ISFp
ISFj
INFp
INFj
ENFj
ENFp
ESFp
ESFj
cruzj42 - you actually make a rather convincing argument that she is ISFp rather than INFp, at least the way I see it.
It seems that one's type is like their genes - it provides the context for how people act. I don't think one's past would affect their personality type, but rather - their type would determine how they would deal with it.
And you sound very understanding
ChibiKeba - remember that "personality" is different to "type". One's type does not change when they're depressed, they're just a depressed ENTj or whatever.
Maybe you could change your type, but that might not be such a smart thing to mess around with. Ask BionicGoat (?? I think they're the one) about NLP.
Speaking of which, how do you feel about altered states of consciousness, Chibi?
Actually, I agree... what you wrote sounded more like Introverted Sensing. Extraverted Sensing would be the one to base their art off of the conreate world, which is slightley different. I posted something on here that Jung worte about the dominant Introverted Sensing types and art.Originally Posted by ishysquishy
cruzj42 - you actually make a rather convincing argument that she is ISFp rather than INFp, at least the way I see it.
It seems that one's type is like their genes - it provides the context for how people act. I don't think one's past would affect their personality type, but rather - their type would determine how they would deal with it.
And you sound very understanding
@Zeia: could you please edit your post.
6. Sensation
Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more or less influential co-operation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters [p. 499] the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation, although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulant. Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for whom the [p. 500] subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.
Well, before his accident I'd say my husband fit the ENTp description very closely. Now, I think he's still the same type, but it's like he's completely out of balance. It's hard to describe. Certain things are still the same, but it's like they're magnified, or they don't have anything to counterbalance them. Does that make any sense?
----------------
Diana
He fit everything except the first 2 paragraphs of this description http://socion.info/ENTP.html
Now, I don't know how to describe him, like I said, it's like he's out of balance or something.
ChibiKeba - right temporal lobe damage or seizures can apparently switch off a person's. I haven't read *much* on it, but as you're talking about brain damage now I remembered it all of a sudden.
From that - it doesn't look like damage would change your type, more make you a socially inept ISTj or whatever your type was in the first place.
Let's see if I can make this database of mine work....
Frontal lobe seizures can be characterised by:
impaired awareness (but not always a loss of consciousness, and not always even impaired awareness if the seizure starts in a motor region)
jerking of limbs
giggling/laughing or crying
inability to speak
bicycling motions
screaming
sexual activity
no visible symptoms
------------------------------------------------------------
In general, it seems very hard to change one's personality without mangling the brain, and even then - has their personality type changed? Or are they just manifesting it differently? Maybe their subtype changes?
Or, perhaps it's just their affect that changes, which can look a lot like a personality change?
Well, losingjumped up to fill the void.
Ok so bare with me because I tend to repeat things for clarification:cruzj42 - you actually make a rather convincing argument that she is ISFp rather than INFp, at least the way I see it.
It seems that one's type is like their genes - it provides the context for how people act. I don't think one's past would affect their personality type, but rather - their type would determine how they would deal with it.
And you sound very understanding
So what you are saying is that regardless of the experiences (positive or negative) if a person is born let's say as an ISFp then their reactions to life experiences are ISFp based and the experiences don't change the person's type, so if Keba would not have experienced abuse and had a "normal" upbringing and then taken the personality test she would still test as a ISFp in your opinion?
I can agree that to an extent that genetic disposition has some role to play in the development of an individuals personality, but disagree that if Keba had had a "normal" childhood that she would still be an ISFp, I think she would have been more extraverted than introverted.
I can't see that a person would retain their personality type they are born with if they experience behavior modification through negative reinforcement or abuse. As an example from the life of someone I know, let’s say we have a child who is very happy, loves to play and interact with others and when in the tub taking a bath this child is very active and vocal and quick to smile at you. On first glance how would you type such a child?
