environmental factors

[Joy]

It's been mentioned, but I'd like to revisit this...

It seems that people here seem to almost unanimously agree that our type is something we're born with. Is it possible that environment determines subtype?

[Hugo]

It seems that people here seem to almost unanimously agree that our type is something we're born with.

Not me.

Is it possible that environment determines subtype?

Firstly, subtype is not unanimously accepted by socionists. According to Cone, his subtype changed due to his personal circumstances. FDG also said his subtype changed.

[discojoe]

Definitely, because pressure on PoLR, Hidden Agenda, or Role Function would probably cause us to fallback on one of our two stronger functions to adapt to the stress. So continual stress on one of these functions by parents, siblings, or classmates would probably determine which of your two best functions would allow the least amount discomfort most of the time.

[tempus]

"Is it possible that environment determines subtype?"

A subtype results from the preference of one function regardless of its relative strength or weakness. So why would anyone prefer a function that is not their strongest? The answer must obviously be "environment." Subtypes do not reflect differences in genetic make-up; they reflect differences in personality brought upon by environmental factors.

(I agree that type is genetically determined. I don't think of a type as a personality, I think of a type as a method of metabolizing information and see type descriptions as reflections of what the "average" type looks like.)

[Creepy-msk]

"Is it possible that environment determines subtype?"

A subtype results from the preference of one function regardless of its relative strength or weakness. So why would anyone prefer a function that is not their strongest? The answer must obviously be "environment." Subtypes do not reflect differences in genetic make-up; they reflect differences in personality brought upon by environmental factors.

(I agree that type is genetically determined. I don't think of a type as a personality, I think of a type as a method of metabolizing information and see type descriptions as reflections of what the "average" type looks like.)

i agree with you, but when you say "So why would anyone prefer a function that is not their strongest?" it seems weird because if a type is a method of metabolizing info, it seems possible that things could biologically determine you to a certain subtype assuming they exist. It doesnt have to be you irrationally or rationally chose the weaker or the stronger one over the other. But could be.

[Creepy-pokeball]

It's been mentioned, but I'd like to revisit this...

It seems that people here seem to almost unanimously agree that our type is something we're born with. Is it possible that environment determines subtype?

I never agreed to that =p I see conflicting evidence with this line of thought. I think it is combinational realities that form these and that functions are man-made ideas to suit meaning to them. In any event, none of these ideas are able to be proved at this point in time as it just becomes circular arguement.