Originally Posted by
The Ineffable
I think one needs not to abdicate from a different view due to the limitation given by your options, as they present IMO a (unintentional) false dilemma. I am not required to approve or disprove of this neuroplasticity in order to have a different opinion.
First of all, I don't think that the type has to necessarily stand in one's morphology. Even if so, the determining mechanism can be so complex that we cannot even dare to imagine at our level of understanding. Imagine the possibility that types are determined by slight, but complex differences in chemical ratios - say in blood, "0.01% higher protein X, 0.0024 less salt Y, whatever hormone Z, [... and so on ...]". There can plausibly exist obscure, but precise and self-sustaining supporting mechanisms - in the end, life itself is an apparent tower of cards that somehow manages to stand despite the changes in the environment. This would be just one idea.
Now, I am more inclined to think that the type is a setting, rather than a configuration in substance. Probably energetic - you know, like polarization & shit. Pretty much how a memory, or how a though, or a feeling is set. I don't know what exactly these phenomena are supported on, materially, however I am not aware of direct, clear-cut correlations between the morphology or chemistry of an individual and its personality, let alone its psychotype. There is evidence that these mental processes which we perceive in a simple way, are supported in this whole chemical and structural "cloud", often maintaining their impress despite local physical modifications. So yeah, it is not that easy to pinpoint, and I'm convinced this is not yet done.
---
Whatever be the case, psychologically-speaking, as I mentioned with other occasions, I view the type as a very fundamental and unconscious preference, all the other being based on it, and this is what makes, IMO, the type resilient to change - it is very core and pretty much everything in the psyche is built upon it. It looks even impossible to make an analogy with any other kind of preference that can come to my mind, as they seem all based on non-intrinsic causes, unlike what I preceive this case to be, but an example could give you some shallow insight. Think of a psychological or biological reaction of an individual against a certain external agent - allergy, idiosyncracy, etc - it is not sound to expect it to be the cause of a change on itself, rather the contrary, to tend to preserve itself [1], unless it is exposed to some aggregate of external factors which has to be precise - but not necessarily unique - and unlikely to occur spontaneously, though not necessarily impossible to happen.
I find no common-sense in believing that a preference can change exclusively based on itself. I am justified to believe that this must be the case, as long as the most intuitive way to view the Sociotype is as a manner of cognition which precedes any other mental function. Cognition means how one fundamentally views things; obviously, at such low level, unaffected by the actual content of information, alternatives are IMO inherently rejected. Let alone that out of experience we observe that the core personal preferences are generally stable, which alone would be a reason to assume a solid persistence, but unlike the cognition, such preferences are dependent on data, which can be external and not necessarily subject to their influence - for example you are religious but there are different, even contradictory things you learned by the same or other means as the former. However, cognition is formal, *all* the information that is accumulated inherits - or perhaps more appropriately "instances" - its properties.
---
[1] - generally, manifestations that are not due to external factors, when they reach the point to be observable, they already have behind a mechanism of preservation.