"In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality, such as introversion or extroversion, that are often regarded as innate rather than learned."Originally Posted by dragoned
"In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality, such as introversion or extroversion, that are often regarded as innate rather than learned."
You need to discover (observe, understand) yourself more, I guess.. then you should be able to self type
Poor man's Te, Jungian e/I is different from modern day understanding of e/i, and also it says nothing about socionics temperament (your deduction is therefore logically false)
Well, I think there are aspects of personality types theory that are more philosophy and others more science, and Jungian typology kind of is at the borderlines.
I also don't think philosophy's relevance has to be spiritual as in the enneagram, but simply in precisely defining things like types of information (given, after all, many philosophy disciplines are more or less clarifying fundamental concepts). The relevance of science is (in part) to produce a good sense of experimentally recurring trends in how people process those types of information, but part of singling out what types we're interested in is conceptualizing how we conceptualize and so forth.
Interesting, I took Radio's first post as saying no because of what I thought everyone was going to say. Just goes to show you I don't care about what 99% of you have to say. Ok, I'm just teasing.
Also, of course your type can change, no matter how badly people want this to be static and nonmalleable, Jung says it himself "it's a practical psychology." Gulenko believes that types have evolved to accommodate social and survival needs- which is a very obvious thing, if you think about it. There are certain parts of it that are so ingrained that they won't change, but in general, it isn't solid like that. There is some sort of childish rigidness that goes along with thinking a model with incomplete information(a person) can't change from how it is or is thought to be. The final complexity of a person is way more convoluted and allowing for growth and change paths because we are not simply one system. Our brains are like hunters from halo. But that indeterminacy comes from the fact that we don't know well enough. If we knew well enough, we would have something reliable. And that reliable thing would be a function of time.
Ok, now for the other side: any growth is the result of type metabolism functioning in its predetermined ways. Any time you think you go from rational to irrational or thinker to feeler or sensor to intuitive, you are simply expressing another aspect of yourself given certain inputs-your type in different situations. It is silly to think you can't be the same person all your life-plenty of people do it, and they don't change. Why? Well it could be because of rigidity, fear, or simple lack of care. Or it could be because your mind needs to maintain homeostasis, and when you come out of it, you feel upset and unbalanced, and an immediate, instinctual need to right yourself. To find what type truly is, you need to go past the patterns you think you see and suck water from the cracks. Because finding the truth is not as simple as looking at the broken floor, you have to pry in deep. If you plan something and feel instinctually pressured when someone tries to change plans on you, it doesn't mean you went from p to j, there's just something more complex going on.
Maybe differences of going outward vs inward is shown in these?
And plenty of other sides in between.
I agree that it's a question of how the brain works. I agree with you in general but I would add that brain trauma resulting in type change has happened before but it doesn't come without its bad side effects so it's hardly what I'd call optimal. Changing type to another type in one go without side effects is what I find incredibly unlikely. The way your information processing got established is a finely organized system that cannot be tranformed into another at random. Still, the examples of brain trauma show how adaptable the brain can be if it must adapt. It does work out relatively well in luckier cases. Btw, the number of people living in this world isn't really relevant to determining if type change is possible.
I would agree on there being high complexity. Don't expect this one little theory to explain everything... that's the mistake many fans commit. And that of course means that I think it's not a good idea to try and stay inside the model prioritizing it over actual reality. Just no. I find it silly though to assume that just because someone thinks type doesn't change much it must be due to wanting to blindly believe whatever idea.
I like how you put this!To find what type truly is, you need to go past the patterns you think you see and suck water from the cracks. Because finding the truth is not as simple as looking at the broken floor, you have to pry in deep. If you plan something and feel instinctually pressured when someone tries to change plans on you, it doesn't mean you went from p to j, there's just something more complex going on.
I saw someone(that someone can speak up if they wish to) say "explain it to me like you would explain it to a child, otherwise it's not valid." This is a very narrow set of requirements for a theory. People can definitely have a bad understanding because their meta-understanding is bad. And I'm not saying it's about wanting, I'm saying it's about legitimately not seeing it until it's pointed out, and even then, maybe you still can't see it. But I'm of many minds about the whole issue, so I'm just trying to provide brain food.
