Flip-floppin' types

[Trinity]

Some people state emphatically type cannot be changed over time, others say it can.

What say you and why?

[Jack Flak]

It doesn't. In theory it shouldn't, because it would make no sense, not to mention there's never been a case in my direct or indirect observation where it has.

[ajblaise]

You're an INTJ right? Don't worry, maybe eventually you'll drop the J.

I think type can change, but more often than not, it won't, or it will change slowly over time. I've seen extroversion/introversion change in people.

[Jack Flak]

Balancing and mistyping occur all the time, which can be mistaken for a change in personality type, but no.

[ajblaise]

Balancing and mistyping occur all the time, which can be mistaken for a change in personality type, but no.

Temporary personality changes can occur too. For instance, someone who loses a close family member might be thrown into a period of introversion.

But long term personality changes will of course happen, the question is if that can be translated to changes in type.

[Trinity]

You're an INTJ right? Don't worry, maybe eventually you'll drop the J.

I'm some kind of INTthing, not convinced on the jay but cheers for the pep talk :D

I think type can change, but more often than not, it won't, or it will change slowly over time. I've seen extroversion/introversion change in people.

Do you see it as development of what's already there and was maybe unseen or repressed or as a total change of preferences?

[ajblaise]

Do you see it as development of what's already there and was maybe unseen or repressed or as a total change of preferences?

I think it can be a development of what's already there as well as a change in preferences.

I have it in me to be a E or J, I can do it for short periods of time, but unless an extreme event takes place that causes me to favor personality characteristics other than those of the INTP, it probably won't happen.

[Thursday]

your inherent type and ego do not change
perspective, habits, and shoe sizes do

[Jack Flak]

Temporary personality changes can occur too. For instance, someone who loses a close family member might be thrown into a period of introversion.
You realize, of course, this is a silly concept. People in a quiet mood are not suddenly introverts. They maintain the same brain.
But long term personality changes will of course happen, the question is if that can be translated to changes in type.
There is no question.

[ajblaise]

The brain isn't a static thing. Here are a few studies done that contradict the theory that personality is stagnant..

ScienceDirect - Journal of Adolescence : Stability and change in personality type membership and anxiety in adolescence (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4MV71K5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c684945fdb493c4b39265aabd445404)

Antidepressant Can Change Personality Traits In Healthy People (http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/5e02e.htm)

Study: Your Personality Can Change (and Probably Should) | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/070523_personality_change.html)

[Nocapszy]

Question:
Does it matter?

If it happens, then there's your proof. 'Til then, I don't see why it matters much.
I changed my type...

EMTP.
I'm a magician.
Hehe...

[Antisocial one]

Balancing and mistyping occur all the time, which can be mistaken for a change in personality type, but no.


What if balancing is just what it takes to throw it over the line ?

[Jack Flak]

ajblaise: ....You tire me so.

What if balancing is just what it takes to throw it over the line ?
Let me get specific.

Can an INTP ever become an ENTP, just by becoming more people-oriented? No.

Can an INTP ever become an INTJ, just by becoming more industrious and capable of following schedules? No.

I doubt there's anyone here aside from Victor who would say there aren't fundamental differences between any two types which go beyond the letters. The differences are observable.

[ajblaise]

Can an INTP ever become an ENTP, just by becoming more people-oriented? No.

Can an INTP ever become an INTJ, just by becoming more industrious and capable of following schedules? No.

I doubt there's anyone here aside from Victor who would say there aren't fundamental differences between any two types which go beyond the letters. The differences are observable.

Without a traumatic event, drugs, brain damage... taking place it is less likely it will happen. But evidence points to it being possible.

Your view is the mainstream one, but supposedly scholars are starting to reject it as more studies contradict the mainstream view.

[Jack Flak]

Without a traumatic event, drugs, brain damage... taking place it is less likely it will happen. But evidence points to it being possible.

Your view is the mainstream one, but supposedly scholars are starting to rejecting it as more studies contradict the mainstream view.
Admittedly I'm not a professional psychologist dealing with brain trauma victims, but I know personality can certainly change as a result of it.

It seems, though, that it's not the type changing, it's various other distortions of self.

[Aimahn]

I remember finding some student's study on MBTI and brain differences a while back online. It wasn't that conclusive due to the sample size, but interesting nonetheless. I think that there are definitely physical symptoms( brain scans) that can show type to be a pretty stable trait. Theres a whole host of variables that can influence that though. I think it would be really cool if someone would invest enough time to do a more wide scale study on that.

[Nocapszy]

ajblaise: ....You tire me so.


Let me get specific.

Can an INTP ever become an ENTP, just by becoming more people-oriented? No.

Can an INTP ever become an INTJ, just by becoming more industrious and capable of following schedules? No.

I doubt there's anyone here aside from Victor who would say there aren't fundamental differences between any two types which go beyond the letters. The differences are observable.

The whole point of type is to give people letters.

Humans like collecting them.
We write them, we save them, we give them on tests, we use them as test answers.

They're everywhere.
It's the human compulsion.
Come on, The Flak. Get with the program.

[Jack Flak]

And they fall off the back of trucks, and people grab them up. "Look! I got letters!"

[Little Linguist]

Okay, that's it: I'm sick of it.

I'm an ISTJ now. :D

[animenagai]

Okay, that's it: I'm sick of it.

I'm an ISTJ now. :D

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! :cry:

back to the original question :D. i'm not sure if types can change. there are certain things that i think are just too different to flip flop on such as S vs N. E vs I though, i can see its potential.

[INTJMom]

Some people state emphatically type cannot be changed over time, others say it can.

What say you and why?
I have read that it doesn't. It matures and develops and balances out as we develop our other functions,
but a person does not fundamentally change.
Naomi L. Quenk writes extensively on this in Beside Ourselves.
Of course those statements are made in the context of what's considered "normal".
Obviously drug or brain damage isn't "normal".

[Edahn]

Some people state emphatically type cannot be changed over time, others say it can.

What say you and why?

I think of type as a trend or tendency to do certain things. Sometimes that tendency is to look for patterns, sometimes not. Sometimes it's to put things into logical order and view things objectively, sometimes not. Sometimes...you get the idea. Of course these things change over time, even minute to minute.

[gloomy-optimist]

The way one's brain is patterned to work does not really change. It's not just your personality; it's how you process information and react accordingly to the world around you. That doesn't change, even if your outside personality deviates a bit.

However, I do believe type can change with severe psychological traumas; that's why they talk about your shadow types in periods of extreme stress/sickness. I know when I get depressed or overstressed, I take on the chief characteristics of an INTJ or a ISFJ, but that is only for a brief period.
However, with more serious mental disorders, traumas, and changes, personality changes are known to be abrupt and lasting; I wouldn't doubt that someone could actually change types with a serious mental/emotional upheaval.

[mlittrell]

*DISCLAIMER: Generalization*

mbti = nature, enneagram = nurture

ya i think its there from the start, its pretty obvious that MBTI is a genetic thing

[gloomy-optimist]

ya i think its there from the start, its pretty obvious that MBTI is a genetic thing

I would be inclined to disagree :) I think environment has more to do with how you act; it may seem genetic because it's your parents teaching you, and you will pick up from their traits, but I don't think there's any real proof that you "inherit" certain qualities...

[Jack Flak]

I would be inclined to disagree :) I think environment has more to do with how you act; it may seem genetic because it's your parents teaching you, and you will pick up from their traits, but I don't think there's any real proof that you "inherit" certain qualities...
Inherit no. My parents are both decidedly S, for example. I certainly think type is more likely innate than taught, but effectively random, or N is recessive ;).

["?"]

I think it can be a development of what's already there as well as a change in preferences.

I have it in me to be a E or J, I can do it for short periods of time, but unless an extreme event takes place that causes me to favor personality characteristics other than those of the INTP, it probably won't happen.Agreed. Type doesn't change, people develop use or not use or develop certain aspects of their personality at various times. Flip-flopping because you are using a different function or attitude is natural. Not knowing your type in the first place because one does not take the time and energy to determine it is irreprehensible. You will never determine your true type from just taking a test.

[gloomy-optimist]

Inherit no. My parents are both decidedly S, for example. I certainly think type is more likely innate than taught, but effectively random, or N is recessive ;).

Hm...maybe "taught" isn't the best word to use, but I do think it develops more through the events in the early years of life, when the mind and personality is really being developed, rather than being present directly at birth...
It'd be difficult for me to explain my reasoning without giving a minor essay on the topic :B But I would think that things like body-type are inherited, whereas type is something that develops in response to outside stimuli :)

[mlittrell]

I would be inclined to disagree :) I think environment has more to do with how you act; it may seem genetic because it's your parents teaching you, and you will pick up from their traits, but I don't think there's any real proof that you "inherit" certain qualities...

i didn't mean from your parents. i just mean your born with your type for certain neuro-cognitive reasons. sorry for the confusion. i doubt it comes directly from your parents but there is definitely a neuro-cognitive (documented) reason for what your type is meaning, you are born with a type and your type is determined by different chemicals in your brain. any other changes can be explained by the nurture concept.

[gloomy-optimist]

i didn't mean from your parents. i just mean your born with your type for certain neuro-cognitive reasons. sorry for the confusion. i doubt it comes directly from your parents but there is definitely a neuro-cognitive (documented) reason for what your type is meaning, you are born with a type and your type is determined by different chemicals in your brain. any other changes can be explained by the nurture concept.

I'm still not entirely convinced; people are all essentially "wired" in a similar fashion at birth. I believe that personality and personality type is essentially learned; in the very early years of development, one takes preference to certain qualities, rather than them simply being there.

[Trinity]

The brain isn't a static thing. Here are a few studies done that contradict the theory that personality is stagnant..

