Do you believe your type changes during your life?

[Absurd]

lol. that was actually funny. but...you don't know what my theory is.

And that's the beauty of it.

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

I thought Aushra invented socionics.

[krieger]

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

lol; a hero worshiper. you'll fit right in at

[Gilly]

This. ↑

More or less. I think IE development and emphasis can vary dynamically depending on situational demands, etc.

What happened to people only "having" their "valued" functions?

[Ave]

If types change then, then types dont exist. If types were to change what would be the point of typing people in the first place? I mean they would just be fractual aspects of your personality and could be dispersed like leaves in the wind with other "phases" of life such as teen rebbellion, mid-life crises and other such stuff wich reveals absolutely nothing about the person except about the society they live in.

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

Thats not an arguement. Jung could be wrong. What is with all this Jung worship? He wasnt God.

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...

I dont think this stuff makes you a delta...it just makes you confused. I mean you make some good moints and all, but all the stuff you say is rather subjective...like how do you determine whether a theme is Se/Ni or not? None of that really means anything about the person's type, just about how you interpret what is being said. In between what the music sounds like to you, to them, why they suggest it, what it means to you, to them and how interpret these functions to be, there is a large possiblity for misunderstandings and dissonance - to keep the image of music in tune.

[Crispy]

Types are nothing static = Young LII doesn't act the same as old LII
Types are nothing static != Young LII = old IEI etc.
Learn to interpret things correctly.

lol Yung LII, pun intended.

[Galen]

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

Jung didn't create Socionics. He just wrote Psychological Types, which was then used as the basis for Socionics by other people down the line. Even if he did develop the system as we know it, I don't see how it's fair to assert that everything about it as he described it must be infallible just because he started it.

[EyeSeeCold]

Thats not an arguement. Jung could be wrong. What is with all this Jung worship? He wasnt God.

[Ave]

Oh my...-No! I shall not be made to say it! I shall not say it!-
































































...goodness!

[Creepy-male]

I think a lot of people have a separate approach to personality theory.

Some people axiomatically characterize type as something which doesn't change, and set out to accurately build a type theory and characterize themselves.

Some people don't formulate their theories with this axiom, instead types are "bundles of characteristics" that a person can relate to, the mapping of these characteristics to a type though are considered axiomatically to be consistent and unchanging, therefore if they do not relate to a type it requires the introduction of type change or multiple-type theories.

I think this is the fundamental problem.

I'm relatively skeptical of the first method in all honesty, because if it were possible to create a theory that was so consistent to an individual that it characterized them entirely and was a perfect relation to them, then it would require one of two things. First, it would require a very complex range of types, as their is a large variation in people's psychology from individual to individual. Second, the alternative is that instead of a large number of types, you could have a small number of types, but that would imply little variation from individual to individual.

I think that's why it would be hard to create a comprehensive and complete "type" theory. It would either be incredibly inefficient and complex or it would seem to imply little variation between individuals.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't feel that I've changed much since I was a little kid. I like being static, although some people advocate against that staying the same makes one demonic. You could say the same thing about a fluctuating identity however, that it turns one into a narcissist.

I believe more in the 'everybody creates their own reality' theory, that is everything is just a dream you made up honestly. (including all typology systems) And dreams die....and sometimes have conflict , naturally- and the reason you can never have everything you want and why there is pain, misery, heartbreak in the world is because your dreams are in natural conflict with somebody else's dreams.... although there are people with similar dream patterns as yours that help save you, even if you guys aren't in the same physical proximity as one another. Space-time is an illusion as far as dreams go, however space-time is necessary to balance everybody else's dreams....

ETA: I'd also like to say is that many people think you can wake up from this dream but I think that is a faulty, narcissistic perspective. I think people who try to do this end up obliterating themselves until they change courses and genuine empathy gets instilled in them again. There's always a complicated mixture of banging up between having everything you want, and dying- because it just wouldn't be interesting if it wasn't.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Here's how I feel about people who change it up every three seconds:

They are fundamentally empty inside, because it couldn't really be anything else. "Oh look people there's a palm tree on my head, now there's a squirrel wrapped around my cock. Complicated licking jungian buttholes, now I'm in the garden desert sucking Freud's dick while Madonna pisses on the night owl. BLAAAAAST now I'm in your arms again, for only one second of course....before I melt into the worst smelling puke you ever smelled."