Yeah I didn't say people can't have a bad understanding, anyway I think we are on the same page about this.
My POV is, a simple "yes" to "is it possible" isn't very meaningful. You need to assume the probability or otherwise have a way to calculate it to make the number of people who have ever lived relevant to this issue but anyway that's just nitpicky correcting now, my main point in my post to you wasn't that.
As for likelihood, reasonably sure the answer to this depends on how close to the middle someone is on a given aspect of the Jungian dichotomies with regards to innate predisposition. There are two aspects of the function-type: habituation based on reward/adaptation needs and innate predisposition. The funny thing regarding the former is that it can lead someone to develop quite a sharply defined type with just a little bit of push from the latter.
But, that "sharp definition" is not in such a case a sign of stability as might be guesstimated. Depending on whether what is most rewarding to the psyche changes, quite plausible for someone to show something of a shift in their habitual consciousness if their innate predisposition was middle-road and much of the sharp definition of their type was more out of what seemed currently a rewarding pattern of consciousness to follow/access.
Not only did Jung say the type is nothing static, he also has pointed out how many are more in the middle of the E/I spectrum than significantly differentiated, and it's such cases where I think they're likely to shift based on what seems the most rewarding consciousness at the time. For those with strong innate predispositions (and they definitely exist), it's very unlikely they'll swing to the other end of the spectrum.
I hear you, I have sensor envy :/ surrounding myself with sensors hasn't helped me either, but I hoped it would. If anything it has just made me more self conscious. What did you get from being around logical types?
Hold on, do you mean their actual facial appearance (genetics) are similar, or the way they use their face is similar (body language)?
I agree. and I think the range is specifically between your role and base functions. So the more you develop your role, the more flexible your personality becomes.
What about changing between the same temperament? Like an istj becoming an intj, or esfp becoming entp
No if you really think logically.
Interesting.. how would you measure whether a person is more 'themselves' though? When they are more conscious of their motivations?
Maybe I should film myself so I see myself in 3rd person? I really can't go impartial(good, that means I am not a T) and I have to witness it myself(prolly S?). As for Reinins...lol I can't apply most of those to myself. It's funny because I can to other persons. Maybe it's because of this lack impartiality of mine, so I'd need to really film myself? ... I know what I need to do...
Frustrated and I am sure most of them were too.
But, I learned patience and some emotional control. I learned that most logical base types will not easily bend to an impassioned plea for understanding. That I need to put my personal feelings aside and state logical arguments and when to keep my mouth shut and just observe/listen to what they were saying. Especially when I had no clue what I was talking about since it made me look ignorant.
I learned tricks for debating a logical type and how to leave them speechless. That was a last resort when I would want to win by default, as in make a claim that they could not logically dispute, e.g. I see and talk to ghosts and have had an MRI so it isn't a brain tumor. No way to actually disprove it...so in the end can be a real debate killer. Being told it is just my imagination made me smile and cocky. Just showed me they had no logical way to disprove my experiences without calling me schizophrenic/crazy. Most of my friends would not ever want to go that far in a serious way but have been teased about it being the cause.
Hmm, lots more, like how to take an IQ test and raise my score by studying right before. Stuff like that.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
trying to be more specific about my thoughts on this... if you can identify/access a particular ime (which is why i was looking at lead/role because they are both conscious supposedly), then you can learn how to hone your attention to that ime, and learn how to start observing that form of information at will. if you overturn your values and change your lifestyle to focus on that ime more, and consciously work on focusing on it more and more... over time i suspect your mind will only get better at doing this. after about 10 years of this (or possibly fewer) you will probably be pretty oriented toward that type of information instead of what you were oriented to before. does that constitute type change? well, i don't know. but i can't say that this wouldn't reorient the rest of your "functions" as well, along the way (or that it would... i simply don't know). what will your sanity be like after all of that? i have no idea.
my other idea about this, is that if you develop your mindfulness in general, you might transcend all of this entirely, finding you can easily focus on one form of information or another... and that you value none of them in particular. why would you value one shade/view of reality over another, when your goal is to understand/see all of reality?
