@Retiree: You make a point... identity is much more complex than "what you do." Plus, I'd argue, it's an extraverted answer. Between sleeping, thinking and fantasies, most people spend most of their lives inside their own minds, NOT in motion or speaking. And does the absence of visible external movement constitute idleness? (No it doesn't, as anyone with a quadriplegic friend can attest.) Identity is way more than achievement/utility or the lack thereof.
In its most basic sense, MBTI is a test that determines your preferred method of gathering information (perception) and your preferred method of classifying it (judgment). Example: a person who is scored as an INTJ gathers information via introverted intuition, and classifies it by using extraverted thinking. It does NOT mean that person is/has "introverted intuitive thinking judging," which is what most online tests spit out, unfortunately... that adds to the confusion.
The official test wasn't prepared to test people's preferences in a physical, mental or emotional vacuum. It just asks whether you prefer one thing or another, and calculates the number of times your preferences tend in one direction as opposed to another.
Retiree wrote: ‘Given full and entire freedom, which would you rather do, which would give you more pleasure, which of those two choices represents the real you?’ (And not : Which might you end up actually doing, with a whip—any kind of whip—on your back?)
Good point about who you are vs what you do. The trick is knowing which one is the "real you" and which is the construction, especially as you grow and change over time. As GandK mentions, you can't evaluate yourself in a vacuum. I guess I most relate to Jacob's example of having aspects of different personalities that express themselves in different ways. Or perhaps I just want to believe the human spirit is not so static.
Question #45: You think that almost everything can be analyzed
Perhaps the strength of one's belief in MBTI categorization comes down to this preference?
Cael, I'd been talking about this with my wife's friend, who works in HR. She too says what you do, that these things don't change.
A little knowledge is indeed dangerous! (Note to self : do a bit of reading and research on MBTI myself, since my first-hand knowledge is even less than "little"!) Used loosely and incorrectly (as you suggest, G&K), these things do run the risk of degenerating to Zodiac-sign-like cliches.
All right, here's the deal with MBTI tests. I wanted this cleared up for myself, so as well as some basic reading up on this, I contacted someone who is officially trained and has a good deal of experience in specifically this area, and had a longish informal chat. This is what seems to be the case :
Provided the tests have been properly administered and taken (which is a big if, since online push-buttons often miss out a lot), no, personality types do NOT change for an adult.
One possible exception here is extreme traumas, but in that case we are treading into the domain of (potential) pathology, which lies outside the ambit of these things.
Since so much of talk here revolves around MBTI, I thought you would all like to know.
Cael, you said exactly this. And you yourself seem well acquainted with MBTI, from what you say. So I've not found out or said anything different from what you yourself said, but I just wanted to step out of my armchair and make sure myself.
On an entirely personal note, I myself am in favor of seeing these things as merely indicative, and not a self-limiting absolute. (Like Jacob said in this thread.) But that last is purely my non-professional/layman and subjective opinion. Whether or not we let our blue/brown eyes limit us (we could always wear contacts), the actual color won't change--as Cael pointed out, above.
Retiree wrote:
Provided the tests have been properly administered and taken (which is a big if, since online push-buttons often miss out a lot), no, personality types do NOT change for an adult.
One possible exception here is extreme traumas, but in that case we are treading into the domain of (potential) pathology, which lies outside the ambit of these things.
I am striving to never quite fully reach adulthood. Pathologies? Well, maybe.
My understanding is that although your type does not change, any person can have higher or lower functioning within their type and as your functioning becomes higher, you will more resemble people of other types with higher functioning. For instance, my overall functioning as an ENTP would improve if I could adopt more of the traits/practices of an INTJ and INTJs are supposed to improve their functioning in the direction of taking on more extroverted leadership opportunities.
I am INTP and DW is ISFJ. We hit it off being both introverted and shy, lol, but we definitely have some personality conflicts.
For example, if we want to go on vacation she needs to know the exact details of what we will be seeing and when planned out. More like a to-do list than free form. Once things are on a to-do list for me though, they have become boring tasks that I don't want to do. Or if I have meeting scheduled for X, I can't really get absorbed into work/play, because I always know I have that stupid meeting at X and I hate appointments. No deadlines, no appointments, just the freedom to explore is what I want.
