I was an INTP, but I've evolved into something new!

[independentarbiter]

Sorry if this is long, but pull together your attention span and read it. I promise it's notable.

Two years ago I was a textbook INTP. I discovered Jung and Myers-Briggs personality types when I was doing some random snooping on the web, and found the topic so interesting that I proceeded to read in-depth descriptions of every single personality type. When I got to the page on INTP's...I was in shock. Somehow this website knew exactly who I was and what made me tick. All my strengths and all my weaknesses, even one's that I wasn't yet aware of, were there in the text. I became almost obsessed with the apparent accuracy of these personality types. I read 1001 different descriptions of INTP's and took dozens of different tests which all confirmed I was in fact an INTP. What always amazed me was how I was such a textbook example, as I would later find that other people didn't always identify with every aspect of their supposed personality type (I made friends and family take the test). The writings on INTP would describe me to a tee. I was a heavy recluse, and had very few friends. The one's I had were very close to me, but I didn't go to school with them so I was the weird kid that didn't speak in school, just kept to myself doodling, working out mathematical algorithms for physics engines in chemistry class, and programming/designing a fully functional and graphically exceptional version of lemonade tycoon on my TI-84 in history class. I'd never drank any alcohol or done a drug, and had never cared to. I'd never been invited to a party. I lived in my head, and loved thoughts and ideas more than interpersonal connections and material possessions.

Here's an elephant to keep your attention:

Anyhow, one day my best (and essentially only) friend started smoking marijuana, and being neither for or against it (or anything, I'd say being open-minded is the hallmark of an INTP), I partook as well. We'd smoke once a week. It was really a lot of fun and it was the first step in my changing process. He would invite me to parties where a bunch of guys would smoke weed and play Magic the Gathering. Eventually, I got caught, and it was a big deal. Next year I went off to live in a city doing internships, and again I got caught....a few times. I had started to experiment in psychedelic drugs. I first tried one called 2c-e, and it got me really excited to try others. How was it that there are ways to change the way your brain functions in a way that lends you brilliant thoughts and ideas that you never would have otherwise come across? I felt like a kid and a candy shop. I tried mushrooms, mdma, lsd, dmt, etc. It was all very fun and very transformational. Eventually I became more comfortable around people, and I had a wide circle of friends, none of which I was terribly close to, but they were friends all the same. I was happy. Then I made the dumb decision to sell the psychedelic drugs I was experimenting with and I got caught very quickly (I've never tangled with the law, I always get caught by non-police people who have spared me...but at great cost, still I have a clean record).

Here's some silly shit to keep you going:

After being condemned by my parents my life was at its greatest low, and I turned to spirituality, and changed my outlooks on life drastically. I became somewhat of a brilliant philosopher (I'm tired of being humble, people keep telling me I've blow their minds and ought to be heard by the whole world). Finally I went to college. I fucked up again and started selling pot, mdma, and a couple other things. Again I got caught, and decided to change my ways. At the beginning of this year, I decided to embark on a self-improvement quest. I changed my diet and currently eat terribly healthy. I made myself be more social, I quit smoking cigarettes, I started hitting the gym to pump iron and get jacked. Everything has been great. I got a job, where I'm well-liked and respected by my coworkers, and even hosted a party at my house for the first time ever just a week ago. It was a hit, and I was the life of the party. I conjured up the testicles to make a move on this cute girl, and now we are happily dating. Today, it suddenly occurred to me that I don't think I'm an INTP anymore. I love being social, and I have a lot of confidence and vastly improved self-esteem. I make friends wherever I go with people of all types. I don't run away from social interaction to get away from it all and recharge.

bear with me

So I went back and read the INTP description after all this time, and realized it doesn't quite work. I then read the ENTP description and realized it was 100% without a doubt, me! I've become an ENTP simply by becoming fascinated with the delicate art of socialization. It became an interest and I mastered it. This transition engenders questions of whether an INTP is simply an ENTP with low self-esteem that finds ways to cope with it. Also, this means that any one of you can become and ENTP.

THE MIND IS PLASTIC, ladies and gentlemen. You don't have to look at the outcome of your personality test as a life-sentence. You mustn't try to embody the traits described therein almost like a form of patriotism to your supposed label. Live your own life and work on self-improvement, and when you revisit the test way down the line, who knows what it will call you?