regarding the brain... i have read that the brain is actually kind of flexible... so if you do repeatedly focus on certain things, more connections will be built to enable you to focus on them even more. this is why treating things like ocd can be so difficult (the repeating behavior has built strong connections). you have to work hard to rewire everything in the brain, and it takes a long time... but of course it can be done (the brain can make new connections and lose old ones depending on what you focus on). it's also why you might observe some people who have become incredibly narrow in their thinking, having only one view for every topic that they repeat over and over... it's that their mind has formed way too many connections along these lines, from repeatedly thinking that way. when people start developing alzheimers, i've read that the brain tries to adapt as well as it can to the damage, rewiring and moving information/connections so as to preserve the information and bypass the damaged areas (this probably happens because the person needs that information, and so each time s/he struggles to access it and remembers it again, it is somehow reconnected or moved so the person can get to it more easily next time). after symptoms emerge, a lot of damage has probably already occurred, it's just that the brain was able to work around that for a while. (i'm not an expert on any of these things, but it's not the particulars i'm looking at, but an overall view that the brain is pretty adaptable. and that what you think/feel and how often you think/feel it will influence the connections the brain forms, and which ones are stronger.)
given what i imagine as the adaptability of the brain, i think that type change shouldn't be impossible... though it would be time-consuming.
lastly, there's the matter of what socionics is describing, which has not been "proven" in any way. there is no link between it (as far as i know) and the findings of neuroscience. so when we say something like "type change is impossible" (or "possible, but highly unlikely"), we don't even have a "concrete" thing we're talking about changing to begin with. socionics is a body of ideas about "information metabolism." it wouldn't even merit being a theory, scientifically, due to lack of ability to collect meaningful evidence, and of course that we don't know how this sort of thing would arise in the brain, out of which areas, or why. i don't think we even know how much would be inborn... maybe you start out with some simple things... like you're an introvert from birth, but what particular info you start honing in on, how do we know that didn't arise in part out of your early experiences? are there genetic links too? i've read that some genes can be "activated" under intense periods of stress for instance... it seems like some genes may have an "on" or "off" ability depending on your experiences (which influence the hormones in your system, among other things).
again, not an expert... but the picture i have is that the brain is adaptable and so is the genome. it really is part "nature" and part "nurture." because our experiences communicate back to our biology and it tries to adapt on every level really to better enable us to deal with the "environment" it supposes we may be in.
so for instance, if one is highly stressed through much of early childhood, this communicates that the environment is harsh, that resources may be scarce, that one may not have social support... one must then become tough and able to fend for him/herself (all those stress hormones flowing through the body for long periods of time, tell the adaptive features in the body to "toughen up"). my suspicion is that the brain and genome respond to all of our experiences in a very archaic way... to mold us into the closest it can get us to something that can survive/succeed in our environment. these ancient elements of our bodies don't know what the environment really is and cannot conceptualize anything... but they respond to things like hormones and chemical signals to inform that. even if we are living in a civilization where all of our needs are taken care of, the ancient parts of our framework will not know this. they will still act as though we are living out in the wilds, where survival is a challenge. i imagine there's a lot of stuff like this going on in the body all the time... the ancient parts of us are sensitive to all of our hormones, moods, whatever signals are passing through, and they respond so as to adapt to a simple facsimile of an "environment."
the point is. what we don't know *far* outweighs what we do know (regarding socionics and the brain, genome, etc.). and that by itself to means (to me) that you can't really say that type change is "impossible" or really anything so definitive about it. hence my question, "why not?"
Last edited by marooned; 06-10-2015 at 03:54 PM.
Conclusion: Life is an Alzheimer's disease. WOW how dark...perfect.
That's pretty much my perspective and actually points to a weakness in the premise that we are born with a type and live deterministically as a result. If IEs are innate, where do they come from and why the differences in axis between individuals? It doesn't make sense that people are born with only one axis preference Te/Fi, Ni/Se, Ne/Si, or Ti/Fe. Why is it theorized that we are born with an imbalance in the first place. It actually goes against what we would expect to see if personality was mostly innate through genetics. You'd expect to see some sort of Gaussian distribution with each dichotomy and a significant number of people would not have a strong preference.
