# "Mixed" types exist



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Hi everyone, 
So apparently most people think a person has to necessarily be one of the 16 types and that having equally ranked functions is impossible but there are also some people that think they are borderline e/i, f/t etc. and usually they are told that they should learn more about the functions to decide on one. It is strange to me because there are famous people that look like "hybrids" and they could be examples that "mixed" types are possible ? 

For example : 
*1-Borderline on dichotomies*
-Ryan Gosling INXJ
-Sophie Kinsella (author)	ENXP
-Julia Roberts XNFX (6w7 sx)
-Marilyn Monroe	XSFX (6w7 sx)
-Steve Jobs XNTX
(X meaning 50-50)
*2-Hybrids of one type and its opposite*
- Meryl Streep ESFP/INTJ
- John Lennon ESTJ/INFP
- Steven Spielberg, Angelina Jolie (6w7 sx), Robert Hoffman (dancer/actor)	ESTP/INFJ
- Stephen King ESFJ/INTP
- JK Rowling, Barack Obama ENFP/ ISTJ
- Tom Cruise(6w7 sx), Eminem, Amanda Sing (youtuber) ENFJ /ISTP

I personnally think I am a XSTX too that's why I have tried to type as "mixed" those who look hard to type. I consider the people in the list hard to type and saw that they have gotten many various types from different typers (all NT types and ISTP for Steve Jobs, INTP, INFP, INFJ for JK Rowling, INFP, ENFP, ESFJ for Julia Roberts etc.)

I have seen other X--X types in real life too and it seems this (X--X) could be considered as a type ? The specific traits are : 6w7 sx, fitting the enneagram 6 description to a T (wary, engaging, looking for support), seeming kind of self-centered, but also "diplomatic" (want to be in good terms with everyone). 
They look chameleon-like because they have no shadow functions (or all functions are also shadow functions). Also it seems the tritype depends on the letters in the middle (693 for a XXXX for example).

Also I know the second list of mixed types looks weird but it kind of made sense when I tried to type those people. They look chameleon like with still 2 cognitive functions that stand out as dominant (even 2 pairs: dom and aux) and those 2 are those of opposite types (?). In the case of JK Rowling her books look very ENFP with the fantasy, humour, but she herself look like an ISTJ in public appearances (very serious and "austere").

What do you think ? Thanks for reading.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

What mixed type am I?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I hope so, because that would be what I am. I can't for the life of me figure myself


----------



## Enistery (Feb 13, 2015)

I don't think it's possible because everybody uses one of the eight cognitive functions more so than others, consciously or sub-consciously.

Ambiverts are most definitely in existence (people who are both introverted and extroverted), but there is a big difference between, say, an INTP and an ENTP. Not necessarily how they do around people, but more so where they get their ideas from; the outside world or the inside world.

An ENTP can be introverted socially, but their Ne relies on the outside world, and since that dominates, they end up being typed as an extrovert.

That's just my two cents though.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

I think there are a lot of other factors that determine someone's appearance, behavior, and choices (factors which would confuse our ability to type celebrities and authors):

1. Enneagram type
2. Enneagram health level
3. Personality disorders (and severity thereof)
4. Mental illnesses
5. Childhood / development
6. Personal preference

I think you can only talk about the 16 types in the context of cognitive functions. If you limit the conversation to that, a type will probably emerge (for yourself...not necessarily for people you don't know).


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Kaizuka : I don't understand what you mean because you said you don't think it's possible but still think "ambiverts are most definitely in existence", what do you mean by ambivert ? To me, ambiverts are people whose PRIMARY function is borderline E-I, so the type is X---. If dichotomies are continuums following bell curves as it is apparently said, then most people are close to the middle but some could be right in the middle ?

The thing is, the more "mixed" a person is, the more chameleon like he looks because there are several preferences and the focus is divided. They share common traits with several "pure" types but don't go all the way. They are more "balanced" but also blander I guess. That's why they fit the 6 well, the 6 being the "anxious"/ambiguous enneagram.


----------



## Enistery (Feb 13, 2015)

@miranda1

No, no. I think there's a HUGE misconception on what "extrovert" and "introvert" actually refers to on a Myers Briggs index. "Intovert" on a Myers Briggs test doesn't equal valuing alone time and preferring to be away from people.

E/I isn't a function -- it's a label. Introverts "conceal" their first function (Ni, Ti, Si, Fi), while extroverts "reveal" their first function (Ne, Te, Se, Fe). Someone who's labelled as an Ixxx is inward-oriented. In the case of an Ni, they get their information from INSIDE them, while someone who dominates with Ne gets their information from OUTSIDE of them.