Has anyone else ever "changed" personality types like this?

 

[Wolf18]

For quite a long time I thought I was an ISTJ (this was before I started learning about typology – I'd seen it referenced somewhere and typed myself). I don't think I changed, though, I just think I was uninformed. When I am stressed, or it will be helpful to me, I sometimes still act like an ISTJ. However, as I grew older and learned more about myself, I decided that I was too abstract to be an S-type.

SW

 

[Jennywocky]

So I went back and read the INTP description after all this time, and realized it doesn't quite work. I then read the ENTP description and realized it was 100% without a doubt, me! I've become an ENTP simply by becoming fascinated with the delicate art of socialization. It became an interest and I mastered it. This transition engenders questions of whether an INTP is simply an ENTP with low self-esteem that finds ways to cope with it. Also, this means that any one of you can become and ENTP.

You have yet to justify why your experience should be indicative of all experiences. Your first 2/3's of a post is exactly the kind of thing people say when they get converted to a new faith, and suddenly have to convert the world in turn simply because something happened to work for them. Which I think is bogus. I'm happy it worked for you, but why are you now preaching that your happiness is a universal panacea for others' woes?

I think what it says is that you had some things holding you back or inhibiting you in life, and they were removed at some point... not to mention that you did mind-altering drugs, so who really knows what impact such substances had on you? You've found some self-enlightenment. That's great.

THE MIND IS PLASTIC, ladies and gentlemen. You don't have to look at the outcome of your personality test as a life-sentence. You mustn't try to embody the traits described therein almost like a form of patriotism to your supposed label. Live your own life and work on self-improvement, and when you revisit the test way down the line, who knows what it will call you?

I agree with this part. Type in a way is bullshit. I think it's a great tool to help you either get a decent grasp of how to interact with someone, or to help you get your shit figured out and on track again -- no one is good at everything, typically our strengths are flip sides of our weaknesses, and type helps us filter through that and get at least a realistic idea of how to focus our time and energy and deal with ourselves and others.

But after that? Well, people are bigger than type. We're the real, detailed thing, and type is more like a sketch pad. It gives you a starting point but should never be used as an excuse or a self-imposed cage.

Has anyone else ever "changed" personality types like this?

Throughout my teens and into my early 20's, I'd say that I was far more the stereotypical INTP. in 1995 when I first ran across MBTI, the description was pretty textbook, including the struggles with emotions, relationships, and whatever else. It was pretty scary how stereotypical I was. I also wanted nothing more than to just be alone and doing my own thing for the rest of my life; it's kind of a wonder I ever even got married.

At this point in my life, after being in a 20 year marriage, raising three kids, being in a position of leadership for a number of years in a church organization, etc. -- all things that really stretched me and made me learn new skills, perspectives, and approaches to the point of being half-decent as well as comfortable with them -- I'd say that while at core a lot of me still remains, some things have changed:

1. I still don't think "naturally" within relationships, but I very consciously can do so, and have had enough experience with various people and relational needs that I "get it" to the point of being able to predict how things will play and know the value in accommodating those things. I even can show emotions spontaneously and rather freely, and am now only a LITTLE embarrassed when I do ... I never thought I'd reach that point.

2. I'm a hell of a lot more flexible and am even proud of my adaptability; that skill was needed far more in my role as spouse and parent. Had to become much ingenuous -- focus on the few things that matter while letting the rest go, even if they were preferences of mine. Thinking is a great skill, but it can't substitute for real-life application and retaining options especially when you're dealing constantly with people in your life who need your involvement and input.

3. I'm much more socially skilled in various situations, even if socializing is still a big drain on my energy battery. I can hold my own and, even if I have a momentary freak-out at the thought of meeting a group of strangers, I can deal with it and somehow forge ahead. Sometimes in my head I look at myself and think, "Wow, how did I get to this point?" It was a long road. I'll never be a total natural, but I have done pretty well for myself.

