LeafAndSky
New member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 307
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
Why does the Myers-Briggs system assert that type does not change over time?
(I now think it can.)
(I now think it can.)
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?
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?
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.)
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 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.
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.
This assumption is key to the whole system.
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.
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.
Jung believed that psychology was bulit up layer by layer, with things being added though out life. However, nothing was ever removed.
. . . 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 . . .
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?
Hey, there's a pancake on your head.