An ENTP can be an introvert socially. They can value alone time, and be de-energized around other people, but because Ne is their first function, their mind is outward-oriented. 

You can't be an IxTx because you dominate with certain functions. You don't switch back and forth on which cognitive functions "front."


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

How would the functions look in an xSTx? I don't understand what that means.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

XSTX is a mix of ESTP, ISTP, ESTJ and ISTJ. So it has 4 co-dominant functions Si/Se/Ti/Te, 4 co-auxiliary functions Si/Se/Ti/Te, 4 co-tertiary functions Si/Se/Ti/Te, 4 co-inferior functions Si/Se/Ti/Te. Well I don't really know how to word this.

I read that the primary function was the function a person is most conscious of, but for me I'm most conscious of 4 functions but in a more limited way. Also when I'm in Se "mode", the auxiliary has to be Ti (not Fi), making me act like an ESTP, when is Si "mode", the auxiliary has to be "Te" etc.

Was that too confusing ? lol


----------



## Michael Maldonado (Dec 8, 2014)

I very strongly believe in mixed personality types, considering I am an ambiavert, being both INFP and ENFP.


----------



## Nein (Oct 15, 2014)

This easy change of functions, as you described, is very unlikely. Overall, though, it depends on which theory you choose to use. The MB theory would, technically, allow the existence of hybrids, since it's based on dichotomies. Jung seems to make pretty clear that you can only use one function as your dominant and conscious function, having more trouble with the other ones, though he did, eventually, said that types are not static throughout life.

In any way, the cognitive functions are about the process rather than the outcome. Any type can look like any thing, you cannot really trust what you see, by itself. Most of behaviour and writing styles, for example, can be trained, plus, sociocultural aspects have influence in it.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I don't think such a conclusion can really be inferred from attempting to type other people, particularly not celebrities, since the more likely explanation is almost always simply that you haven't enough information to know which side they fall on.

With that said, whether you're inclined to favour a dichotomy-centric model or a function-centric one, I think it follows that some people are, in a sense, between types - or "mixed" types, if you prefer - so long as you hold to certain assumptions. For someone who sees each dimension (I/E, S/N, &c.) as a continuum, I think accepting the premise that you can have a preference of greater or lesser strength means you have to accept the possibility of people whose preference is exactly in-between. Similarly with functions, if it's said to be possible for a person's preference for each function to vary - which it does seem to be, if you accept notions like dom-tert loops, or that the auxiliary "hasn't developed enough yet", or indeed just "function development" in general - then it doesn't seem implausible to say that two or more functions could equally be dominant. So the possibility of being "in-between" certainly makes some sense to me, at least...


----------



## Enistery (Feb 13, 2015)

@miranda1

Okay, everyone uses all 8 cognitive functions. There are a certain 4 that everyone uses DOMINANTLY. EVERYONE uses all of the functions though.

You don't switch out on cognitive functions.


----------



## Michael Maldonado (Dec 8, 2014)

Well, I am rather unlikely then, good sir.

If your looking for some sort of scientific backing for my existence,( which should not be necessary), look up Jung's research on ambiaverts.

I promise you I am not a unicorn, If you catch what I mean.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kaizuka said:


> @miranda1
> 
> No, no. I think there's a HUGE misconception on what "extrovert" and "introvert" actually refers to on a Myers Briggs index. *"Intovert" on a Myers Briggs test doesn't equal valuing alone time and preferring to be away from people.*
> 
> ...


The E/I items on the official MBTI include:


Are you usually (E) a "good mixer," or (I) rather quiet and reserved?
Do you tend to spend a lot of time (I) by yourself, or (E) with others?
Do you find being around a lot of people (E) gives you more energy, or (I) is often "draining"?
There are no questions relating to "where you get your information."

And as far as ambiversion goes, Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

Now you know.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

No. That isn't how it works. Every type is ambiverted between their introverted function and their extroverted function.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ground Marshal said:


> No. That isn't how it works. Every type is ambiverted between their introverted function and their extroverted function.


Obviously that depends on how you want to define ambivert, but surely the most common definition is to do with being _equally_ introverted and extraverted? So, in relation to functions, the question becomes one of whether introverted and extraverted function can in some sense be "equal" to each other (or function_s_ if you're inclined to think the balance has to be across the board before it counts as ambiversion).


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

I do believe that there could be mixed types but not to the extent that you assert. 