Let's say over time this child experiences negative feedback from their adult guardian/parent that playing in the tub and splashing water and being noisy is bad and this child is spanked every time it behaves in a noisy playful manner and is made to sit on its hands while the adult gives it bath and the child must sit perfectly still making no sound.
When this child is bathed by other members of their family outside of its home they notice the behavior of the child sitting quietly in the tub on top of their hands waiting to be bathed... what personality type would they think that child was at that point?
So the child born with the potential to be an extravert is conditioned to be introverted. Eventually that behavior can change but the influence is never truly erased from the mind/psyche as the child grows into adulthood. Today this individual does not seem happy and outgoing. In reality no can say what type they would have eventually evolved to given different circumstances. But I think the key is that human psychology is a matter of adaptation and evolution through external stimulus/experience. You remember the old I'm ok/You're ok? Or was that before your time?
Anyway, I know I am using the introvert and extravert terms loosely here, I don't have time to get too specific (or spell check ‘cause I'm at work goofing off), I'm just trying to illustrate that regardless of the personality potentials we are born with a personality is shaped/honed by the life experiences endured.
Yeah.
Extraverts and Introverts are born differently. Extraverts have a stronger focus on the frontal part of the brain, because that is the energy expending part (and extraversion=energy expending). There are things like dopamine, a high atttention to the outside world, involentary movements, etc.. related to the front of the brain.I can agree that to an extent that genetic disposition has some role to play in the development of an individuals personality, but disagree on that if Keba had had a "normal" childhood that she would still be an ISFp, I think she would have been more extraverted than introverted.
Introverts are strongest in the back part of the brian when they are born. The back part has to do with reflection because it causes people to cut-off their attention to the outside world, so they don't act as much (energy expending) as they do reflect on the outside world.
Umm.. that could be an ISFp as well...I can't see that a person would retain their personility type born with if they experience behavior modification through negative reinforcement or abuse. As an example from the life of someone I know, lets say we have a child who is very happy, loves to play and interact with others and when in the tub taking a bath this child is very active and vocal and quit to smile at you. On first glance how would you type such a child?
.. I don't know if that has much to do with your type... type is more how you take in (perception) and reason (judgement) things.Let's say as over time this child experiences negative feedback from their adult guardian/parent that playing in the tub and splashing water and being noisey is not good but bad and this child is spanked everytime it behaves in a noisey playful manner and is made to sit on its hands while the adult gives it bath and the child must sit perfectly still making no sound.
When this child is bathed by other members of their family outside of her home and they notice the behavior of the child sitting quietly in the tub on top of their hands waiting to be bathed... what personality type would they think that child was at that point?
I don't like to think of Extravert/Introvert as social/people loving/loud/etc.. or not. Introversion is more like constant reflection (energy conserving), and Extraversion is acting on the outside world as oppossed to reflecting on it.So the child born with the potential to be an extravert is conditioned to be introverted. Eventually that behavior can change but the influence is never truly erased from the mind/psyche as the child grows into adulthood. Today this individual now in adulthood does seem at all like the happy outgoing individual I once witnessed. In reality no can say what type they would have eventually evolved to given different circumstances. But I think the key is that human psychology is matter of adaption and evolution through external stimulus/experience. You remember the old I'm ok/You're ok? Or was that before your time?
I think that "personality" is always changing and affected by the enviorment, but when most people talk about things like Socionic types, I think they are refering more to the inborn traits, such as how our mind works.Anyway, I know I am using the introvert and extravert terms loosely here, I don't have time to get too specific (cause I'm at work goofing off), I'm just trying to illustrate that regardless of the personality potentials we are born with that personility is shaped/honed by the life experiences endured.
Exactly.
You can probably change the outward manifestation of functions but not the functions themselves. For example, if an SLE was constantly told that theirwas bad and wrong/etc., they wouldn't replace it with any of the other perceiving functions because their brain just doesn't work like that. They might instead place more emphasis on a different function but this doesn't make it their base function, and it doesn't even make the function strong, just emphasised.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
