What is a type and why can't it be changed?

[Rocky]

Hello again for a brief moment ^_^

I found this link while playing around in the library (Yes I was bored =/ ).

http://americanboardofsportpsycholog...ingSANDBEK.doc

I already read that thing a long time ago. I'm aware of all the problems he pointed out, and I made sure to sit through the whole damn thing. Even after that, though, I can still see what Niednagel is talking about. I know the point is that he can't prove it, scientifically, but sometimes you have to try things out and take some leaps of faith for yourself. I know that's not a good enough answer, even for people like my Dad, but I guess there's a reason I put this in my sig., "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it."

[FDG]

No it hasn't. It hasn't at all. You just need a better theorem, and it is within reach. String theory has some (but not all) of it.

Yeah, I actually objected to myself exactly what you said three seconds after posting, but I couldn't be bothered (I know it sounds a bit pathetic, yeah)

[Creepy-pokeball]

Hello again for a brief moment ^_^

I found this link while playing around in the library (Yes I was bored =/ ).

http://americanboardofsportpsycholog...ingSANDBEK.doc

I already read that thing a long time ago. I'm aware of all the problems he pointed out, and I made sure to sit through the whole damn thing. Even after that, though, I can still see what Niednagel is talking about. I know the point is that he can't prove it, scientifically, but sometimes you have to try things out and take some leaps of faith for yourself. I know that's not a good enough answer, even for people like my Dad, but I guess there's a reason I put this in my sig., "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it."

Then it is weak and quite honestly gives less strength for other arguements you may have. I hope that when you enter 2ndary education, which Im sure you will, that you do not use this line of reasoning for it will be mocked unless you choose a major like English or some of the others arts/letters (but not philosophy). But in the social sciences (and especially the physical sciences), supporting an opinion as fact in the nature you have will leave you with very little academic strength and integrity--especially when the weakness are shown across many academic fields (psych, soc, philo and bio).

Im sorry to sound so cruel but I promise you that I'd be the least offensive and most forgiving of critics in the future. I would also like to say that I think you may be looking for something you will not find in your current search. I promise the magic is not here. This all (the social science) is an interesting perspective and somewhat informative part of the whole. That is about it. Your magic is most likely where you are not being--with others or another.

[tcaudilllg]

But in the social sciences (and especially the physical sciences), supporting an opinion as fact in the nature you have will leave you with very little academic strength and integrity--especially when the weakness are shown across many academic fields (psych, soc, philo and bio).

Yes, and isn't that a dire problem? You need to read a little Godel, I think.

Im sorry to sound so cruel but I promise you that I'd be the least offensive and most forgiving of critics in the future. I would also like to say that I think you may be looking for something you will not find in your current search. I promise the magic is not here. This all (the social science) is an interesting perspective and somewhat informative part of the whole. That is about it. Your magic is most likely where you are not being--with others or another.

I'm sure it hasn't impacted him in the slightest. (save for yet another fine example of type manifestation for his archetypical archives.)

[Rocky]

Yes, I realize that sounded weak, but I tried reason before, but there is not enough of the scientific "proof" yet because the brain is so complicated. However, there is that thing about the back of the brain and introversion, which has been shown to be true, and we can tell through EEGs. With me, it's not so much as taking a leap of faith, but the fact that I see it for myself. That's why I believe in it, although that is not enough to convice others. Remember, Einstein could never prove any of his wild theories, either. Was he wrong in theorizing? No, most were proven to be dead on years latter. And the stuff that he was coming up with was way more abstract than what Niednagel claims. They even have a quote from him on the site, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

BTW, I'd be interested to hear if you agree with what he claims about YOUR type. Are the physical characteristics right? Are they off? I'm challenging you because I'd bet my bottom dollar that you wouldn't disagree.

[Topaz]

BTW, I'd be interested to hear if you agree with what he claims about YOUR type. Are the physical characteristics right? Are they off? I'm challenging you because I'd bet my bottom dollar that you wouldn't disagree.

Where does he talk about Jadae's type?

[Rocky]

Well, in the book, of course, but if he doesn't want to go out and read that, I was wondering if he agreed with the basics. Does he relate strongest to what Niednagel says the NF (CA) types do in the motor cortex.

THE TOP OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This controls everything starting from the toes and feet, legs, hips and up through the shoulders.

The types that are dominant in this region of the cortex are the Empirical Animates (or the Sensory Ethics in socionics).

