I like this.
I believe that as humans we are constantly in a state of development. Every new experience is added to our mental database. Relying on logic may be the foundation of intuitive thinker but empathetic skills are accumulated through living amongst "real people". The same goes for the other elements. I have become better at socialization but it still feels like work for me. I’m don’t think that there is an exact science for human personality.
Yes. Personality can and does change, but
type does not.
I wonder what Jung means when he says psychic energy.
You and me both. It's not easy to put into words, and others have tried.
I'm also skeptical on whether it's the conflicts that define a person a certain type.. shouldn't it be more of the functioning order? Like others have noted, people share a lot of dichotomy conflicts. I think it could be a bit of a "standing on thin ice" if one were to type oneself based on his or her 'most appearing/relevant conflict'. I mean sure, it could be a possible way to pinpoint your type, but I'm skeptical as to how that would be the defining method.
Perhaps "conflict" is too combative a word. "Opposition" may be better. But, no, it's not the function order that matters most. The brilliance of the theory is that it latches onto a fundamental principle: If T is conscious, then F must necessarily be repressed, and the same goes for S and N. I and E can be best be thought of as directionality of thought: Out --> In --> Out for extraverts and In --> Out --> In for introverts. While identifying this opposition of forces in an individual is not the only way to type someone, it certainly is useful.
But all in all I think NTs in general seem to overlap with each other, I mean that's why there are percentages in typology testings rather than "You are 100% Introvert" or "You are 100% Extravert" or "You are 100% Sensing" and so on. I mean open my spoilers in my signature, the percentages do seem to allude to the idea that some people could delve into another type sometimes, since they tend to fluctuate.
There are similarities between NTs, and behavior/traits may seem similar, but the underlying
type will always be distinct. You can have INTPs
acting like ENTPs and vice versa, but their brains are wired much differently.
I think it's important not to lose sight of that, and it becomes a major problem when you take a purely empirical view of this whole business. The data from psychological tests indicates that personality appears to lie on a curve, and so you get led into believing that the underlying types must also kind of blend with one another. But that contradicts the theory, because the conscious and repressed aspects are actually much different between types. In other words, and this is why I had such a long debate with reckful on this, you can't be a pure adherent of MBTI and not reject the theory in some way. Similarly, if you believe in the theory, then you have to assert that the MBTI doesn't give a complete picture (only an analogous one).
The issue is far from settled. When we finally have high-resolution brain-scanning capabilities (down to individual neuronal pathways), I'm convinced we'll have definitive data showing that despite having similar scores on personality tests (INTP vs ENTP for instance), two subjects will have vastly different brain architectures. That will settle the issue once and for all.
I get the idea that one person only must have one base type, but developmentally speaking, I think people go through and take on other types, either consciously or subconsciously. As to say whether he or she's going through some 'oh you're not being yourself' phase is another issue altogether though, I think.
Again, if you adhere to the test data, then yes, you would be right. But the theory is quite clear that type does not change, and that's because, as I said above, type is a reflection of a certain kind of brain architecture, and although the brain does undergo rewiring to a certain degree (INTPs can become more social, or ENTPs can become more introspective), it never gets rewired to such an extent that INTPs ever develop Ne such that the corresponding neural networks have equal or higher efficiency (in terms of information processing vs. glucose/oxygen requirements) than Ti.
Incidentally, the theory is clear that if N is more conscious than S, then a "lifting up" of N must correspond to an equal "repression" of S. So you end having to make N more efficient,
and also make S correspondingly less efficient. This never happens. What we actually see in real life is that when the dominant is used to excess, the inferior becomes overly repressed and actually "rebels" against the dominant through various psychological diseases like neuroses, hysteria, obsessive-compulsive behavior and so on.
Taking introverts as an example, Jung describes this process as the energy of introversion forcing elements of the unconscious to the surface. Basically, if an introvert does too much introspection, then the unconscious is imbued with enough energy to become conscious, and when this happens, it's never a good thing (unless you're doing it on purpose for therapeutic benefits under the proper guidance).
, I assume you're talking from real life exposure, not MBTI based conjecture?
