The "preference" as used in MBTT refers to a person's natural, most automatic tendency.
I think that's a good way of putting it. With this definition, the axiom that one cannot change one's MBTI type would seem to remain true. One cannot change that which is most natural for one, but one may develop other functions such that...
Wait a second. I wonder what definition of "preferences"
would support the axiom that one cannot change one's type?
For if the definition of preference is simply that which is most natural for an individual, could an individual not develop other functions such that one day, other functions became as natural as the first set, if not more natural? Or is it the law that one cannot develop use of unnatural functions to the point that they dominate the orginal dominants?
Anyway, Zergling, I was just thinking of starting a topic like this! I really was. Except I didn't want to focus the discussion on MBTI (in fact, I was going to mention that people should avoid talking about MBTI unless they could be informed and interesting, because sometimes I get tired of hearing about MBTI), but rather on wants in general and the extent to which wants can be coerced, manipulated and conditioned.
I have long, long thought that people can't choose their sexuality. The desire is there before they even realize it. My hunger for men certainly was. I still believe that, but I also wonder how much one can condition oneself, through exploration and thought, to like or appreciate something that one previously did not, or to avoid or dislike something that one previously wanted?
What does distinguish sexual responses from the responses one's mind and body have to, for example, music? If one can learn to appreciate classical music where before they cast aspersions on it...