THE MIDDLE OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This area controls the lower arms, hands, fingers, and eyes.

The types that are dominant here are the Empirical Inanimates (or the Sensory Logics in socionics).

THE BOTTOM OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This is where you control the tongue, lips, jaw and throat areas.

The types that are dominant in this area are the Conceptual Animates (or Intuitive Ethics in socionics).

[FDG]

You forgot that the NTs are the handicapped ones.

[metaiwan]

You forgot that the NTs are the handicapped ones.

Can I finally get my handicap parking spot?? I deserve it since I was never picked first for any teams. Typically, picked last.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Can you word it into a question form? Ive gone over my body movements and everything and I match my brother (probable ESFP) very well-- very Scandinavian American.

[FDG]

You forgot that the NTs are the handicapped ones.

Can I finally get my handicap parking spot?? I deserve it since I was never picked first for any teams. Typically, picked last.

Trough extreme practice I'm now quite good at basketball and soccer. But when I have to learn new sports...ugh!!

[Rocky]

Can you word it into a question form? Ive gone over my body movements and everything and I match my brother (probable ESFP) very well-- very Scandinavian American.

Maybe not a quesiton, but I'll give you a few examples. To start, I remember doing this a long time ago, and I few people responded to how they see the movements thing correlate to them. HarryBottm (an INFP) was talking about how he agreed with the facial-muscles thing. He said that sometimes he would try and move the other muscles in his body, such as wiggling his toes, to find that it was a bit uncomfortable and he would have to focus on it to do it. That's because the NFs are far from the gross muscles, which control the areas around the toes, legs, etc. They are closest to the muscles in the face, as mentioned above. Do you feel strongest to those?

Imagine someone swinging a baseball bat or golf club. An example of what an SF type would do is, if he stressed the swing too much, push all the way back and up on his toes when he's coming through. Get in a golf stance, and take a practice swing, trying to imitate that move with the toes pushy up. You will notice that you'd have to make a strong concious effort to move them at all, whereas an SF does it naturally under stress. An ST, on the other hand, might push through too hard with their hands and wrists tightening up the arms, and coming more over the top.

Another example of SF I can think of is watching those SF girls in gym class. If you would remember, an SFP would go off to pick up a lose ball, almost bend at the waist or squat, and then once they have it, catepult the thing with their legs without moving their arms much. That's SF, gross motors. Also, I find that SFs can have more of a "waddle" when they walk. I remember you don't follow sports, but if I remember correctly, I believe ESFJ Jennifer Aniston does this as well. An NT, on the flip side, I see can drag their feet behind a little, or slouch over when they are standing still. Those are just some things that some to mind.

[FDG]

Another example of SF I can think of is watching those SF girls in gym class. If you would remember, an SFP would go off to pick up a lose ball, almost bend at the waist or squat, and then once they have it, catepult the thing with their legs without moving their arms much. .

Basically you're saying that their body is fine-tuned for the doggy style, aren't you?

[Creepy-pokeball]

^^ rofl @ above.

My legs are the strongest muscle group on my body. My toes--well-- I can pick things up with them lol. Really the only area that Ive been insecure about physically is running smoothly but I found out later that I am loose jointed and should not be running anyhow. Plus I have a very large frame of Scandinavian descent. It is far different than my best friend who has a petite frame for a male and is of Cajun/English descent. I'm honestly only seeing biological factors. As for my verbal areas-- I was raised by a single mother and took care of my paraplegic sister until I was 18. My verbal areas (both intellectually and physically) are more developed than most (but not all males) but I also had years of practice because of learned interrelating.

An interesting socio stat is that while women are gaining on the GRE (Grad Exam)scores as a whole, males are still doing poorly (in comparison to the leaps women have made in the traditional male areas) at verbal. Why is that? I can assure you that it is not a biological reason. It is a social reason.

And yes I still find sports boring save for watching the Portland Winterhawks and going swimming and/or walking in parks. Swimming has to be my fave though. Good, fluid cardio!

[Rocky]

Another example of SF I can think of is watching those SF girls in gym class. If you would remember, an SFP would go off to pick up a lose ball, almost bend at the waist or squat, and then once they have it, catepult the thing with their legs without moving their arms much. .

Basically you're saying that their body is fine-tuned for the doggy style, aren't you?

Yes.

