Interesting...
This is going to be Hitler-ish.
I would say INTP is probably the only unalterable personality. A dead end if you would consider personality types are affected by environment.
Talk about abuse:
You could verbally abuse someone into an I from an E.
You could physically abuse someone into an N from an S.
You could emotionally abuse someone into a T from an F.
You could sabotage someones plans until they become into a P from a J.
Actually, it's not that hard.
Emotional and mental associations are formed by a combination of intensity and frequency. Once they have been established, however small, they can be reversed by reconditioning, by the same stimulus a second time, but without the effect. However, if the intensity of the stimulus in the second case, is much lower than the intensity of the original effect in the first case, then the more intense association takes priority, and the mind now recalls the association of the stimulus with the effect, at a lower, but still potent, intensity of the original association. Now, the feedback loop of the mind takes over, and the association is reinforced by the mind itself, because the original association, and the later recall, the both happen inside the mind, and so the mind cannot distinguish between the experienced association and the recalled association. Provided the association is experienced again on a semi-repeated basis, enough to just top it up to its current level, the association stays at its current level, and becomes self-perpetuating.
The topping-up effect doesn't even have to happen with the originator of the association. Provided that the association produces a behavioural response in the conditioned person, that results in others in their environment, whether locally IRL, or online, to have a similar response that provides the same effect in response to the stimluli, often enough, with such intensity, that the self-reinforced association keeps being topped up to the level required for self-perpetuation, then it continues to be self-perpetuating, long after the originator of the association has ceased to perpetuate the cycle. All that requires, is that the association would cause the conditioned person to act, in such a way, because of the virtual effect, that the other people in their environment would produce the same effect, because of the response of the conditioned person. The mind of the conditioned person would immediately revert to observe "stimulus-real effect", and reinforce the association as required for self-perpetuation, because that is the prioritised association, and ignore the other possibility that it was "response-effect", as the end product of the "stimulus-virtual effect-response-real effect".
Say that you want someone to associate seeing bees with absolute terror. All you have to do, is just scream really loud when a bee comes near. Then, the subject will get scared because of the scream. Then, the subject associates the bee with fear, and the scream is associated with the fear. Then, every time the subject sees a bee, she will feel fear, which will replay the scream inside her mind, and the association is reinforced.
It can be months between bee sightings, and during that time, the stimulus never happens, and so the association remains almost entirely in statis. As soon as the bee is sighted, all the old feelings return.
Were the subject to be then around people, who never scream when bees are around, then each time a bee appears, the virtual scream is associated, but with a lesser effect each time. Over time, the effect lessens. But it lessens slowly, because the appearance of a bee is not particularly intense, and the lack of reaction is not that intense either.
Were the subject to be then around people, where some of them scream when bees are around, then, most of the time, the effect dissipates, but slowly, and the few times that the scream is heard, it reinforces the association back to its current level.
Were the subject to be then around people, who never scream when bees are around, then each time a bee appears, the subject then feels the fear, and then moves about nervously, the bee is likely to take these quick movements, that are made by something gigantic to its viewpoint, hundreds of times its size, and is likely to see this as an extremely hostile gesture, that requires the bee to do whatever it can to protect itself. It will be likely to fly in an aggressive manner, and possibly sting the subject, as this approach generally seems to get other species to back off. A severe sting will be interpreted as pain by the subject, that will result in the subject feeling added fear the next time they see a bee. Even if the bee merely moves aggressively, the mere fact that this movement brings the bee into more likelihood of stinging the subject, will bring up fear that the subject could be stung. Both will increase the level of fear in response to the bee, and thus increases the association, topping it up as required.
Even if you do see lots of bees, and nothing happens, the de-conditioning is not intense, and so is very slow. So only one top-up experience in several months, can be enough to reinforce the conditioning.
Now, you might wonder who would be cruel enough to do all this? Most of it has been done by your own mind. The other person merely has to believe they are acting in your best interest, by screaming at a young child, to warn her that bees are dangerous.
Sometimes, I think our brains ought to come with a training manual.