So yeah you shock people doing that. You can only shock people, because you yourself have no real emotional core. You shock the feelings out of people who are complementary to you, people who kinda stay stuck in life and the same/stagant, with lots of empathy- because that's the only way you can get feelings out of anything. They aren't really yours though, they are somebody else's- and you play these tricks, these holograms, these insane bursts of energy because behind all that- there is nothing real to you.

It's an insane attempt to make somebody's feelings your own, somebody's identity your own- but that is impossible and so it just keeps going right through the narcissist, no matter how shocking and vulgar and morally inappropriate he descends to.

These things aren't exactly pure, I mean there is a mixture -- and it is okay to change and evolve, but in a way that makes some sort of substantial sense.

[Crispy]

Socionics has some splanin' to do!

This quote implies a) type change is the interpretation you were going after. Choice b) would mean socionics has zero explaining to do.

Nice try tho

[Ave]

I chose "asshole" for myself

[woofwoofl]

I dont think this stuff makes you a delta...it just makes you confused. I mean you make some good moints and all, but all the stuff you say is rather subjective...like how do you determine whether a theme is Se/Ni or not? None of that really means anything about the person's type, just about how you interpret what is being said. In between what the music sounds like to you, to them, why they suggest it, what it means to you, to them and how interpret these functions to be, there is a large possiblity for misunderstandings and dissonance - to keep the image of music in tune.

I never said any of the stuff would make me a Delta.

As for the Se/Ni? My guitar approach, for a while, came off as extremely unappealing to Ne/Si valuers in particular (I remember an instance in which a frown, gritted teeth, and an "eenngghh" noise was used by an Ne-IEE in reference to a particular chord with the fourth and the major seventh above a root note and a buttload of jagged distortion piled onto the whole thing, it was not a compliment in the slightest), Se/Ni valuers on the whole were much more receptive.

Real life instances such as that; some that I remember the specifics of, some that I only remembered temporarily to mentally catalog; that's what it comes down to. This isn't an all out crapshoot here. A small amount of unavoidable uncertainty doesn't equate to all hell breaking loose all the time, and the same applies to the possibility of a type changing; one person out of thousands gradually dualizing through the type barrier and ending up ever so slightly on the other side does not equate to types everywhere chaotically mutating into anything and everything.

[Ave]

;

This isn't an all out crapshoot here. A small amount of unavoidable uncertainty doesn't equate to all hell breaking loose all the time, and the same applies to the possibility of a type changing; one person out of thousands gradually dualizing through the type barrier and ending up ever so slightly on the other side does not equate to types everywhere chaotically mutating into anything and everything.

Ok, I getcha. I guess its possible types could change by that rationale, its just not typical that they do. Im willing to admit they could change if you're talking a few people out of thousands, but the way you were writing it seemed like you were saying that a person's type is nothing more then theyre current mood("asking what type a person is is like asking what color a movie is", for example). It seemed like you were saying they could change at any moment, and to that I simply had to say that is; if its true than we can do away with types altogether, but I guess you've found the middle way .

[KazeCraven]

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!

Not really. Jung pointed out that type can change... but he's referring to neurosis-inducing situations, happening over decades; they're also pretty rare... probably just regular people being neurotic. You'll also find that Jung thinks his own type has changed.

Get his book, Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1925 (Bollingen Series), and you'll find this on p. 69:

“As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious.”

But obviously he considers himself more intuitive later in life, like in that video. So what happened?

Well, if you read about his history, like in Visions, you'll find that he got in touch with his inferior side to further his research... after this point he turns towards some pretty esoteric stuff. So now, after having visions and stuff, he must think himself pretty intuitive.

Do you buy into the paranormal and stuff like synchronicity? Jung did. Just because he came up with a good idea doesn't mean all of his ideas are good. Just take a look at Freud. Don't tell me he didn't come up with anything of value, just cause his sexual theories suck.

[Creepy-male]

Sam you should grow a plant very early on and watch it grow to full maturity and apply that analogously to people's personalities. The plant is still the same plant at the beginning but through its life it takes many forms and branches off in multiple directions. It's the basic idea of growth/development.

That's just my thinking, you seem a little bent out of shape over the idea of loosing your personal integrity -- I personally think that's impossible, but that's just me -- I think when people attempt to not be themselves, their real self will leak out subconsciously. People that push imitation/acting to the extreme will eventually start to inhabit a sort of dissociative state in which they are in a trance watching their outer self from within and that becomes their reality, stress is created when this self accidentally finds its way out through subconscious ticks and natural tendencies. The entire dissociative state is self-imposed though, because people are born self-possessed but condition themselves out of it. Since it is a self-imposed prison, people can escape it and inhabit their own self once they are brave enough to venture outside of their isolation and tear down the facade.