[Artemis]

Another example of SF I can think of is watching those SF girls in gym class. If you would remember, an SFP would go off to pick up a lose ball, almost bend at the waist or squat, and then once they have it, catepult the thing with their legs without moving their arms much. .

Basically you're saying that their body is fine-tuned for the doggy style, aren't you?

Yes.

Rocky! (It's her favorite position?)

[Topaz]

Another example of SF I can think of is watching those SF girls in gym class. If you would remember, an SFP would go off to pick up a lose ball, almost bend at the waist or squat, and then once they have it, catepult the thing with their legs without moving their arms much. .

Basically you're saying that their body is fine-tuned for the doggy style, aren't you?

Yes.

Rocky! (It's her favorite position?)

tsk, tsk tsk, You guys just cant stay out of it can you? sigh :wink:

[Kim]

Some things are better left unsaid....

[Artemis]

You're always the forum prude, Kim.

[Kim]

Where have I been the forum prude? Should I be worried?

[Artemis]

Some things are better left unsaid....

It's just that you seem to always make comments like that when the topic turns to sex. <---- laughing face . . . funny, funny!

And what should your be worried about? I don't get it.

[Stormy]

This has probably been asked before: is it possible for a person's Type to change (short of a traumatic head-wound)? Would it be desirable to do so, or at least, desirable to balance ones Functions (perception of Information Elements?), and thus become more flexible and capable - what is Socionics's vision of a psychologically healthy individual?

[Joy]

http://socionics.us/practice/ego.shtml

[Stormy]

http://socionics.us/practice/ego.shtml

Thank you. What are other people's views on that? Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but it seems to say one needs to surround oneself with only certain Types...

[Creepy-bg]

I think it's limiting to say no. Sure that might be the truth at this point in time, but it sounds like a good way to pidgeon-hole the species. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to change type if we want to given enough evolution, drugs, and electro-shock therapy. That is if all you negative Nancy's don't screw us into a corner

[Stormy]

There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to change type if we want to given enough evolution, drugs, and electro-shock therapy.

I'd class them under 'traumatic head-wound'...
- :wink:

Given that Socionics is the study of relationships and society (the 'Socion'), I wonder to what extent Types are merely social roles which, whilst deeply ingrained, are never-the-less transient.

[meatburger]

I think it's limiting to say no. Sure that might be the truth at this point in time, but it sounds like a good way to pidgeon-hole the species. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to change type if we want to given enough evolution, drugs, and electro-shock therapy. That is if all you negative Nancy's don't screw us into a corner

Im also of the idea that you cant change "type". No matter how many drugs / Electroshocks i get i cant see myself ever developing a strong ability to use Ti

[Creepy-bg]

I think it's limiting to say no. Sure that might be the truth at this point in time, but it sounds like a good way to pidgeon-hole the species. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to change type if we want to given enough evolution, drugs, and electro-shock therapy. That is if all you negative Nancy's don't screw us into a corner

Im also of the idea that you cant change "type". No matter how many drugs / Electroshocks i get i cant see myself ever developing a strong ability to use Ti

you just ain't doing enough of them

[FDG]

It is extremely obvious that type can change given the temperament. I think everybody sees people changing.

[UDP]

People can grow and shift, but I have never seen someone discard completely the nature of their type for another - not yet at least.

On this forum, it is easy to come up with ideas because we see people changing their focuses on things, which may or may not be related to the new awarenesses that come from understanding socionics - and applying them with lifes interactions.

It seems more the case that someone was originally mistyped, rather than someone making a huge shift in type. Current example (seems to be) is "ESTP", who was formerly "ISTP", but I know very little about her.

[Expat]

It seems more the case that someone was originally mistyped, rather than someone making a huge shift in type. Current example (seems to be) is "ESTP", who was formerly "ISTP", but I know very little about her.

I think she identified at first largely with the "ISTP" Oldham bit in the old site, but she's clearly ESTp imo.

I don't think people actually change types. I see the merit of Smilingeyes's concept of changing types along the temperament, which is what FDG refers to, but not the point of permanent change. That is to mean, I think I have my ESFj, ENFj and ESTj moments, but I don't think I was ever any of these types, or ever will be, to the point of having an INTj rather than ISFj as a longer-term dual, even if they would also change in that way.

[UDP]

That is to mean, I think I have my ESFj, ENFj and ESTj moments, but I don't think I was ever any of these types, or ever will be, to the point of having an INTj rather than ISFj as a longer-term dual, even if they would also change in that way.

