# Can your MBTI personality type change?



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

dejavu said:


> According to the theory, no, personality type can't change. It's set. If we are going to follow the theory, there are a few explanations as to why a person's personality type may seem different at different points in their life.
> 
> One reason is that a person may fall into their shadow type if they are doing very poorly. Using my own type as an example...say we've got this healthy ENTP who has a great life as a kid, but things go bad at home when she's a teen, and she doesn't handle it well. That teenager withdraws and acts very differently, and appears something like an unhealthy ISFJ. Later in life, she may find balance in her life again and start behaving like herself, but until then, she will be shadowing.
> 
> ...


Thank this post x infinity + 1


----------



## Frog (May 11, 2011)

Cerebro said:


> People who do understand and disagree with it don't make sense. If someone says "I was an ISFJ, now I'm an ISFP", then they do NOT understand it. You cannot understand the MBTI tool unless you understand the underlying principles. If you say your type changes, it makes no sense. If you're discussing MBTI type, one must refer to the theory correctly. You can not be "balanced", you cannot become a different type as you grow older. You always have inclinations, and these are innate, according to the theory. You can realize your type after being confused, but you've always had the same innate psychsocial inclinations. Those don't change. Ever.


Here's my point, though; if Isabel Myers had stuck rigidly to Jung's theories, there would BE no MBTI. Instead, she bastardized them and, through the process of adding to them, improved them. Then along comes David Kiersey and does exactly the same thing with Myers work. Just because Myers, Jung and Kiersey believed that I/E S/N F/T and P/J were intrinsic and permanent does not mean that they ARE, and that we're not allowed to question them. I understand that this assumption is the basis for the theory, but that doesn't mean that the assumption is correct.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

Frog said:


> Here's my point, though; if Isabel Myers had stuck rigidly to Jung's theories, there would BE no MBTI. Instead, she bastardized them and, through the process of adding to them, improved them. Then along comes David Kiersey and does exactly the same thing with Myers work. Just because Myers, Jung and Kiersey believed that I/E S/N F/T and P/J were intrinsic and permanent does not mean that they ARE, and that we're not allowed to question them. I understand that this assumption is the basis for the theory, but that doesn't mean that the assumption is correct.


I wanted to say something along these lines.

There are many personality theories which are very interesting to learn about and try to apply, discuss or improve. I think all of them have to be taken with a pinch of salt though, we have to remember that we have an identity before that and that we are just using imperfect systems by looking at ourselves and other people with our own subjectivity.

(By the way, I am often annoyed by people who claim it is easy to type someone else because people often use persona, have their own history and complex personality and their personality core may not be so obvious, we can only speculate about their type. I know for a fact that while I do take into consideration other people's typing, my own opinion is what is important in this issue and I would not like to hear that I am wrong. People typing me behind my back, I don't mind however. It would just be more interesting to discuss it. XD)

The MBTI is ONE system among the systems. There is still Jung's work, which is relatively different (I think I saw a chart with more Jungian types once on the Internet and it seems that the auxiliary and tertiary functions occupy somewhat the same place, it was interesting but I can't find it, plus he was more open to change within a person), socionics (interesting once you learn more about it, debatable as any system though. The correlations don't work by the way.), enneagram (completely different, debatable but interesting as well), Big Five, etc.
And MBTI is not exaclty jungian (it's not just dichotomies and online tests either).

All of them have in common that they try more or less to come out with general "norms" about the human being but rather than coming out with a unique cultural norm, they create multiple categories in which they found some common traits. But denying the differences among people of the same category would probably go against the whole concept of psychology and study of the human being.
I have come to think as well about the tritype and realised that this idea mostly comes from the small differences people aquire during their lives. I don't know what to think about it really, but I like how it still revolve around a core because it somehow follows this idea that personality CAN and WILL change with time, giving you unusual traits for your core type. I think enneagram is also less still than MBTI in its application because it does not rely on functions.

MBTI does not focus on the same things as enneagram, the descriptions are mostly made for online testing and to be a first step in introspection, which is why it would be strange to come up with the same idea.