ScienceDirect - Journal of Adolescence : Stability and change in personality type membership and anxiety in adolescence (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4MV71K5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c684945fdb493c4b39265aabd445404)

Antidepressant Can Change Personality Traits In Healthy People (http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/5e02e.htm)

Study: Your Personality Can Change (and Probably Should) | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/070523_personality_change.html)

I see those articles as saying something other than changing type preferences, personality can certainly change but I question whether our MBTI type can. For example, can an introverted person change their makeup to get their energy from external factors or an extraverted person from internal factors for anything other than short periods or without mental issues or drug influences?

I have read that it doesn't. It matures and develops and balances out as we develop our other functions,
but a person does not fundamentally change.

That would be how I've always thought it to be but I've seen plenty of people talk about how they have or will change type and I'm curious to see how they came to that conclusion.

I think of type as a trend or tendency to do certain things. Sometimes that tendency is to look for patterns, sometimes not. Sometimes it's to put things into logical order and view things objectively, sometimes not. Sometimes...you get the idea. Of course these things change over time, even minute to minute.

I'd say everyone has an element of each preference and as mum says "it matures and develops and balances out as we develop our other functions" but do you see these tendencies as changing or just using non-dominant functions?

mbti = nature, enneagram = nurture

Like that one.

I'm still not entirely convinced; people are all essentially "wired" in a similar fashion at birth. I believe that personality and personality type is essentially learned; in the very early years of development, one takes preference to certain qualities, rather than them simply being there.

Can't say I'm entirely convinced either although in the past I have always considered it to be hard wired and looking at my 3 year old nephew I can see preferences there that are seperate to his personality.

[ajblaise]

I see those articles as saying something other than changing type preferences, personality can certainly change but I question whether our MBTI type can. For example, can an introverted person change their makeup to get their energy from external factors or an extraverted person from internal factors for anything other than short periods or without mental issues or drug influences?

One of the studies talked about how low sociability was related to low serotonin, so it's conceivable that if a depressed person with low serotonin does something naturally or with drugs that causes his serotonin levels to go up and possibly become more sociable and extroverted, this could definitely show and change someone MBTI results.

Not that I think all introverts are depressed in any way of course, though there is some sort of trend that does exist.

[INTJMom]

...
That would be how I've always thought it to be but I've seen plenty of people talk about how they have or will change type and I'm curious to see how they came to that conclusion.
...
I always assume they are novices. :smile:

[Trinity]

One of the studies talked about how low sociability was related to low serotonin, so it's conceivable that if a depressed person with low serotonin does something naturally or with drugs that causes his serotonin levels to go up and possibly become more sociable and extroverted, this could definitely show and change someone MBTI results.

Not that I think all introverts are depressed in any way of course, though there is some sort of trend that does exist.

Sure I can see how that would have an effect on personality but I can't see how someone could actually change type, considering extravert and introvert are not about how out-going or sociable someone is but rather how they get energy I wouldn’t imagine that would change significantly or is that what you're suggesting?

I always assume they are novices. :smile:

:D

Me too actually but I figured it was somewhat dismissive of me to make an assumption without giving it consideration *shrug*

[gloomy-optimist]

Can't say I'm entirely convinced either although in the past I have always considered it to be hard wired and looking at my 3 year old nephew I can see preferences there that are seperate to his personality.

That would be about the age that preferences would really begin to set in. The toddler years are crucial to development; the ages between birth and the age 5 are when kids learn most from their parents and begin to learn from society. They take all their cues, and then begin taking preference. It's really amazing how quickly a child learns even in the first 2 years :)


Also, with continued drug use or a severe trauma, emotional, physical, etc., intense personality changes can and sometimes do take place. In these cases, it is very likely that someone's preference in one or more areas do completely change; that would cause a change in MBTI type.

[INTJMom]

...
:D

Me too actually but I figured it was somewhat dismissive of me to make an assumption without giving it consideration *shrug*
I agree. I verify my assessment first, and then pat myself on the shoulder for being right. :smile:

[mlittrell]

That would be about the age that preferences would really begin to set in. The toddler years are crucial to development; the ages between birth and the age 5 are when kids learn most from their parents and begin to learn from society. They take all their cues, and then begin taking preference. It's really amazing how quickly a child learns even in the first 2 years :)


Also, with continued drug use or a severe trauma, emotional, physical, etc., intense personality changes can and sometimes do take place. In these cases, it is very likely that someone's preference in one or more areas do completely change; that would cause a change in MBTI type.

so in a way you believe in the "blank slate" theory meaning that a mind is a blank slate that can be filled in by experience? do you believe anything is pre-defined?

i still stand true to the nurture vs nature arguement. i grew up with two INXJ parents and came out an ENFP. I know another ENFP that grew up with two SJ parents. i highly doubt that MBTI is developed purely on the basis of purely nurture. as far as drugs/trama/emotional/physical blah blah blah go, i dont think the type changes but mearly distorts. to me, the types are set in stone but are able to flex and sway in different directions based on environment and upbringing. a stupid analogy would be a building whose foundation is set but is allowed to flex with any earthquakes that it might encounter through its life.

the enneagram seems to be very easily changed by upringing/nurture/environment

EDIT:

the personality is defined by certain chemicals at a neuro-cognitive level

EDIT2:

blank slate argument: if a persons mind is effected by (completely by) environment then the mind must, to some extent be a blank slate. so if you take a baby and put him/her in a white square room with nothing it it and they do not need food/water/watever, then once older, will their mind be void? of course not, there are certain "instincts" or cognitive predispositions that we are born with. this has been proven by a very simple test. you take a new born baby and you show them two pieces of paper. one piece of paper has two equal sized dots above a smaller dot (eyes and a mouth). the other paper has one dot with two dots below it (? lol). the baby will always look towards the first paper. other tests have been done like this but that is just an example. so if they are born with the "instinct" to know what a face is then why cant they be born with a tendency towards a certain type? (people who are blind and deaf have personalties and yet there is almost zero input on their part) it is amazing how much babies learn in the first two years considering they are predisposed to knowing it :)

[gloomy-optimist]

so in a way you believe in the "blank slate" theory meaning that a mind is a blank slate that can be filled in by experience? do you believe anything is pre-defined?

i still stand true to the nurture vs nature arguement. i grew up with two INXJ parents and came out an ENFP. I know another ENFP that grew up with two SJ parents. i highly doubt that MBTI is developed purely on the basis of purely nurture. as far as drugs/trama/emotional/physical blah blah blah go, i dont think the type changes but mearly distorts. to me, the types are set in stone but are able to flex and sway in different directions based on environment and upbringing. a stupid analogy would be a building whose foundation is set but is allowed to flex with any earthquakes that it might encounter through its life.

the enneagram seems to be very easily changed by upringing/nurture/environment

EDIT:

the personality is defined by certain chemicals at a neuro-cognitive level

EDIT2:

blank slate argument: if a persons mind is effected by (completely by) environment then the mind must, to some extent be a blank slate. so if you take a baby and put him/her in a white square room with nothing it it and they do not need food/water/watever, then once older, will their mind be void? of course not, there are certain "instincts" or cognitive predispositions that we are born with. this has been proven by a very simple test. you take a new born baby and you show them two pieces of paper. one piece of paper has two equal sized dots above a smaller dot (eyes and a mouth). the other paper has one dot with two dots below it (? lol). the baby will always look towards the first paper. other tests have been done like this but that is just an example. so if they are born with the "instinct" to know what a face is then why cant they be born with a tendency towards a certain type? (people who are blind and deaf have personalties and yet there is almost zero input on their part) it is amazing how much babies learn in the first two years considering they are predisposed to knowing it :)

I never once said anything in any regards to the blank slate theory. People are not animals, and therefore are inclined to abstract thought; they are born with this ability. Many physical characteristics and things that are defined by physical characteristics are decided by genetics.
However, a child learns. A child from a different household and a different environment will learn different things, and it will affect their personality, I believe to the extent of deciding certain factors of their personalities.

That is not to say they will have to take from the traits of their parents; they will be influenced by both parents, extended family, outside forces, the media, etc. Example; my sister is extroverted, but both my parents are introverted. They raised us to be independent and outgoing; to exhibit those traits. However, I don't see how that can be determined simply by genetics; with what I have followed, introversion would be a recessive trait.

Also, the director of student life at my school studies the difference between birth order and MBTI typology, as well as average behavior; there is a correlation between certain traits and the order of birth. That would be a learned trait.

So a human is born with the extraordinary ability to learn; however, they learn what they are taught. :) If you want, I could do further research on the topic; Freud, I believe, has a few things that demonstrate a preference to developmental psychology.


And as for chemical balances: what if that balance changes? If, by your theory, personality is dependent solely on that, then if the a permanent chemical imbalance takes place, then the personality would also change permanently.

[mlittrell]

k thats fine. and i never said you believed in the blank slate theory. i was just clearing things up for everyone else ;)

if a chemical imbalance happens it doesn't change the personality. read The Edge Effect by Eric Braverman for more info. also i dont believe that genetics has all that much effect on personality (though it does to a point). im just saying you are born with your mbti type. your type cannot change but it can flex with the environment. if you have two twins that grow up in exactly the same environment, they both still come out different.

ill pass on the Freud info. thanks though.

and true, environment has a massive effect (nature = 60% nurture = 40% (a large percentage)). both my parents are introverted and well what do you know, my Fi is very very developed. but im still an ENFP. so all that to say i agree with most of what you say, but i still think that you are born a type and die that type.

[gloomy-optimist]

k thats fine. and i never said you believed in the blank slate theory. i was just clearing things up for everyone else ;)

if a chemical imbalance happens it doesn't change the personality. read The Edge Effect by Eric Braverman for more info. also i dont believe that genetics has all that much effect on personality (though it does to a point). im just saying you are born with your mbti type. your type cannot change but it can flex with the environment. if you have two twins that grow up in exactly the same environment, they both still come out different.

ill pass on the Freud info. thanks though.

and true, environment has a massive effect (nature = 60% nurture = 40% (a large percentage)). both my parents are introverted and well what do you know, my Fi is very very developed. but im still an ENFP. so all that to say i agree with most of what you say, but i still think that you are born a type and die that type.

