intp born or constructed

[majohnso]

question please:

Are INTPs constructed due to rearing and childhood circumstance, or are they already intps on birth?

or another way, can circumstances make someone intp?

is it set in stone, or evolving

thoughts?

 

[Rixus]

The nurture nature debate could rage indefinitely on most subjects. But the most sensible and most likely answer is simple - it's a combination. My personal theory is based on my observations and experience, is that some traits we are born with and some are things that shift as we get older. But what those traits are seem to differ for different people. It's as if each of us are born with a few options as to what we could become, and our early life and adolescence decides which one we eventually become.

My own example of this is that I believe I was more ENTP when I was younger, but a period of intense isolation during high school made my introverted qualities far stronger and that's what I became.

 

[cosmicflow]

i think its both , some traits are genetic for exemple both my parents are thinkers so me, my brother and sister are all thinkers , for I or E i think it depends on early childhood and the rest between childhood and adolescence .
i read that from the age of 3 or 4 childrens start to develope there personality so how parent treat there kids plays a major role on there personality

 

[Jennywocky]

While the external environment limits our choices and puts certain pressures on us, we react to those things based on internal preferences.

So it's circular.

You might say the basic preferences are there, but the degree and direction of manifestation and development relies on what pressures a person undergoes or what their opportunities are.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think personality is highly fluid. This is not readily apparent merely because there is a certain degree of inertia in one's modes of behavior – you have to be exposed to new stimuli and circumstances or actively engage in new modes in order to change. It is quite rare, in general, that people do such things.

 

[Cogitant]

Significant in Jung's theory is that "type preferences" are inborn and not socially constructed through interaction with the parents, family culture and other external influences. Even so, the individual is impacted in the quality and strength of the development in his or her preferences. Nature and nurture are both at play. A supportive environment will facilitate inborn preference development; a contrary environment will impede or retard their natural development.

- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carl_Jung#The_Collective_Unconscious

In short: A leopard doesn't change their spots so easily.
Although life experience might magnify or diminish innate traits, and shadow traits might become more observable, the inborn type, essentially does not change.

+ TiC, if subscribing to Jung's typological system, one ought to recognize and understand the roots and his underlying theory behind the system.

An example of nurture's influence on a type:

I use Ni as a #2 function in place of Ne often.

Ti > [Ne/Ni] > Si > [Fe/Fi]

This stack of mine ^ points to overused shadow function.
Growing up with and heavily interacting with a typical and dominant INTJ very likely created this.
Although, overwhelmingly, tests find me to be INTP, as a consequence of heavily using Ni, I've also variably tested as INTJ (ili/INTp) in some function (not MBTI dichotomy) based tests (even despite the fact that I lead with Ti and use Te significantly less).

-I expect that, in others, a strong nurture influence could modify use of functions so much that it leads to type confusion.

I illustrated before somewhere; typology works similarly to taxonomy.
The types already exist in nature, and now a categorization system exists to explain the differences and similarities between those types.

-Please also TiC that Jungian typology is simply a theory.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

"Significant in Jung's theory is that "type preferences" are inborn and not socially constructed through interaction with the parents, family culture and other external influences. Even so, the individual is impacted in the quality and strength of the development in his or her preferences. Nature and nurture are both at play. A supportive environment will facilitate inborn preference development; a contrary environment will impede or retard their natural development."

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carl_Jung#The_Collective_Unconscious

In short: A leopard doesn't change their spots so easily.
Although life experience might magnify or diminish innate traits, and shadow traits might become more observable, the inborn type, essentially does not change.

+ TiC, if subscribing to Jung's typological system, one ought to recognize and understand the roots and his underlying theory behind the system.

An example of nurture's influence on a type:

I use Ni as a #2 function in place of Ne often.

Ti > [Ne/Ni] > Si > [Fe/Fi]

This stack of mine ^ points to overused shadow function.
Growing up with and heavily interacting with a typical and dominant INTJ very likely created this.
Although, overwhelmingly, tests find me to be INTP, as a consequence of heavily using Ni, I've also variably tested as INTJ (ili/INTp) in some function (not MBTI dichotomy) based tests (even despite the fact that I lead with Ti and use Te significantly less).

-I expect that, in others, a strong nurture influence could modify use of functions so much that it leads to type confusion.

I illustrated before somewhere; typology works similarly to taxonomy.
The types already exist in nature, and now a categorization system exists to explain the differences and similarities between those types.

-Please also TiC that Jungian typology is simply a theory.

I personally find it crazy, epistemologically arrogant, and most importantly, destructive, to suggest that a human is limited to either serve their innate personality traits or live somehow unnaturally and go against them – especially when this framework is not a theory in any reasonable sense but rather a form of religious belief built on non-falsifiable (and thus unscientific) metaphysical conjectures.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Type and personality are different things, you should be careful not to confuse them. Types define how you intake information and how you perceive the world, personality is more how you act with that kind of information. It's also better to say that one 'is like' an INTP or something otherwise- people don't typically stay as one type all the time- it's fluid and changes depending on your circumstance. Like I always say, type is malleable.

 

[Hadoblado]

For most things, everyone has a reaction range determined by nature. Where within that range someone falls is determined by nurture. While Jung was apparently opposed to there being any wiggle room with type, afaik that conclusion is unevidenced.

If someone claims it's one or the other without citing a study, that person is mostly likely pushing an ideology. Humans are very adaptable creatures, but they aren't 100% tabula rasa either.

 

[Haim]

I think there is some influence womb when the brain is constructed, but after you got out of the womb then almost not, while the exception is extreme long going traumatic event.

I think personality is highly fluid. This is not readily apparent merely because there is a certain degree of inertia in one's modes of behavior – you have to be exposed to new stimuli and circumstances or actively engage in new modes in order to change. It is quite rare, in general, that people do such things.

MTBI is not personality, I would see it describe a way of thinking, not a thing that can just change like sucks, or change with your mood(also many people mistake mood and personality, personality determine how you act based on your mood).

 

[redbaron]

BORNSTRUCTED

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think its like 80 percent in DNA and the rest is interaction with the world. So its even possible to some degree to change type during life time, but not to an extreme. Like no INTJ will become ESFJ over night. BUt one could oscillate between few dichotomies.

 

[nanook]

conceived or contrived?

 

[TheManBeyond]

what was first the egg or the chicken?