The real thing is, once we learn about a system and try to use it, it is good to try to improve it. Communities are very good at coming up with ideas, improved descriptions, etc. However, there is always a risk to come up with an idea which does not fit the system and does not improve it either because it seems to go along with our own idea of personality types and how they work.

I think it is mostly a newbie thing, as I used to think the same about MBTI before I learned about the functions and realised it was far more open than it seems. Probably, the tests and descriptions have a negative impact on the way MBTI is perceived.

I personally consider the dichotomies to be "names". I have stopped using them as something carrying any meaning because it does not fit the great variations between people among a type, which is why we always end up with "INTx" or ENxP", etc. This is also why ambivert people are somewhat ignored and should be unable to type themselves.

I also realise that Extravertion and Introvertion means when applied to perception and functions than when applied to traditional ideas about introverts/extraverts. 

My bet would be that one could easily be an Introvert (drained by interaction, one-in-one conversation, "not a people person") while being a Functional Extravert (Pe or Je dominant), I know it could seem contradictory but I honestly see little link between being truly extraverted and having an dominant extraverted function, especially if this dominant function is Perceiving. Why? Simply because taking information from the external world (which is something we all do to various degrees) does not really imply obviously anything linked with other people and real communication at first (in my opinion). I can easily imagine someone being enegized by contact with the outter world (nature for example) and still have little desire to communicate with others.
This is probably also why extraverts are not necessary people person. And why ENT* are often considered to be "almost introverts".

Typical I/E behaviours are a good indicator but then, you have to go further and determine functions.

(It is just a thought, I can be wrong.)


----------



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

Everyone, I'm not saying that your personality cannot change. Seriously, you guys are letting it go through one ear, out the other, and coming down on me like torrential rains. I still think you misunderstand my point.

We're discussing the particular theory of MBTI. And the theory states that it doesn't change, your character does. Your virtues change, your behaviour changes, etc. But you guys are butchering the theory. Maybe some of you believe temperament can change. That's fine. But we're discussing the THEORETICAL MBTI types. And according to the THEORY of which these THEORETICAL types originate from, it's impossible to change it.

You are all failing to understand the theory, and the theoretical nature of it all. It's more philosophical than you think, and you're taking your misunderstanding out on me, because I understand the theoretical stance of it all, and what the theory states.

Your MBTI is your temperament, not your personality. And by definition, temperament is not changed, ever. It's innate. But it's still theoretical!!! I'm just explaining the theory. IT'S NOT YOUR PERSONALITY IT INDICATES!!!! IT'S YOUR TEMPERAMENT!!! And it's a theoretical term. The MBTI is not supposed to lock you in. It's about the concept of equality, that we're all special, though we may be fundamentally different. It's a *THEORY* with a *PRINCIPLE!!!!*

You can become more comfortable with other functions with practice and development, but your preferences are always there/

Everyone, I ask you. If you're going to try and argue, please read these articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

Discussion is cool. Ignorance is not.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

I think you're overreacting, nobody was attacking you or misunderstanding greatly your post and the system, just discussing the system and why it can be both right and wrong and discussing the various aspects of this theory (am Ti-Ne after all ;-) ).


----------



## mollyowens (Aug 13, 2011)

I do understand the theory. It is complete and consistent within itself. The problem arises when you try to apply the theory to a real-life question like the original poster's. As many facets as there are to temperament theory, it is still a theory, and while it may be elegant on paper, it runs into some real issues when you try to apply it to actual life experience. Then you are faced with a question: do I try to make this person's experience fit into my theory, or do I realize that my theory is perhaps inadequate, oversimplified, or flawed in some way?

My inclination is to the second, especially since Myers Briggs theory in particular doesn't stand up very well to rigorous scientific inquiry. It was never based on empiric data, and has always suffered from the fact that at its core, it is an oversimplification. Many psychologists would never even consider using the MBTI assessment itself because it has such poor records of reliability and validity.

Which is not to discount, again, the utility of MBTI in many applications. Personally, it has changed my life and how I think about things, very much for the better. But you have to remember it is only a construct.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

Well, type itself doesn't change. The only thing that changes is your awereness of yourself, strenghts, weaknesses and all of that.