I too find these different personality types rather fascinating, and yes, they do seem to explain lots of things. But at the same time, I also sometimes wonder if that apparent explanation that they provide is just a sort of faux-explanation.
Here’s why : Say I set up a well thought out list or questionnaire that asks you searching questions, and the end result of this is to set people up in five distinct boxes :
Box One or Type 1 : The Absolutely Honest and Incorruptible. Those who, no matter what, will never budge an inch from total honesty and full integrity in all they speak and do.
Box Two or Type 2 : Those who hold Type 1 as the ideal to strive to, but in practice often make compromises as long as those deviations from the ideal are sanctioned by precedent : that is, they cut corners as long as it is the “done thing”, while acknowledging to themselves that they are perhaps not behaving quite ideally. Of course, they wouldn’t go so far as to actually break the law, ever.
Box Three or Type 3 : Those who would not mind breaking honest practices, or even breaking the law, in minor things and NOT huge major things, as long as they are sure they’ll get away.
Box Four or Type 4 : The out and out amoral types, whose only consideration for doing anything at all is whether they’ll get away with it.
Box Five or Type 5 : The out and out criminal types, who may be guided by the can-I-get-away-with-it principle most times, but who may not always worry too much about breaking even that very lax standard.
There, sounds nice and scientific looking, does it not? And probably we can all fit ourselves fairly well in those boxes, perhaps directly and perhaps more circuitously via a long questionnaire (or set of questionnaires and tests). And what is more, we will probably find that, like MBTI, a person’s real honesty-type probably does not change after attaining adulthood and personality-and-values-stability. That is, at heart they remain one of these honesty-types all through, although they may in practice act differently, out of choice or necessity.
And if you think long enough you may well be able to devise other similar stereotypes or boxes to fit people into. For instance another categorization comes to mind that involves courage : a full range, going right from the so-courageous-they-don’t-know-what-fear-is, right across to so-cowardly-they-wouldn’t-know-what-courage-is (with some stages in between). See if you can think of other such types and categorizations.
So while yes, these personality “types”, however defined, do help us understand others, I wonder how truly “right” that understanding is.
To take two very stark real examples from times past : If you went back two centuries, you could easily bifurcate the human race into Men and Women. Creatures with very different physical traits (I mean strength and endurance etc), and very different personalities as well : very different aptitudes, very different desires and goals, and very different mental ability. And what the heck, that would have been a very true personality classification at that time (for the overwhelming majority of men and women) because of different reasons that we need not go into now. So it was a helpful classification then : but would it have been “true”? Certainly it is far, far less true today (if not entirely meaningless yet).
The same argument could be made with blacks and whites (as seen in predominantly white society), back in the days of slavery unquestioned, when calling a black a black (or any other name) was not considered bad form. Two very different categories, with very distinct personality traits, and not much in common between the two tyes (for the overwhelming majority of those with either skin color).
I know, the flaw with the men-and-women and whites-and-blacks categorization is the fact that they received such different/distinct and set-in-stone inputs from society and their environment, unlike today’s “types”. But still, these two examples from history do compel one think about how truly valid these categorizations are, don’t they? And then you have the honest-dishonest range that I just outlined above, and the courageous-cowardly range too, on the spur of the moment (and probably many more such that others can think of).
So yes, these categorizations of personality types do help (MBTI, for instance), but how truly valid, how ‘true’ are they really? Are they merely superficial descriptors applicable only in this time and age (like the male and female personalities, and the white and black personalities, were in times past), or do they have a deeper basis?
Incidentally, just to be clear, in the post/comment above, I’m talking about a different ‘level’ of “intrinsic”.
One’s MBTI personality does not change after adulthood, after personality has been firmed up, so to say, which is usually around the time of physical adulthood. So one may, through compulsion or choice or cicurmstance or any combination of these things may act very differently from one’s “type”, but that is merely situational, and one’s type does not change. In that sense personality as measured by MBTI (and perhaps some other commonly used categorizations) is indeed intrinsic. No two ways about that.