I respect your opinion :)
And it is interesting about the twins; technically, that theory would not follow with identical twins (I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert in this area, being a twin myself; I'm fraternal, but I've been very interested in the general workings, so I know quite a few fun facts ;)). In fact, twins might be one of the best examples of environmental influences; twins do not, in fact, grow up in the exact same environment. They have a very interesting dynamic between them; they are taught to be alike but similar, and they often times fall into separate personality preference so that they can balance attention and roles out between them.
Or, at least, that's what I've noticed from my own experience, as well as similar stories from others.
My sister and I were exposed to the exact same chemical dynamic in the womb, but we have different personalities, and they exhibit that balancing dynamic. We are both intuitive and judging, which is the product of the environment that our parents raised us in as well as how they taught us to be; however, she in extroverted to my introverted, so one of us actually took the "dominant" role when dealing with people, and she is thinking to my feeling. This, I theorize, was a result of our developmental patterns in dealing with people and each other as toddlers.

[entropie]

It's a shame that this is a MBTI site, if it were socionics, I already had XxX as type :D

[mlittrell]

i was talking about twins in an idealistic sense. and yes your "theory" would make sense if you bend your mind enough around it. all that to say, i know three sets of twins. one of those sets are literally the exact same type (ISFP) so really, anything is possible.

im just stating what is generally accepted by science. this is why we dont really follow what pavlov said anymore.

so what do you believe we are born with? are we born with personality? if not, can we change our personality now (like can i say, hey i wanna be an ISTP)? if we are born with personality? i just need a little more info on what EXACTLY what you believe before i can agree or disagree.

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, I believe that people are born with an innate ability to learn and adapt to their environment; they are not born with their types already set in stone, but they are born with an ability to naturally assimilate to their surroundings. In other words, people aren't born as a type, but they are born to be a type. They are born to learn.
I believe this is more feasible because, naturally, it would make more sense for a child to be born with the ability to adjust to their environment. That would also account for any cultural difference between types and frequency.
Now, that is not to say I think it's easy to change types; what a child learns in the first few years of his/her life is most crucial to development. It would be very difficult to change that, especially because it is the basic foundation of everything the individual would learn of society. However, that is why I believe that under extreme situations where they chemical balance or mental stability of the brain is altered, the personality can change.

And with the twins; some are raised to be "identical." There really is no exact way to tell how each person became their types, even in the sense of twins. Some sets are raised to be individuals; others are raised in a perfectly balanced environment that would result in more similarities between the two. It would actually be really intriguing to see a study on twins and type; I'd like to see how their type difference compares with the dynamics of their childhood environment.

But yeah; either way, this is a theory, but it seems to have more substance than just saying that the type is just somehow "there"

[Ilah]

Balancing and mistyping occur all the time, which can be mistaken for a change in personality type, but no.

Can you give an example of balancing being mistaken for a change in personality type?

I am not sure what balancing means with regard to MBTI. Does it mean, for example, that Ts must learn to use their F to be more balanced and Fs must learn how to use their Ts to be more balanced?

Ilah

[Jack Flak]

Can you give an example of balancing being mistaken for a change in personality type?

I am not sure what balancing means with regard to MBTI. Does it mean, for example, that Ts must learn to use their F to be more balanced and Fs must learn how to use their Ts to be more balanced?

Ilah
Balancing is, in my words, adjusting to the world. As we get older we get better at doing everything we do, in theory, and some of what we do relates to type, such as interacting with people and following schedules.

Example? I've balanced quite a bit...I've become more capable at acting E, S, F, and J in the past ten years without too much effort, but when left to my own devices I'm totally INTP.

[gloomy-optimist]

Balancing is, in my words, adjusting to the world. As we get older we get better at doing everything we do, in theory, and some of what we do relates to type, such as interacting with people and following schedules.

Example? I've balanced quite a bit...I've become more capable at acting E, S, F, and J in the past ten years without too much effort, but when left to my own devices I'm totally INTP.

Yeah, I do that a lot between E and T, and sometimes it's almost even confused me...

[mlittrell]

Well, I believe that people are born with an innate ability to learn and adapt to their environment; they are not born with their types already set in stone, but they are born with an ability to naturally assimilate to their surroundings. In other words, people aren't born as a type, but they are born to be a type. They are born to learn.
I believe this is more feasible because, naturally, it would make more sense for a child to be born with the ability to adjust to their environment. That would also account for any cultural difference between types and frequency.
Now, that is not to say I think it's easy to change types; what a child learns in the first few years of his/her life is most crucial to development. It would be very difficult to change that, especially because it is the basic foundation of everything the individual would learn of society. However, that is why I believe that under extreme situations where they chemical balance or mental stability of the brain is altered, the personality can change.

And with the twins; some are raised to be "identical." There really is no exact way to tell how each person became their types, even in the sense of twins. Some sets are raised to be individuals; others are raised in a perfectly balanced environment that would result in more similarities between the two. It would actually be really intriguing to see a study on twins and type; I'd like to see how their type difference compares with the dynamics of their childhood environment.

But yeah; either way, this is a theory, but it seems to have more substance than just saying that the type is just somehow "there"

so are you saying that basically if i have a kid tomorrow, with the right upbringing and environment i can make him/her into sayyyyy an ISTJ or hey i want an ENTP, with the right environment and such?

[gloomy-optimist]

so are you saying that basically if i have a kid tomorrow, with the right upbringing and environment i can make him/her into sayyyyy an ISTJ or hey i want an ENTP, with the right environment and such?

Well, technically, yes. I mean, you might have to alter your own behavior and that of the people around you, and you might have to be selective on what you teach and what you don't teach and what your child is exposed to...
But yes, in my opinion, it's definitely a possibility, although I think that would take the fun out of things :)

[mlittrell]

lol ok im going to hold my tongue till later... ;)

just need you to answer a few more questions so i can completely understand your side of things.

well ive been looking into this a little more and i noticed that you mentioned freud. i was just wondering if you believe most of what freud believes? basically, do you believe that personality is derived from environment and such because of freud or pavlov or just personal experience?

some more input would be good from others...

[Wrath Mania]

I
Also, the director of student life at my school studies the difference between birth order and MBTI typology, as well as average behavior; there is a correlation between certain traits and the order of birth. That would be a learned trait.

I've been interested in that pattern for a while, since I've noticed it. What school do you go to? Has he published any of his stuff? I'm very interested.

As for this discussion...

There is no doubt temperament is a biological thing. While I'm sure extreme examples and people with illnesses can be exceptions, the evidence that personality generally stays the same in a person throughout their life is overwhelming. And more and more evidence links personality type with biochemistry.

But there's obviously a difference between biological factors and genetics in particular. Do I believe personality is, to some extent, genetic? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I think there's genes that literally code for, say, being an ENTP or an INFJ? No, of course not. Genetics itself is never that simple, and the biggest problem with that field has always been its reduction of phenotypes to single genes, when a systematic approach shows that can't be possible.

Such is the case with personality type. Your statement that a person is "born to be a certain type" intrigues me a lot; I think it's a fair proposition and explains what is likely the case. Though I am not at all open to the idea that you can mold a child in any way you want: temperament and type inherently destroy any attempt at a pygmalion project. If true personality, not outward appearance but true type, was so easily influenced by the environment, then there would hardly be any family conflicts to begin with.

I am certain that the foundation is set in each person at birth, but as you basically said, the intrastrengths of that person's type and how it is manifested outwardly will vary greatly on the environment. Obviously someone with a mental illnesses will see their brain chemistry falter, as will their type (e.g. someone who's bipolar or a schizophrenic). However, an NF raised in a family of Ss will vary greatly from an NF raised under N parents, but that doesn't mean the pattern of their brain chemistry won't be similar.

The brain is a self-organizing system with hundreds of millions of variables, different in everyone. It's also a two way street, and what happens in nurture will affect the nature (and vice versa). But on a conceptual scale, if we don't take personality types so concretely, they stay the same throughout life.

That said, the mere fact something like birth order is a recurring pattern with personality proves the biological issues are far more complex than mere genetics. But in the end, nurture is really just another section of nature.

[gloomy-optimist]

lol ok im going to hold my tongue till later... ;)

just need you to answer a few more questions so i can completely understand your side of things.

well ive been looking into this a little more and i noticed that you mentioned freud. i was just wondering if you believe most of what freud believes? basically, do you believe that personality is derived from environment and such because of freud or pavlov or just personal experience?

some more input would be good from others...

Well, I actually have not studied Freud or Pavlov as indepth as I would like to have, yet anyways, because I don't have the time I would like to do so. However, I know Freud is a bit infamous for his ability to see sexuality in just about everything people do.
However, what drove me to say that is that Freud also believes that events in early life can be major factors in determining the way a person sees and reacts to the opposite sex. The child learns about sexuality from the parents; he/she sees the way the parents interact, identifies themselves with the parent of the same sex, and learns the behavior that parent exhibits towards the opposite sex. He also theorizes that if the opposite sex parent reacts negatively to the experimentation of the child trying to be like the same sex parent, then the child can be inadvertently taught that they are not right for that role, and that could be the cause of things like homosexuality.
In other words, Freud shows favor towards developmental psychology
Now, I also want to state that I am not nearly as sure of the exact outlines and details of this theory; I have been told this by a few people that I believe to be valid sources, but I have not myself had the time (or memory) to check

[gloomy-optimist]

I've been interested in that pattern for a while, since I've noticed it. What school do you go to? Has he published any of his stuff? I'm very interested.

As for this discussion...

There is no doubt temperament is a biological thing. While I'm sure extreme examples and people with illnesses can be exceptions, the evidence that personality generally stays the same in a person throughout their life is overwhelming. And more and more evidence links personality type with biochemistry.

