One personality forever?

[LeafAndSky]

Why does the Myers-Briggs system assert that type does not change over time?

(I now think it can.)

 

[BlackCat]

Well your personality type doesn't change, but you develop more into it as you grow. People can also get messed up functions wise, like going into dominant-tertiary loops etc.

Why do you think you can change?

 

[LeafAndSky]

Well your personality type doesn't change,

This is exactly what I'm curious about: why you said that. What reasons does the Myers-Briggs system (or Jung perhaps) give for asserting that personality type doesn't change?

but you develop more into it as you grow. People can also get messed up functions wise, like going into dominant-tertiary loops etc.

Why do you think you can change?

Personal experience. I can be more specific if you need me to, but I'm mainly wondering if there are good reasons to think that personality type doesn't change.

 

[sculpting]

MBTI says you sepnd the first part of your life learning your first two functions-

So FiSe for you, then the second part of live learning to use the second two functions to supplement-NiTe for you.

Assuming we are buying into standard MBTI dogma for the purpose of this post, this means you would get the urge to do things that involve those second teo functions more as you age. Maybe before that you could use them here and there, but as you get older, you can use them more skillfully.

(However keep in mind standard MBTI dogma is under massive scrutiny by many members of our happy forum family, and could totally be a clusterfuck)

So my question-assuming standard dogma is true-

L&S would spend the first part of her fluffy pancake life tending towards being an ISFP FiSe...but then grow into something kinda funny as she ages to become more INTJish flavored...NiTe as those last two functions get more developed...

But kinda but viewed through an Se perceiving function. So an old ISFP would be a weak INTJ who uses direct Se perceptive information?

 

[LeafAndSky]

MBTI says you sepnd the first part of your life learning your first two functions-

So FiSe for you, then the second part of live learning to use the second two functions to supplement-NiTe for you.

Assuming we are buying into standard MBTI dogma for the purpose of this post, this means you would get the urge to do things that involve those second teo functions more as you age. Maybe before that you could use them here and there, but as you get older, you can use them more skillfully.

(However keep in mind standard MBTI dogma is under massive scrutiny by many members of our happy forum family, and could totally be a clusterfuck)

So my question-assuming standard dogma is true-

L&S would spend the first part of her fluffy pancake life tending towards being an ISFP FiSe...but then grow into something kinda funny as she ages to become more INTJish flavored...NiTe as those last two functions get more developed...

But kinda but viewed through an Se perceiving function. So an old ISFP would be a weak INTJ who uses direct Se perceptive information?

Thank you for your observations, and yes, we can certainly all analyze me if necessary. But before going there in this thread, if at all, I will wait for someone to tell me why "standard MBTI dogma" (as you put it) says that personality type doesn't change.

 

[garbage]

It becomes a more elegant and attractive system if it's asserted that types don't change--that is, if the external factors that it measures are controlled. Suddenly, it can explain a lot more. Variances in type "make sense" with respect to the theory, if this is asserted.

And that's attractive to people.

And that's why it's asserted.

 

[LeafAndSky]

It becomes a more elegant and attractive system if it's asserted that types don't change--that is, if the external factors that it measures are controlled. Suddenly, it can explain a lot more. Variances in type "make sense" with respect to the theory, if this is asserted.

And that's attractive to people.

And that's why it's asserted.

Thank you.

I certainly do get that the system as it stands is attractive to people. It was attractive to me.

So, does anyone know if there's any reason that Meyers or Briggs (or Jung?) gave for asserting that personality types do not change? This assumption is key to the whole system. (Some talented person could doubtless build another equally appealing system around the assumption that personality types do change.)

 

[sculpting]

Your question is a very Ni question because you are poking at the gap.

I think that everything Jung did was based off of what he observed/intuited. Then Myers-brigss built upon those ideas based upon what they observed. Both certainly did assert that personality type is innate. MBTI asserts it does not change-but does develop.

What did Jung say about personality type changing over time? Not just development but actual change to something else? I dunno...I dont recall reading these details.....

 

[Stanton Moore]

Thank you.

I certainly do get that the system as it stands is attractive to people. It was attractive to me.

So, does anyone know if there's any reason that Meyers or Briggs (or Jung?) gave for asserting that personality types do not change? This assumption is key to the whole system. (Some talented person could doubtless build another equally appealing system around the assumption that personality types do change.)