We each obviously have a personality, but I question that socionics, or anything based on Jung's cognitive function theory, has found the basic building blocks of personality. While these theories may paint a similar picture of a person's personality as a non-Jungian personality theory, I think the reasons for the personality's existence is based on faulty premises and the cognitive functions are really more descriptive than prescriptive. So what may be seen as type changing is really not having the correct definition to begin with.
Yeah, basically I think there are people who are born with a more or less innate preference, and they're at the ends of the distribution for T/F, N/S and so forth.
Jung himself spoke of the relatively balanced guy who isn't significantly E or I, and E/I was his favorite/most important (at least initially) dichotomy... and he was clear such a person isn't super rare, and in fact constitutes a giant middle group.
The point of Jung wasn't to put everyone in a box so much as note there is such a thing as having these types. And for the more balanced common man, the likelier outcome is that they are say, N in certain ways, S in certain ways, F in certain ways, T in certain ways, rational in some ways, irrational in some ways.
The more extreme irrational types of introverted sort were, as Jung described, often the most fruitless of men from the rational standpoint. I doubt that your average ILI fits that, because simply they generally have a reasonable command of Ni and Te both. But it's also true that these kinds of extreme guys are less likely to confuse themselves for LIEs or EIEs, simply because it's so ridiculously obvious they're irrationals.
I think it is reasonably likely people have some pronounced preferences, but others are more nebulous and open to being shaped by circumstance. There are also obviously examples of people who truly have a likely innate type.
This was my portrayal of how a mistype arises, like one cannot see the forest through the trees
present participle;
We inhabit bodies, we are not our bodies, or our brains for that matter--
I'm not sure this can be measured, but it is tested certainly; confer its meaning that a person is more balanced. Observed-
Many people refrain from going within themselves, or do not face facts of self, the small self, we all do this. I think the most important thing is to relax into the small self, and maintain the gardens of a cancerous ego structure
My opinion is that type cannot truly be static, but has a center of gravity, or preference as others have said
Why would you think it's along base/role? That's not my experience btw
Reinin isn't part of the core theory (euphemism for "bullshit"), why bother with it for typing.
With I/E you actually can see that distribution. I don't know about the other dichotomies.
I don't think type is innate btw, early years of development where experiences interact with inborn tendencies definitely matters a lot
Hmm I don't even equal cognitive functions with personality. I see them as two different things.We each obviously have a personality, but I question that socionics, or anything based on Jung's cognitive function theory, has found the basic building blocks of personality. While these theories may paint a similar picture of a person's personality as a non-Jungian personality theory, I think the reasons for the personality's existence is based on faulty premises and the cognitive functions are really more descriptive than prescriptive. So what may be seen as type changing is really not having the correct definition to begin with.
Do you think the habituation aspect remains as flexible throughout life as it is in early childhood? If yes, why?
To your other post, I don't think being less differentiated equals balance. I see them as at least somewhat independent factors.
Last edited by Myst; 06-11-2015 at 05:32 PM.
Really? But, but! Gulenko built everything upon it. What now? O.oWhy would you think it's along base/role? That's not my experience btw
Reinin isn't part of the core theory (euphemism for "bullshit"
With I/E you actually can see that distribution. I don't know about the other dichotomies.
I don't think type is innate btw, early years of development where experiences interact with inborn tendencies definitely matters a lot
Hmm I don't even equal cognitive functions with personality. I see them as two different things.
Do you think the habituation aspect remains as flexible throughout life as it is in early childhood? If yes, why?
To your other post, I don't think being less differentiated equals balance. I see them as at least somewhat independent factors.
Well, with balanced vs less differentiated, yes there are cases where you might want to (depending on how you define "balanced personality") distinguish between those as two types of in-the-middle.
Differentiated tends to mean to separate one type of consciousness from being fused with others by an act of will, and balanced could at times refer to two developed functions (especially when they both support dominant). I think this is a pretty subtle case because the auxiliaries cannot by the theory stand for themselves (else they'd just be a secondary personality, not a true auxiliary), yet one could also call them "conscious" by virtue of being attached/integrated with the dom's agenda, and I certainly don't think a function can be made conscious without some level of differentiation, so yeah, I think this is perhaps one of the examples you were thinking of.