But there's obviously a difference between biological factors and genetics in particular. Do I believe personality is, to some extent, genetic? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I think there's genes that literally code for, say, being an ENTP or an INFJ? No, of course not. Genetics itself is never that simple, and the biggest problem with that field has always been its reduction of phenotypes to single genes, when a systematic approach shows that can't be possible.

Such is the case with personality type. Your statement that a person is "born to be a certain type" intrigues me a lot; I think it's a fair proposition and explains what is likely the case. Though I am not at all open to the idea that you can mold a child in any way you want: temperament and type inherently destroy any attempt at a pygmalion project. If true personality, not outward appearance but true type, was so easily influenced by the environment, then there would hardly be any family conflicts to begin with.

I am certain that the foundation is set in each person at birth, but as you basically said, the intrastrengths of that person's type and how it is manifested outwardly will vary greatly on the environment. Obviously someone with a mental illnesses will see their brain chemistry falter, as will their type (e.g. someone who's bipolar or a schizophrenic). However, an NF raised in a family of Ss will vary greatly from an NF raised under N parents, but that doesn't mean the pattern of their brain chemistry won't be similar.

The brain is a self-organizing system with hundreds of millions of variables, different in everyone. It's also a two way street, and what happens in nurture will affect the nature (and vice versa). But on a conceptual scale, if we don't take personality types so concretely, they stay the same throughout life.

That said, the mere fact something like birth order is a recurring pattern with personality proves the biological issues are far more complex than mere genetics. But in the end, nurture is really just another section of nature.

Well, her name is Vicky Barton, but I'm honestly not sure if she has published anything on the topic; I wouldn't be surprised if she has though. But the school is on the Ball State University Campus.

Yes, I agree that nature is too elaborate and too complicated to make any definite conclusions without very extensive research of many different fields. That's one of the reasons why people are just "born" with their types; I don't see anything behind that. I know that genetics control the physical characteristics of people, even the chemicals in the brain, which would account for dynamics in temperament. I understand that would help influence some parts of type preferences to a degree; chemical activity could account for questions of who is more emotional, who is more prone to anger issues, who has trouble processing information, etc. There is definitely a chance that that might help to sway a persons preference one way or the other; I would like to see some statistics on whether certain preferences like T/F have certain chemical levels that help to determine that.

However, I still believe that, ultimately, environment influences preference enough that it is the "deciding factor", if you will. For instance; chemicals, as far as I know about their nature, would not do a whole lot in deciding whether a person is more prone to organization or more spontaneous, more J or more P. Certainly chemicals, in excess, may help that preference, but I think the way you're raised does more for that. The same with introversion/extroversion, N/S. That would explain better the occurance of a certain preference in a family of opposing preferences a bit better than genetics, as that wouldn't make sense unless it was some sort of genetic mutation or extremely recessive trait. But if it were recessive, then that would knock out the dominant trait because you must have both recessive traits present to show the tendency; if P tendencies were dominant and J tendencies were recessive, then two J parents could not give birth to a P.
Of course, that is in the consideration of it as a single gene, when it would probably be a group of genes, but generally it follows to a degree.

But, in an environmental dynamic, let's say that two people who were extremely disorganized, or extremely uncaring (for the sake of the arguement, we'll say they're unhealthy xxxPs), gave birth to two children, a couple years apart. If the children are left to their own devices and the parents don't pay much attention to them, then one of the children may actually need more organizing skills to help himself and his sibling get by, so they may be more J. Or let's say the parents are unhealthy Exxxs that let the children do their own thing; the kids might rely so much on each other and lack from others, especially if they lack parental affection, that they exhibit Ixxx characteristics instead. In fact, you could probably make changes to this scenario for each trait.

Now, that scenario showed how type might be brought out in extreme circumstances, but it is much easier to illustrate that way. In a "normal" situation, the influences would probably be much more subtle, much less easy to pin-point, and you'd also have to consider other factors; are the parents the ones doing most of the teaching? If they both work and some one babysits, then there might be a difference in what the child is learning. If they go to a daycare with other children, that might make a difference. If they watch more TV, that might make a difference. But no matter what, in the early years that child is learning what it means to be a person in a society, and they take cues from that society on how they should think and act.
I mean, genetics and being "born" with type is hard to imagine for me because humans are among the only animals that thing abstractly. If it were only genetics, then how could we think either emotionally or logically? How could we be intuitive or sensing? Nature, as we can see in other examples, does not account for that; it accounts most for instinct and biological build. But how we act as human beings is comprised in amazing degrees on our extraordinary ability to learn and to take from our environments.

And that's going to be a really long post, but that should kind of explain some of my reasoning on a more extensive level >.>

[mlittrell]

I've been interested in that pattern for a while, since I've noticed it. What school do you go to? Has he published any of his stuff? I'm very interested.

As for this discussion...

There is no doubt temperament is a biological thing. While I'm sure extreme examples and people with illnesses can be exceptions, the evidence that personality generally stays the same in a person throughout their life is overwhelming. And more and more evidence links personality type with biochemistry.

But there's obviously a difference between biological factors and genetics in particular. Do I believe personality is, to some extent, genetic? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I think there's genes that literally code for, say, being an ENTP or an INFJ? No, of course not. Genetics itself is never that simple, and the biggest problem with that field has always been its reduction of phenotypes to single genes, when a systematic approach shows that can't be possible.

Such is the case with personality type. Your statement that a person is "born to be a certain type" intrigues me a lot; I think it's a fair proposition and explains what is likely the case. Though I am not at all open to the idea that you can mold a child in any way you want: temperament and type inherently destroy any attempt at a pygmalion project. If true personality, not outward appearance but true type, was so easily influenced by the environment, then there would hardly be any family conflicts to begin with.

I am certain that the foundation is set in each person at birth, but as you basically said, the intrastrengths of that person's type and how it is manifested outwardly will vary greatly on the environment. Obviously someone with a mental illnesses will see their brain chemistry falter, as will their type (e.g. someone who's bipolar or a schizophrenic). However, an NF raised in a family of Ss will vary greatly from an NF raised under N parents, but that doesn't mean the pattern of their brain chemistry won't be similar.

The brain is a self-organizing system with hundreds of millions of variables, different in everyone. It's also a two way street, and what happens in nurture will affect the nature (and vice versa). But on a conceptual scale, if we don't take personality types so concretely, they stay the same throughout life.

That said, the mere fact something like birth order is a recurring pattern with personality proves the biological issues are far more complex than mere genetics. But in the end, nurture is really just another section of nature.

he said everything ive been trying to say...but better lol.

there is nothing more i need to state and i respect your opinion and the good argument you put up (though im still not convinced whatsoever). i also am interested in some of the birth order stuff.

/thread

[gloomy-optimist]

he said everything ive been trying to say...but better lol.

there is nothing more i need to state and i respect your opinion and the good argument you put up (though im still not convinced whatsoever). i also am interested in some of the birth order stuff.

/thread

Yes; you provided a lot of interesting points :) I'm not convinced either, but I definitely think this conversation has intrigued me a bit more about the topic, and I'm glad we had it~

[Ilah]

A question for the it's mostly nurture side:

My mother put pressure on me to change my type and was extremely unsuccessful. She didn't word it in terms of type (as far as I know she is not familiar with MBTI) but the criticisms seem to correspond to my type: too "daydreamy" (strong Ni), not social enough, too much time by myself reading (introvert), wasn't good at reponding to other people's feelings (weak Fe).

So if nurture is the primary factor, why was she unsuccessful? Did other factors in my environment that guided me toward my type? Was my type unconsciously selected as an act of rebellion against the pressure to act a certain way?

[gloomy-optimist]

A question for the it's mostly nurture side:

My mother put pressure on me to change my type and was extremely unsuccessful. She didn't word it in terms of type (as far as I know she is not familiar with MBTI) but the criticisms seem to correspond to my type: too "daydreamy" (strong Ni), not social enough, too much time by myself reading (introvert), wasn't good at reponding to other people's feelings (weak Fe).

So if nurture is the primary factor, why was she unsuccessful? Did other factors in my environment that guided me toward my type? Was my type unconsciously selected as an act of rebellion against the pressure to act a certain way?

Well, first of all, if anyone pressures you to change types when you've already have one fully established, then it's just not going to work. In developmental psychology, although habits may change while you get older, the basis of your personality is developed in the early stages of life; in other words, you were who you are probably by the age of 5, maybe earlier. If you try to change that later...well, it's probably not going to work. You can strengthen functions, but unless there's some very drastic changes, you probably won't deviate preferences.

I don't believe type is based on "unconcious rebellion" because it is basically learned at a very young age, before any real pressure of the type you're describing is probably put on.

As for environment, here's a few questions; were you an only child, or did you play a lot on your own? Did your parents give you a lot of rational exercises (like certain toys), and are your parents, guardians, or caretakers (such as babysitters or whatnot, if your parents work a lot) prone more towards rational thinking, or did they encourage those behaviors when you were very young?
There's a lot of things to consider when you're talking about developmental psychology; it's not really a case of "this happened, so now I'm like this." There are many factors that contribute.

[gloomy-optimist]

Okay, so I did a little bit of research because I actually had time today (hallelujah!)
Here's a good site about the development of a child's brain:
EDUCARER.org WORLD OF INFANTS - ARTICLE - EARLY BRAIN DEVELOPMENT (http://www.educarer.com/brain.htm)

When a child is born, the brain has all the parts it needs, but the connections between those parts aren't yet established. "The brain is the only body organ incomplete at birth. " The "nurture" part comes in to make and establish these connections and is most crucial in the first three years of life.

[mlittrell]

lol at above link

[mlittrell]

"An SP is apt to be an active baby, although the introverted SP will be less so than the extraverted SP. Attempting to change an SP in any fundamental way leads only to maladjustment. He is not an SJ, nor an NT, nor an NF. His desire to perform supersedes his desire for responsibility, competency, and self-realization..."

