8, depending on their understanding of what model A says.

We know that chemicals can alter how a person perceives reality, and how they process information.

I believe that focusing on a different part of reality than one is used to might provide the person with more info about reality than before, but that it would take a major overhall to build up enough information regarding that part of reality, before a type can be considered changed.

"Use it or lose it" might be an apt phrase to use.
If you don't normally use it..you lose it.
If you start using it, you gain. But will you gain more than what you used to use? And would the effort and stress be worth it?

Kids, by nature have a more flexible and malliable brain.
Adults don't. On top of that, adults have however many years worth of certain types of info, patterns, and habits that they would be ignoring in the hopes of building up an equivalent of the new info. That would be like trying to be an infant again...only without the malliable brain of one. It would certainly require more effort, stress, and years than most people have available.

.....

However, it's perfectly reasonable that if perceptions of a person changes...and thus so would the typing of that perception. We are, after all, typing others and even ourselves, based on our perception of them....or our perception of ourselves. Projection at it's finest, perhaps.

[krieger]

i tried very hard for the first 2 years of my interest in this theory to see type changes everywhere i looked, but even wanting to see them couldn't make me.

[Nico1e]

I meant to ask about this before, and I forgot. Where can I read about 'positive' and 'negative' versions of the elements? This chart shows a + and - next to every symbol. I vaguely remember that it's like, for -Si, 'avoiding unpleasant experiences' (that's making a long story short) and for +Si it's 'having pleasant experiences.' Is that right?

[Reuben]

Types change as we grow older. I used to subscribe to DISC when I was really young, and then MBTI, and then now socionics. Whoever said types cannot change should be banned.

[Crispy]

I meant to ask about this before, and I forgot. Where can I read about 'positive' and 'negative' versions of the elements?

Right Here




Also, Type doesn't change blah blah blah blah blah blah If you want to make a theory about the changing aspects of personality, go ahead and leave socionics out of it, blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Nico1e]

I meant to ask about this before, and I forgot. Where can I read about 'positive' and 'negative' versions of the elements?

Right Here




Also, Type doesn't change blah blah blah blah blah blah If you want to make a theory about the changing aspects of personality, go ahead and leave socionics out of it, blah blah blah blah blah blah

Thank you. I can't help noticing that there would be 8 quadras and 32 types if I can make all the combinations with the + and - symbols. So I guess I'll find out why not, when I read about it.

And yeah, 'types don't change' is a fundamental assumption of socionics - it's the definition of it, the whole point of it. 'That which changes' is a different field of study with a different name. Using socionics, and assuming that types change, is sort of like calling yourself Christian and saying you don't believe in God. Changelessness is the main idea.

[EyeSeeCold]

I meant to ask about this before, and I forgot. Where can I read about 'positive' and 'negative' versions of the elements? This chart shows a + and - next to every symbol. I vaguely remember that it's like, for -Si, 'avoiding unpleasant experiences' (that's making a long story short) and for +Si it's 'having pleasant experiences.' Is that right?

A better way of looking at is through the groupings. It's a safer spot to speculate +/- IM Elements from.

The Taciturn/Narrator functions:
Tt: Delta Te + Alpha Ti; Reasonable Logic
Tn: Beta Ti + Gamma Te; Resolute Logic
Nt: Alpha Ne + Beta Ni; Merry Intuition
Nn: Gamma Ni + Delta Ne; Serious Intuition
Ft: Beta Fe + Gamma Fi; Resolute Ethics
Fn: Delta Fi + Alpha Fe; Reasonable Ethics
St: Gamma Se + Delta Si; Serious Sensing
Sn: Alpha Si + Beta Se; Merry Sensing

[The Ineffable]

i tried very hard for the first 2 years of my interest in this theory to see type changes everywhere i looked, but even wanting to see them couldn't make me.

I witnessed types of people changing. It happened in my mind.

Maybe I was not careful enough, or I'm too selective, but I don't remember at this point any case that I can call a type change.

[ashlesha]

since i dont have faith that type is anything more than a mental model i think types can change at least as easily as minds can.

[krieger]

since i dont have faith that type is anything more than a mental model i think types can change at least as easily as minds can.

faith or GTFO

[ashlesha]

hahahahaha

[Ave]

Types change as we grow older. I used to subscribe to DISC when I was really young, and then MBTI, and then now socionics. Whoever said types cannot change should be banned.

Good thing you're not running the show here then.

Besides you dont understand what is meant by "type change" obviously you think it means change in interest of one system to another, not changing of the actual type which exists whether a person recognizes it or not.

[Sumer1an]

Types change as we grow older. I used to subscribe to DISC when I was really young, and then MBTI, and then now socionics. Whoever said types cannot change should be banned.

Good thing you're not running the show here then.

Besides you dont understand what is meant by "type change" obviously you think it means change in interest of one system to another, not changing of the actual type which exists whether a person recognizes it or not.

he is joking....... I hope.

