Functianalyst

I was ISTP, but now I am behaving more extraverted so am I ESTP…. Heard something similar?

Really folks? It’s a pervasive and ongoing statement or question. Jung never commits to saying without a doubt that type doesn’t change. However he strongly implies that we are born with a dominant function or what he called a type:

The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favor of a definite attitude. We might however logically object that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform…. This argument though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother. Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while the other child another type in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition.

Myers and Briggs was much more subtle in their take on how we derive at a type. Although Katherine Briggs agreed with Jung that type could be genetic, her daughter and son-in law proposed that tabula rasa was still possible in many cases, ergo our environment influences what type we will be. In the case of the latter, we may infer that our types are determined by environment, but my personal opinion is that we are genetically born with our type.

Q: Why then does it appear our type changes?

A: Several explainable reasons for this is 1) the person not knowing themselves or because they’re too young to have developed a dominant function; 2) because we depend merely on test to get our results; 3) and because we still battle with knowing how type works, in particularly that the function processes are fluid, not static like dichotomies that can only offer us a forced choice of either/or. The fact is that we have access naturally to all four functions on some level and direction (i.e., Ne-Fi-Te-Si = ENFP):

• nosce te ipsum – Or as the Oracle pointed out to Neo in the movie the Matrix, temet nosce. Folks if you truly don’t know who you are then taking assessments will do one thing, perpetuate the existing lying to yourself. Your confirmation of type is a perilous downward spiral since the foundation does not change. On the other hand if you are taking test to determine your type, expecting it to change then this is Einstein’s definition of insanity at it’s best (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) Know yourself or test only tell you what you want to hear.

I am reminded of a recent thread where people openly admitted to lying about their type. I only can ask, Why? Objective self analysis is almost impossible. As humans we are prone to lie to ourselves. This is probably most notable in introverting types since we are by nature subjective, regardless of the function we dominate with. So to continue taking tests is futile. We are also social animals by allowing ourselves to be defined by what we do, what we own, our jobs, our families, our friends…. This is generally apparent in extraverting types finding it almost impossible to determine who they are.

Q: Okay I get it Functional, chances are we are born with a certain disposition, but as you said Jung merely implied this and Myers and Briggs gives what seems a rational reason why we can change type. I still think that type can change.

A: Consider the ramifications if this is true:

• If we are not born with a particular disposition that would imply the only way of knowing our type is with a test. We can change our type readily as we choose, which means essentially there is no such thing as type since we are all the same and merely change as we prefer.

• ”Hey baby what’s your sign?” For those too young to know what that means, it was a pick up line during the 70’s when astrological signs were a fad. It was dopey and that is what type would be; a mere social tool that may be used as an icebreaker.

• Not only would there be little reason to study type if we can change it as we prefer, but all of the tools we use it for (admittedly some questionable) would be non-existent. There would no reason to discuss type rarity since we are the same until we test (but that is the worse reason and I still say type rarity is an urban legend), determining why we behave a certain way in differing circumstances, would be untrue, determining our career-wise could not be measured (although I am still suspect as to whether this can be concluded anyhow) and the list goes on.

In conclusion folks, claiming our type changes rebukes any validity to type.