-David Keirsey

once again, thanks dave.

[gloomy-optimist]

"An SP is apt to be an active baby, although the introverted SP will be less so than the extraverted SP. Attempting to change an SP in any fundamental way leads only to maladjustment. He is not an SJ, nor an NT, nor an NF. His desire to perform supersedes his desire for responsibility, competency, and self-realization..."

-David Keirsey

once again, thanks dave.

How old is the baby of question?

[mlittrell]

how old is the material it came from or how old is the baby lol? The material is from the 70s I suppose and the age of the baby isn't specified. I always considered a baby to be from newborn to one...maybe two. I don't have kids though.

[Kristiana]

I find changes in type to be highly unlikely. Exceptions include traumatic events or brain injuries.

[mlittrell]

^ exactly. and those changes are still just deviations of type, not a complete change necessarily. unless its super traumatic.

[gloomy-optimist]

how old is the material it came from or how old is the baby lol? The material is from the 70s I suppose and the age of the baby isn't specified. I always considered a baby to be from newborn to one...maybe two. I don't have kids though.

The age of the kid :) Some people actually consider kids to be "babies" anywhere between ages 0-3, and I've known some people to call them that until the age of 5; it's not really a defining variable, in any case.
Either way, the age is a very important factor in comparing nature vs. nurture.

[Babylon Candle]

The theory is flexible enough to incorporate "personality changes"
When Bruce Wayne goes from INFP kid/adult to getting angry with ESTJ shadow he is still an INFP. When Anakin ENFP gets pissed and turns into ISTJ Darth Vader, he is still at heart an ENFP.


Here is what I played with as kid:
I played with Legos so much that its all I ever wanted for christmas.
I watched the history channel from a young age, back when it was actually the history channel and not the conspiracy-theory-entertainment-channel it is today... (history recounting writing is usaully Te, like philosophy is Ti right?)
I owned just about every Real Time Strategy game they made....and would play them for hours upon hours.
I "figured out" computers in an intuitive sense, far before my parents ever became computer literate. I taught myself HTML before all these fancy programs were being used by everyday people.

Ya I would say personality starts pretty young ...

edit: the theory I read about batman was refering to socionics INFj

[Ilah]

Well, first of all, if anyone pressures you to change types when you've already have one fully established, then it's just not going to work. In developmental psychology, although habits may change while you get older, the basis of your personality is developed in the early stages of life; in other words, you were who you are probably by the age of 5, maybe earlier. If you try to change that later...well, it's probably not going to work. You can strengthen functions, but unless there's some very drastic changes, you probably won't deviate preferences.

I don't believe type is based on "unconcious rebellion" because it is basically learned at a very young age, before any real pressure of the type you're describing is probably put on.

As for environment, here's a few questions; were you an only child, or did you play a lot on your own? Did your parents give you a lot of rational exercises (like certain toys), and are your parents, guardians, or caretakers (such as babysitters or whatnot, if your parents work a lot) prone more towards rational thinking, or did they encourage those behaviors when you were very young?
There's a lot of things to consider when you're talking about developmental psychology; it's not really a case of "this happened, so now I'm like this." There are many factors that contribute.


I am the oldest child. My brother was not born till I was 5 1/2. If this all happens before age 5, I guess I would count as an only child, for this purpose. I did have some legos and building toys, but I am not sure if that was before age 5 or not. They didn't have the kind with big pieces geared toward younger kids at that time. There were lots of books in the house, but I was not able to read before age 5.

My dad is pretty heavy on the T side, so it could be argued that I picked that up from him, even though my mom played a much larger role in child rearing than him. It would seem more likely that I would pick up Fe from my mom who was a strong Fe and also took me with her on frequent visits with Fe friends and relatives.

It is ironic to think that though my mother clearly wanted a girl of the same personality type as her, some things she did may have contributed to me being almost the opposite personality type as her.

The dominate N is a mystery though. Both my parents seem to be S, but my brother and I are both N. My younger brother could have turned out N because of my influence on him, but I don't know what would have caused me to turn out N.

Ilah

[gloomy-optimist]

I am the oldest child. My brother was not born till I was 5 1/2. If this all happens before age 5, I guess I would count as an only child, for this purpose. I did have some legos and building toys, but I am not sure if that was before age 5 or not. They didn't have the kind with big pieces geared toward younger kids at that time. There were lots of books in the house, but I was not able to read before age 5.

My dad is pretty heavy on the T side, so it could be argued that I picked that up from him, even though my mom played a much larger role in child rearing than him. It would seem more likely that I would pick up Fe from my mom who was a strong Fe and also took me with her on frequent visits with Fe friends and relatives.

It is ironic to think that though my mother clearly wanted a girl of the same personality type as her, some things she did may have contributed to me being almost the opposite personality type as her.

The dominate N is a mystery though. Both my parents seem to be S, but my brother and I are both N. My younger brother could have turned out N because of my influence on him, but I don't know what would have caused me to turn out N.

Ilah

S and N traits would be more difficult to explain than probably any other preference; that's not to sayyout couldn't, but pin-pointing what makes a person N or what makes a person S is difficult to do. It would have a lot to do with whether or not your brain wired itself to be more intune with your senses and the concrete world, or whether you were more prone to noticing patterns and predicting future events...odds are, there are many factors and many layers that would go with that. It'd be harder than any other to say "This happened, so I'm this."
From what I've read, and from what I could deduce through contemplating, I'd predict that this would be one of the first preferences that a baby chooses; I would imagine that these sort of functions would develop in response to very early stimuli. (That is not a professional opinion; that's just a personal conclusion).

[mlittrell]

darth vader is an XNFP with evil ideals. ESTJ isn't the shadow type of INFJ. now you can put off a facade that you are another type but type isn't what you are acting. if an ESFP actor acts like an ISTJ or an ENTJ or whatever, they are still an ESFP. we are talking about how people really are.

now to gloomy-optimist i have a question (im not trying to trip you up or anything, just curious). What if you put a baby in a white square room with nothing else in it except white walls. Assuming they didn't need food, water, whatever, how would their personality develop? or would it? would the personality be only as deep as what those white walls defined?

thanks

[Babylon Candle]

darth vader is an XNFP with evil ideals. ESTJ isn't the shadow type of INFJ. now you can put off a facade that you are another type but type isn't what you are acting. if an ESFP actor acts like an ISTJ or an ENTJ or whatever, they are still an ESFP. we are talking about how people really are.

now to gloomy-optimist i have a question (im not trying to trip you up or anything, just curious). What if you put a baby in a white square room with nothing else in it except white walls. Assuming they didn't need food, water, whatever, how would their personality develop? or would it? would the personality be only as deep as what those white walls defined?

thanks

ill admit i f***ed up on the ESTJ shadow... to my credit (or fault depending on how you look at it). batman being INFJ with an ESTJ shadow is something i picked up somewhere outside of my own thought (and apparently never bothered to check). I still think that the theory is flexible enough. A kid who grows up INFJ, but suddenly as a 40 year old excells in Ti and Ne does not mean he is an INTP suddenly. It means his oppositional and tertiary are starting to do their job.


and to your second question she would develop poorly. Kids that are deprived of interaction often cant really ever get past telegraphic speech if they arent interacted with at a crucial age.

[ygolo]

I believe we can learn and grow as a person, but it can be quite painful to try to be something we are not.

Free-will vs. Determinism once again.

[IDK123]

I highly doubt that your type is nurtured into you. I lived in an orphanage for the first few years of my life up to the age of 5 and a half in a very ISTJ society. I may have some SJ tendencies but my natural inclination is more towards INFJ. However, nurture may mellow out or exaggerate some innate traits.

[gloomy-optimist]

now to gloomy-optimist i have a question (im not trying to trip you up or anything, just curious). What if you put a baby in a white square room with nothing else in it except white walls. Assuming they didn't need food, water, whatever, how would their personality develop? or would it? would the personality be only as deep as what those white walls defined?

thanks

Well, I've actually thought a lot on this: where does rational thought stem from? Of course it's genetic in people that we are capable of learning and abstract thought; that's what sets us off from animals.
But if a child is placed in a white room with no outside stimulus, then the real question is: what would they think about? What would they learn about? If it weren't for outside forces, how would one make connections to anything except for the sake of fundamental need?
You couldn't think about the future, because every day would be the same. You couldn't do much thinking about your surroundings, either. There would be really no input that has subsistence; absolutely nothing to think about.

If the child was left in that room all its life, then it is possible that they will never actually have a fully formed personality, because there is nothing to respond to; where would a personality be directed to?

If you took the child out of the room, it will probably have some form of retardation; stimulation is needed in that period of time. That is agreed on by pretty much everyone, regardless of stance in nature vs. nurture. I personally would come to the conclusion that this is because they did not make the connections of thought beyond need in those early years; in those years of development, literally all they knew was instinctual need. They don't know how to sort through or handle complicated input; they don't know how to handle social situations. And depending on how old the child is when you take it out of the room, it will become more and more difficult for it to learn, for the same reason it is easier for a young child to learn languages.

[gloomy-optimist]

I highly doubt that your type is nurtured into you. I lived in an orphanage for the first few years of my life up to the age of 5 and a half in a very ISTJ society. I may have some SJ tendencies but my natural inclination is more towards INFJ. However, nurture may mellow out or exaggerate some innate traits.

That's intriguing! I'm not convinced, although you did spark my curiosity ;) I'd have to know a little more about the circumstances to even begin to work through some scenarios, but I do think they are still probably a good deal nurture; I/E and J/P tend to be easier to spot patterns in than N/S and F/T, so that provides a bit of difficulty in filtering through your case with more extensive knowledge. There's probably factors involve from very early, esp. with your N...