As for habituation, good question about whether it can cause changes as easily throughout life.. I mean, I get the sense it is hard to just voluntarily shift your personality, so really I do think later in life, once a clearer sense of aims/identity are in place, it becomes less rewarding to "become someone else" in a lot of adults' cases. In my experience, I've seen guys who were more or less innately more in the middle of E/I innately shift between them in terms of their habitual orientation, if other deep factors like enneagram type influenced (e.g. knew an enneagram 3 who moved in the E direction)... also I think Jung said Adler moved in the E direction as and when success found him, and has also suggested an intimate connection between your Jungian type and determining clear aims/supporting your motivations, so I'd think basically if circumstances shift what is most rewarding to your motivations, and your innate predisposition doesn't disagree, reasonable shifts (nothing too insanely drastic) are likely to happen. You could of course just say such people don't have a type in E/I, depending on taste, but I tend to find habituation is a powerful enough thing in shaping personality -- like you really see people respond to situations/process them via a different principle than they used to... that I think it's worth saying they moved between ends.
Good job inumbra. I agree with 75% of it, which is the amount I read until realizing you have the exact same sort of thoughts I do.
Yes that's what I meant by differentiation too. Btw have you never known anyone who kinda had such a "secondary personality"?
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I once had a shift towards more introversion yet I could see it was not my optimal state, not my default. This difference between current and optimal state never fully went away over the years. Habituation did close some of the gap but never fully. My guess is I was too old for a real change in terms of the optimum also truly changing. I was 18 when I had the shift happen. Had another shift since then so it's no longer like that.As for habituation, good question about whether it can cause changes as easily throughout life.. I mean, I get the sense it is hard to just voluntarily shift your personality, so really I do think later in life, once a clearer sense of aims/identity are in place, it becomes less rewarding to "become someone else" in a lot of adults' cases. In my experience, I've seen guys who were more or less innately more in the middle of E/I innately shift between them in terms of their habitual orientation, if other deep factors like enneagram type influenced (e.g. knew an enneagram 3 who moved in the E direction)... also I think Jung said Adler moved in the E direction as and when success found him, and has also suggested an intimate connection between your Jungian type and determining clear aims/supporting your motivations, so I'd think basically if circumstances shift what is most rewarding to your motivations, and your innate predisposition doesn't disagree, reasonable shifts (nothing too insanely drastic) are likely to happen. You could of course just say such people don't have a type in E/I, depending on taste, but I tend to find habituation is a powerful enough thing in shaping personality -- like you really see people respond to situations/process them via a different principle than they used to... that I think it's worth saying they moved between ends.
So my point is really -as mentioned already by my earlier post- not that type change or shift isn't at all possible but whether that optimum can also change.
Another way to put my point is, I'm not convinced that these shifts in jungian/socionical functional disposition come without bad side effects. That issue applies even to reorienting after brain trauma and actually, applies there even more strongly.
I would also say that I don't get how circumstances would be able to shift what the most rewarding would be motivationally. I don't see that happening like that. Do explain this more.
You are assuming that your brain will be consistently able to resist changing back to the much more rewarding leading function just because you feel like experimenting.
The next assumption that you are using is that you actually have the tools to get to the level of refinement in the role function that the four-dimensional functions have.if you overturn your values and change your lifestyle to focus on that ime more, and consciously work on focusing on it more and more... over time i suspect your mind will only get better at doing this.
For example, how exactly you are going to practice your role function other than trying to keep your attention there? Surely some efficient enough methods would be needed beyond that. Such as, what sort of tasks to practice, etc.
You can only focus on one form of information well if it's got high enough dimensionality (jung called this degree of differentation really) and you have to explicitly develop that first. Simple mindfulness isn't going to achieve that.my other idea about this, is that if you develop your mindfulness in general, you might transcend all of this entirely, finding you can easily focus on one form of information or another... and that you value none of them in particular. why would you value one shade/view of reality over another, when your goal is to understand/see all of reality?