4. I'm a lot more willing to stop being so rigidly self-controlled and instead take some chances when interacting with others, especially if they have no real impact long-term on my life. I used to walk on eggshells and even not engage, just to avoid attracting ire when someone might be motivated to mess with my life; nowadays, I'll allow the possibility that I'm irritating someone, simply to draw them out and see more who they are. I'm more experimentational, so to speak, for long-term gains.

This has caused some issues. (I struggle more with my weight, because I'm not so darn self-restrained, for example, or end up pissing some people off who might not then like me, but oh well.) The end result is that I've got some extroverted and feeling behaviors / concerns folded into my personality. I don't think it changes core type, but it changes presentation depending on the circumstances.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm tired of being humble, people keep telling me I've blow their minds and ought to be heard by the whole world

Please make another thread about your philosophizing, I want my mind blown.

Also it sounds like you were just a socially inhibited ENTP (if that is indeed your type) to begin with whereafter you got out of your shell. Are you aware of the function stacks which underlie the types? If so did you look at them and deem the thought of you changing from an INTP to an ENTP reasonable anyway?

If not I suggest you do, it's not just a matter of changing a letter, INTP's and ENTP's aren't identical on 3/4 type constituents because the letters aren't the constituents of types.

 

[Reluctantly]

Has anyone else ever "changed" personality types like this?

I wonder if anyone really knows them-self.

It makes me think if someone answers no, then they don't know their potential because they have decided they are a distinct classification and then can't know what they are beyond that classification and doesn't know them-self; and that if someone answers yes, then by identifying with multiple types, they don't know themselves enough to know the things that make them uniquely them.

I do believe lifeforms do have a "nature" to them though. But perhaps we're really bad at distinguishing them, if we can't even figure ourselves out first in a way that makes good sense.

 

[Brontosaurie]

INTP's and ENTP's aren't identical on 3/4 type constituents because the letters aren't the constituents of types.

huh? how could one differ in only 1 function?

INTP, ENTP, ISFJ and ESFJ all have the same 4 functions in different orders.

ah the feel when half of what you do on a public forum is nitpicking on an old friend...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah but I was talking about the letters not the functions. How they can be interpreted in ways that don't go along with the theory behind MBTI, for instance that types sharing all letters but one are 3/4th's identical.

 

[Architect]

Has anyone else ever "changed" personality types like this?

No, they don't. What you are experiencing is something else, an altered intellectual perception (possible Ti or Te inferior "magical intellectual experience") or just what commonly happens in our 20s-40s which is learning something new which seems earth shattering. Type doesn't change but our perception of ourselves and such does.

 

[Deckard]

Interesting read. I very much agree that the brain is plastic (at least in some aspects). See my thread here on similarish stuff. I wonder if you have just opened up your social side, previously having been a socially repressed ENTP? Could probably test for that by looking for obviously archetypal ENTP traits, like crazy overactive Ne generating ideas and associations all over, but with little interest in following through to ensure the ideas are sound. If you had that before, you were most likely ENTP. If you don't have it now, you most likely have always been INTP.

Did you have any specific transformative experience that stands out?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah but I was talking about the letters not the functions. How they can be interpreted in ways that don't go along with the theory behind MBTI, for instance that types sharing all letters but one are 3/4th's identical.

ah.

well in the case of ENTP/INTP they are indeed similar and it doesn't seem improbable that one might "transgress" from one to the other.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This transition engenders questions of whether an INTP is simply an ENTP with low self-esteem that finds ways to cope with it. Also, this means that any one of you can become and ENTP.

You hear that? You self-hating, self-loathing, wrist-cutting introverts - in one moment, you can become exactly like me and the OP.

I was an INTP, but I've evolved into something new better!

 

[dream&bass]

Hmm, I've always felt I and E heavily weigh with other factors such as environment, mood, and other factors. I identify as being very introverted but if a potential society situation opens up and seems to out way the cons, I will explore it. I.E. "Should I go out or could I stay in the comfort of my home reading, writing, and doing what I want to do?" very rarely do the conditions associated with going out out way the benefits that come with doing my own thing.

That being said, I don't think being an introvert automatically means you are bad at social interaction. I love public speaking and I can handle myself in social situations, I just prefer being in them less than my own setting.

 

[Fukyo]

This sort of sentiment makes me cringe so bad.