I'm just saying, because really I think no one is ever at risk of destroying themselves -- they just are.

That's my take.

[Gilly]

I still think it's pragmatically meaningful to consider only the valued fxns; unvalued fxns are only experienced in a shadow capacity—i.e., they can't be apprehended directly.<br />

Definitely disagree. I would say personally that one of the reasons I and so many others have trouble understanding our own types is that functions are not clear in terms of there placement in the psyche due to circumstantial influence of both valued and non-valued functions. It may be true to your experience that you only "directly apprehend" valued functions, but it is not true to mine; I experience all functions in different shades of consciousness, but I would say that I apprehend all of them directly. Personally I think your choice of words and rationale makes your statement conveniently unfalsifiable and essentially boils down to the fact that unvalued functions are experienced differently than valued functions.

<br />

Of course, if you go the Krigweed approach and cluster behaviors to IEs… e.g., &quot;cooking = Si, logical analysis = Ti, assertiveness = Se,&quot; then yeah, you can have your 'people use all 8 IEs' POV.

It would, or course, be your prerogative to attach a brattishly disdainful label and nonexistent ontological boundaries to beliefs other than your own. My beliefs fall under neither extreme of your conveniently constructed delusional dichotomy; I believe that we all utilize the mental processes represented by the functions, even if they are not all apparent to the untrained mind.<br />
<br />

'xactly.

How convenient. Unfortunately if you have any capacity for interpreting context you can see that Jung was clearly referring to the fact that people do not always remain the same type, highlighted by the indirect nature of his answer.

[Ave]

Not really. Jung pointed out that type can change... but he's referring to neurosis-inducing situations, happening over decades; they're also pretty rare... probably just regular people being neurotic. You'll also find that Jung thinks his own type has changed.

Get his book, Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1925 (Bollingen Series), and you'll find this on p. 69:

But obviously he considers himself more intuitive later in life, like in that video. So what happened?

Well, if you read about his history, like in Visions, you'll find that he got in touch with his inferior side to further his research... after this point he turns towards some pretty esoteric stuff. So now, after having visions and stuff, he must think himself pretty intuitive.

Do you buy into the paranormal and stuff like synchronicity? Jung did. Just because he came up with a good idea doesn't mean all of his ideas are good. Just take a look at Freud. Don't tell me he didn't come up with anything of value, just cause his sexual theories suck.

If Jung considering jimself more iNtuitive in life light have to do simply with the fact he was dealing with "iNtuitive" stuff. But honestly, a person's weak functions do tend to devellop later on in life, while their strong functions tend to devellop early on in life, in order to create a strong personality.

[samhclayton]

Remember socionics is based on people--people are not based on socionics. It is just a theory, a system which shows how human behavior manifests itself through different "functions". this is the reason it's a pseudoscience. Nothing concrete about it, period. If the depth of humanity can be ascribed to such a simple system, i'd think we were all kind of shallow.
Of course I'm still not sure what "type" I am, and I'm still not quite sure I want to invest the time to find out.

[woofwoofl]

A simple look at old photos shows that people change and don't do so overnight.

Gonna go with a "yes" here, if for no other reason than to rightfully piss all over the "type is fixed and inborn" hype.

Take a sine wave:



Have this thing as a 2d physical landscape of sorts. Drop a 2d marble in there. It'll sway and waver a bit before setting into a well. It won't get out of there if conditions remain the same. It would take one hell of a push to roll that stone from out of any well, representative of any functional axis, up the side, over the hill, and it into an adjacent well, representative of that functional axis's counterpart (Fe/Ti to Te/Fi, Se/Ni to Ne/Si).

Hell, this thing, given a 3rd dimension, can take on all the quadras! Check it:



This leaves other questions open, like if the depths of these wells deepen or shallow their landscape over time, with types becoming more or less entrenched and absolute, given... stuff... (yes, I gotta look at a concept like this before I really start to get it haha)...

I've got Dave Grohl as having moved from Ne-IEE to Fi-IEE over the course of around a decade. Something that gradual is by nature difficult to pin down; thankfully, the dude left a huge trail... I'll be on the lookout for balls-out type changes, with my eyes set squarely on Mike Patton...