Also the utopian idea of being able to focus at will in whatever way you wish and become a superhuman this way isn't possible. Firstly, your consciousness will not have enough real time info or time to decide which form of information processing is best in a specific situation, secondly, your capacity isn't enough to have all of them fully developed. Not enough time for that.. while you practice one side to get good at it (even if assuming you can do this), the other side will get out of practice and become worse. There may be constraints other than the time constraint, as well.
You can't rewire everything if we are to take this statement literally. What for, anyway. You're no longer the little baby where that'd still make sense. There are certain "windows" in time that if you pass, you can no longer get back to developing or changing certain things in a profound way (some pretty big changes can still be forced via trauma, though). But the brain sure will always retain some plasticity, it always develops connections further. It's not exactly rewiring of "everything" though, the tendency as you age is more like, making areas work together better over time.regarding the brain... i have read that the brain is actually kind of flexible... so if you do repeatedly focus on certain things, more connections will be built to enable you to focus on them even more. this is why treating things like ocd can be so difficult (the repeating behavior has built strong connections). you have to work hard to rewire everything in the brain, and it takes a long time... but of course it can be done (the brain can make new connections and lose old ones depending on what you focus on).
I hinted at this above; Do take into account the reward system that plays a pretty big role in things in the brain. There's more to the story than just the brain having some flexibility.given what i imagine as the adaptability of the brain, i think that type change shouldn't be impossible... though it would be time-consuming.
There's some things Nardi found in MBTI via EEG though that's just pilot studies. And btw his findings don't support the idea of a rigidly refined model of functions. There are things - brain activation patterns - that can be called functions that are rather consistently detectable across the same types of people and there's some links between the functions - some traces of function dynamics were shown - but that's about it. Makes sense to me.lastly, there's the matter of what socionics is describing, which has not been "proven" in any way. there is no link between it (as far as i know) and the findings of neuroscience.
We can operationalize definitions, no one's stopping you from doing so, Nardi's done it too.so when we say something like "type change is impossible" (or "possible, but highly unlikely"), we don't even have a "concrete" thing we're talking about changing to begin with. socionics is a body of ideas about "information metabolism." it wouldn't even merit being a theory, scientifically, due to lack of ability to collect meaningful evidence
I actually do think that the inf proc preferences are not simply innate, early experiences matter a lot. This would be consistent with neuroscience findings about brain developmentand of course that we don't know how this sort of thing would arise in the brain, out of which areas, or why. i don't think we even know how much would be inborn... maybe you start out with some simple things... like you're an introvert from birth, but what particular info you start honing in on, how do we know that didn't arise in part out of your early experiences? are there genetic links too? i've read that some genes can be "activated" under intense periods of stress for instance... it seems like some genes may have an "on" or "off" ability depending on your experiences (which influence the hormones in your system, among other things).
Yes it tries, doesn't mean it's gonna be a great lifeagain, not an expert... but the picture i have is that the brain is adaptable and so is the genome. it really is part "nature" and part "nurture." because our experiences communicate back to our biology and it tries to adapt on every level really to better enable us to deal with the "environment" it supposes we may be in.
Yeah just be sure you don't run into adrenal fatigue and consequently burn-out... it's not all great magic that works perfectly seamlessly. But sure, using your example of toughening up as a kid, it does work, it will be an interesting endeavour to undo those hrm, so-called adaptations later tho'.so for instance, if one is highly stressed through much of early childhood, this communicates that the environment is harsh, that resources may be scarce, that one may not have social support... one must then become tough and able to fend for him/herself (all those stress hormones flowing through the body for long periods of time, tell the adaptive features in the body to "toughen up").
I'm really going by research on the brain, not so much socionics itself because socionics theory does not have the real means to say anything about how information processing can change. That's not part of the model. Though sure it makes assumptions.the point is. what we don't know *far* outweighs what we do know (regarding socionics and the brain, genome, etc.). and that by itself to means (to me) that you can't really say that type change is "impossible" or really anything so definitive about it. hence my question, "why not?"