This has nothing to do with MBTI and all with your warped perception of yourself. You don't "evolve" from a type. A type is a type - it's not a mental disease or a troubled character. Good for you if you made a positive change, it just doesn't have anything to do with changing your type. Types aren't good or bad, that's just your perception.

Also, consider that you may not have been an INTP or *insert type* from the beginning, but just appeared as one because of your issues.

inb4 buuuuut I read the profile and it fit me so well

Spoiler

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hmm, I've always felt I and E heavily weigh with other factors such as environment, mood, and other factors. I identify as being very introverted but if a potential society situation opens up and seems to out way the cons, I will explore it. I.E. "Should I go out or could I stay in the comfort of my home reading, writing, and doing what I want to do?" very rarely do the conditions associated with going out out way the benefits that come with doing my own thing.

That being said, I don't think being an introvert automatically means you are bad at social interaction. I love public speaking and I can handle myself in social situations, I just prefer being in them less than my own setting.

You have to look at the way you interact over an extended period of time because of the things you mention. If the benefits of going out consequently fail to measure up against solitary endeavors then you're brain is probably not made to gain energy from social interaction.

I know mine isn't because even in the very best of company I require alone time pretty soon.

Anyway you're dead on with your second paragraph imo! Introversion is a very overrated factor when judging social competence. There are plenty of introverts out there who are quite comfortable socializing, they just do it less than extraverts.

 

[scorpiomover]

Has anyone else ever "changed" personality types like this?

When I was in college, I was quite social. Almost everyone in university is, even though half of the population are introverts.

Wait till term time is over, and everyone goes home. If you're still going out every night trawling for almost anyone to hang out with, and can't stand being alone, then you might be socially extroverted.

Also, social extroversion is not a sign of Jungian extroversion. Jungian extroversion is an orientation towards the objective and against the subjective, i.e. that you focus on the things most people agree with, and do not care about your individual views that disagree with the majority.

 

[ZenRaiden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTt-02Ttt-I here you go, good job. Now lets talk about how you changed? Social or not, it does not define a INTP stereotype. Traits of personality change a lot and are the significant example of the fact that people can change and are changing along the way.

 

[ActiveMind]

Hurm... like you, I've also noticed that use of psychedelics has a profound effect on an INTP. I think that the influx of non-linear thoughts that come from marijuana or mushroom use can be beneficial to the INTP if they're able to use in a measured way. Personally, I think my life has improved in ways I couldn't predict in that I feel I've gained a few IQ points and have also improved social interaction, as well as an unlocking of overall cognitive function that I feel was dormant before or that I was not aware of.

 

[ummidk]

I don't think this change requires some change in brain chemicals/functions, your personality type, whatever... Imo you just weren't as social as you would have liked to be as a teen, thus making you think you were an introvert, and the test reflecting this.

In fact, I remember reading a thread on an ENTP subforum...about ENTPS and there "personality types" throughout there life, and many of them identify themselves as introverted in their teenage years.

 

[patchtrix]

Sort of same thing happened to me...minus the drugs haha. I took mbti test a while ago and scored as an INTP, i related with a lot of the descriptions but it didn't quite feel right. Several months ago I made decision to be more socially assertive and outgoing, it turned out to be way easier than I thought! Now I totally relate with ENTP...and I believe I was always an ENTP with low social confidence/esteem. I read somewhere a while ago than an ENTP will often mistype themselves as an INTP ( being one of least extroverted extroverts) due to introspective nature of quizes, but an INTP will never mistype themselves as an ENTP.

 

[redbaron]

You hear that? You self-hating, self-loathing, wrist-cutting introverts - in one moment, you can become exactly like me and the OP.

No thanks, you can keep your mental ineptitude.

 

[Reluctantly]

Yeah, okay. So you guys are full of shit.

There's really no absolute certainty with type theory (unless you want to live in your own world and believe what you want no matter what anyone has experienced or says about themselves). The world isn't or doesn't have to be perceived as that simple. Giving excuses for why the OP must be wrong, doesn't make you right; it does make you, in my eyes, highly ignorant to other possibilities that can and do occur and ignorant to anything outside of your view.

Of course, that doesn't mean the OP is ALWAYS right either. I'm not defending the OP either. You all just aren't as smart or wise as you like to think you are.