[Nico1e]

When these kinds of arguments happen, it's partly because we are all just sitting in front of our computers typing on a keyboard. All that we can do is talk about stuff. That's not the same as actually using the system in reality and finding out what works and what doesn't work.

And when I say 'what works,' I don't mean just correctly labeling people. I mean actually using those correct labels to do something useful, such as finding compatible people and putting them together, or helping someone 'train' a particular function they want to try to train or improve upon, etc, or finding ways that people can communicate and negotiate with each other when they have to, especially if they are two types who don't easily get along with each other, finding ways to bridge the communication gaps. None of us are testing those things, we're just sitting here talking about definitions and what's what. So the arguments never end.

It's like talking about politics and how much you hate whatever this or that particular politician did, while at the same time you are powerless to change their behavior or do anything about it. You can talk forever about something but never resolve anything because nobody can actually go out and test it and use it.

[DividedsGhost]

Thanks for everyone who posted that gave me some honest thought. If I didn't quote you it's because I just noted what you said and didn't have anything constructive to say in response.

Why would I have to throw out such a conception if it hasn't been adequately demonstrated to me as being wrong?

+

The latter. A dog doesn't turn into a fish when it swims, as much as an ENTp doesn't turn Fe leading when simply talking about his objectified sentiments towards things.

AND

Were one to understand what the IEs actually attempt to define then this wouldn't be a problem. But if I'm gonna play devil's advocate I'd say such correlations would go Se/Te, Ne/Fe, Si/Ti, Ni/Fi (sharing the external/internal and object/field dichotomies).

= CONTRADICTION

Sorry, but if you think this hasn't been demonstrated properly as correct, then you have no reason to assume the IEs can properly define anything. Which is actually why I mentioned what I did. Choose one or the other please before making an argument or it's just words.

If the line gets hopped, then it gets hopped. Might be rare, will be possible. Asserting that each and every single one of billions of people in the world will remain absolutely and unquestionably fixed in their at-the-moment typing is pure and utter horseshit.

If functions/IMs/whatever get confused with each other, it'll most likely be a result of someone viewing things through the prism of their quadra values. I've seen Se get conflated with Fe from within Beta quite a bit, I get Se entangled with Te from time to time; as for them being related with each other, of course they are, and the manner in which they are should correlate very strongly with the specific individual's quadra...

Oh god, thank you for being so reasonable. You seem to be the only one willing to admit these things. I'll have to think about it as quadra related, that will probably clear some things up. Do you think the following could help someone new to socionics understand how they might confuse ideas though? This is what I was intentionally trying to get someone to talk about.

I don't know why everyone assumes it has to mean I don't understand the IEs. *cough* *Crispy*

Some things are easy to misinterpret when applying theory to reality without good experience to understand between them. For instance, Si is an engagement, a fixation with objects. Since Fi is about the impression those objects have on a person, it is easy to see how Fi might seem to engage and fixate on things due to these impressions, whereas Si might appear to be getting impressions about the world to determine fixations.

Whatever, everyone always have to be an asshole, before all else. Christ.

Types don't change.

Please stop making threads about it.

Thanks.

Fuck off. You've made it abundantly clear that you're here only for yourself. I really don't care what bothers a little snot-nosed brat.

Also, Type doesn't change blah blah blah blah blah blah If you want to make a theory about the changing aspects of personality, go ahead and leave socionics out of it, blah blah blah blah blah blah

I'm stating my observations. That doesn't mean that's how I understand the IEs. And constantly saying they are incorrect due to not enough knowledge or the wrong perspective makes you ignorant. If you are correct, you should have no problem explaining to me clearly where I'm mistaken and why. Maybe you would be better off starting a religion.

Jesus, can you actually make a decent argument, for once? Just once, man, and I'll give you prize, i promise.

[717495]

Idk much about socionics type, but I know being around Js and their external judgment and order could influence me a lot to think in a similar manner and eventually become that type and not have to rely on internal judgment. I was living under a family like this, and it feels as though you're under the influence of some grand predetermination and have your expectations all in order and are synched up with one another. There are all these schedules, preparations, and decisive communication, it really turns your attitude around 180 degrees. Maybe this style of household has something to do with and authority. How I was grown up there was really no set standard much of the time, I felt free to just explore different avenues of living, and since I had a big imagination I know it was a good thing, but I never felt as though I could answer everyday questions purposefully.

[Crispy]

http://www.socionics.us/works/jungs_typology.shtml

3. "Changing one's type"
Augusta quotes Jung:

Wherever there is... a distortion of type caused by external influences, the individual from then on becomes more or less neuroticized, and recovery is possible only through discovering (diagnosing) the individual's natural mindset.

Augusta's observations confirm that such distortion always occurs whenever people do not have partners with complementary psychic structures, and that each partner "tries to turn the other into their dual," with the possibility of developing various neuroses.

