Is it possible to change your sociotype?

[Myst]

@Myst - two answers I think you wanted

1) I think the closest to having a "secondary type" happens in cases where someone probably has an "original/main" type, but with an offshoot that strongly shows up... perhaps even a little like you as I understand it? The example from Jungian typology would be Nietzsche... I think he was generally an introverted intuitive, but is usually designated as introverted intuition+introverted thinking, with the latter at times almost essentially forming a relatively independent personality. Perhaps a bit like your Ti and Se. Jung has written at times, Nietzsche functioned more or less on pure intuition, with little thinking or feeling to complement it, but at other points his thinking was presented as strong enough to be a good independent example of an introverted thinking type (and one of Jung's colleagues even has written introverted thinking > introverted intuition in Nietzsche).

Yeah I'm a bit like that

2) I don't think someone hardwired/innately very T would ever find it that rewarding to drastically shift to F, and that only when they're hardwired to be more in-middle, and life circumstances shift and give different opportunities, could someone adapt two different ways (because they never had a strong preference to begin with). Even so, usually the point is their say N/S and T/F aren't strong enough parts of their personality that it either substantially hurts them or helps to go in one or the other direction... generally there is some other aspect of personality ruling what is motivating that DOES remain stable (e.g. an enneagram thing... maybe they are vain and seek admiration and do whatever brings them admiration -- that's an example you can likely imagine tons of)... I've known examples like this that don't make sense to ME, because I have a relatively strong sense of what I'm about and can't easily shift that... e.g. couldn't work on something that doesn't interest me very easily, for external recognition.
But there are others who easily could do so, and end up grossly identified with whatever pattern they're currently functioning under

The way I worded what I said was: "how circumstances would be able to shift what the most rewarding would be motivationally". Meaning, if circumstances do force you to adapt, it's not really that great, as I said, it comes with its side effects, the price to pay for the forced adaptation. Perhaps over time one can get used to them though... to some degree. Not something I'd call rewarding or truly motivating in the everyday sense of the word. Overall I think that visible shifts in cognitive processing - note I'm not simply saying "personality" here - would be the result of big enough changes away from the optimum - regardless of whether the S/N or T/F preference seemed strong or not - so that's also why I think it's not that great.


Btw, elaborate on this? "Differentiated tends to mean to separate one type of consciousness from being fused with others by an act of will". The "will" part specifically

[strangeling]

The simple answer is no, you'd be developing masks to adapt to what's around you. An exception is trauma, as Glam pointed out, but that's not something that arises out of choice, but mental fragmentation - where you break someone in order to make them something else (mental fragmentation), rather than breaking someone down to develop them into something else (masks). I hate to use tv shows as an example, but Game of Thrones Theon was broken. He acts like a different person; he's become that. Reek isn't his mask, it has become him.

[nondescript]

Can you show me an example were the triangle thing is wrong.

You REGISTERED only so you could reply to ME?

WOW! I'm honoured!

[chemical]

Meaning, if circumstances do force you to adapt, it's not really that great, as I said, it comes with its side effects, the price to pay for the forced adaptation.

Sure, I'd say so too; basically assuming one does have to be forced to adapt in a direction that isn't natural, it isn't great. To the extent, on either T/F, N/S the hardwired portion of one's nature tends middle-road, my experience is other factors of one's personality influence in which direction one moves. The point being, in such cases, one could conceivably have developed the other way. Here, what ends up happening is that while one could have developed another way, there's a certain degree of consistency of the type nonetheless, because people "grow into" a certain pattern by habituation.

Probably the easiest way to distinguish these 2 is to think back to one's formative/younger days.

Btw, elaborate on this? "Differentiated tends to mean to separate one type of consciousness from being fused with others by an act of will". The "will" part specifically

Meant nothing original there, the same Jung does -- will meaning, when you deliberately direct how you judge/perceive (as opposed to it "happening on you", as in the inferior functions). So e.g. the feeling type being not only aware of what is felt, but having a sense of individual deliberation beyond what a typically more T type might.

[Myst]

Sure, I'd say so too; basically assuming one does have to be forced to adapt in a direction that isn't natural, it isn't great. To the extent, on either T/F, N/S the hardwired portion of one's nature tends middle-road, my experience is other factors of one's personality influence in which direction one moves. The point being, in such cases, one could conceivably have developed the other way. Here, what ends up happening is that while one could have developed another way, there's a certain degree of consistency of the type nonetheless, because people "grow into" a certain pattern by habituation.

Probably the easiest way to distinguish these 2 is to think back to one's formative/younger days.

OK I see what you mean. Thing is, that habituation you talk of would happen in the formative years, eh? Which is basically what I'm saying too. I didn't really try to differentiate between parts that are fully innate and parts that aren't innate just learned early in life.

Meant nothing original there, the same Jung does -- will meaning, when you deliberately direct how you judge/perceive (as opposed to it "happening on you", as in the inferior functions). So e.g. the feeling type being not only aware of what is felt, but having a sense of individual deliberation beyond what a typically more T type might.

Yes but why does this prevent the specific information processing type from being fused with another type? I'm not being argumentative here, I simply want to hear more on this.

[chemical]

Well, I think the point there goes back to the whole idea that the function-type establishes itself based on clarity of motive/direction, so basically what I think Jung's getting at is that your aims will not have a certain clarity of definition unless they respect the distinctness of the function principles (e.g. S vs T or S vs N or any such).

More or less in less flowerly language I think this is just saying, if you want your boat to move to a consciously chosen destination, you'd not row in opposite directions and you'd probably pick a single direction to focus on, so there's some net motion at the end of the day... but if you view the existence of S/N/T/F as archetypes, aka essentially potentialities for psychic activity, then within the unconscious (the womb of these potentialities) you could picture them as fused together, unshaped until a conscious ego (seeking to define which direction it wants to move) differentiates a type.

Which is why in the more primitive man, who perhaps doesn't have such a well-defined sense of what to do, and is ruled more by impulse, these potentialities appear more or less abruptly in consciousness and are acted upon, without passing through the filter which screens for what resonates with the differentiated type, and shapes farther the raw energy into suitable form for the type's motives.