...circumstances and perception make a huge difference. Perception is probably just as important as circumstance.

 

[SpiralHacker]

I'd like to start by grinning about how you "evolved" into an ENTP. If only other people could be as evolved as we are!

It's true that there's nothing wrong with being INTP, but does type change? This is contentious and I'm often reluctant to believe that someone changed their type. ENTPs are said to be the least social of the extraverts and there are some ENTPs with poor social skills. There are INTPs with great social skills. Maybe you were an ENTP this whole time with poor social skills, or maybe you're an INTP with good social skills.

That said, Carl Jung believed that type was an assessment and type could change over the course of one's life. Later theorists say it's impossible. So, is it possible to change your type? I'm uncertain but I think if it does happen, it's rare.

See also this recent topic on entp.org.

TBH I most only read your pointers to keep on reading. Those were nice.

 

[Deckard]

Evolution doesn't imply improvement, just change.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@Deckard: But but.. Pokemon?

Yeah, okay. So you guys are full of shit.

There's really no absolute certainty with type theory (unless you want to live in your own world and believe what you want no matter what anyone has experienced or says about themselves). The world isn't or doesn't have to be perceived as that simple. Giving excuses for why the OP must be wrong, doesn't make you right; it does make you, in my eyes, highly ignorant to other possibilities that can and do occur and ignorant to anything outside of your view.

Of course, that doesn't mean the OP is ALWAYS right either. I'm not defending the OP either. You all just aren't as smart or wise as you like to think you are.

...circumstances and perception make a huge difference. Perception is probably just as important as circumstance.

You make no sense. If the OP desires to orient himself by means of MBTI then he's wrong because you don't switch types within the MBTI framework.

I think you suffer from the "type=100% of a given individuals personality"-syndrome, remember that if such were the case we'd have 6 billion types, not 16. There's room for change and cognitive plasticity within the boundaries of a given type, one needn't change it to account for changes in lifestyle; everyone changes throughout their lives.

Nicely done saying everyone's full of shit without being able to state anything other than "Maybe he changed type maybe he didn't" yourself. Why is it that it's always those who can do naught but resort to scepticism who feel the need to vocalize their unwarranted sense of superiority?

 

[redbaron]

You make no sense. If the OP desires to orient himself by means of MBTI then he's wrong because you don't switch types within the MBTI framework.

To be honest Jung disagrees, and it kind of annoys me that thoughts like this are purported with such finality - "you don't change type and that's that."

If people want to make a case for why type doesn't change, then fine...but it's hardly an argument to just say it with finality. Can you explain why type doesn't change, or are you just repeating it from what you've read?

Question is meant generally, because I see all sorts of statements like this regarding MBTI, and no one seems to be able to extrapolate beyond simple, surface knowledge.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah but Jung isn't precisely MBTI either. Ultimately whether a type changes or not depends on how large a part of the human cognition you presume type to dictate, I think Jung had more of an holistic vision going; he didn't have the J/P dichotomy and seemed less interested in individual typing than in uncovering tendencies in humans in general. MBTI differs in this regards, it's supposed to be used for typing in a way that Jungs original material was not.

I think it makes sense to follow the guidelines set by MBTI for these reasons, and, furthermore; because there needs to be a standard and Jung is too fuzzy to make a solid foundation.

 

[Reluctantly]

@Deckard: But but.. Pokemon?



You make no sense. If the OP desires to orient himself by means of MBTI then he's wrong because you don't switch types within the MBTI framework.

What we're discussing is personalities and a sense of identity that goes along with it. The OP's real life experience is infinity more powerful than asserting rules of MBTI typology. This is a pathetic attempt to invalidate the OP's experiences.

I think you suffer from the "type=100% of a given individuals personality"-syndrome, remember that if such were the case we'd have 6 billion types, not 16. There's room for change and cognitive plasticity within the boundaries of a given type, one needn't change it to account for changes in lifestyle; everyone changes throughout their lives.

And how did you reach the conclusion that I thought this?

Nicely done saying everyone's full of shit without being able to state anything other than "Maybe he changed type maybe he didn't" yourself. Why is it that it's always those who can do naught but resort to scepticism who feel the need to vocalize their unwarranted sense of superiority?