See the post right above yours. that's why.

 

[IZthe411]

I buy into it that it's you at your core. So no- it doesn't change. But as you mature, experience things and such, you realize that there's no need to be the same way all the time.

I see it especially in my father. At the core, he's still my dad, but in a lot of situations, He's not the same man he was when I was a kid.

 

[Andy]

Thank you.

I certainly do get that the system as it stands is attractive to people. It was attractive to me.

So, does anyone know if there's any reason that Meyers or Briggs (or Jung?) gave for asserting that personality types do not change? This assumption is key to the whole system. (Some talented person could doubtless build another equally appealing system around the assumption that personality types do change.)

It's an interesting question, seeing as the idea of unchanging adult psychology was Freuds idea, rather than Jung. That's where all the "Tell me about your child hood" came from. He believed that once you became an adult your psychology was fixe. Thus all psychological issues would stem back to childhood experiences. Jung disagreed. Apparently, it caused something of a rift between them.

Jung believed that psychology was bulit up layer by layer, with things being added though out life. However, nothing was ever removed. Thus, if you wanted to deal with an undesirable impulse, all you could do was add a counter impulse to balance it out. Or to put it another way "You're always an alcoholic, you learn to stop being a drunk".
n
This explain the idea of fixed type to some degree. As has been mentioned, you learn to use the first two functions first, then then the rest follow - its the same progressive layer build up over time. Changing type would involve removing functions, something Jung wouldn't have believed in.

 

[Timeless]

Hey, there's a pancake on your head.

 

[Queen Kat]

I don't know, but I do know that I've always been an ENFP, my father has always been an ISTJ and my mother has always been an IFP.

 

[sculpting]

It's an interesting question, seeing as the idea of unchanging adult psychology was Freud idea, rather than Jung. That's where all the "Tell me about your child hood" came from. He believed that once you became an adult your psychology was fixe. Thus all psychological issues would stem back to childhood experiences. Jung disagreed. Apparently, it caused something of a rift between them.

Jung believed that psychology was bulit up layer by layer, with things being added though out life. However, nothing was ever removed. Thus, if you wanted to deal with an undesirable impulse, all you could do was add a counter impulse to balance it out. Or to put it another way "You're always an alcoholic, you lear to stop being a drunk".

This explain the idea of fixed type to some degree. As has been mentioned, you learn to use the first two functions first, then then the rest follow - its the same progressive layer build up over time. Changing type would involve removing functions, something Jung wouldn't have believed in.

So Jung talks about pulling stuff out of the unconscious-those functions that become more developed are the ones we pull out of the unconscious and become the cognitive functions that determine our personality. It seems we naturally-gentically?-pick a favorite and then grow in some others too.

But there is an interesting idea he wrote about called the "transcendental" function. For example, if you are an Ne dom, you learn to pull Ni out of your unconscious a bit. His chapter on this is really confusing-but I have seen others call this same type of process "individuation". So as you age, you balance and can use the opp attitude of the more dominant functions?

In my experience, I have seen INTJs using some Ne and sometimes I can peek at Ni now and then. Both me and the entps note being able to find our shadow respective Fe/Te in times of stress-and even sort of tapping into it to use it a bit as a tool. Beebe mentions this.

(not to mention I use more Te than Fi, but people do all types of crap with the top four functions and still are "typed")

But by definition, being able to pull up eight functions would seem to violate the MBTI principles of four functions determining type. Once you can access them you are no longer the same-your personality type HAS changed. Thus the model is broken.

This may be more complex if certain functions are competitive-ie Ti vs Fi. Thus if I learn to use Ti, perhaps I have to supress Fi. Effectively removing it from the layers Andy mentioned above.

 

[Jaguar]

But by definition, being able to pull up eight functions would seem to violate the MBTI principles of four functions determining type.

Oh, dear. Call the Police.
A "violation" of MBTI principles has been committed.

 

[sculpting]

Oh, dear. Call the Police.
A "violation" of MBTI principles has been committed.

Does this mean I am going to hell? Is it like a sin?

 

[garbage]

This assumption is key to the whole system.

Exactly my point.

