Chameleoning

[Schizm]

Is this solely an INTP activity?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Some times I get intuitions about people which I tend to base on my chameleon-like personality. Does anyone trust their intuitions when they first meet someone?

Only when the person isn't especially attractive.

 

[wildcat]

Is this solely an INTP activity?

According to the French it is.

The basics is there, but it is not found.

A not found basicness > alienation.
Alienation > cameleonation.

Le Senne was the first to find the context. The existentialist philosophers owe to him.

 

[Totenkindly]

Is this solely an INTP activity?

No, I don't think it is. It just seems more prominent in INTPs because they have no real connection skills (except an adaptation of Ne) to fall back upon in their informal relationships with others, so they rely on a very weak form of Fe to begin with.

Since there's no real innate sense of how to connect on the emotional levels -- just the intellectual -- the easiest way to not flub up is to mirror what the other person is emoting.

But this has been examined outside of the MBTI. One book I've read deals with the "monitoring" capability in people, categorizing people for convenience into high monitors and low monitors.

High monitors implement the chameleon-like ability; they are constantly watching themselves and their actions from the outside and mirroring what is around them (or being who others expect them to be) in order to feel accepted. Low monitors don't seem to have the same ability or desire to look at themselves from the outside and monitor their behavior that way, tending instead to being simply "who they are" and forcing everyone else to deal with the conflicts/disparity.

Both types are highly visible in INTPs on various INTPs here and on MBTIc. So it's not just an INTP thing. It seems that those with more focus on Ti and less Ne seem to fit the "low monitor" category, while those more focused on Ne and less Ti seem to be higher brands of monitors.

 

[Shimpei]

I know an ENFJ who's a big chameleon as well.

 

[proteanmix]

I know an ENFJ who's a big chameleon as well.

I think the Fe-Se connection that gives ENFJs the ability to respond with appropriate reactions in real time. Responding "appropriately" depends on the situation and people involved which of course means some chameleoning.

 

[Randomnity]

I think everyone chameleons to varying degrees in order to function in society. A fuzzy mix of the person's personality, current mood, and situation determine the extent to which it occurs. I'd imagine IP types would have a greater likelyhood of chameleoning in a given situation, but the ability isn't limited to them, and I don't think any healthy person will always chameleon rather than simply being themselves, either.

 

[Oberon]

Low monitors don't seem to have the same ability or desire to look at themselves from the outside and monitor their behavior that way, tending instead to being simply "who they are" and forcing everyone else to deal with the conflicts/disparity.

I developed the skill of chameleoning fairly late in grade school, but I only did so as a survival tactic. I was forced into it after several bad episodes in which my lack of conformity came back and bit me on the tochis.

Now, of course, I pretty much let it all hang out...which comes as no surprise to you I'm certain.

 

[Oberon]

I think the Fe-Se connection that gives ENFJs the ability to respond with appropriate reactions in real time. Responding "appropriately" depends on the situation and people involved which of course means some chameleoning.

Have you ever been in the situation where you absolutely know what you want to say, have it on the tip of your tongue, and are so committed to it that you can't think of any other response, but you also know that what you want to say is absolutely the wrong thing to say for social reasons?

When I'm there, my options are A) look like an idiot, or B) look like an idiot.

And then there are times when I just look like an idiot in passing.

 

[proteanmix]

Have you ever been in the situation where you absolutely know what you want to say, have it on the tip of your tongue, and are so committed to it that you can't think of any other response, but you also know that what you want to say is absolutely the wrong thing to say for social reasons?

When I'm there, my options are A) look like an idiot, or B) look like an idiot.

And then there are times when I just look like an idiot in passing.

I'd think to myself what is the outcome of saying what I want to say and do I want to deal with the reactions. I blurt out stuff all the time that is completely inappropriate (surprise!) but I am rarely unaware of the effects of what I say or how people are going to respond. Sometimes I say inappropriate things to illicit a response which is what I was after all along. Some people seem oblivious to the effects of what they say and I think those people would benefit the most from chameleoning. I'm not oblivious, I customize, which means I'm mostly aware of my audience, hence my chameleoning isn't merely copying behaviors (that's the best explanation I can come up with right now).