Because you came to the table with pre-conceived notions/rules of personality and I did not. I can't trust your judgment and neither should anyone else because of that; that's exactly my point.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think the idea of "type changing" depends on the system you are talking about. Type itself is not actually part of a person, it is a particular constructed framework being used to describe and potentially predict someone's behavior/life approach. As such, "type" doesn't really even exist in itself.

I would say that any biological predispositions (which can contribute to type in any system) don't really change; that is why they are called dispositions. However, what changes is a person's behavior and approach to engaging themselves and the world, to at least some degree -- so depending on how much type depends on expressed external behavior (which can change, even if internal motivations are not changing), then type could change.

 

[Architect]

I think the idea of "type changing" depends on the system you are talking about. Type itself is not actually part of a person, it is a particular constructed framework being used to describe and potentially predict someone's behavior/life approach. As such, "type" doesn't really even exist in itself.

I would say that any biological predispositions (which can contribute to type in any system) don't really change; that is why they are called dispositions. However, what changes is a person's behavior and approach to engaging themselves and the world, to at least some degree -- so depending on how much type depends on expressed external behavior (which can change, even if internal motivations are not changing), then type could change.

Hmm, seems like a hair splitting that doesn't really help us. Let me cast what you said in a new form to see what we get, exchange "type" with "DNA"

DNA itself is not actually part of a person, it is a particular constructed framework being used to describe and potentially predict someone's <characteristics> ...

I would say that any biological predispositions (which can contribute to DNA in any system) don't really change

I think the transposition is valid, we "aren't" DNA, but are the "expressions" of DNA. In the same way I believe we "express" type. However I think you're trying to get to the "thing" behind the symbol, (the word type), but the difficulty with this is that logically you're talking apples and oranges. This results in a contradiction, on the one hand you say type doesn't really exist, then you say it can change. Nope - that's a fallacy arising from your use of symbols and attempt to abdicate them.

Basically, typology is a system that describes a living psyche, and is useful to the degree it can predict behavior and aids in authentic living. Statistically it admirably do so in my experience and is thus useful, and I believe type is static and unchanging (like DNA) while the expression of type can change (like DNA).

Of course the psyche that is simplified by the type system is much more complex than that, as is the living zygote that is simplified by the DNA system.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What we're discussing is personalities and a sense of identity that goes along with it. The OP's real life experience is infinity more powerful than asserting rules of MBTI typology. This is a pathetic attempt to invalidate the OP's experiences.

And you wonder why I think you suffer from type=100% syndrome? It's all there in plain sight. Again, if you're gonna talk MBTI, talk MBTI.

I also think that what Architect is saying is likely correct; however, there's not much in terms of evidence except the anecdotal kind, which is pretty common in MBTI though.

 

[Reluctantly]

And you wonder why I think you suffer from type=100% syndrome? It's all there in plain sight. Again, if you're gonna talk MBTI, talk MBTI.

I also think that what Architect is saying is likely correct; however, there's not much in terms of evidence except the anecdotal kind, which is pretty common in MBTI though.

I'm actually one of those people that is typically against the idea of type ever applying 100% in any form whatever, philosophically, behaviorally, or even statistically, which is why I was curious to know how you came to that conclusion (what I wrote here was even against that, which is strange that you got the wrong idea; though not surprising as that happens frequently here).

 

[Reluctantly]

Hmm, seems like a hair splitting that doesn't really help us. Let me cast what you said in a new form to see what we get, exchange "type" with "DNA"

Help? What's the problem then?

 

[Reluctantly]

I would say that any biological predispositions (which can contribute to type in any system) don't really change; that is why they are called dispositions. However, what changes is a person's behavior and approach to engaging themselves and the world, to at least some degree -- so depending on how much type depends on expressed external behavior (which can change, even if internal motivations are not changing), then type could change.

Not disagreeing, but commenting:

This reminds me of those articles about psychopaths, where they say if they are raised in an environment that nurtures their minds, while not encouraging them to hurt other people, that they don't become psychopaths.

So one could have a predisposition to be a psychopath and at the same time not be one at all, while still being true to their nature.