You'll notice that the only explanation is that the system would break if this assumption weren't made. I think it's great that the assumption's actually being questioned.

People seem to believe that we can accurately explain behaviors using these cognitive functions. So, those are trusted, and the explanations are treated as robust.

Yet, we can't explain why psychological type doesn't change?

 

[Andy]

So Jung talks about pulling stuff out of the unconscious-those functions that become more developed are the ones we pull out of the unconscious and become the cognitive functions that determine our personality. It seems we naturally-gentically?-pick a favorite and then grow in some others too.

But there is an interesting idea he wrote about called the "transcendental" function. For example, if you are an Ne dom, you learn to pull Ni out of your unconscious a bit. His chapter on this is really confusing-but I have seen others call this same type of process "individuation". So as you age, you balance and can use the opp attitude of the more dominant functions?

In my experience, I have seen INTJs using some Ne and sometimes I can peek at Ni now and then. Both me and the entps note being able to find our shadow respective Fe/Te in times of stress-and even sort of tapping into it to use it a bit as a tool. Beebe mentions this.

(not to mention I use more Te than Fi, but people do all types of crap with the top four functions and still are "typed")

But by definition, being able to pull up eight functions would seem to violate the MBTI principles of four functions determining type. Once you can access them you are no longer the same-your personality type HAS changed. Thus the model is broken.

This may be more complex if certain functions are competitive-ie Ti vs Fi. Thus if I learn to use Ti, perhaps I have to supress Fi. Effectively removing it from the layers Andy mentioned above.

What I was trying to do was explain how the idea of unchanging types was more consistent with Jungs other ideas, outside of function theory. His idea that psychological impulses cannot be erased once developed is the foundation of aversion therapy. You can't take away the original impulse, just add a new one that opposes it. Whether or not you believe any of that is another question.

Generally speaking, a think a lot of people get confusaed between developing type and changing type because they do not draw a distinction between function preference and function position. They end up thinking that if they start using a function more, then its position has changed.

The thing is, function position doesn't say which function is used more. It is more about how the function is used, if it is used. As you go down the list of contious functions, they get less developed and controled. To access them in a safe way normally requires coupling them to the auxillary, as it is the function that does a lot to stabilise the others.

So in an INTJ Te can crack the whip to stop a paralyising Ni - Fi loop by reminding the primary that they have to actually make up their mind and do something. Similary, it can also force the primary to except the input of the inferior, sort of "I know you don't like to get your hands dirty, but you need to do this yourself to understand it. So stop being a whiny bitch and get on with it."

However, once you have got them together with the auxillary, they become usefull functions. Fi can point how peoples emotional reactions might effect the INTJs plans and Se grants valuable real world experience. However, they haven't turned into an ISFP because ultimately Ni and Te are still calling the shots while Fi and Se are simply giving an assist.

 

[sculpting]

What I was trying to do was explain how the idea of unchanging types was more consistent with Jungs other ideas, outside of function theory. His idea that psychological impulses cannot be erased once developed is the foundation of aversion therapy. You can't take away the original impulse, just add a new one that opposes it. Whether or not you believe any of that is another question.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by psychological impulses? Feel free to send me off to read up!

Generally speaking, a think a lot of people get confusaed between developing type and changing type because they do not draw a distinction between function preference and function position. They end up thinking that if they start using a function more, then its position has changed.

The thing is, function position doesn't say which function is used more. It is more about how the function is used, if it is used. As you go down the list of contious functions, they get less developed and controled. To access them in a safe way normally requires coupling them to the auxillary, as it is the function that does a lot to stabilise the others.

So in an INTJ Te can crack the whip to stop a paralyising Ni - Fi loop by reminding the primary that they have to actually make up their mind and do something. Similary, it can also force the primary to except the input of the inferior, sort of "I know you don't like to get your hands dirty, but you need to do this yourself to understand it. So stop being a whiny bitch and get on with it."

However, once you have got them together with the auxillary, they become usefull functions. Fi can point how peoples emotional reactions might effect the INTJs plans and Se grants valuable real world experience. However, they haven't turned into an ISFP because ultimately Ni and Te are still calling the shots while Fi and Se are simply giving an assist.