[Thursday]

Balancing and mistyping occur all the time, which can be mistaken for a change in personality type, but no.

damn i love this guy :coffee:

[mlittrell]

Well, I've actually thought a lot on this: where does rational thought stem from? Of course it's genetic in people that we are capable of learning and abstract thought; that's what sets us off from animals.
But if a child is placed in a white room with no outside stimulus, then the real question is: what would they think about? What would they learn about? If it weren't for outside forces, how would one make connections to anything except for the sake of fundamental need?
You couldn't think about the future, because every day would be the same. You couldn't do much thinking about your surroundings, either. There would be really no input that has subsistence; absolutely nothing to think about.

If the child was left in that room all its life, then it is possible that they will never actually have a fully formed personality, because there is nothing to respond to; where would a personality be directed to?

If you took the child out of the room, it will probably have some form of retardation; stimulation is needed in that period of time. That is agreed on by pretty much everyone, regardless of stance in nature vs. nurture. I personally would come to the conclusion that this is because they did not make the connections of thought beyond need in those early years; in those years of development, literally all they knew was instinctual need. They don't know how to sort through or handle complicated input; they don't know how to handle social situations. And depending on how old the child is when you take it out of the room, it will become more and more difficult for it to learn, for the same reason it is easier for a young child to learn languages.

so in your opinion the mind IS a blank slate? or an empty box/notebook/canvas/whatever?

damn i love this guy

agreed

to add to above question:

so if one grew up in a purely ISTJ environment would they naturally become ISTJ and not deviate from it?

not too related to the rest:

i just found out there was a gene for introversion and extroversion...pretty shnazzy

[IDK123]

That's intriguing! I'm not convinced, although you did spark my curiosity ;) I'd have to know a little more about the circumstances to even begin to work through some scenarios, but I do think they are still probably a good deal nurturn'e; I/GE and J/P tend to be easier to spot patterns in than N/S and F/T, so that provides a bit of difficulty in filtering through your case with more extensive knowledge. There's probably factors involve from very early, esp. with your N...

Well, it was not the most loving environment and they seemed to get annyed easily. Also, I did not properly bond with anyone until I was 6 because of multiple caretakers. All I really know is that I have always had a very inquisitive mind and overanalyzed things. I don't think they did much to nurture it because they were going to put me in special ed due to my physical disability. (I got put in mainstream and advanced classes since then).

Next, I think I am naturally sensitive so I project my sensitivity on to other people. I value showing respect and being considerate to others. There's my F. The caretakers weren't the nicest people so I don't know how I learned that from them.

Sorry if it's very vague.

[gloomy-optimist]

so in your opinion the mind IS a blank slate? or an empty box/notebook/canvas/whatever?

agreed

to add to above question:

so if one grew up in a purely ISTJ environment would they naturally become ISTJ and not deviate from it?

not too related to the rest:

i just found out there was a gene for introversion and extroversion...pretty shnazzy

In response to the first part; well, I suppose all things considering, yes. But think about it; if you were in a world where there was nothing to think about, then what would you think about? You couldn't think about the universe; the only universe you know is a single room. You couldn't think about your surroundings or time or anything, because you'd have no concept of it; in a white room where nothing changes, then how would you even know things COULD change? There could be an internal restlessness, but you wouldn't be able to expand it; there would literally be nothing.

Where did you find that information on that gene? I'd like to check that out ;)

IDK123: Your moving around a lot might actually have a lot to do with how your personality developed. Children, even when they are very young, are very in-tune to their environment, more so than I think some people give them credit.
If you were moving around a lot, you might have started to notice the patterns of moving and subtleties that allowed you to predict when it might happen again. That might helped the development of your N. And with your F, it might have happened that they did not, either because of time constraints or inconsistancy, exercise a preference towards "rational" thinking, or, being a young child, you may have developed more F because of a need for affection that you may have wanted but may not have been getting...

[MissMurder]

Introversion and extroversion can and do change sometimes, depending on the underlying cause of the introversion. The dominant function is hardwired at birth... and perhaps the auxiliary and tertiary can chosen during development, not sure on that one.

That's my personal theory.

I also think that stress can cause mistyping, due to one's typological shadow being visible during this time.

[Jack Flak]

so if one grew up in a purely ISTJ environment would they naturally become ISTJ and not deviate from it?
No. I primarily grew up in an ISTJ environment, and I'm pretty far from it.

[IDK123]

In response to the first part; well, I suppose all things considering, yes. But think about it; if you were in a world where there was nothing to think about, then what would you think about? You couldn't think about the universe; the only universe you know is a single room. You couldn't think about your surroundings or time or anything, because you'd have no concept of it; in a white room where nothing changes, then how would you even know things COULD change? There could be an internal restlessness, but you wouldn't be able to expand it; there would literally be nothing.

Where did you find that information on that gene? I'd like to check that out ;)

IDK123: Your moving around a lot might actually have a lot to do with how your personality developed. Children, even when they are very young, are very in-tune to their environment, more so than I think some people give them credit.
If you were moving around a lot, you might have started to notice the patterns of moving and subtleties that allowed you to predict when it might happen again. That might helped the development of your N. And with your F, it might have happened that they did not, either because of time constraints or inconsistancy, exercise a preference towards "rational" thinking, or, being a young child, you may have developed more F because of a need for affection that you may have wanted but may not have been getting...

good points but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the nature vs. nurture. :)

[gloomy-optimist]

good points but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the nature vs. nurture. :)

That's absolutely fine~ Everyone's entitled to their own opinions; there's really no answer in this issue that we can determine yet :B

[Babylon Candle]

good points but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the nature vs. nurture. :)

And here's the "down goes Fraser" moment:
nature determines how one responds to nurture.


I also think that stress can cause mistyping, due to one's typological shadow being visible during this time.

when I first typed myself, I grossly overemphasized certain qualities due to the amount of stress I was under (and the religion that took advantage of that vulnerability in stress).

[MissMurder]

when I first typed myself, I grossly overemphasized certain qualities due to the amount of stress I was under (and the religion that took advantage of that vulnerability in stress).

Yes, that sounds very similar to my experience as well. I'm glad you found yourself in the end.

[mlittrell]

In response to the first part; well, I suppose all things considering, yes. But think about it; if you were in a world where there was nothing to think about, then what would you think about? You couldn't think about the universe; the only universe you know is a single room. You couldn't think about your surroundings or time or anything, because you'd have no concept of it; in a white room where nothing changes, then how would you even know things COULD change? There could be an internal restlessness, but you wouldn't be able to expand it; there would literally be nothing.

Where did you find that information on that gene? I'd like to check that out ;)

IDK123: Your moving around a lot might actually have a lot to do with how your personality developed. Children, even when they are very young, are very in-tune to their environment, more so than I think some people give them credit.
If you were moving around a lot, you might have started to notice the patterns of moving and subtleties that allowed you to predict when it might happen again. That might helped the development of your N. And with your F, it might have happened that they did not, either because of time constraints or inconsistancy, exercise a preference towards "rational" thinking, or, being a young child, you may have developed more F because of a need for affection that you may have wanted but may not have been getting...

thought and personality are two different things, ya you wouldn't be able to think about anything but would you still have a personality. of course. now it wouldn't be a normal personality...at all...but im sure that the processes in the brain that are described by MBTI would still be there nonetheless.

and the information about the introversion extroversion is a generally accepted discovery. all that to say, i got it from a reliable source ;)

and the ISTJ question was directed at gloomy-optimist, though i appreciate your response

[gloomy-optimist]

thought and personality are two different things, ya you wouldn't be able to think about anything but would you still have a personality. of course. now it wouldn't be a normal personality...at all...but im sure that the processes in the brain that are described by MBTI would still be there nonetheless.

and the information about the introversion extroversion is a generally accepted discovery. all that to say, i got it from a reliable source ;)

and the ISTJ question was directed at gloomy-optimist, though i appreciate your response

But here's the main question; what would the brain process? I mean, think about this: how could you be introverted or extroverted when there is nothing to react to? How could you think about the future, or notice your surroundings, when they are unchanging? What would you think about rationally, and what would you feel emotionally, if there was nothing to provoke any thought (although emotion would probably be present in the form of frustrations, but a full spectrum of emotion would probably not be very visible)? And what is there to organize; when would you be spontaneous? It's not a matter of personality and thought; it's a matter of personality and outside stimulus. There would nothing that would provoke the development of a personality, whether we're talking about nature or about nurture. The functions of a personality would be horribly underdeveloped.
I'd imagine that anyone that would come out of that situation would find it very difficult to deal with the sudden over-stimulation of the outside world. It doesn't have to do with thought so much as the absence of something to think about.

As for the gene, I have to remain skeptical...I'm sorry; I'm really not trying to be stubborn ^^;
But from what I know about genetics, it seems very...unlikely to me that there would be a single gene that would determine that. It would most likely be a series of different genes that work together to make that; if that were the case, then it would also be possible to have different combinations that would make one person "more" extroverted," another "less extroverted," etc, depending on how many "extroverted" genes they would have...
What would the dominant and recessive genes be? I mean, what would show up where?
I just don't think genetics are as easy as that :/

[mlittrell]

of course there is no single gene for introversion and extroversion but they have been linked to genetics.

also there would be emotions in a white, square room. now you make a good point...what would they be based off of? now the way i see it, that person will feel emotion and will make logical deductions and such, but the range to which he/she feels/thinks it will be determined by the environment. yes, the environment has an (large) effect, but the environment doesn't create emotional thought processes. or, for you thinkers out there, logical thought processes. all the environment does is give logic and emotion range, BUT, it does not create it. it was always there to begin with.

[gloomy-optimist]

of course there is no single gene for introversion and extroversion but they have been linked to genetics.

also there would be emotions in a white, square room. now you make a good point...what would they be based off of? now the way i see it, that person will feel emotion and will make logical deductions and such, but the range to which he/she feels/thinks it will be determined by the environment. yes, the environment has an (large) effect, but the environment doesn't create emotional thought processes. or, for you thinkers out there, logical thought processes. all the environment does is give logic and emotion range, BUT, it does not create it. it was always there to begin with.