Anyway, my point is then the internal motivations can get confused with the person's behavior/actions. A psychopath is both defined by a predisposition and behavior/actions. MBTI is often justified to represent a predisposition, but then does it in terms of behavior/actions/thoughts/whatever.

It's questionable then if two people with what is supposed to be the same disposition become very different in a way that is natural to each one. It's questionable if that disposition is really there and what it really is then. The average MBTI enthusiast seems quick to assert predispositions for any flaws or confusion/misunderstanding/uncertainty about how useful the typology is, but it's just circular reasoning. The predisposition is assumed without really knowing what it is, but only what it might be.

edit:
What seems more realistic to me is explaining how different theoretical traits/predispositions could diverge and realize themselves in unique ways. Then relative predispositions could be understood by looking at similarities and not absolutes.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Not disagreeing, but commenting:

This reminds me of those articles about psychopaths, where they say if they are raised in an environment that nurtures their minds, while not encouraging them to hurt other people, that they don't become psychopaths.

So one could have a predisposition to be a psychopath and at the same time not be one at all, while still being true to their nature.

Anyway, my point is then the internal motivations can get confused with the person's behavior/actions. A psychopath is both defined by a predisposition and behavior/actions. MBTI is often justified to represent a predisposition, but then does it in terms of behavior/actions/thoughts/whatever.

It's questionable then if two people with what is supposed to be the same disposition become very different in a way that is natural to each one. It's questionable if that disposition is really there and what it really is then. The average MBTI enthusiast seems quick to assert predispositions for any flaws or confusion/misunderstanding/uncertainty about how useful the typology is, but it's just circular reasoning. The predisposition is assumed without really knowing what it is, but only what it might be.

edit:
What seems more realistic to me is explaining how different theoretical traits/predispositions could diverge and realize themselves in unique ways. Then relative predispositions could be understood by looking at similarities and not absolutes.

This is true. It is personal dynamics and genesis of the psyche of the person that count. For example there is stark difference between a soldier psyche and doctors psyche. They both have different way of evaluating situations, people, and they have differnet approach to people.

Also childhood is a factor that needs to be taken account for in terms of autism spectrum.

As for psychopaths I think they already have scanning technology that reveals the psychopathic brain. If it gets cheap enough they could possibly scan all people.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm actually one of those people that is typically against the idea of type ever applying 100% in any form whatever, philosophically, behaviorally, or even statistically, which is why I was curious to know how you came to that conclusion (what I wrote here was even against that, which is strange that you got the wrong idea; though not surprising as that happens frequently here).

Then why on earth did you write what you wrote as an argument against what I was saying by saying that I was invalidating the OP's experience and that his personality was infinitely more powerful than the rules of MBTI?

It's strange considering I said nothing about the OP's experiences per se. And it's also strange that you'd cite the limits of MBTI rules, how they cannot contain the experiences of the OP. I mean what I was saying was that yes indeed, typology does not account for the experiences of the OP, and should thus not be relied upon when accounting for said experiences.

Now explaining the experiences by having the type of the OP changed is trying to use typology to account for them. It follows thus that you put the greater trust in typology of us two, at least concerning this subject. But that's what happens when you just want to sit perched on neutral ground; given to a position of no weakness, but likewise - albeit far too often forgotten - no strength; all is game when there's nothing to lose or win. Skeptics jump and fly around because under their feet there's but mud for ground.

It's the same deal with your last post, the conclusion of which can be summed up with "MBTI is questionable".
Furthermore, the final paragraph states: "What seems more realistic to me is explaining how different theoretical traits/predispositions could diverge and realize themselves in unique ways. " which leaves me wondering what on earth you thought the rest of us thought reasonable, of course distinguishing between predispositions and other factors effecting behavior is something to be desired. This does not contrast with anyone else's (and you've been adamant on shooting down the posts of everyone else) thoughts. This is a clear indication that you've hitherto been arguing against strawmans of your own creation, else you would not try to describe your own position as if though it were different when its not.

In any case, MBTI isn't behavioristic, its inaccuracy is greater the more specific and less general its application; types changing further increases the ground covered by typology at the cost of making it even more fuzzy and with the possibility of an explanation for something better spoken of in other terms.

