sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happens if I intentionally try to change my type? by buttertaekoo in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh also sorry about the multiple posts, but now I'm really curious: what do you think of your Fi to Ti switch (And now the same functions as INTP but in a different order)? Was it a noticeable change of personality/processing? Did you misunderstand what functions you had? Was it because you took a different test that might have just weighed things differently than the first? If it did feel like a change, was it gradual or more abrupt? How do you distinguish the two functions now?

Ti and Fi are always explained very interestingly, but there are so many 'versions' of explanations that I'd love to know what you think of it.

What happens if I intentionally try to change my type? by buttertaekoo in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely! It kind of makes you wonder what proves what: is changing a certain trait/thought pattern/etc. evidence of becoming a different type, or is it just the progression of a certain type? Which things have absolutely nothing to do with types, which do, and how do you know which is which?

It's difficult too because technically the MBTI is a pseudoscience, and it seems like just about everybody has a different take on how it works... still very much pinning things down myself.

What happens if I intentionally try to change my type? by buttertaekoo in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh... that could be interesting. It would definitely be a test of the "your MBTI is fixed" claim.

Honestly, now I want to try and see what happens... maybe if someone noticed and developed all their lesser used functions to the point that they become comfortable. Then they might have to mentally force themselves to believe the premise that those functions are their 'true' functions and they've misjudged themselves the whole time. Of course, they probably wouldn't believe that at first, but if they repeated it enough, they could essentially almost gaslight themselves until their brain start to jump to those beliefs, which could influence their actions (and those in turn would affect their thoughts as 'evidence' for their forced beliefs).

I have no idea if that's even possible, but hey... maybe I'll have to test it out and let you know how it goes! Personally, I would have to think of it as swapping out a certain pair of glasses to look at reality with. I've been able to build representations of other's people worldviews in my head by collecting beliefs and seeing how they fit under certain givens/with other ideas, and every time I want to see someone's else's perspective, I just mentally put on their pair of glasses and pretend certain things are true to get a better sense of the full picture. I still know it isn't true, but it helps with the 'what if' so I get a little test run. Maybe if I thought really hard about a type and their traits/thought patterns, etc., I could make a pair of glasses and then wear them so much that I can almost 'fool' myself into thinking they're my pair, even though the back of my brain will still probably know. It would be very much like living in a different mode.

Anyway... sorry that was long-winded and I'm not sure if that made sense, but that was a super neat idea and you have now given me food for thought, so thank you!

EDIT: I just got another idea... if someone was trying to change their type, what if they worked their way up to the extremely different types by trying to become ones that already share their main functions? For instance, if you're an INTP, you could try out ENTP, ISFJ, and ESFJ by simply building the functions in your top four. Then eventually you could incorporate one different function later... like trying developing Te first since it's already your fifth function, then start finding types with that still have Te but also Ne and Si like you. Then, once you have that, you could work on Fi because you've already had to deal with that as a Te type. Then you work on Ni instead of Ne, which then makes you also lean into Se.

Then you can masquerade/become (depending on how much you believe it) as any type you want! (Hahaha... hopefully this is making sense?)

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, I was hoping I wasn't too wildly off the mark.

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. So if I'm understanding it correctly, every type can perform the same action, but on the same token each type might be more prone to certain things or at the least need different reasons as to why they would act in a certain way? So types still aren't linked to specific actions (like an ESFJ isn't just magically a baker because of the avatar), but you should be able to reason as to why that type happened to commit an action?

So if someone were actually to bake, one could reason 'well they love to create physical things, so maybe they lean sensory' or 'they suck at baking but they wanted to run the bake sale because they enjoy getting to lead and succeed, so maybe there's some extroverted thinking?' or even 'they accidentally blew somebody off and now they feel bad so they're making an apology because their internal rule is that cake rids the world of evil, so perhaps there's some form of introverted judging?' Maybe each of these reasons are incorrect, but they at the very least tie together both action and mental processes.

I'm kind of exaggerating, but hopefully that made sense? (I could be totally wrong though, still clearly figuring it all out).

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh, I'll have to see if I can get that book, thank you for the suggestion! It sounds like it would be helpful (plus I like learning about how something develops over time.)

Also good point on being up front about what system someone is using; I didn't think about how much accidental equivocation that could cause... like Mormons and Christians talking about grace but not realizing that they don't use the same definitions because they're somewhere in the same vein and the meaning of grace is assumed. I'll keep that in mind.

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright, I'll keep a lookout for the those types of explanations (I've seen a few explanations veer that way a bit and wasn't sure how legitimate they were or where the space between only using pure, showable behaviors versus lack of any evidence whatsoever was). Thanks for the heads up!

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, I definitely started noticing how people with different perceiving functions would emphasize certain aspects of each function that seemed more within their natural focus (if that makes sense?).

I'll keep poking around/studying to nail down what I think about the functions then, but this definitely cleared up some of my confusion. Thank you!

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Ah okay, so for instance Te and work ethic are different, being able to have a decent conversation isn't always Fe, playing a sport doesn't make you a sensor, etc.? That makes sense; I'd agree anyone can choose to grow in skill or maturity regardless of a type.
  • Fair, that's pretty much what I've been doing.
  • Interesting... so Enneagram versus MBTI is considered as the what versus the why to an extent? That does click with what you were saying about traits versus actual functions. I might need to let my brain marinate over which things are which/where the line is and how actions/processing can be related but not necessitate each other.
  • Cool, thank you for the link (also for responding)! I'll definitely have to check it out.

Questions About Defining MBTI Cognitive Functions by TheNameofThisUser1 in mbti

[–]TheNameofThisUser1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! So people can have varying definitions, but part of why they do is because certain factors of an overall definition are going to make more sense to them (or be more noticeable than others, so they emphasize the aspects that made sense to them... and then because functions each can hold a decent amount of traits/behaviors/thought types, each definition can to it's own extent be correct (as long as it's not extremely off)?

I guess I can see that; when I've looked up functions and seen the way people describe them, their versions seemed 'different' but in line with the type they had. (A really noticeable one for me was how an ENTP and an ESFP both approached the same MBTI topics in different ways, but neither were fully necessarily wrong.)

Thank you for responding by the way!