Would you say this seems like the pairs sorting of handing tasks back and forth? NiTe works on stuff, hands it to FiSe, then it gets handed back? It doesnt sound quite like that from your description. I sort of sense this interchange in my mind-however I think Ne doms may be very flexible mentally-not always a good thing-while Ni doms are more solidified (?). Ne, go figure...

Also-many older INTJs seem to have very physical hobbies or very much love music-kinda like an ISFP might???? But n is pretty small, so this could be an over generalization.

 

[LeafAndSky]

I think that everything Jung did was based off of what he observed/intuited. Then Myers-brigss built upon those ideas based upon what they observed.

That was the impression I had been getting . . . that MBTI is based on one person's opinion plus the fact that people find systems appealing. And maybe that impression is one reason I hadn't been willing to invest time in learning the details.

Jung believed that psychology was bulit up layer by layer, with things being added though out life. However, nothing was ever removed.

Great post, all of it, very helpful, including the stuff about Freud, thank you.

. . . I've always been an ENFP, my father has always been an ISTJ and my mother has always been an IFP.

I buy into it . . .

It can be helpful. It was helpful to me twice when having no idea what to do about choosing or changing a career, because it led me to lists of suggestions that were mostly appealing and which I hadn't thought of. It was helpful during two relationship breakups, too, because it helped me to see that who I was was okay, not inferior and lacking as I was being told, and it helped me to see that who they were was okay also -- although it wasn't at all good for me to be with either of them.

You'll notice that the only explanation is that the system would break if this assumption weren't made. I think it's great that the assumption's actually being questioned.

Individualist here. :hi: Probably it's been questioned here before, though. This forum's extensive and has been around a few years.

People seem to believe that we can accurately explain behaviors using these cognitive functions. So, those are trusted, and the explanations are treated as robust.

Yet, we can't explain why psychological type doesn't change?

It bothers me to go whole-hog about a system that requires taking someone else's assumption as truth -- doing so has a quasi-religious feel to it. Especially when my own experience leads me to think in a different manner!

I tested INTJ in a college psychology class in the late 1970s, and I felt that the handout sheet I was given after the test did describe me. Much later, after marriage and while raising two kids, I was testing INFP (if I remember correctly). A couple of years ago in a career development class it was ENFP. Some of the letters are testing midpoint nowadays, and (many, not all) ISFP descriptions equate to the me I've been for a few years now.

Here are some of my personal reasons for questioning the assumption that personality type doesn't change. (And I do understand that if one is a 'believer' in a system or a strong supporter of it, anomalies can be adequately explained from within the system. It's a question of whether or not a system is convincing to an individual. For me to be convinced, since no one has so far been able to cite good reasons to think that personality type doesn't change, I would need to have a reason to Trust In Jung.)

When younger, I would have a couple of close friends. That was it. Performing or talking in front of a group or class, my knees would shake -- no, my whole body would shake. Now, I have a huge group of friends. I absolutely delight in talking to strangers and yesterday afternoon took surveys again for a museum exhibit, as a volunteer, approaching people singly or in groups or while they were sitting in the museum cafe, and I had absolutely no fear of doing so and enjoyed it very much. This, after spending the whole morning interacting with people at a job site. I then got groceries and arrived home at 7 p.m. The neighbor beckoned through the window, said I must be tired, and invited me in for pizza and wine. I accepted. When younger, a couple of people told me I was hard to get to know. Recently, someone told me I've "got personality." Today, I've contently spent the entire day alone doing paperwork and whatnot, but not from exhaustion from yesterday. I'm alone because I've got 'alone stuff' to do plus I live alone.

When I was younger I would make lists and charts of my every minute, cleaned my car and apartment every Saturday, and balanced my checkbook monthly. Decades and a lot of possibly influential life experiences later, I'm happily disorganized and the priority for me is always the smell of the cooking; or, on the trail, the leaf and the sky (!); or the creative project; and a particular priority is the warm smile of others.

Not to be rude, because I do know Which Forum I'm Writing On, but it's experiences like those, and others, and seeing test scores at midpoint, that prompted me to question whether my support of MBTI was warranted. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I now wonder if in supporting MBTI I'm supporting limiting people unhelpfully. Career advice, relationship help, and personal growth help can certainly be found in other places -- and systems, of course.

Hey, there's a pancake on your head.

You noticed!