Does Knowing One's Type Change Anything?

[Da Blob]

Does Knowing One's Type Change Anything?

If so, what?

If not, why?

There seems to be a bit if controversy about the value of being able to 'read' or type people in order to place them into one of 16 categories.

What difference does this categorization make - what change, threat or opportunity, is revealed when type is discovered?

If it does not make a difference/cause a change then it is useless IMO.

I think most of us remember the experience of being typed as INTPians, many have joined this forum as a result of that experience, but most of those have left... Why?

It seems to be something of a paradox, if type is not a fluid characteristic, then knowledge of type can't change type or anything else, perhaps. But if knowledge of type can change type, by changing preferences, then the whole concept is invalid (?)


What does knowledge of type change?

 

[Reluctantly]

It's not really fair to expect it to be one way or the other, true or false. Figuring out the cognitive processes that you use is supposed to help you understand yourself, in more objective terms, but not absolutely objective (because philosophy shows objectivity of mind is tied to subjectivity). The reason then that the functions are talked about as dualistic processes by Jung is so he could show people the dualistic nature of their functioning in their behavior. You learn how the ways you process and interact with the world are affected unconsciously and how your type of thinking leads to your own philosophical bias on the world.

Your type isn't supposed to be who you are, but when used right, it is supposed to help you understand yourself and gain a better insight into the way you are philosophically structured or aligned with the world. For instance, I imagine you will never find an INTP claiming that they changed into a legitimate, unneurotic ESFJ. Why do you think that is? Do you really want to subject the usefulness of Jung's types as based on philosophical cognitive processes to the cognitive function/type wankery that MBTI, socionics, etc. turns it incorrectly into?

Anyway, if someone thinks it's bullshit that's just as incorrect as the person that says it isn't. Philosophy shows psychology can't ever be that simple. It's stupid to take a side, instead of learning what Jung was trying to represent and understand where it has applicable limitations.

 

[downsowf]

Obviously, every human being is unique and who that person is cannot be determined by "type." People should not feel constricted by what MBTI says. I believe we are always in the process of becoming, so therefore, we have a choice in the type of human being we become through the actions we take.

I agree that that Type seems something of a paradox in relation to the above words I just mentioned, though.

MBTI I think is helpful, not if you use it as a crutch obviously, but in the way it allows you to learn from other people who have a similar way of going about in the world. And receiving a certain amount of reassurance and affirmation from people of similar temperament allows you to be the best YOU you can be, not the best INTP you can be.

I think it's important how you use MBTI. If you use it as a tool to expand your experiences and strengthening your weaknesses by understanding your weaknesses, then I think it is beneficial. However, if you use it as an excuse to refrain from experiences as well as work on other personality functions, then Type is a severe detriment.

Yet the questions you've asked, I have thought about extensively. It seems to conflict with my personal view about "becoming."