Have fun with your distorted personality. If you don't want to heed my advice, I will not stop you from plunging into the rabbit hole. Just remember to bring Occam's razor with you.

[The Ineffable]

People still confuse change of personality with change of type?

[Galen]

CONTRADICTION

what how?

Sorry, but if you think this hasn't been demonstrated properly as correct, then you have no reason to assume the IEs can properly define anything. Which is actually why I mentioned what I did. Choose one or the other please before making an argument or it's just words.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Think that what hasn't been demonstrated as correct? Types changing? I haven't observed it ever happening, nor have I seen evidence of it ever occurring, directly or indirectly, so I see no reason to assume that it does happen. Calm down.

[ashlesha]

http://www.socionics.us/works/jungs_typology.shtml


Have fun with your distorted personality. If you don't want to heed my advice, I will not stop you from plunging into the rabbit hole. Just remember to bring Occam's razor with you.

you either naturally fit into this man made system or there is something wrong with you. crispy sometimes you make me sad.

[Crispy]

Not fitting into a certain type doesn't mean you constantly change types. It would be more sensible (but still wrong) to say "I have no type" than to say "I was that type yesterday, but I woke up this type today". When somebody does believe they changed types, it is a much simpler (and believable) explanation that they were the "new" type the whole time (or are just wrong again) rather than that they suddenly became way less "emotive" and way more "logical" for instance.

I don't think I fit perfectly in my type, as I keep feeling the need to read new ILE and ILI descriptions all the time to see if they can beat their respective LII descriptions. This usually fails but I did change my typing to ILE recently for a few days, so not all the time. The difference is I don't go around saying I "type-changed" into ILE for a few days because that would be ludicrous. I simply overemphasized/underemphasized certain parts of descriptions (when reading them) that led me to come to a false conclusion.

[gooey]

Interviewer: "Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?"

Jung: "Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life, but I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I always thought, from early childhood on, and I had a great deal of intuition too. And I had a definite difficulty with feeling, and my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things."

Socionics has some splanin' to do!

[Gilly]

ITT Ashton continues cold trolling while ignoring the reality of his selective adoption of Jungian ideas

[Red Villain]

It's important to remember all IM's are at work. In this sense type isn't static.

[Bardia]

It would be helpful to read the whole article this quote comes from to see the context.

[woofwoofl]

I love these

As far as I know, states are typable; people, not so much. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; asking what type a person is is akin to asking what color a movie is.

[gooey]

go to 8:40:

[Atlast]

It would be a very cool study to see how different types react to being placed in different situations that demand proficiency in the different elements, e.g. to lead a team in construction and design of a project you may try your hand at lots of Te-Si - an LSE, essentially, regardless of your base type. And to see the development of these elements in the different types based on their experiences... type is static, use of IE elements and the following projection of a type is dynamic.

But we're still so uncertain about what constitutes a type we can't even agree on individuals

[woofwoofl]

It would be a very cool study to see how different types react to being placed in different situations that demand proficiency in the different elements, e.g. to lead a team in construction and design of a project you may try your hand at lots of Te-Si - an LSE, essentially, regardless of your base type. And to see the development of these elements in the different types based on their experiences... type is static, use of IE elements and the following projection of a type is dynamic.

But we're still so uncertain about what constitutes a type we can't even agree on individuals

There's more convergence than disagreement, and even the disagreements are usually minor. Go for it!

I've recently been around buttloads of Deltas and Alphas; also in making music now, I've been having to focus on things of an Si nature, such as determining whether certain aspects of an instrument's tone are "good" or "bad", or making sure not to overload a song with dissonances (or at least making sure to take their constituent pieces and allocate them in different places in time, so the end result is something other than a clusterfuck); add to this the possibility of playing shows in the soon future and the necessity to keep this budget-minded, which will make it mandatory that I make food on the go that doesn't taste like shit and doesn't break the bank... I'll be likely leaning "Delta" moreso than usual for a while...

Music is a good means of appreciating nonvalued functions, I've been suggested to add more builds, swells, things that indicate a sense of scale and grandeur that brings to mind Se/Ni themes, and from those who have neither Se nor Ni in neither their Ego nor their Super-Id...

[krieger]

Jung was just wrong.

[silke]

Jung was just wrong.

This.

Jung's understanding of the concepts he described in his works wasn't infallible.

[gooey]

Guys...calling Jung "wrong" on a theory HE essentially invented is just silly/borderline retarded behavior.

[Aquagraph]

Guys...calling Jung "wrong" on a theory HE essentially invented is just silly/borderline retarded behavior.

Your theory of the nature of our behavior is wrong.

[gooey]

you caught me.

[Absurd]

you caught me.

Your theory on theories about theories is wrong.

[gooey]

lol. that was actually funny. but...you don't know what my theory is. All I'm saying is I'm inclined to believe the man who basically created the system more than the "pros" on this site. Also, as several have stated, what he implied isn't completely clear and what he said could have two very different meanings from what I can see