Keep in mind that the MBTI, as a test, is pretty much binary. You can only be E or I, N or S, T or F, and P or J. As soon as you allow some sort of character (As in, people are not dichotomic, and are pretty much dynamic), the test - or more accurately - retaking the test will give you results of any given type.


----------



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

Leaves said:


> Well, type itself doesn't change. The only thing that changes is your awereness of yourself, strenghts, weaknesses and all of that.
> 
> Keep in mind that the MBTI, as a test, is pretty much binary. You can only be E or I, N or S, T or F, and P or J. As soon as you allow some sort of character (As in, people are not dichotomic, and are pretty much dynamic), the test - or more accurately - retaking the test will give you results of any given type.


Thank you to the power of infinity plus one. Exactly. Awareness is a big factor. And yes, the MBTI is flawed. People do misunderstand that the MBTI indicates temperament, but even temperament is theoretical, and impossible to ever pin down, since the mind is something we can never enter, see, uncover entirely. But the theory does mean something, hence... all this.

I'm sorry if I overreacted. I'm not bothered when people question validity of a theory, because it remains only a theory, and will possibly remain a theory indefinitely. It only bothers me when people will mock a theory by believing the theory but disregarding the very principles.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

Cerebro said:


> I'm sorry if I overreacted. I'm not bothered when people question validity of a theory, because it remains only a theory, and will possibly remain a theory indefinitely. It only bothers me when people will mock a theory by believing the theory but disregarding the very principles.


I do not really see how anyone did this.


----------



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

StrixAluco said:


> I do not really see how anyone did this.


People are discussing the theory, and abusing the terminology. Lacking the basic understanding of terms and types and the ideas behind these theories. Your MBTI type can't change because it is, by definition, temperament, inborn, innate.


----------



## Legba (Aug 22, 2011)

I've found that E and I can change over time.


----------



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

Legba said:


> I've found that E and I can change over time.


Then it's not E and I. Extroversion and Introversion refer to innate psychosocial inclinations. Carl Jung created these terms, and by definition they don't change. If we use these terms, we need to understand what they actually mean.

But that's the trickiest thing about MBTI, isn't it? People can develop, grow, and EXPRESS certain types more readily. I know that I used to SEEM much more extroverted. And frankly, even to this day, you ask anyone from my high school, and they'll say I'm an extrovert (that is, given a limited knowledge of MBTI). I helped organize a grade 9 orientation event/field trip, and I had to command and pump up at least 200 hundred high school freshmen. You ask ANYONE who was there, they'd say I'm extroverted. And even the MOST introverted person can learn to become more social, but from my understanding (actually talking to people, not just reading), they'll still always be introverted. And even the MOST extroverted person can learn to spend time alone without ripping out their eyes with forks, but in the end, they are still extroverted.

Though maybe not to the same degree. I do agree with what you're saying, yet in a bit of a different light. I do think, as you mature and develop your other functions more, your level of expression may change. I think an introvert can begin to live more extrovertedly, and an extrovert more introvertedly. I do believe, as the theory states, that at the end of the day, you're ALWAYS one or the other. Your type does not change. And I don't mean to seem so stubborn, but if we're discussing type, we must know that this theory of typing says it never changes. But I DO think that the INTENSITY of each trait may change.

I think I was always a INF*J*, but when I was younger, I didn't seem like a J at all! If you mistype when you're younger, I feel it's merely that your not at that age where all your traits in the type can be seen. You may notice that a kid is a S, then you realize they're also an F, then maybe P, then you find out they're I. Growth can distort what we know about ourselves.

Hopefully this middle ground makes up for my stubbornness.


----------



## Legba (Aug 22, 2011)

Our personality is a result of our neurochemistry, and that can radically change over time. TIA's, Medication, and the natural aging process. Stability does not mean stagnation.


