I might've posted something on this before, but this is now; different people and opinions. Plus, I'm sure I didn't do a poll.
People are born a type.
Functions are determined by an individual's upbringing and environment.
I might've posted something on this before, but this is now; different people and opinions. Plus, I'm sure I didn't do a poll.
Why isn't there a choice for 'some combination of both'? I'm sure it isn't exclusively due to environment/upbringing, but I also think its unlikely that environment/upbringing does not play any role
I have absolutely no evidence for this theory, but I bet it's actually almost entirely nurtured in a sense. But not in the sense that type is changeable practically. I guess I'm going to go all Locke tabula-rasa on your arse and guess that we all come into the world without functional preference but by sheer accident stumble across some function or another that we use successfully. And with that comes pleasure, so we start using that function more often than others, and hone it moreso than others. If that's the case, after a point it would be very inefficient to try to be another type, so we tend to focus on our strengths rather than weaknesses (when possible). So I might make a sucky SLE or whatever, but I could try to be one if I wanted to. The opportunity cost (I'm doing economics HW in another window) of being SLE would be not-being-whatever-type-I-am, where my true skills lie. If this were D&D, it would like focusing all of my stats on Intelligence as a Wizard and then going Barbarian. As I said though, that's purely speculation.
Another thing I've thought about is how each type sort of has its own general philosophy, and perhaps that is how type is derived. I'm not sure if that's a byproduct or a cause, or something else, but hey, I'm just rambling haphazardly, so what does it matter?
Edit: I'm not saying SLEs are Barbarians, the two examples were completely unrelated, but it is still kind of funny that it played out that way.![]()
Originally Posted by Logos
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
I really like imfd95's post
As a shorthand response, may not just be genetic, there's evidence to show personality/temperament develops in the womb. Usually as people get older they become more natural in their skin, gradually shaking off whatever their upbringing tried to make them, so upbringing seems to be limited in correlation. Ie does a leopard change it's spots.
I don't think it makes sense that our personalities are nurtured because if that were the case, how is it we all fit so neatly into 16 types? Why would we all happen to be these certain combinations of functions? Why wouldn't it be more of a potluck? Couldn't there be some of us running around who for example are equally proficient in Fe and Te - saying that we were exposed to circumstances that made it necessary for us to be strong in both? And if our personalities are indeed nurtured, then what it is the cut-off date when our personalities are considered 'formed'? Is there a cut-off date? And being that our experiences never fail to affect us in some way, at what point would they be said to start affecting our behaviour and not our innate personalities? Or maybe our personalites just continue to evolve the longer we live - being that our experiences will always have a profound effect on our lives - in which case there's no point in typing.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Actually, I think type is a constant, but sub type (if it exists) would be influenced by environment.
Who knows? Maybe the types are all subjective, in the sense that we can't say that there's a definitive, objective, discrete distinction in functional preference. Like we can only say that something is morethan
, more
than
, more
than
, etc.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
hmmm, i thought the smiley face would show that i was joking
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Everything is learned. A lamp must learn its shape. Learning and being biological are synonyms. Everything is learned. How does one think if there is no data to think about? Something that is possible is that our DNA strands have intelligence. Over years and years of evolutions, our DNA strands have learned what to learn and how to learn it.
I've never understood the concepts of living v.s. non living. Everything reacts to the environment. Its just that our system is a complex system of reactions that keeps building upon itself.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I think we can be well-rounded even by focusing on our strongest functions, given that functions can be applied to a wide array of different activities. Sure, there will always be some blind spots but not excessively detrimental to making a person "well rounded"
Anyway, my opinion is that temperament (EJ IJ IP EP) is inborn, wheras the functions used can be a byproduct of the environment.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yeah, I see what you're getting at. But say that this Fi-base-favouring person grew up in an environment in which the use of Te was discouraged - well surely that would have to be a strong deterrent to Te dual-seeking.
On some persons - so do you think it's possible that some people may never 'stabilise' - e.g. a person who is constantly subjected to changing circumstances?
I agree. In my family irrational behaviour was strongly discouraged, and yet 3 out of 4 of us are irrational.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
That's a bit too much of a devil's advocate position. Or, rather: if you accept such positions, then socionics makes no sense. Otherwise (if socionics makes sense), Fi-base implies that a person is Te-dual-seeking as well as it implies Ti-role. There's no separation.say for example -- something in my brain makes me really favor Fi-base in myself. but that there's nothing inherent in there to make me Te-dual seeking.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well yeah I agree that socionics wouldn't make sense if such situations do/did exist. My point was (I think) that if our personalities are shaped exclusively by our environments and experiences, then why the hard and fast rules? Why must Fi-base imply Te-dual seeking? But yeah - I am taking a devil's advocate postion.
![]()
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I'm sceptical.
As a fan of Locke, I like this theory. Parts of it at least.
Because Augusta decided so. Why is it any more unlikely that we should fit into sixteen types through being nurtured than it is unlikely that there are only sixteen styles of newborn human beings?
Sure, but personally I've seen other examples of the same phenomenon. For instance, there's a family I've known all my life:
LSI father
SEI mother
SLI son
ESI daughter (3 years younger)
This combination was particularly negative for the ESI, with parents who couldn't provide Te and whose low focus on Ne made them see her as "chronic underachiever".
Another one (I also know them very well):
LIE father
ESI mother
EII son
Where the disagreements are precisely on the EII's lack of interest in Se matters (ie giving low priority to making money).
And some others.
The point I'm making is that, according to my experience, there seem to be a lot of people who can't be conditioned into becoming like their parents.
My personal impression is that types are either inborn or defined irreversibly at a very, very early stage in life.
![]()
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
So, uh, how about you are born with instinctual characteristics regarding your perceptual capabilities/inclinations which are either fostered or punished by your surrounding environment? A perfect development keeping with your instinctual self is hardly possible, so the extent to which you are challenged creates psychological obstacles that are in turn dealt with varying levels of success (or, alternately, suppression into the unconscious). Thus we have people who grow to be who they always were, and others who lose themselves in the muddle of a world telling them who they should be or what they should want.
So, uh, yeah. How bout that?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Inherited. Innate, in-born. You can't change who people are at their very core. Believe me, people have tried to change me and I've tried to change them. Doesn't work. I guess certain experiences will bring different sides out of you, and people are still complex but come on, a fish simply can't fly.
Haha. That's unnatural fish cruelty though. =)
not reading any of the thread:
I have never seen anything that leads me to believe types are nurtured into being.
I have seen, extensively, how people have had to adjust to fit in, or alter themselves to survive, basically. These alterations can be detrimental to the person's natural well being, and/or have various other side effects and consequences.
I've seen SEIs try to be more this way or that way to appease their partner. But in the end the are themselves and never change. I've seen an ESE go from being sporadic and outgoing to more balanced and reserved, after finally settling down and finding a dual. Those are personal examples I've seen very clearly, I'm sure things like that happen all the time.
But in all my seeings of personal experience, I have never seen anything that made me think someone had a major shift in psychological type (this includes, quadra, temperment, or functional ordering). And I caution that those who do should first be wary that they, themselves, were misinformed or misunderstood the person's type to begin with - that is to say, the error is their own viewpoint. This is something I have done a few times, but I realized it was my own misunderstanding, and, as I have said, it was never that someone had a change of type.
Furthermore, I have not ever seen anything that supported a change of subtype, even.
Last edited by UDP; 04-24-2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason: clarity
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I think that you are born with your type, but the subtype is determined by enviroment and such stuff.
Beta extrovert from NF club.
IMO
part environmental
part inherent
part mystery
don't know about how much of each
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.