However, what I’m saying is, perhaps all this is relevant now, in this day and age and society. Would these things have been equally valid, say, back one thousand years ago, in feudal times (as opposed to the current consumerist times)? What about twenty years ago in the Soviet Union, in a communist society? What about seventy/eighty years ago, in a fascist society, such as Nazi Germany? What about ten thousand years ago, in some pre-civilization tribe or group in the forests?
Of course, one answer is this : It does not matter. We live in the here and now. So that is that.
But then, I suppose people could have said the same about masculine and feminine personality traits two hundred years ago. And about white and black personality traits. And they would have been wrong, at least in this “deeper” sense.
I’ve not really reached any conclusions about this. Just thinking aloud.
Perhaps all this has already been thought of and sussed out by someone somewhere? If anybody has any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear them. And if anyone has any links to any reports or articles that talk about what I’m saying, I’d be grateful if you could point them out. (No book references please, at least not for me : at this time I do not spend money to acquire books, and Jacob's book is the only one I have bought in the last two years. And I have a perhaps funny predilection for owning the books I read, so at this time I’m not reading any books other than the largish numbers I already own.)
Devil's Advocate said: To take two very stark real examples from times past : If you went back two centuries, you could easily bifurcate the human race into Men and Women. Creatures with very different physical traits (I mean strength and endurance etc), and very different personalities as well : very different aptitudes, very different desires and goals, and very different mental ability. And what the heck, that would have been a very true personality classification at that time (for the overwhelming majority of men and women) because of different reasons that we need not go into now. So it was a helpful classification then : but would it have been “true”? Certainly it is far, far less true today (if not entirely meaningless yet).
I think a lot of this comes down to biochemistry which is not yet fully understood. For instance, I was born female and ENTP. This means that I have more dopamine (or more dopamine sensitivity) than most people and less testosterone (but more testosterone sensitivity) than around half the population. However, I could choose to alter my levels of either of these directly or through my behavior. For instance, it is not "feminine" behavior to vigorously engage in physical sports because this activity will raise testosterone levels. Another Victorian practice was to advise depressed people to travel or visit the zoo. This is because exposure to novelty will raise dopamine and serotonin levels. Another practice of "femininity" is to allow the male to take the lead because this will raise his testosterone levels relative to you. Ingesting "dope" will make you more ENTP-ish if you are a more uptight type. However, you need to be self-aware about whether you are choosing to alter your chemistry or behavior in a direction of growth/health or vice-versa.
So you're suggesting, 7Wannabe5, that sex does determine personality in a fundamental way that is not predicated on (although it can be amplified by) social mores.
I would agree, I suppose, although it would be a somewhat doubtful agreement. Feminist types wouldn't agree at all, I expect.
The testosterone divide is medical fact, of course ; but I wonder whether it isn't conditioning that keeps women's physical capacity so emphatically different from men's. Certainly that physical capacity divide between the sexes has narrowed substantially in the last two centuries.
So you're suggesting, 7Wannabe5, that sex does determine personality in a fundamental way that is not predicated on (although it can be amplified by) social mores.
Did you have an entirely different personality before you went through puberty? Sex hormones don't change innate personality. They change your motivational goggles or something like that. For instance, the hormone vasopressin tends to increase both the tendency in males to fight strange men and protect female-familiars. So, men will more often develop strategies in alignment with this hormonal motivation than females.
I seem to oscillate between entp and intp. I think INTP fits best overall. My Ti feels very instinctive, so for the last year or so I was underestimating how often I use it.
I go in waves between Ti research (mostly math/physics/computer science) and Ne connecting (fitting the conceptual tools in my latticework based on new awareness and simulation).
Part of me wished I was born 100 years ago so that I could contribute to theoretical computer science at its peak. Oh, well. In this life I get to watch humans destroy themselves while contemplating the nature of reality at many levels.
Last edited by daylen on Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Between sleeping, thinking and fantasies, most people spend most of their lives inside their own minds, NOT in motion or speaking. And does the absence of visible external movement constitute idleness? (No it doesn't, as anyone with a quadriplegic friend can attest.) Identity is way more than achievement/utility or the lack thereof.