"THE MIND IS PLASTIC, ladies and gentlemen. You don't have to look at the outcome of your personality test as a life-sentence. You mustn't try to embody the traits described therein almost like a form of patriotism to your supposed label. Live your own life and work on self-improvement, and when you revisit the test way down the line, who knows what it will call you?"

Agree.

 

[Abe]

This transition engenders questions of whether an INTP is simply an ENTP with low self-esteem that finds ways to cope with it. Also, this means that any one of you can become and ENTP.

I don't have low self-esteem. I just like my people like I like my mayonnaise; far away away where I don't have to see or smell it because I hate mayonnaise.

 

[Reluctantly]

Then why on earth did you write what you wrote as an argument against what I was saying by saying that I was invalidating the OP's experience and that his personality was infinitely more powerful than the rules of MBTI?

Oh wow, you really want me to break it down for ya.
*sigh*
The OP is arguably against the notion of type being a 100% static thing that represents someone's innate nature because he/she "changed" type (at least for them-self anyway).

Then you, along with some others, attempted to argue against why his experience is incorrect or misrepresenting MBTI and flawed in some analytical measure. It's not.

Also it sounds like you were just a socially inhibited ENTP (if that is indeed your type) to begin with whereafter you got out of your shell. Are you aware of the function stacks which underlie the types? If so did you look at them and deem the thought of you changing from an INTP to an ENTP reasonable anyway?

If not I suggest you do, it's not just a matter of changing a letter, INTP's and ENTP's aren't identical on 3/4 type constituents because the letters aren't the constituents of types.

+

You have to look at the way you interact over an extended period of time because of the things you mention. If the benefits of going out consequently fail to measure up against solitary endeavors then you're brain is probably not made to gain energy from social interaction.

I know mine isn't because even in the very best of company I require alone time pretty soon.

= you providing excuses for not being able to accept any validity to the OP.


And this shit's getting old, honey. And yes, his personal experience is a lot more useful than your theoretical presumptions, no matter what sophistry you can conjure to justify it.

edit: And please keep playing dumb. It's more entertaining than it is annoying.

 

[Jennywocky]

This reminds me of those articles about psychopaths, where they say if they are raised in an environment that nurtures their minds, while not encouraging them to hurt other people, that they don't become psychopaths.

So one could have a predisposition to be a psychopath and at the same time not be one at all, while still being true to their nature.

Yes, and so does that still make them a "psychopath?" Probably not by any useful definition, even if the potential was originally there. Or is that wrong?

Anyway, my point is then the internal motivations can get confused with the person's behavior/actions. A psychopath is both defined by a predisposition and behavior/actions. MBTI is often justified to represent a predisposition, but then does it in terms of behavior/actions/thoughts/whatever.

Well, I will note that MBTI was designed that way. The J/P factor was designed specifically to describe the externalized behavior vs just describing the dom, which means all the introverts are not having their doms described. it was done because it's easier to recognize externalized behavior vs trying to guess at someone's inner motivations. Some flavors of socionics don't do that.

It's questionable then if two people with what is supposed to be the same disposition become very different in a way that is natural to each one. It's questionable if that disposition is really there and what it really is then. The average MBTI enthusiast seems quick to assert predispositions for any flaws or confusion/misunderstanding/uncertainty about how useful the typology is, but it's just circular reasoning. The predisposition is assumed without really knowing what it is, but only what it might be.

edit:
What seems more realistic to me is explaining how different theoretical traits/predispositions could diverge and realize themselves in unique ways. Then relative predispositions could be understood by looking at similarities and not absolutes.

I think that kind of discussion occurs informally, but I haven't really seen a structured, specific discussion of it for particular types. It's also hard to telll how much of the divergence might have occurred because of submerged internal inclinations that were there to be actualized by the environment.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Reluctantly: I've never argued against his experience being "incorrect". You quote two posts of mine which are both speculative and suggest different possibilities, I don't get how that is pegging the OP down with unwarranted Sophistry. The OP is asking us to translate his experience into MBTI terms, kinda hard doing that without doing that y know. I don't think you've read that many of my posts if you think I'm an MBTI sophist.

And, you're doing some pretty extreme cherry picking too. Oh well.