----------



## TPlume (Aug 27, 2011)

I've also noticed a slight change in the result over the years.. could it be because of mistakes in taking the test? 



dejavu said:


> According to the theory, no, personality type can't change. It's set. If we are going to follow the theory, there are a few explanations as to why a person's personality type may seem different at different points in their life.
> 
> One reason is that a person may fall into their shadow type if they are doing very poorly. Using my own type as an example...say we've got this healthy ENTP who has a great life as a kid, but things go bad at home when she's a teen, and she doesn't handle it well. That teenager withdraws and acts very differently, and appears something like an unhealthy ISFJ. Later in life, she may find balance in her life again and start behaving like herself, but until then, she will be shadowing.
> 
> ...


So, would you consider the results of test done when you're the most comfortable with yourself to be the most accurate?


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Jung had said once that type isn't entirely static.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

TPlume said:


> So, would you consider the results of test done when you're the most comfortable with yourself to be the most accurate?


Yep. That's the idea that is usually put forward. I believe that there's some value in trying to recall your behavior as a child and attempt to figure out your dominant function in that way, as well. From there, you can look at your teenage years and figure out which function was developing then. If you've got those two, you've got your type.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> Jung had said once that type isn't entirely static.


Jungian types are different from MBTI types.


----------



## TPlume (Aug 27, 2011)

@dejavu,
By functions you mean those Ti, Fe etc right? I haven't read much about them yet... I guess I'll have to do some analysis, as of now the major changes from childhood is reduction of shyness, artistic skills; improvement in confidence, analytical(applies to people as well  ) and logical skills

/edit1: StrixAluco, how are Jungian types different?


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

StrixAluco said:


> Jungian types are different from MBTI types.


?????

But MBTI types are _derived_ from Jungian types. The MBTI is an interpretation of Jung's writings, it's not a separate typing system.

In fact, Jung never even had types and didn't want his theories to be used that way, which shows just how much others failed when they tried to put it into comprehensive typing systems. There are no Jungian types and even what's referred to as Jungian functions is a combination of Lenore, Beebe, Myers Briggs etc.


----------



## Cerebro (Jul 30, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> ?????
> 
> But MBTI types are _derived_ from Jungian types. The MBTI is an interpretation of Jung's writings, it's not a separate typing system.
> 
> In fact, Jung never even had types and didn't want his theories to be used that way, which shows just how much others failed when they tried to put it into comprehensive typing systems. There are no Jungian types and even what's referred to as Jungian functions is a combination of Lenore, Beebe, Myers Briggs etc.


Absolutely. The two attitudes, introversion and extroversion, that we use in MBTI, are Jungian terms. They were coined by Jung, defined by Jung, and these words will always be Jungian. We tend to butcher these words today, though, extrovertedness being synonymous with happiness, openness, and agreeableness. But the way there are used properly, they are from Carl Jung himself. He made the words, he gets the credit.

We can also look at the functional terms used: sensation, intuition, thinking, feeling. These terms were Jungian (in this particular context). MBTI is not a warping of his theory, but an EXTENSION of the theory. These are Jungian terms, these are the foundation of MBTI.


----------



## Polymath (Jul 17, 2011)

I was an INFJ all of my life, but just recently I transformed to an ENTJ (or so I believe). I think myers-briggs typing can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

I guess. When I first took the Myers-Briggs test, I tested as INFJ. When I took it again a few years after I tested as xNTP. I took it again some months after that and tested as ISTP and I've been ISTP ever since.


----------



## Reuel Chua (Jun 29, 2012)

That's me as well... 2/3 years and I went from an INTP to ISTP; a bit late on this thread but I was hoping I could get to a ENFJ personality.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm not sure, but in my experience I feel like ENFJ is my "natural" state. I may have behaved like a different type through my life, but deep down I was always an ENFJ. I remember when I was a young child I was very ENFJ, but then I went through phases of INTJ, ESTP, ENTJ, and INFJ. I still kind of behave like an INFJ now (because I'm shy) but I'm really an extrovert so I'm ENFJ. So at least in my case, my MBTI type may have seemed to change, but it's really been the same, even if I didn't know it at the time.