Last edited by Myst; 06-11-2015 at 11:36 PM.
fuck gulenko, too
@Myst, i feel like you're just breaking this into a point-by-point analysis... the source of my suspicions/thoughts on this just doesn't come from that. i would also add that i don't consider anything Jung said to be true by default, although i regard Jung highly. my post was never meant to counter your opinion. it was simply my perspective on the matter. i must trust my own impressions.
not really.You are assuming that your brain will be consistently able to resist changing back to the much more rewarding leading function just because you feel like experimenting.
again, not really. i don't assume the dimensionality of functions to be true either, btw. i only consider it. as for the role function, one must change their lifestyle to match its aims. i'm not saying it would be easy. i don't know if i think of it as "tasks to practice." it would be a trial and error process, where you are focused on the awareness of that IE and noting what helps keep your focus there. ultimately, your lifestyle will have to change, which means many of your fundamental habits and tendencies. i don't think this is terribly more dramatic than other lifestyle changes--all lifestyle changes are difficult to some extent.The next assumption that you are using is that you actually have the tools to get to the level of refinement in the role function that the four-dimensional functions have.
For example, how exactly you are going to practice your role function other than trying to keep your attention there? Surely some efficient enough methods would be needed beyond that. Such as, what sort of tasks to practice, etc.
i didn't mean to imply rewiring everything. i can't wire my brain into that of a lizard no matter how hard i try, for instance. there are obviously limitations. i just am not convinced "type change" is among those limitations. the question is, how dramatic of a change would this "type change" be (how many connections and whatever would need to change)? my suspicion is it might not be as massive of a change as one might think for some people. i don't know why you'd want to argue this with me, since neither of us can prove anything about any of this.You can't rewire everything if we are to take this statement literally. What for, anyway. You're no longer the little baby where that'd still make sense. There are certain "windows" in time that if you pass, you can no longer get back to developing or changing certain things in a profound way (some pretty big changes can still be forced via trauma, though). But the brain sure will always retain some plasticity, it always develops connections further. It's not exactly rewiring of "everything" though, the tendency as you age is more like, making areas work together better over time.
i'm familiar with stuff on the brain and aging and how it's way more adaptable when we're kids. that doesn't mean type change is impossible as an adult, since we don't even know how profound of a change it would even be, and people are still learning about the brain and its adaptive abilities anyway. and since we can't even define "type" in terms of our brains and their functions anyway.
i know about the idea of reward systems. it's possible to reorient what one finds rewarding. drug addiction often messes with the brain's reward systems, yet one can recover from addiction (although damage to the brain can also be done). i don't see the existence of a "reward system" as meaning type change just can't happen except in the case of severe brain trauma.I hinted at this above; Do take into account the reward system that plays a pretty big role in things in the brain. There's more to the story than just the brain having some flexibility.
if we take nardi as legit. i'm not so sure about him, personally.There's some things Nardi found in MBTI via EEG though that's just pilot studies. And btw his findings don't support the idea of a rigidly refined model of functions. There are things - brain activation patterns - that can be called functions that are rather consistently detectable across the same types of people and there's some links between the functions - some traces of function dynamics were shown - but that's about it. Makes sense to me.
my central point stands... we don't have enough in science we can link to these ideas from socionics (yet). you will not be able to disprove type change (or prove it). not currently. my other point is that these are ways of breaking people up into categories, and some people fit their boxes better than others to begin with. the distance some people have to go to change from a type that doesn't match them perfectly anyway to another that doesn't really fit either, may not be so great.
Eh? I also don't blindly believe Jung on stuff, I've already criticized some of his ideas.
? I didn't think your original post was specifically made to counter my opinion, that's a weird idea lolmy post was never meant to counter your opinion. it was simply my perspective on the matter. i must trust my own impressions.
Yes pretty much you are working with that assumption. If you disagree then explain whynot really.
Well as I said there's a lot of assumptions here before we can conclude type change will work in this fashion but I'm open to hearing your analysis as to why it doesn't require the assumptions lolagain, not really. i don't assume the dimensionality of functions to be true either, btw. i only consider it. as for the role function, one must change their lifestyle to match its aims. i'm not saying it would be easy. i don't know if i think of it as "tasks to practice." it would be a trial and error process, where you are focused on the awareness of that IE and noting what helps keep your focus there. ultimately, your lifestyle will have to change, which means many of your fundamental habits and tendencies. i don't think this is terribly more dramatic than other lifestyle changes--all lifestyle changes are difficult to some extent.
