Yes, but I think that stems more from me being blind and having to use my ability to help people to secure their help in return.
*doh* I'm sorry, did I miss that?
Naturally, I tend to let people help themselves while monitoring their progress. It's almost a testing method. However, as this has been a mechanism I have used pretty much my entire life, I have honestly become a 2. The other is still there, but not as functional. Reading about the 2 helps me understand why I am a 2. I don't know how to relinquish that mechanism, even though I know now why I use it.
I guess at this point different views of type come into play: I tend to see type as more inherent, and thus behaviors running counter to type for survival purposes aren't necessary comfortable if they conflict with the underlying type.
if you are a behavioralist and think type is merely a collection of behaviors people use as tools to achieve their ends (or some variation on that), then you can talk about "becoming a particular type."
When I see someone with inconsistent type traits, i tend to see the former as more likely -- that you have some innate sense of self and preferences but over the years you learned to mimic other types that would enable you to survive. So I wouldn't say you're a Two, I'd say you learned how to emulate Two behaviors in order to thrive in life. And the discrepancy here is between your Two behaviors and your underlying preferences -- which might not be as obvious now since you couldn't really pursue them openly due to your situation...
Is it possible that I am attempting to alter my personality to accommodate my new understanding of myself, my situation, and my need to approach life differently?
I suspect that you have another type under the surface but you've been forced to assume more of a caretaker stance in order to ensure that you got the cooperation you needed.
In Enneagram thought as well, there's use of Horney's three ways of dealing with people in response to internalized anxiety: Moving towards (such as what you do), Moving Against, and Moving Away. Put another way, at core, when it comes to potential conflict or personal needs, some of us try to dominate the people we see as threats or who might not give us what we need, some of us will cater to those people (to win them over), and some of us will pull away from the threat.
You couldn't really afford to dominate or move away, because you needed other people's help and well-wishes in your situation.
I'd focus on what other things seem to be part of your natural inclinations. What you like to do. What you would do instinctively if you didn't have to depend on anyone. What internal reactions you have to people's interactions with you.
I have read about how people have shadow types which are manifested under extreme stress?
When those types/functions come out, they're usually very obvious and very explosive. It's like a personal meltdown. The old ways no longer allow us to cope, so we lurch frantically into pathways we've been afraid of and which we have no real idea how to use... and because we're so stressed, we tend to wield them frantically.
My marriage has been very rocky for quite some time. I recently lost my job and have been searching for a new one. We have had two kids in the last three years. I am not meaning to imply that my personality is very unstable; I do not change drastically. I am fairly consistent, yet I do have a wide range of aspects of myself which I can switch comfortably to fit the need of the times.
That's more of a "P" aspect, where you flex to the situation. Everyone has different facets of their personalities, though, so that part isn't really an issue. We tend to show the appropriate face in each situation.
In the end, I just want to lock myself in with my computer and write programs or listen to music. I would like to have someone whom I am close to be with me, but not necessarily interacting directly.
This sounds more like a "moving away" strategy is preferred, but you can't afford to do that due to your needs and the needs of your family.
I have been told that INTJs vary in personality more so than INTPs or other types. Is that true?
I have no idea. Types obviously have some consistencies or we could never really categorize people into those types in the first place. I think within each category there are various typical "characters" that show up. I'm more acquainted with INTPs, ISFJs, and INFJs in terms of recognizing various "flavors" of the type9s); I honestly don't know INTJs well enough to have noticed various subtypes of them.
I think the Ni function could take INTJs in many different directions, both ethereal OR more concrete. INTJs have very strong wills; I've seen ones with very quiet confidence ("I am perceiving the truth and have no need to fight you") vs stubborn confidence ("No one's going to control or dominate me"), but self-doubt at least on the surface doesn't seem to be part of their makeup.
