I think extraverts are much more inclined to act as exactly who they are, than introverts.
Extraverts tend to act then think, thereby revealing their true selves. Whereas the introvert thinks and then acts, where they have a chance to decide whether and how they will act. Us devious introverts don't always behave "as we are".
I don't necessarily think so, because you're still thinking within the framework of your type. Any planning on your part is going to be done within your type's dynamic as well.
What we do is a huge component of who we are--or, at least, our actions reflect our personality--though it's not the whole story.
It's just the most
obvious facet of who we are, and so it's the one that 'shines through' when we look at personality psychology.
Sometimes the line is blurred when I think in terms of action. I could probably resemble a hard assed STJ in some ways, depending on mood and threats to safety. Bad drivers endanger me and can aggravate me enough to care about rules.. people who owe me money and don't deliver on the expected date piss me off... I'd appreciate punctuality instead. Because I like money. Not necessarily because I like rules. The gangster kids on my street piss me off in general, because they make my environment dangerous.
OTOH if things are going well, I'm easy going and less concerned about "violations" or chaotic behavior around me. And that's how I essentially want to be. It's not my fault that some other assholes are provoking different actions. I'd say those actions are mostly uncharacteristic.
I agree with both of those.
I know I didn't explain myself well at first but that's just because I was trying to make my point stand out noticeably. Now I can more fully elaborate on what I mean.
I used to be typed as an INFP, and I seemed to act like an IXFP. So this must mean one of two things:
1) Either I believe that a person's type can change over the years, or
2) I believe that typing someone is pretty relative and you have to look at their life as a whole
You can't just take a few actions, or a few years, of someone's life and abstract them away or focus on them solely to determine their type. Or if you do, you have to be open to being wrong. People are going to change. But what changes is their character, not their inward nature.
BUT - most of the time, in most places, people WILL act like their inward nature, or in other words, how their brain is wired. I do believe though that there's a possibility your type can change in slight ways or with some rewiring in bigger ways (though it can be debated to what extent this could actually happen or how authentic the change would be).
And now you might say,
"But it sounds like you're saying that personality type IS who you are, with all this talk about an inward nature!"
:1377: Nope, because who I am is something way more unique and distinct than that. I can't be the same person as 600 million others. My type doesn't determine WHO I AM, because I am a complex individual just like everybody else and nobody can really explain me fully. I've noticed this, what with all my eccentricities and how I don't even fit neatly within one type 100% of the time.
So the conclusion is that type doesn't really describe who YOU ARE, just how you as a person is expressed to the world outside. It doesn't dictate your morality, for instance. Idealists aren't necessarily anymore moral or loving than others. Hitler was an Idealist. Rationals aren't necessarily anymore unbiased or clear-headed than others. Some of them are so jumbled up in their complicated thought patterns that they don't make any sense.
Love and morality come through humbly accepting your interdependence, and truth comes though learning in humility.
The difference is, Idealists strive to be connected or find meaning, and Rationals strive to understand the world.
Make sense now?