As for dimensionality of information processing, that concept exists beyond socionics, has been noted in academic psychology though under different labeling
Oh I didn't mean wiring the brain into a lizard's brain. Just simply rewiring the entire brain into some other systematic way of functioningi didn't mean to imply rewiring everything. i can't wire my brain into that of a lizard no matter how hard i try, for instance. there are obviously limitations. i just am not convinced "type change" is among those limitations. the question is, how dramatic of a change would this "type change" be (how many connections and whatever would need to change)? my suspicion is it might not be as massive of a change as one might think for some people. i don't know why you'd want to argue this with me, since neither of us can prove anything about any of this.
I don't know why you'd want to post about this topic if we can't prove any of it? Also, I am trying to go by actual research as I already mentioned. I don't see the point in totally groundless speculation, sure.
You seem to be relativizing everything to the point of nothing saying anything meaningful anymore. Where meaningful means grounded in something concretei'm familiar with stuff on the brain and aging and how it's way more adaptable when we're kids. that doesn't mean type change is impossible as an adult, since we don't even know how profound of a change it would even be, and people are still learning about the brain and its adaptive abilities anyway. and since we can't even define "type" in terms of our brains and their functions anyway.
Just an observation, not judging you on it but I think we aren't going to be on the same page due to our differences in that.
That's only part of the reason for type change being much harder than you assume, tbh.i know about the idea of reward systems. it's possible to reorient what one finds rewarding. drug addiction often messes with the brain's reward systems, yet one can recover from addiction (although damage to the brain can also be done). i don't see the existence of a "reward system" as meaning type change just can't happen except in the case of severe brain trauma.
Why?if we take nardi as legit. i'm not so sure about him, personally.
Too many maybe's for me here. (See as above.) To me my point makes quite a lot of sense when I look at already existing research. I wouldn't still mind more concrete research into it of course.my central point stands... we don't have enough in science we can link to these ideas from socionics (yet). you will not be able to disprove type change (or prove it). not currently. my other point is that these are ways of breaking people up into categories, and some people fit their boxes better than others to begin with. the distance some people have to go to change from a type that doesn't match them perfectly anyway to another that doesn't really fit either, may not be so great.
what's your experience?
i think it's along base/role because using the role consciously can expand the boundaries of the ignoring function, which seem to otherwise limit the entire ego. also neglecting the role apparently makes it hyper sensitive which affects the flexibility of the base.
My own experience is more about overfocusing on HA compared to default
OK I do get the idea on it helping with flexibility - I don't see how I'd get into Role that much thoughi think it's along base/role because using the role consciously can expand the boundaries of the ignoring function, which seem to otherwise limit the entire ego. also neglecting the role apparently makes it hyper sensitive which affects the flexibility of the base.
I gotta be terribly inflexible, then
@Myst i don't see how this conversation is going to go anywhere. i don't think you see what i see and was trying to convey in my first post. because there seems to be somewhat minimal common understanding between us on this, i feel like this will turn into one of these "breaking it down to argue each point" discussions, that will ultimately go nowhere... because what i was saying wasn't actually *in* each individual point. if i try to adapt to your style of thinking i think i'll just get caught in going further and further away from my initial perspective and arguing points that don't really matter to my perspective/the path i see. eventually you'll declare victory in the debate, and i'll be thinking, "victory of what?" since i'll feel we're now so far from my perspective that it no longer matters. chat might be a better medium than a constant back and forth debate of points, post after post.
Last edited by marooned; 06-12-2015 at 05:57 PM.
But then we could go and say "to hell with Jung as well". Or with Pythagora.fuck gulenko, too
Damn your Ti is showing...
kinda sounds like "your ass is showing"
btw I assume what you mean here is that they're all crazy but that they have good points too
Last edited by ouronis; 06-13-2015 at 01:44 PM.
@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).
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
I dislike how you absolutely avoid to try and address the issues I pointed out and they are very real issues. I didn't simply misunderstand everything you said, nope. I also dislike how you pretend to ignore that I already showed we have a very different perspective. I see very well that you have a different way of looking at the stuff and I explicitly said so.
But sure, we can talk on chatbox if that helps you in some way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
thank you for pointing this out.
