False dichotomy in MBTI

[Reluctantly]

One interpretation of MBTI could be that the dominant function is the most developed of all the functions.

Another, as you say, could be that the dominant function is simply the function which you consciously choose to use more than the others.

I suppose I take the stance that it becomes developed because we consciously use it more; so they aren't separate for me. And in that way, it's hard to change because our minds have focused on that way of dealing with reality. Trauma, a kind that completely cuts off our mind's normal way of processing might be the only exception in that sense, as I don't think personas and fake-it-till-you-make-it really change what someone's mind is inclined towards, but masks it instead.

 

[k9b4]

I suppose I take the stance that it becomes developed because we consciously use it more; so they aren't separate for me. And in that way, it's hard to change because our minds have focused on that way of dealing with reality. Trauma, a kind that completely cuts off our mind's normal way of processing might be the only exception in that sense, as I don't think personas and fake-it-till-you-make-it really change what someone's mind is inclined towards, but masks it instead.

I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that fake-it-till-you-make-it doesn't change how a person thinks.

IMO brain is like muscles.

Consider a person with a posture problem. Their muscles required for good posture are unevenly developed. They are used to having this posture, and consciously changing their posture takes effort, but with persistence, eventually the 'correct' posture becomes normal for them.

IMO there is no such thing as innate 'preferences', only rate of development of different brain areas, which is determined purely by genetics. In a way this rate of change will cause people to 'naturally' gravitate towards different types.

Of course, you can deny your natural talents, and consciously choose to develop your weaknesses and ignore your strengths.

 

[crippli]

Of course, you can deny your natural talents, and consciously choose to develop your weaknesses and ignore your strengths.

A machine isn't stronger then the weakest part.

 

[k9b4]

A machine isn't stronger then the weakest part.

What?

If you develop your natural weaknesses enough, your natural weaknesses will become your strengths.

 

[Reluctantly]

I get what you're saying; but I don't think that's the whole picture. To an extent I'd say you are are right. But we also have a nature. To what degree are things nurture and what degree are they nature though? That's a complicated question, unless of course one takes a stance. But then people just agree to disagree. Can't say I have much interest in that, but it does make me wonder when you present the nurture argument over a nature - it seems to reflect how you currently explain yourself. I suppose when trying to understand our personalities, there's no real way around that though.

Though for the sake of refuting your claim, one could (and Jung more or less does) argue that extroverts focus on the external, becoming absorbed into their surroundings, becoming defined by it, so to speak. It's an extroverted attitude, so you'd still have some kind of natural inclination, but one that's more a matter of how you nurture yourself, rather than why you do what you do (something that would be much more inherent to yourself, as a nature or motivating force, than anything else).

 

[k9b4]

Though for the sake of refuting your claim, one could (and Jung more or less does) argue that extroverts focus on the external, becoming absorbed into their surroundings, becoming defined by it, so to speak. It's an extroverted attitude, so you'd still have some kind of natural inclination, but one that's more a matter of how you nurture yourself, rather than why you do what you do (something that would be much more inherent to yourself, as a nature or motivating force, than anything else).

I believe introversion/extroversion is a skill, and the innate part of extroversion/introversion is simply the rate at which you learn the skill.

Someone who learns introversion quicker than they learn extroversion will 'naturally' drift towards thinking in an introverted way, because they develop the introversion part of their brain faster.

 

[Yellow]

I believe introversion/extroversion is a skill, and the innate part of extroversion/introversion is simply the rate at which you learn the skill. Someone who learns introversion quicker than they learn extroversion will 'naturally' drift towards thinking in an introverted way, because they develop the introversion part of their brain faster.

That is a very interesting idea. I have never read or observed anything that would lead me to this conclusion. How did you come by it?

 

[k9b4]

That is a very interesting idea. I have never read or observed anything that would lead me to this conclusion. How did you come by it?

Lol is this a polite and sarcastic way of calling me a fucking idiot? Don't worry, I am not offended, a lot of people think I'm a fucking idiot.

I will try to explain why I believe that introversion and extroversion are skills which can be learned:

Introversion, at the fundamental level, is conceptualization. An introvert enjoys ideas, possibilities and thinking about stuff.

Extroversion, at the fundamental level, is using your body and senses in the physical world around you.

Sounds like MBTI, anyone?

I have read that introversion is about 'where you get your energy'. I think that is not exactly correct, I think that an introvert does not gain energy from doing introverted stuff, rather they lose energy from doing extroverted stuff, because their nerve pathways for extroverted stuff are less efficient - thus use more energy.

If an introvert and extrovert are both reading the same book, the extrovert would lose energy faster than the introvert, because the introvert has more efficient nerve pathways for reading, which is all about conceptualization (converting words into meaning).

When you say a person has a preference for introversion, what you mean is that the person has a more developed brain in the introversion areas than the extroversion areas. There is no innate preference. A strong introvert can consciously apply effort to being more extroverted, and they will become more extroverted.

A person can certainly be genetically drawn towards extroversion/introversion. This simply means that they possess talent for extroversion/introversion.

For example, a person is extremely talented in introversion, but very poorly talented in extroversion. This person will develop their introversion very fast, and their extroversion very slowly. They will 'naturally' gravitate towards introversion. This person can, however, consciously decide to develop their extroversion, and neglect their introversion, thus becoming an 'extrovert'.