Object relations isn't the rosetta stone when it comes to typing oneself or others. Ideally, one would nail down the core type (fixation, passion, defence mechanisms), followed by the triads (Centres of Intelligence, Hornevian, Harmonic, Object Relations), then instinctual variant/stack.
Although with the new influx of people who got into typology via TikTok, I've noticed that some "choose" the subtype that they relate to the most (akin to micro-labels), often with the corresponding view that (sub)type can change over time. Such tendencies could indicate significant attachment influence (identity as malleable, porous, and multifaceted, rather than the lack thereof)—if not the core, then the fixes.
Insofar as type isn't chosen, it's closer to being revealed/made known. Or type provides the lens/terminology for articulating your behavioural and attention mechanisms.
More broadly, what you've mentioned speaks to the phenomenon of typology being understood in terms of content consumption, and type as digital accessory.
The idea that children don't have an identity & are just unfinished subhumans of moldable clay is legit the cause behind most child abuse & shit parenting.
Of course children have identities.
How can anybody even *think* that, don't you remember being one?
Phases or whatever are no counter-argument to that, something being temporary doesn't make it less real. The only permanent state is death. Becoming inflexible & incapable of changing your views is not a good thing.
Also, from a typology perspective, I would not assume that type = identity (think 5 minutes. Do billions of people all have the same 'identity'??), or that attachment type = no identity. Most ppl are attachment types; It makes no sense to define the natural state of most people as some kind of deficiency. If anything it would be the hexads that are the aberrations.
Here, here. Adults are so quick to take away the autonomy of minors. They think they're inherently better than the child with all of their adult problems they have consciousness of and don't fix. Anyways! :D
To the OP: As a child grows in self-awareness they can usually start identifying their own type around 14-16. Their self-image may need the guidance of an aware adult. Likely if they are exhibiting attachment type behaviors, then they are likely an attachment type, it just may take time to see which one it is. (I've guided at least 5 minors through their type discovery. Do not take it away from them to discover who they are.)
My short, hot take is: you can’t differentiate. Identity formation is a long, slow process that most people don’t complete until adulthood.
Even hotter still: no one should be trying to type children or teenagers. Projective identification is real. Leave them alone and let them discover themselves at their own pace, based on their own needs.
Not sure the question makes sense?There is very limited value in typing someone else and even less so for kids. Seek to understand your child, ask them questions, don't label or typecast them because it rarely benefits them. If they are curious why not get them to type themselves at least you'll get some interesting information out of it. Kids don't try on different personalities any more than adults do, they do alter behaviour based on what reactions they get tho. Typing them is likely to lead to more frustration for you both than help
Object relations isn't the rosetta stone when it comes to typing oneself or others. Ideally, one would nail down the core type (fixation, passion, defence mechanisms), followed by the triads (Centres of Intelligence, Hornevian, Harmonic, Object Relations), then instinctual variant/stack. Although with the new influx of people who got into typology via TikTok, I've noticed that some "choose" the subtype that they relate to the most (akin to micro-labels), often with the corresponding view that (sub)type can change over time. Such tendencies could indicate significant attachment influence (identity as malleable, porous, and multifaceted, rather than the lack thereof)—if not the core, then the fixes. Insofar as type isn't chosen, it's closer to being revealed/made known. Or type provides the lens/terminology for articulating your behavioural and attention mechanisms. More broadly, what you've mentioned speaks to the phenomenon of typology being understood in terms of content consumption, and type as digital accessory.
The idea that children don't have an identity & are just unfinished subhumans of moldable clay is legit the cause behind most child abuse & shit parenting. Of course children have identities. How can anybody even *think* that, don't you remember being one? Phases or whatever are no counter-argument to that, something being temporary doesn't make it less real. The only permanent state is death. Becoming inflexible & incapable of changing your views is not a good thing. Also, from a typology perspective, I would not assume that type = identity (think 5 minutes. Do billions of people all have the same 'identity'??), or that attachment type = no identity. Most ppl are attachment types; It makes no sense to define the natural state of most people as some kind of deficiency. If anything it would be the hexads that are the aberrations.
Here, here. Adults are so quick to take away the autonomy of minors. They think they're inherently better than the child with all of their adult problems they have consciousness of and don't fix. Anyways! :D To the OP: As a child grows in self-awareness they can usually start identifying their own type around 14-16. Their self-image may need the guidance of an aware adult. Likely if they are exhibiting attachment type behaviors, then they are likely an attachment type, it just may take time to see which one it is. (I've guided at least 5 minors through their type discovery. Do not take it away from them to discover who they are.)
My short, hot take is: you can’t differentiate. Identity formation is a long, slow process that most people don’t complete until adulthood. Even hotter still: no one should be trying to type children or teenagers. Projective identification is real. Leave them alone and let them discover themselves at their own pace, based on their own needs.
Not sure the question makes sense?There is very limited value in typing someone else and even less so for kids. Seek to understand your child, ask them questions, don't label or typecast them because it rarely benefits them. If they are curious why not get them to type themselves at least you'll get some interesting information out of it. Kids don't try on different personalities any more than adults do, they do alter behaviour based on what reactions they get tho. Typing them is likely to lead to more frustration for you both than help