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

Yeah it can , I switch between intj and enfj the whole time. Its just choices


----------



## BakerStreet (May 1, 2014)

MBTI is a matter of 'preferring' functions, so I suppose so.
I'm INFJ. The only other types I identify with are ENFJ and ENTP.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Various tests have had me at ENFJ, INFJ, and INTJ before I sat down to read through descriptions of the Types and cognitive functions. Turns out I'm an INTP according to my readings.

I don't think that I've radically become someone different, but rather grown into myself over the years. Psychology textbooks have said the same thing.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Claiming that your type change is a normal and expected problem that arises from trying to type by trait.
If you type by cognitive functions you will see that it can't really change anymore, 
once you have the skill to type correctly obviously.
Typing is a hard thing to do, similar in complexity to learning to do math.

What if people kept putting up threads with titles like.

"*Can 2+2=4 sometime change into 2+2=5?*"
or 
"*Yesterday I got 2+2=3 but today I got 2+2=6, I'm confused!*"

This is what the thread titles in this subforum sound like to people who have read Jung 
and can type fairly accurate when meeting people face to face.


----------



## The_Lone_Wolf (Mar 26, 2014)

Mine tends to fluctuate in terms of percentages, but I always end up as INTJ. My latest is:

INTJ
Introvert(67%) iNtuitive(12%) Thinking(38%) Judging(33%)

You have distinct preference of Introversion over Extraversion (67%)
You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (12%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (38%)
You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (33%)


----------



## rhoynarqueen (Dec 12, 2014)

I think it can change with mental illness at least. 

When I was acutely mentally ill, I was almost 100% I. 

Now I'm around 75% E, pretty consistently. 

My functions stack is still pretty similar, but still. 

My depressive symptoms caused social withdrawal, lack of interest in social activities, and I did the bare minimum to get by in life- I worked simply so I didn't jeopardize my future, and so that way my life would get better and improve, and so I didn't wallow in my own self-pity. I had no interests, neither by myself or with others. I had no energy at all. It was pure anhedonia, as they call it. I wasn't sad. I had no real feelings other than anger and paranoia, to be honest. And compulsions. 

Now that I'm pretty recovered, aside from some impulsivity, I'm pretty damn extroverted, though it manifests through academic endeavors- I view social interactions as psychological and fascinating, and people as personality studies, and complex both physically and mentally. Hence why I am drawn so much to portraiture, figure drawing, fashion design, psychology, and writing novels- things that are generally unusual pursuits for an ENTJ.


----------



## orionsune (Jan 16, 2015)

@hornet What?

MBTI is simply a Theory with barely any evidence supporting it and hardly any way of consistently measuring this as evidenced by the sheer number of people here describing their changing score over time. Then I noticed there are only about 1 or 2 people claiming this should never change. So when the results of a theory in practice or testing does not support the theory, what does the scientific method tells us to do? Oh yeah, forget the theory and come up with another.

I can also very easily, empirically and consistently test if 2+2 = 5 or 4 by using mathematical logic to design an experiment and generate results to compare to the theory that 2+2 may equal 5 or 4 and make a straight forward determination. Psychology has been largely unable to produce the same kind of consistent results with its theories thus far.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

orionsune said:


> @_hornet_ What?
> 
> MBTI is simply a Theory with barely any evidence supporting it and hardly any way of consistently measuring this as evidenced by the sheer number of people here describing their changing score over time. Then I noticed there are only about 1 or 2 people claiming this should never change. So when the results of a theory in practice or testing does not support the theory, what does the scientific method tells us to do? Oh yeah, forget the theory and come up with another.
> 
> I can also very easily, empirically and consistently test if 2+2 = 5 or 4 by using mathematical logic to design an experiment and generate results to compare to the theory that 2+2 may equal 5 or 4 and make a straight forward determination. Psychology has been largely unable to produce the same kind of consistent results with its theories thus far.


Oh cool a time travel I love those. :dry:

Good for you!
Now consider for a moment that I wrote a real evil meanspirited reply to you 
because you don't get the context the post I wrote was written under.
I then deleted said post cause I like this forum and the mods would dislike it.
The MBTI forum is the playground of the unwashed masses of Jungian psychology so to speak.
Most of the things I say in there isn't to inform, but to deride.