Well, where does emotional/rational thought process originate? I mean, what would you think about? What sort of thoughts could you have in an unchanging, uninteresting, barren, blank environment?

[mlittrell]

near to none but the point is that there is still logical processes and emotional processes going on, as small as they might be, they still exist

[gloomy-optimist]

Okay; so I was wondering about this all because there really didn't seem to be too much of an obvious answer on either side; there were kind of strong arguments all around. So I talked to my student life director at school; she did her doctorate on mbti and birth order, so she knows a lot, to say the least. I asked her about the nurture vs. nature argument, and she showed me studies on identical twins that actually show evidence to nature having a founding role.
Thus, I will be humble and admit there are some rather large holes in my argument ;)

But, I'm still interested in exploring further; I don't think that's a single answer in itself. As I said, she also studies birth order, and there is a fairly strong correlation between birth order and the way a person reacts to his environment and other people, esp. if the birth order changed before the age of 5. So doesn't that show, at least a little bit, that things like birth order in childhood could effect personality, enough so that there is an area of study devoted to it? And wouldn't that mean that there is a certain amount of nurture factors that do have a connection with establishing types, or at least swaying it a bit?
I don't know, but I would like to talk to her a bit more about it; it's really intriguing. The more there is, the less clear the verdict seems to be to me :/

mlittrell: Yep :) As I said, there would be some basic emotion and all that; however, it would still be very limited. There is only so much to think about or show emotion to if you have no concept of color, shape, language, time, or other life.
The next debate would be whether this would be enough to actually create a true personality; they would be very socially deficient, and as a child completely without stimulus it's very possible for severe forms of mental disability to set in.

[mlittrell]

i have full blown respect for someone who can put up a good debate and i must say you did so beautifully. so props and thank you :) also, would you mind doing me a very large favor and find out more info on the study about nature vs. nurture? i would highly appreciate that because it is extremely interesting especially coming from someone who did her doctorate on it. thanks :)

and as far as the white room argument, i doubt their personality would be developed enough to function and im sure that going into the real world would create a massive sensory overload lol.

[gloomy-optimist]

i have full blown respect for someone who can put up a good debate and i must say you did so beautifully. so props and thank you :) also, would you mind doing me a very large favor and find out more info on the study about nature vs. nurture? i would highly appreciate that because it is extremely interesting especially coming from someone who did her doctorate on it. thanks :)

and as far as the white room argument, i doubt their personality would be developed enough to function and im sure that going into the real world would create a massive sensory overload lol.

I am planning on finding more out about it: how much does genetics control type; how much does things like birth order control type; how the percentage of types are related to genetics; etc. There's really a lot that goes into it :yes:

And thank you~ It's nice to find someone who will actually debate civilly with me, especially when it comes to putting up with my stubbornness :B

[mlittrell]

And thank you~ It's nice to find someone who will actually debate civilly with me, especially when it comes to putting up with my stubbornness :B
haha you know this is one of the few civil debates i think ive ever had on mbtic. and dont worry i highly enjoy someone who puts up a fight, i dont care if i lose as long there is a good debate :) as far as the genetics goes, there is going to be a whole lot of factors, especially as far as pinpointing genes

[gloomy-optimist]

haha you know this is one of the few civil debates i think ive ever had on mbtic. and dont worry i highly enjoy someone who puts up a fight, i dont care if i lose as long there is a good debate :) as far as the genetics goes, there is going to be a whole lot of factors, especially as far as pinpointing genes

That's true, in so many ways. I'm beginning to think the whole argument of nature vs. nurture is highly misleading; it's more like %nature + %nurture. I'd really like to see some real research on genetics and MTBI typology, but I'm not sure how an undertaking like that would work....

[mlittrell]

That's true, in so many ways. I'm beginning to think the whole argument of nature vs. nurture is highly misleading; it's more like %nature + %nurture. I'd really like to see some real research on genetics and MTBI typology, but I'm not sure how an undertaking like that would work....
exactly...i completely agree. ya it can be misleading, the way some people put it is 60% nature 40% nurture. how true that is i really dont know. and personally i dont think much research will be done... unfortunately im pretty sure MBTI research is dead

[gloomy-optimist]

exactly...i completely agree. ya it can be misleading, the way some people put it is 60% nature 40% nurture. how true that is i really dont know. and personally i dont think much research will be done... unfortunately im pretty sure MBTI research is dead

Which is a real shame! I think we actually really see something in MBTI; we can associate it to ourselves. There are a lot of other personality tests and explanations out there, but none have been as right-on as MBTI with me. And there's so many more ways we could expand the knowledge....

[FireyPheonix]

There are studies out there that indicate that extroversion and introversion are inherent traits from a very young age.
As for sensing versus intiutive, based on nothing but my gut feeling, it would seem that would be based significantly on psyhiological differences, which by it's psyhical nature, is genetically based. It's taking in the whole picture vs. analyses part by part. I'm may have got the wrong end of the stick there, but essentially that what I think intuitition and sensing boils down to. From what I have read, these two processes are fundmentally different branching out to learning styles and what not, which of course use slightly different parts of the brain etc.
If you take the princple of personality and bearing it in mind when looking to other areas of psychology, such as brain development, child development, learning styles, even emotional intellingence, for me at least, it becomes apparent that certain traits are inherent.
Others I do think are a little more malliable, I tend to think feeling vs Thinking appears determined by upbringing, or at least the balance of how much one thought process is utilised over the other. This is my own personal experience, as I tend to type either INFP or INTP. I think P and J tend to be a bit more enviromentally determined also. I read some where the 1st four functions are displayed and developed in the order through childhood i.e. I/E almost from birth, N/S from six months etc.

[wildcat]

Some people state emphatically type cannot be changed over time, others say it can.

What say you and why?
A type is a flip flop.
The environment changes. All the time. The brain adapts to the environment.
And it changes accordingly.

[mlittrell]

it bends but it doesn't change.

[wildcat]

The brain isn't a static thing. Here are a few studies done that contradict the theory that personality is stagnant..

ScienceDirect - Journal of Adolescence : Stability and change in personality type membership and anxiety in adolescence (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4MV71K5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c684945fdb493c4b39265aabd445404)

Antidepressant Can Change Personality Traits In Healthy People (http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/5e02e.htm)

Study: Your Personality Can Change (and Probably Should) | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/070523_personality_change.html)
Yes. You are perfectly right.
There are also other studies. The viewpoint is completely changed.
Good work.

[gloomy-optimist]

There are studies out there that indicate that extroversion and introversion are inherent traits from a very young age.
As for sensing versus intiutive, based on nothing but my gut feeling, it would seem that would be based significantly on psyhiological differences, which by it's psyhical nature, is genetically based. It's taking in the whole picture vs. analyses part by part. I'm may have got the wrong end of the stick there, but essentially that what I think intuitition and sensing boils down to. From what I have read, these two processes are fundmentally different branching out to learning styles and what not, which of course use slightly different parts of the brain etc.
If you take the princple of personality and bearing it in mind when looking to other areas of psychology, such as brain development, child development, learning styles, even emotional intellingence, for me at least, it becomes apparent that certain traits are inherent.
Others I do think are a little more malliable, I tend to think feeling vs Thinking appears determined by upbringing, or at least the balance of how much one thought process is utilised over the other. This is my own personal experience, as I tend to type either INFP or INTP. I think P and J tend to be a bit more enviromentally determined also. I read some where the 1st four functions are displayed and developed in the order through childhood i.e. I/E almost from birth, N/S from six months etc.

Very good analysis! I would be inclined to agree with that, to an extent. :)
That would also make sense with something I've seen in the INFJ forum:

"Phases of development for the INFJ Personality Type:

From age 0 - 6 years
At this early age, we use all four of the functions in an indiscriminate fashion. We "try on" the different functions for size, determining which ones work best for us. The little INFJ has not yet emerged as any particular personality type, although his parents may notice trends in behavior which appear to have the characteristics of one or more types.

From 6 - 12 years
During this phase, our dominant function begins to develop and assert itself. Our young INFJ begins to appear dreamy and introspective - he begins to prefer to use his iNtuition to take in information, and he chooses to do this alone (Introverted). The dominant function of "Introverted iNtuition" begins to show itself as the prevailing aspect of his personality.

From 12 - 20 years
The auxiliary function asserts itself as a powerful support to the dominant function. Since all recent studies point towards the importance of a well-developed team of dominant AND auxiliary functions, this is an important time of "self-identification". Research suggests that people without a strong auxiliary function to complement their dominant function have real problems.
In our INFJ example, we see the auxiliary Feeling function come to the front during this phase as a support to the dominant iNtuitive function. Since the INFJ's dominant function is an Information Gathering function, the auxilary function must be a Decision Making one. Without a Decision Making process, we would flounder about and never get anything done! As the auxilary Feeling process comes forth, the INFJ begins to develop the ability to make decisions based on his personal value system. This auxiliary decision making process will be Extraverted, since the dominant function is Introverted. Since the decision making function is Extraverted, our subject now emerges as a "Judger", rather than a "Perceiver". Our INFJ Personality Type is now pretty firmly set in place, and we know the dominance ordering of the four functions.

From 20 - 35 years
We begin to use our tertiary function more frequently and with better success. Our INFJ begins to use his Introverted Thinking function. He continues to make judgments with his Extreverted Feeling auxiliary function, but he also begins to make judgments based on logic and reason, which he works through in his own mind, rather than discussing it with others.

