Can E-Types Change?
- Thread starter Liesl
- Start date
only one person can properly answer this question...
[video=youtube;QRBak_2X3Do]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBak_2X3Do&feature=related[/video]
IF I CAN CHANGE......
AND YOU CAN CHANGE.....
EVERYBODY CAN CHANGE!!!!
[video=youtube;QRBak_2X3Do]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBak_2X3Do&feature=related[/video]
IF I CAN CHANGE......
AND YOU CAN CHANGE.....
EVERYBODY CAN CHANGE!!!!
MBTI fluctuates throughout child hood, however it becomes harder to change as you get older and more set in your ways. It would either take a great deal of work or some sort of life changing event to change how MBTI.
According to the theory, no, your preference for order of functions does not change. On a subconscious level, your knee-jerk reaction will be to always fall back on your dominant and secondary functions. At the core, these are your default; your first call.
That being said, you can strengthen your other functions and make their use more of a semi-conscious 'habit' than the way they would typically develop on their own.
That being said, you can strengthen your other functions and make their use more of a semi-conscious 'habit' than the way they would typically develop on their own.
Enneagram can become the best of who you are and mimic certain types, or it can become the worst of who you are and mimic certain types. But the basis of who you are will always exist. For example, as a 9 I can behave as a 6 or as a 3. When I'm on a healthy upswing I'll have positive 3-ish characteristics. If I'm on an unhealthy downswing I'll embody the worst of the 6-type characteristics. But basically I'm still me (a 9), because my core motivations stay the same (according to the Enneagram). As a six, at your best you'll share many of the positive 9 characteristics; but if you're at an unhealthy level you'll descend to the worst of the 3 characteristics.
That's how I discovered I was a 9 and not a 6; I showed E6 characteristics when I was less healthy, instead of E3.
That's how I discovered I was a 9 and not a 6; I showed E6 characteristics when I was less healthy, instead of E3.
The theory could very well be wrong, especially considering it's not even a scientific theory. It makes sense I suppose but I still maintain that type can be changed to an extent.
We all take on behaviors of different types at various points in our lives. But do our core fixations or preferences ever change? Do they just "present" differently in different circumstances?
From how I understand it... type isn't an accessory, it's something you grow into based heavily on environmental factors and possibly genetics. If you can relearn your entire life up to the point where you are now, or reprogram your mind to employ different defense mechanisms than the ones you are confident in, then sure. You can change your E-type.
I sincerely believe your type can change, be it MBTI or Ennea type, however not the same way as most people mean it to be. It might change if one is exposed to a traumatic incident, for example, and subsequently change their entire perspective on life, but not necessarily.
I sincerely believe your type can change, be it MBTI or Ennea type, however not the same way as most people mean it to be. It might change if one is exposed to a traumatic incident, for example, and subsequently change their entire perspective on life, but not necessarily.
I agree with your suggestion that the theory could be wrong--there's always a chance that any theory could be wrong, really-- but I'm not too sure what your mention about MBTI not being based on science has anything to do with it. No science-based personality theory exists. Psychology, as a discipline, is not a science to begin with...
Maybe I'm just nit-picking now
Last edited:
All types can change. The human mind is adaptive. That's how it learns, and that's how it allows us to deal with change.
However, Enneagram and MBTI types are pretty deep in the architecture of the mind, and it takes a lot for them to change, because the human mind also operates on the path of least resistance. It won't change unless it has to. It will take a lot of pressure to force the human mind to adapt on such a core level.
However, Enneagram and MBTI types are pretty deep in the architecture of the mind, and it takes a lot for them to change, because the human mind also operates on the path of least resistance. It won't change unless it has to. It will take a lot of pressure to force the human mind to adapt on such a core level.
Eh, I didn't mean to insinuate that it was inaccurate because it wasn't scientific. It's just that the term "theory" gets muddied at times because for something to be a "scientific theory" it has to have quite a bit of evidence backing it up. As such it's only a hypothesis until it can be tested. (so is most phycology.) I'm not sure why I brought up the distinction actually now that I think about it. Can't think straight lately.
Indeed. Though major trauma or major paradigm-shifts may exactly what cuts through that 'path of least resistance' that forms and sustains mental habits. And that actually has scientific basis. An ungodly high point of emotional stress that smashes through all our usual psychological barriers to sustain its functioning normalcy can permanently change the chemistry of the brain... and considering all we are is an interplay of chemicals and electrical signals, the cause-effect biological upheaval might have an observable impact on behavior.
Aside from the fact that I'm living proof of the mind rewiring itself...
I sincerely believe that the chemicals and electrical signals are tied to our spiritual selves, and that these systems interact with each other intimately - both sustaining and feeding on and off of one another. In order for the mind to reset, the spirit has to want to change. This is why the same stimuli can cause one person to adapt and another to remain unchanged. The trick in this equation is to leverage the spirit into making the choice.
Sorry if I got too Ni there...
Nah, I get it. I'm not quite sure I share you spiritual definition there and how those elements interact, but I can agree on the basic concept that the psyche/spirit/collective identity of the parts of the whole has to be highly motivated (consciously and unconsciously) to make some sort of change. Conscious motivation is easy. It can be as simple as saying: 'I want that, it looks good.'
Getting to the root of the unconscious wants and needs and that often self-contradicting mess of underlying meta-programs, however; is another story entirely. No wonder we look to systems to try and make sense of our head-space. It would be comforting to have one, over-arching explanation for everything and to work just within those parameters, just to keep things simple...
Obviously, though, that's not how it all works. That would be far too optimistic.
The brain is able to retain everything that it experiences. Recall, however, is the obvious barrier. We seem to trust our surface memories and the things that our filter-system has deemed important; but this gives us a very narrow view of the experiences and myriad of other filters we put in place that makes us who we are. I accept the position that the mind operates based on archetypes and automatically assembles information into pre-set packages and biases to support a pattern-based functioning. But there's only so many pattern filters that we can support consciously. Some filters get wait-listed into deeper, unconscious and seldom visited recesses, while the ones that remain closer 'to the surface' have been ranked as most 'helpful' to the psyche during its earliest and/or most trialing experiences. By organizing and ranking information this way, this is what makes recall easier and what affords the psyche enough brain power to conscious interact with its environment without getting bogged down by the specifics of sorting information. Those first barriers that sort through stimuli are what shape the basis of our identity.
Given what we know about savants--true savants-- and their remarkable no-holds access to their minds, it makes sense. Savants typically do not demonstrate the same building blocks of personality ( pattern filters) that people with regular recall do. The key here, then, does some to indicate that we're indebted to the organizational parameters of our own minds.
That pretty much the round-about summary of Jungian psychology.
Last edited:
When I took the MBTI and Enneagram tests when I was a teenager, I was consistently labeled as an INFP and a Type 9. Later, when I took them again in college, I received different results: INFJ and Type 4. Since then, I've always gotten that result. While the results I received in high school could still apply somewhat, I do feel that INFJ and 4w5 is a perfect fit for me.