If I'm going to look like an idiot, I knew that in advance and didn't really care. When I'm genuinely afraid of looking stupid I don't say anything.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not oblivious, I customize, which means I'm mostly aware of my audience, hence my chameleoning isn't merely copying behaviors (that's the best explanation I can come up with right now).

Yup, I think this is the big difference between an INTP (or other novice) using Fe on a very basic level to just mimic what is coming towards them, versus someone who uses Fe naturally and well to elicit a particular response.

 

[Totenkindly]

Have you ever been in the situation where you absolutely know what you want to say, have it on the tip of your tongue, and are so committed to it that you can't think of any other response, but you also know that what you want to say is absolutely the wrong thing to say for social reasons?

Slight tangent based on this comment (I might move it later if conversation continues):

btw, do you think Kathy Griffin might be an ENTP?

Oh, the girl makes me laugh insanely -- she says all the things that I wish I could say in public to get a reaction but that I only would write stories about, due to the inevitable public outcry. And I know she knows what sort of response she's going to receive... but she's a comedienne, so she plunges right ahead.

I was watching her last night for a bit on bravo, doing stand-up where she talked about her show running for an award against Extreme Home Makeover which had featured a home being built for handicapped kids, who had their own handicapped kid's choir, and how she knew there was no chance she would ever win.

So inevitably, when EHM's name was announced, she waited until the spotlight crossed in front of her and then she leaped out of her seat and gave them all the bird, said the show was rigged, and told them all to F-off. It was so over-the-top, it was funny... (well, she said it was funny to the fifteen people sitting nearby, but not to the 5000 other people in the room).

She didn't do it because she necessarily felt that way, except perhaps in the ironic sense; she did it because it was playing against expectations.

I don't know why I like her, but Andy Dick (who is a similar type personality) tends to annoy me more.

 

[ygolo]

If I act as a chameleon, I don't do it on purpose.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

While growing up I was a master chameleon. Over the past few years I've been doing it less and less. I think people like you better when you are a chameleon though.

 

[alexkreuz]

While growing up I was a master chameleon. Over the past few years I've been doing it less and less. I think people like you better when you are a chameleon though.

I think a tiny percentage of people like you more when you are not a chameleon .. but good luck getting F or S (or J in my case) based people to like you when you are not being a chameleon ..

I follow the personal / work rule .. If I am in a personal environment I don't follow chameleon rules of engagement because I will eventually realize that the relationship I am fostering is superficial .. However in a work environment, chameleon rules of engagement are a necessity in order to survive professionally among a vast number of F/S/J (F - Get too personal, S - No sense of vision, J - Have to have it their way).

 

[proteanmix]

Are you defining chameleon behavior as deceptive or attempts to misrepresent yourself or is this just acting differently around different people? I think being a chameleon is a neutral activity, there's nothing wrong with it. You don't act the same way at home as you do at work or even with your friends.

Changing you behavior depending on your environment isn't being superficial it's multitasking.

 

[alexkreuz]

Are you defining chameleon behavior as deceptive or attempts to misrepresent yourself or is this just acting differently around different people? I think being a chameleon is a neutral activity, there's nothing wrong with it. You don't act the same way at home as you do at work or even with your friends.

Changing you behavior depending on your environment isn't being superficial it's multitasking.

Well, I don't think its deceptive in any way.

To me chameleoning is more the tactic of initially presenting little if anything other than a neutral state while you gauge your environment (Ne) to see what is "appropriate" .. Once the proper behavior required for that given environment has been gauged (Ti), you present only that aspect of yourself, if it exists within you, effectively blending into a very (F/S/J) social construct .. Its a method of "fitting in" to a very practical and rigid society ..

The reason I call it superficial is because you limit the behavior of yourself according to your environment .. In other words you can not let yourself "go" in a natural and free manner (that would be socially unacceptable) and therefore become a product of your environment .. That to me is superficial ..

That is why I make the distinction between business and personal .. While I'm willing to go to these lengths in the work force, I refuse to handicap my expression in my personal relationships ..

 

[Recluse]

Jennifer wrote:

Yup, I think this is the big difference between an INTP (or other novice) using Fe on a very basic level to just mimic what is coming towards them, versus someone who uses Fe naturally and well to elicit a particular response.

I would agree with this. Unfortunately, if an unsocialized INTP mimics in an attempt to blend in, they lack the experience to carry it off convincingly and can end up sticking out instead.

Ygolo wrote:

If I act as a chameleon, I don't do it on purpose.