From 35 - 50 years
We pay attention to our fourth, inferior function. We feel a need to develop it and use it more effectively. Our INFJ begins to use his Extraverted Sensing function. He becomes more aware of his surroundings and begins to take in information from others in a more literal, practical sense. He continues to rely on his dominant Introverted iNtuitive function to take in information, but he is more able to use his Extraverted Sensing function than he has been before in his life. Some researchers have attested that the appearance of our inferior functions at this phase of life may be responsible for what we commonly call the "mid-life crisis".

From 50 onwards
From this age until our deaths, we have accessibility to all four functions. However, we use them in a more disciplined, differentiated manner than when we were very young. Our basic Personality Type continues to assert itself, but we are able to call upon all four functions when needed."

I've been really look around about this...Because each function is determined as being "introverted" or "extroverted", it would make sense that intro/extroversion could be based in genetics, along with our "main" function, that being either S or N.
So an INFJ may be born with a innate preference towards Ni, or introverted iNtuition... which would show the first two letters to be INxx.

Which basically I'm just summarizing everything you've said, but yeah ^^;

[Santtu]

Thread title made me instantly think of this ;P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVADNUyDZY

It just rhymes, doesn't it?

[mlittrell]

Very good analysis! I would be inclined to agree with that, to an extent. :)
That would also make sense with something I've seen in the INFJ forum:

"Phases of development for the INFJ Personality Type:

From age 0 - 6 years
At this early age, we use all four of the functions in an indiscriminate fashion. We "try on" the different functions for size, determining which ones work best for us. The little INFJ has not yet emerged as any particular personality type, although his parents may notice trends in behavior which appear to have the characteristics of one or more types.

From 6 - 12 years
During this phase, our dominant function begins to develop and assert itself. Our young INFJ begins to appear dreamy and introspective - he begins to prefer to use his iNtuition to take in information, and he chooses to do this alone (Introverted). The dominant function of "Introverted iNtuition" begins to show itself as the prevailing aspect of his personality.

From 12 - 20 years
The auxiliary function asserts itself as a powerful support to the dominant function. Since all recent studies point towards the importance of a well-developed team of dominant AND auxiliary functions, this is an important time of "self-identification". Research suggests that people without a strong auxiliary function to complement their dominant function have real problems.
In our INFJ example, we see the auxiliary Feeling function come to the front during this phase as a support to the dominant iNtuitive function. Since the INFJ's dominant function is an Information Gathering function, the auxilary function must be a Decision Making one. Without a Decision Making process, we would flounder about and never get anything done! As the auxilary Feeling process comes forth, the INFJ begins to develop the ability to make decisions based on his personal value system. This auxiliary decision making process will be Extraverted, since the dominant function is Introverted. Since the decision making function is Extraverted, our subject now emerges as a "Judger", rather than a "Perceiver". Our INFJ Personality Type is now pretty firmly set in place, and we know the dominance ordering of the four functions.

From 20 - 35 years
We begin to use our tertiary function more frequently and with better success. Our INFJ begins to use his Introverted Thinking function. He continues to make judgments with his Extreverted Feeling auxiliary function, but he also begins to make judgments based on logic and reason, which he works through in his own mind, rather than discussing it with others.

From 35 - 50 years
We pay attention to our fourth, inferior function. We feel a need to develop it and use it more effectively. Our INFJ begins to use his Extraverted Sensing function. He becomes more aware of his surroundings and begins to take in information from others in a more literal, practical sense. He continues to rely on his dominant Introverted iNtuitive function to take in information, but he is more able to use his Extraverted Sensing function than he has been before in his life. Some researchers have attested that the appearance of our inferior functions at this phase of life may be responsible for what we commonly call the "mid-life crisis".

From 50 onwards
From this age until our deaths, we have accessibility to all four functions. However, we use them in a more disciplined, differentiated manner than when we were very young. Our basic Personality Type continues to assert itself, but we are able to call upon all four functions when needed."

I've been really look around about this...Because each function is determined as being "introverted" or "extroverted", it would make sense that intro/extroversion could be based in genetics, along with our "main" function, that being either S or N.
So an INFJ may be born with a innate preference towards Ni, or introverted iNtuition... which would show the first two letters to be INxx.

Which basically I'm just summarizing everything you've said, but yeah ^^;
did you write this? it is well written, and i like most of it. i use my shadow quite a bit (though unconsciously) and im 20. i use my Te like a tool...its wonderful. very much of it is understood and implied but it is nice to see it written out :). also like i state below, i think the first two functions are used quite a bit at a young age but they dont tend to work well together. like for me, it would be a split between Ne and Fi. I was either using Ne or i was using Fi; they didn't work together like they do now. the reason i dont think they work well together is because of a lack of development of Te, which lets the first two functions communicate with each other.

and as far as perceiving developing by environment...ehh i still doubt it. also ive seen that the auxiliary function is very very obvious at a young age, maybe even more so then when they are older (im not saying they use it more or less, its just more obvious....i get this from an example of an ENTP 8 year old girl...her Ne makes her interested in EVERYTHING and her Ti is constantly analyzing and even is like a synthetic form of Te because she will outright state if she thinks something is stupid (just an example)). as far as N and S go and the origins of the latter...read The Edge Effect by Dr. Eric Braverman.

[gloomy-optimist]

did you write this? it is well written, and i like most of it. i use my shadow quite a bit (though unconsciously) and im 20. i use my Te like a tool...its wonderful. very much of it is understood and implied but it is nice to see it written out :). also like i state below, i think the first two functions are used quite a bit at a young age but they dont tend to work well together. like for me, it would be a split between Ne and Fi. I was either using Ne or i was using Fi; they didn't work together like they do now. the reason i dont think they work well together is because of a lack of development of Te, which lets the first two functions communicate with each other.

and as far as perceiving developing by environment...ehh i still doubt it. also ive seen that the auxiliary function is very very obvious at a young age, maybe even more so then when they are older (im not saying they use it more or less, its just more obvious....i get this from an example of an ENTP 8 year old girl...her Ne makes her interested in EVERYTHING and her Ti is constantly analyzing and even is like a synthetic form of Te because she will outright state if she thinks something is stupid (just an example)). as far as N and S go and the origins of the latter...read The Edge Effect by Dr. Eric Braverman.

I did not write this; Trinity posted it in the INFJ forum, and it was one of those clicking incidents.
I think I'll begin watching a bit more about what conclusions I come to; the more I'm learning, the more I realize that I have a lot more I need to learn :B
I do think there are factors determined by environment. It would truly boggle my mind to think that there are none; with the way the world works and the way people adapt, it seems to me as if there has to be something to a certain extent. I do realize that quite a bit is nature; but to what extent? I'd really like to figure that out.

And I do think that this chart is based a bit more on a generalization of aging; as in, it's based on how developed functions are in most people according to their experiences up to that time. In other words, I have a pretty well developed tertiary function already, and I'm only 17. I have more experience than most people my age, though; so I think it's kind of a projection of average development. I believe functions are definitely strengthened by nurture.

[Trinity]

did you write this? it is well written, and i like most of it.

Source (http://www.personalitypage.com/development.html)

[Trinity]

the more I'm learning, the more I realize that I have a lot more I need to learn :B

Me too. What I initially considered black and white has become somewhat grey.

[Trinity]

Thread title made me instantly think of this ;P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVADNUyDZY

It just rhymes, doesn't it?

How completely random, cool :cool:

[mlittrell]

its well written trinity :) believe me, i know nothing about MBTI, so only take what I say extremely lightly. you two might be so completely right for all i know. the way i see it is your type is defined at conception and it bends with its environment. but wtf do i know haha.

[Trinity]

its well written trinity :) believe me, i know nothing about MBTI, so only take what I say extremely lightly. you two might be so completely right for all i know. the way i see it is your type is defined at conception and it bends with its environment. but wtf do i know haha.

I didn’t write it but I will take complete credit for employing Google to find it on my behalf ;) I know pretty little myself, I was certain types were set in stone before I started this thread, now, dunno, I see more questions than answers.

[mlittrell]

I didn’t write it but I will take complete credit for employing Google to find it on my behalf ;) I know pretty little myself, I was certain types were set in stone before I started this thread, now, dunno, I see more questions than answers.
well MBTI is a model for something we dont completely understand...the brain. when we understand the brain we will understand MBTI lol. otherwise everything is implied and not set in stone.

[gloomy-optimist]

Man, things like that make me want to become a research psychologist. Too many questions, so few answers!
I definitely is making me more interested in genetics as well. I've never really too indepth on that, but it seems like there's definitely a lot tucked in there that would be pretty interesting...
The only thing I would be worried about is someone trying to alter things like that once we know about it. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not interested in any "perfect" person with genetic alteration; flaws in people are really beautiful things :/
But some people seem to really be gung-ho for that...

[mlittrell]

im going back to college after i get my current degree in Information Systems for a PhD in psychology lol so im with you on that one

[Sytpg]

im going back to college after i get my current degree in Information Systems for a PhD in psychology lol so im with you on that one

Don't turn to the darkside man!

[mlittrell]

Don't turn to the darkside man!

bah. its not the dark side. calm down haha. im good at info systems but im better at psychology. which means im horrible at info systems and bad a psychology lol.

[nightning]

I didn’t write it but I will take complete credit for employing Google to find it on my behalf ;) I know pretty little myself, I was certain types were set in stone before I started this thread, now, dunno, I see more questions than answers.

well MBTI is a model for something we dont completely understand...the brain. when we understand the brain we will understand MBTI lol. otherwise everything is implied and not set in stone.

From my understanding, MBTI types as a theory is set in stone. You are whatever type you're born into. However it does not mean you've correctly identified your type the first time around. You're flip-flopping labels of who you think your type ought to be, but your true type does not change.

Obviously personality isn't just MBTI types. Psychology studies have demonstrated sufficiently that both nature and nurture affects personality.

[gloomy-optimist]

^^ True. Although I wonder sometimes whether or not certain traits more dependent on genetics, and which are less so; it would be interesting to see how far type actually goes, and what actually determines it.