Absolutely, yes. Consider too that the dual would change, and all the intertype relations.

I can see, obviously, play between alpha and beta IJ - but I am fairly certain my dual has leading. It seems it would be much less possible to shift to having a dual that is of another leading function - but that is based on my own personal path only.

But even then, I have never witnessed anyone shifting out of their type - my understanding of them has changed, and they may grow, but it is always within the structure of one type's psychological ordering.

[Exodus]

The assumption that type does not change is deeply ingrained into socionics. I can't imagine that it's possible to remove without significantly changing the theory. It's not to say that people don't change - they obviously do - but that type describes the aspects that don't change, and only those. But it's hardly a trivial question as to what aspects don't change, and socionics answers it. Which is one of the most important things socionics has to say, really.

[Rick]

The types in socionics almost never believe that type can change, while types often see personality as being fluid and situational, with their view from the inside. From a point of view, there are certain things that never change in people, no matter how much their personality changes. is all about innate, unchanging, permanent qualities, and socionics was formulated from that point of view. A -based science of personality would probably look quite different. There would probably be more emphasis on the evolution of personality over time. This evolution is "obvious" to types, but much less interesting than studying what doesn't change. Maybe the two are being combined gradually in socionics.

Blah blah blah...

No, I don't think type can change. I can't even imagine it. It's like saying that one's sympathetic nervous system suddenly changes, and people start responding completely differently to different stimuli.

[FDG]

If it's obvious, it's there, you are logically contradicting yourself

[krieger]

The assumption that type does not change is deeply ingrained into socionics. I can't imagine that it's possible to remove without significantly changing the theory.

It's actually not all that fundamental to the theory when you think about it... socionics deals with 'pieces' of information that consist of two parts, each of which parts is described as a function. One of the parts is always accepting and the other creating; one limiting, the other empowering; one judging, the other perceiving; one object and the other field, and finally, one abstract and the other concrete. These pieces are what remains of "type" when you strip it of all preconceptions that interpretations of the theory attach to it. Theoretically, you could connect these pieces (function pairings) to the mathematical aspects of the things people say and do, and, under experimental conditions, type their utterances and behaviour in this way. If one ever managed to do this, one would end up with a theory of socionics that is only indirectly connected to people, and at that stage, wether or not humans use one function pairing to the exclusion of all others, or one pairing with a greater statistical frequency, would be pushed from being an axiom, to being a provable or refutable fact.

[Exodus]

The assumption that type does not change is deeply ingrained into socionics. I can't imagine that it's possible to remove without significantly changing the theory.

It's actually not all that fundamental to the theory when you think about it... socionics deals with 'pieces' of information that consist of two parts, each of which parts is described as a function. One of the parts is always accepting and the other creating; one limiting, the other empowering; one judging, the other perceiving; one object and the other field, and finally, one abstract and the other concrete. These pieces are what remains of "type" when you strip it of all preconceptions that interpretations of the theory attach to it. Theoretically, you could connect these pieces (function pairings) to the mathematical aspects of the things people say and do, and, under experimental conditions, type their utterances and behaviour in this way. If one ever managed to do this, one would end up with a theory of socionics that is only indirectly connected to people, and at that stage, wether or not humans use one function pairing to the exclusion of all others, or one pairing with a greater statistical frequency, would be pushed from being an axiom, to being a provable or refutable fact.

Yes, that is possible. But when you remove the static type (along with static relations), you have to replace it with a dynamic model. Smilingeyes gets a start on it, but AFAIK his theory doesn't actually explain how or why type changes, which it seems is absolutely essential to predict anything. I think in the future such a model will be possible, but not yet.

[meatburger]

If it's obvious, it's there, you are logically contradicting yourself

Oh i think what Rick was saying was that some parts of personality do change over time. People grow and learn and their overall persona changes, but they should still never be able to get outside of the boundries of their type. When he said its obvious he means we know that people can change. Perhaps Ne types dont see the exact changes to the extent an Ni type can?

I see it exactly the same way. I cant see a person with a weak function ever practicing it to the point of it being their innate strongest function. You could lock an ENFp from birth in a room with only books to read and had never give them contact with another person. Even if due to their situation their Te or Ti was stronger than their Fi i see them as still as ENFp as their Potential in Fi is greater.