Transtypers don't exist
There is no such thing as a transtyper. "I was once an LII, but now I am an SEI." No such thing.
A gun manufactured, if it is a shotgun type gun, remains a shotgun type gun. Shaving its muzzle isn't going to change it into a handgun. That's kind of the whole point of having types at all!
[Today 03:36 AM] anotherperson: this forum feels like the edge of the internet
I believe that the "transtype" thing isn't about changing your type, it's about realizing that you behaved / appeared like a different type. But after some time these people could discover, that the cognitive behaviour behind their actions was different than they thought.
Or some people that got into abusive / threatening situations, might overuse some functions, and believe those are their "true" functions, because they didn't get to properly develop their best ones.
Just like when the light goes out, you can find the way by using smell, touch etc., and after a long time / when you were born in the dark you might believe you're blind, but when the light gets back, you return back to the "best" sense (sight).
Also, not everyone is good at reading themselves, and they could identify with the type they want to be, or with what someone else tells them, which may not be true. Or they could read too simplified descriptions.
So I guess it's more like mistype than transtype.
Like when you cover the shotgun you've described with snow and roll it around for a while, you could say it's a snowball, but when the snow melts you realize it's a gun.
At least that's how I see it, and it might be wrong.
just another cistyper trashOriginally Posted by SocietyOTLittleFlower
Transtypephobe.
and what about being 2 types at once or not being one at all? And being undefined or being in the middle of two?
Hypothetically this is not excluded to happen. Doubtful in normal life or without special methods.
As in example of changing leading hand. It's possibly, but does not happen in common, - only after a training, traumas. In early childhood such was made sometimes by an intentional training.
Jung type is similar - to what info more of conscious attention goes. But is more complex task than for hands.
There are 2 opposite traits. Only one of them can be said as higher than other. Not 2 in the same time.
> not being one at all?
The lesser discretization of 2 traits is - the lesser it's possible for them to be equal. For continuous traits - 0 possibly.
But it's possibly to have traits close to equal state, where from _practical_ side can be supposed them as equal.
To have no Jung type traits "at all" means to have as equal all 4 dichotomies.
Among mentally normal people in modern culture to see someone without Jung type or having one dichotomy equal should be lesser possibly than to meet someone without dominating hand (ambidexter, which are 1%).
Initially when you try relate someone to a concrete type, the data points on a possibility of different types, the behavior is seen as contradicting to common for concrete type. But the type is 1. The problem is in your perception, - lack of data and skills to understand the correct type, to notice stable and significant behavior overweight to only one of types.
Also, sometimes it's harder to understand a type correctly, as exist unusual non-types traits/environment which influence on a behavior associated with some type traits. For example, sedative meds reduce emotional expression and it's easier to mistake about T type. Or a substance (as alcohol sometimes) may activate emotional expression to unusual degree for that type, to becomes easier to mistake about F. I saw both variants. In such situations you need to gather more of data to reduce the chance to mistake. And have higher possibility to evaluate the behavior as contradicting to relate to T or F with assurance, to overcome what need more of data, more of thinking, better skills.
Last edited by Sol; 10-28-2023 at 08:27 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote