"while personality traits are relatively stable over time, they can and often do gradually change across the life span. What's more, those changes are usually for the better. Many studies, including some of my own, show that most adults become more agreeable, conscientious and emotionally resilient as they age. But these changes tend to unfold across years or decades, rather than days or weeks"
In my case, unmedicated, my executive function is compromised. This means I lack the self-control necessary to regulate emotions and control what I’m paying attention to.
You can do it! You can become a better person! You just need to change every single detail of your life and you will be a better person!
But changes can be negative in a less drastic way too. For example, I'm sure the forced isolation of the past year has brought out depressive tendencies in a lot of people. In the face of that, we do need to be reminded that we can take charge and make positive changes in ourselves and that there are tools like meditation or CBT to help us (although it's certainly not so easy or works so universally as suggested in certain motivational books).
That's what I observed myself - I can have different MBTI depending on situation and context. When "people change" it's mostly the context that changes, and a different personality is assumed like a role by the mind, as if the mind just wants to adapt to each situation as best possible.
Reminds me of the unlimited ability of GPT-3 to assume personalities and points of view, with the right trigger you can get it to be anyone. I'm not saying people's personalities are equally flexible but they do have a degree of context flexibility.
Anecdotally, I think it varies quite a bit between people and changes over time.
Thank you for saying that. There was an interview before Carl Jung passed away, where even he talked about how in certain situation where arch type changes. We all ought to view tests like Myer Briggs as a way to shade light on people and their ways of being.
Everyone thinks I’m extroverted because most of my job involves talking to people.
Perhaps you are assuming that people are "tabula rasa" - blank slates - from which their personalities develop. The MBTI is a criticism of this: it asserts that there is variance in the nature component of people's personalities. That two people exposed to exactly the same environmental stimuli from birth will not react to it the same way.
IMO this is fairly obviously true if you think about it (even if you don't think the MBTI accurately describes the differences.)
Which proof do you have that such a thing exists? Underlying personality traits sounds to me like a theory of epicycles when a simpler more plausible theory exists.
While I'm sure not everyone would agree with that, it's not exactly implausible. Indeed it must surely seem likely to anyone who has observed how wildly differently young children react to the same situation. And has been borne out in twin studies, etc.
Now that doesn't mean that the MBTI has the right theory about the nature of the "nature" component, but my point is that if you are taking the MBTI to be a description of someone's total personality rather than just the nature component of their personality, then you are completely misconstruing what it is claiming.
As I understand it that arguing nature vs. nurture usually stems from badly defined concepts often defined in terms of how they are measured (e. Operationally defined). What happens then is that you get a bunch of correlation between various concepts just because one concept pollutes into another, not because of how we are geared. Nature vs. nurture is also an awfully dualistic approach and completely misses (or ignores) interaction effects.
To tie this into this thread. GP is not saying that nurture defines personality as opposed to nature. They are simply claiming that it is malleable. How malleable, under which circumstances, malleable to what, which aspects, etc. are all still open questions which may be ascribed to ones genes (and maybe not; hence the open question). This is the interaction effect which the dualistic nature vs. nurture debate completely misses.
I would actually go further then GP and say that the question is flawed. Personality is not a useful psychological concept and does not describe behavior any better then, say, political leaning, religion, or how many languages you speak. That is to say, measuring personality and categorizing people based on personality traits brings us no closer in understanding human behavior. That is to say, measuring personalities and ascribing traits is not only harmful—like GP says—but also bad psychology.
> How malleable, under which circumstances, malleable to what, which aspects, etc. are all still open questions
Indeed. And the MBTI theory makes a specific and very interesting claim about this open question: that what is malleable, under which circumstances, etc varies between people. And furthermore, that there is an extent to which that variation follows certain set patterns (possibly as a strong statistical average with exceptions rather than a sure thing), such that we can classify people by which pattern(s) of malleability they follow.
This doesn't mean that all malleability is subject to these patterns. There can still be aspects that are common to all people, and aspects that are completely individual. But the claim is that there also some aspects that apply to group of peoples.
Of course, such a claim needs to be substantiated and the current evidence is mostly from clinical observation rather than scientific experimentation. But whether it is true or not there is good reason to believe that the lack of scientific evidence stems from a lack of ability to measure accurately because (as you say) mainstream psychology has very little to say on this topic at the moment and exactly how this aspect of the mind works is still considered an open question.
> That is to say, measuring personality and categorizing people based on personality traits brings us no closer in understanding human behavior. That is to say, measuring personalities and ascribing traits is not only harmful—like GP says—but also bad psychology.
I should note that the MBTI does NOT measure external traits. It (attempts to) measure an actual functional mechanism in the mind/brain (which it postulates to exist).
The one and only time I did the Myers-Briggs stuff, the speaker made it absolutely abundantly clear:
1) Traits were contextual. We're different around family, friends, coworkers, commuting into work... (Duh, right?)
2) Though people can fake traits, like an introvert acting extroverted, doing so requires more effort. So maybe ponder that your resting state traits are more likely the "real you".
2.1) The speaker used an ice berg metaphor, which stuck with me. People present an aspect of themselves in public. With effort, you can rotate your ice berg to show other aspects. Removing the effort allows the ice berg to find its resting state.
Setting apart 3), as I would imagine a rotated iceberg might not come back to a resting state identical to before the rotation.
If the goal is to predict anything, we could also assume that context will change with time (even working at the same company, people change, assignments change, incentives change).
All in all it feels like a super weird disclaimer for something that is supposed to be useful.
Per the article, your traits are on a spectrum. Not binary. You may be more extroverted at church and less at work.
Big 5 is not an established scientific theory, it has never been. In fact in the field of psychology, personality is as useful as a concept as your astrological sign is. There is no evidence that personality trades exists outside of factor analyzing pen and paper tests, let alone that they can be measured and classified.
For personality to be a useful psychological concept it would need to be predictive of behavior. So far we have more evidence that religion has a bigger role then personality traits. E.g. studies find that the more religious people are the less they obey in the Milgram experiment, however there is no evidence that people that score highly on the agreeableness factor do.
I went and did some exploring of the literature and found a study[1] that seems to contradict this statement. E.g. they found a significant correlation between Agreeableness factor and obedience in the Milgram experiment. However, the effect size is fairly small. Political leaning was also significant with similar effect size, and this study has yet to be replicated.
In the end, Myers Briggs is harmful because it gives a simplistic view of something complicated, and makes people believe they are stuck with a particular personality. In reality all it does is give an estimate of your outlook on the day you took the test. Personality is emergent as a response to your needs to interact with the world given your current career, relationship, peer group, social standing, and so on. It's not fixed. Or at least, it's far less fixed and far more fluid than Myers Briggs would have you believe.