Don't chameleons eat termites?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No, I don't think it is. It just seems more prominent in INTPs because they have no real connection skills (except an adaptation of Ne) to fall back upon in their informal relationships with others, so they rely on a very weak form of Fe to begin with.

Since there's no real innate sense of how to connect on the emotional levels -- just the intellectual -- the easiest way to not flub up is to mirror what the other person is emoting.

But this has been examined outside of the MBTI. One book I've read deals with the "monitoring" capability in people, categorizing people for convenience into high monitors and low monitors.

High monitors implement the chameleon-like ability; they are constantly watching themselves and their actions from the outside and mirroring what is around them (or being who others expect them to be) in order to feel accepted. Low monitors don't seem to have the same ability or desire to look at themselves from the outside and monitor their behavior that way, tending instead to being simply "who they are" and forcing everyone else to deal with the conflicts/disparity.

Both types are highly visible in INTPs on various INTPs here and on MBTIc. So it's not just an INTP thing. It seems that those with more focus on Ti and less Ne seem to fit the "low monitor" category, while those more focused on Ne and less Ti seem to be higher brands of monitors.

Yes, low monitor is more common among individuals with high propensities towards introversion. Common among INs, especially INTs. More common among INTPs than INTJs because INTPs tend to have a more solid internal focus and identity. (Dominant Introverted Thinking)

Most INTPs better identify with the low monitor role, likely those with a low self-esteem (very few as well, as low self-esteem is rather rare among NTs, especially INTPs) would better identify with the high-monitor. This is because those with a high-monitor depend on external circumstances to build their identity (germane to the conventional sense Jung defined extroversion in--deriving identity from the outside), and likely depend on the ostensible approbation of others in order to feel good of themselves--this is germane to FJ, especially EFJ.

So, we can relate the low monitor persona to INTP and high to ESFJ. N is more adept for low because INs tend to do better with building identity from within than ISs.

I think that the definition of chameleon, as employed in this thread is sound. However, another way of thinking of it is the ability to adapt to external situations without incurring stress. (Js, especially SFJs have difficulty with this because change by virtue of itself brings about stress, and the more impersonal it is, the more difficult it will be). Yet, NTPs on the other hand cope much better, perhaps better than all types. This is because of their ability to see the big picture (N)--that by virtue of itself allows for them to be more comfortable adapting (they dont get hung up on experiences as guide for exploration of environment as sensors do), improvise better (P), and finally (T)--there will be more on the way of impersonal decisions to make than personal.

I dont mind improvising so long as I dont have to compromise my inner principles, in that case I just quit. The INTP descriptions that claimed how INTPs are easy going and adaptable most of the time, and yet this changes when their principles are violated were right on...


To answer the OP question. The chameleon aspect is most highly correlated with a Perceiving preference. NPs do it better than SPs because it is easier for them to juggle many ideas simultaneously because of their more powerful imaginations. So, to narrow it down, it is more of an NP factor than a general P. NTPs improvise better than NFPs because T is more adaptable. And ENTPs better than INTPs because they are less fanatical about guarding the integrity of their principles than INTPs.

And of course, on the low-high monitoring spectrum, I am on the radical end of the low monitoring type as my Ti is preponderous over my Ne, as this in part is the reason why my inner identity is sound and why my self-esteem is very high.

Though, as one correction to Jennifer, INTPs who identify better with the high-monitoring type are not influenced by Ne more than Ti in a way that ENTPs are. The case is that they lack self-esteem because they were unable to build a solid inner identity. They just use their Ne to float around, they cant feel at home in the external world by adapting the way that ENTPs can and certainly cant base their self-esteem in accordance to their external situation. They still use Ti more than Ne, yet much less efficiently than their low-monitoring counterparts. (Inefficiently because they tend to have less confidence in their Ti as they havent built a sound inner identity.)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I know an ENFJ who's a big chameleon as well.

I'd call this conformity. Not being adaptable in way NPs. Being a chameleon means to be able to adapt to the external environment without being tied up to a rigid external identity. If you get tied to one external identity, you wont be a chameleon in the future because you wont be able to adapt to the next situation, as your previous role will preclude you from this. The stronger your J preferrence is, the less of a chameleon you'll be. SJs are the radical Js, NPs are the radical Ps--especially ENPs.