Now this can go two ways.
You go do something else while I play a computer game.

or

I ignorelist you and go play a computer game.

or

You magically manage to transform yourself to a likeable person.

I leave that up to you. :tongue:

Yeah btw, I'm very stressed right now so don't push your luck.


----------



## littlemisscustard (Jan 7, 2015)

Hello. I'm 16 this year and I can't be sure that I've been using my Ni. I mean - the articles I read said that a Ni user is able to predict the future so accurately that they're called as "psychics" and stuff. I mean, I do use my gut feelings a lot, but my "predictions" are rarely true. At least when I try to predict stuff consciously. Is it possible to use Ni unconsciously and be right about the predictions? 

Sometimes I do dream about a certain event and it does happen days, months, or even years later on ( I remember dreams most of the time so I can check when it does truly happen or not ).Does this count as a Ni thing? 

My Fe, Se and Ti is already functioning..i think. 

Pleaseeee help this newbie? Thank you in advance and I'm sorry for troubling you.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Probably not, as it wouldn't make sense in theory. But I think a lot of the time it's not necessarily one's _type_ that changes; rather they are _better informed_ than they were previously so they may have been mis-typed in the past or something.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

I used to think that no, type couldn't change. But that thought flew right out the window, along with the idea that there's some inherent preference to any particular dichotomy of F/T, S/N and the like. There are entirely too many factors to consider when choosing one type. Hell, I used to think I had the functions down up until a week ago. Now, after shuffling all of the information I've collected of MBTI and Jungian Theory around in my head, I've realized I might not know shit. It's frustrating, but it happens. Especially when a person is either in a consistently stressful and psychologically oppressive environment, has some kind of mental illness, or both. Do you see why it'd be hard to stick with one type your whole life? Or, rather, identify with _just one_ out of 16 possibilities? 

I tested as an ESFP 6 years ago. Then, a year ago, ISFP. Still today I'll test as ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ISTP and INTP. Now, as far as functions and my understanding of them go, I know it's highly improbable for me to be an ISFJ or ISTP. ISTPs are entirely too concrete and where I thought I was S over N, I now think I might be somewhere in the middle, or even more on the N side. Fuck, I don't know at this point.

The thing that irritates me is that I feel like I'll never understand all of this enough to finally decide on a type, or what I relate to the most and stick with it. Then again, if I came back a year from now with a better out look on things and different perspective due to all around healthier circumstances, then I might be better able to understand all of this better. And in turn, myself. But right now it seems impossible and just sitting here _knowing_ that I can't know right _now_ gives me an insane amount of grief. Jeez.


----------



## ConsciousIllusion (Feb 12, 2015)

Your type is "inborn", but wait, you develop into what's inborn.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's another paradox of it all that renders absolutes useless.

My parents tried to instill fear into me as far back as 4 years old with the horror movies and sweets (refined sugar raises estrogen and lowers testosterone). Family life was hell, but I remember being pretty social among close friends in school, even though I sometimes got betrayed by the people closest to me, that didn't change as an adult btw. I got into smoking at 16 and was addicted for 18 years, I typed INFJ at the worst. An ENFP girlfriend I had a couple of years ago said I was INFP at my worst. After I quit smoking after her I got my senses and tastes back, my voice, all that. I went ENTJ for a while and now back to ENFP.

I think we are all on a variable scale in health from INFP at the weak end to ESTJ at the strong end. That's not a definitive, I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but for lots of us that holds true, I don't know a lot of Arnold Schwarzenegger type guys who are INFP. I'm sure someone is, I just don't know them. It's more advantageous for a woman to be INFP.

Anyway, clean up your diet (no refined sugars, no cigs/beer/drugs, eat good proteins, poly/monounsatured fats and very minimal trans/saturated fats, simple carbs, greens) and exercise, spend more time outdoors with natural Vitamin D from the sun you'll see lots of changes if you haven't been doing so. I got to see some radical change because I changed a lot of habits over a short span.

^ That knowledge wasn't "inborn", but learning it and knowing that it makes me feel good motivates me to do so more often, even when I'm feeling lazy.


----------