[NewBorn STAR]

Can you die ?

Everything changes

[munenori2]

Type can only change if you meet someone crazy hot and you can rationalize yourself their dual. Also it can change after it doesn't work out.

[Simon Ssmall]

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?

MountainDerp and Huixpolodsfhadfajf certainly mastered the type change skill.

[Capitalist Pig]

[Absurd]

MountainDerp and Huixpolodsfhadfajf certainly mastered the type change skill.

MountainDew and whoselineisitanyway are changing their types so fast they force Earth to rotate around its own axis.

[krieger]

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.

what do you know, a post from Expat that i 100% agree with.

[Absurd]

what do you know, a post from Expat that i 100% agree with.

Same here. I don't what is this smilingeyes crap about changing type and shit. Pretty wacko. If one is to assume type changes at all, then the entire Jung/MBTI/Shirley Temple or Thomson (forgot his name) and Socionics is pointless.

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah, when they do head transplants.

[Radio]

Yeah, when they do head transplants.

I don't know if you are joking but I burst out laughing at this line.

[Cerise Sauvage]

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?

I would imagine that Types wouldnt nessesarily change just from age, or "growing up" since they are really ment to be outlines, not super indepth about any specific person, but i would think thatif you went through a "life altering" experience, such as being kidnapped and tortured, or watching 5 of your closest loved ones being slaughtered, that your type may possibly change, i mean, that would certinainly make this extravert and intravert. I dont think that something like having an appifany would change your type, i think thats why so many people fail at setting goals, i make goals, and plans all the time, set up strategys that, in theory, should work, but then i have a hard time following through with them, or not deviating because my appifanys are usually like, Hey! i need to stop being this way, but i am who i am at the base of myself, and altho i believe you can change yourself, i imagine it is unbelievely tedious and difficult, since i havent managed to do it myself, regardless of the countless times i have tried.
So, i think i vote "Yes" for changing Types, but i dont agree that it could be on a day to day basis...

[Ningyo]

If it can, then how? If not, then how come?

Looking to hear from people who think (or know ) they know what they're talking about. I'm having trouble understanding the more general idea. Like, if it's even possible, then is it permanent, or would you revert back after a while?

This is of interest to me because, due to various factors I can't really ignore, I don't feel like I know who I am anymore. I'm not even 100% sure of my type, IEI just seems likely and is the result I get most frequently. I relate more or less to most of the type descriptions on some level, and re-reading them to pick out what's conditional and what's always been true feels impossible and truly headache-inducing. I'm also interested in understanding if/how/why type can change so I can understand my friends' behavior better.

[Radio]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ur-type-change
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...nd-Type-Change
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ut-Subtype-can
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...8-Type-Changes
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-or-subtypes
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Changing-Type
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ring-your-life
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-dont-change
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...logical-Health

...so yeah lol.

[krieger]

nope.

[ashlesha]

despite all the pseudoscience buzz really all a type does is offer a way to describe somebody and explain things.

if you describe somebody as "funny," can that change? it can, for a variety of reasons: they stop being funny. your sense of humor changes. their sense of humor changes. the definition of "funny" changes over time (which sounds odd but for purposes of comparison to socionics i think its a good reason).

maybe this is a bad example but i don't feel like explaining further atm.

[Ningyo]

despite all the pseudoscience buzz really all a type does is offer a way to describe somebody and explain things.

if you describe somebody as "funny," can that change? it can, for a variety of reasons: they stop being funny. your sense of humor changes. their sense of humor changes. the definition of "funny" changes over time (which sounds odd but for purposes of comparison to socionics i think its a good reason).

maybe this is a bad example but i don't feel like explaining further atm.

Lmfao. Interesting metaphor. I get it and thanks.

[Pa3s]

No.

If it did, you could basically forget about socionics.

[FDG]

Yes, but only along a temperament ring.

[Capitalist Pig]

If types are real, it would make more sense for them to have a permanent station in trending behavioral patterns that you exhibit throughout the course of your lifetime. They would be predetermined in the same sense anything else about you may be predetermined, whether by your genetics or the physics that governs your biomechanical functions. The very choices we make everyday are "predetermined" in a sense by the memories of our past experiences. It's hard to imagine us, as individuals, ever doing anything truly novel outside the framework of our apparent potential.

[ashlesha]

If types are real, ...

yes, i agree.