I think there could be an ENxP, ISXJ, INxJ, etc. where the auxiliary/tertiary functions are not differentiated. Like there could be an ISxJ who is so heavily Si-dominant, that whether they prefer Te or Fe is kind of whatever. I do believe there could also be the case of near co-dominance, like an ENTP who is super-duper Ti heavy. Such an ENTP may be considered ambiverted and it would be extremely difficult for an outsider to determine whether they are INTP or ENTP. I don't think there could really truly be an xNTP in a person without a psychological disorder. 

Another case I thought of recently, is in the case of someone who is either very heavily extraverted or introverted, so much so that their auxiliary matches the orientation of the dominant. Let's say a heavily introverted INFP, which would no longer be Fi Ne but Fi Ni. Such an INFP might seem very much like an INFJ, maybe not enough to be an actual INFx but maybe enough that the term "Ni-mixed INFP" could work.

J.K. Rowling is INFJ, which may explain her aptness with the type of fantasy she created with the serious demeanor you observed. And how is John Lennon an ESTJ/INFP? Isn't he an ENFP?


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

miranda1 said:


> So apparently most people think a person has to necessarily be one of the 16 types












Nobody says that there must be exactly 16 types.

But there are exactly 16 types if you use four dichotomies:

(E + I) x (S + N) x (T +F) x (J +P) = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = *16 types*

If you want to add an ambivert option (E=I):

(E + A + I) x (S + N) x (T + F) + (J +P) = 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = *24 types*

You get the following eight additional types: ASTJ, ASTP, ASFJ, ASFP, ANFJ, ANFP, ANTJ, ANTP

Then you want to test your 24 types empirically to learn more about your eight ambivert types. But how do you decide when the condition E=I is met? The larger you design the ambivert zone the more introversion and extraversion will be made irrelevant. 

If you want a neutral position for all four dichotomies: 

(E + A + I) x (S + A + N) x (T + A + F) x (J + A + P) = 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = *81 types* 

*But I don't think that the new types with four, three or two As would be popular options at Personalitycafé.* 

Imagine that you use a dichotomy slider and move slowly from one extreme to the other and ask yourself in which way a personality type changes. 

Now, how many personality types do you need? Add the following options:


No preference 
Slight preference 
Moderate preference 
Clear preference
Very clear preference

(E1 + E2 + E3 + E4 + A + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4) x 
(S1 + S2 + S3 + S4 + A + N1 + N2 + N3 + N4) x 
(T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 + A + F1 + F2 + F3 + F4) x 
(J1 + J2 + J3 + J4 + A + P1 + P2 + P3 + P4) 

= 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 

= *6561 Types* (656,100 test subjects?

Examples: A4S2T3J1, E3N1AP2, I3S1AJ2, E1N3F4A

You can easily get the necessary data – with the exception of the ambivert option, of course – from the official MBTI test Type indicator . 

We could even add a range for the preferences, like E(1-2)N(3-4)T(2-3)P(1-4). But even without this complication we are struck with 6561 types and wonderful type indicators like E3N1AP2. There are many MBTI fans who find it difficult to choose 1 of 16 types, and there are many who find it difficult to understand the other 15 types.












Instead of wasting time thinking about E=I, S=N, T=F and J=P I would study how a type changes with the change of the clarity of a preference (slight/clear):

(E1 + E2 + I1 + I2) x (S1 + S2 + N1+N2) x (T1 + T2 + F1 + F2) x (J1 +J2 + P1 +P2) 

= 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 

= *256 Types*

Examples: E1N2T1P3, I2S3F2J2

But I would begin with options for a slight and a clear preference only for extraversion and introversion:

(E1 + E2 + I1 + I2) x (S + N) x (T + F) + (J +P) 

= 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 

= *32 types*

Examples:

I2NTP
I1NTP
E1NTP
E2NTP

After some testing we create type profiles for our 32 types and see whether it was worth the effort. 

Alternatively there could be threads where types with a slight preference for extraversion or introversion describe in which way they deviate from the type profiles which are based on clear preferences.

It is a pity that we don't have the choice in our profiles to use lower case letters for the type indicator to indicate a slight preference, like eNTp.

And “the functions”? Who cares.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I always saw xxxx as a code for a stack of functions. If the functions are irrelevant then the code is meaningless in my eyes.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Have we even established exactly what a "mixed type" is?

I don't believe mixed types exist because I define them as types whose functions aren't ordered in a manner that fits into the 16 type model. That's pretty much it. I don't believe that landing in the middle of one of the dichotomies means your function stack doesn't fit one of the types. In the case of an ENFP with a very close T/F, for example, I believe they simply have a weaker than average auxiliary function and a stronger than average tertiary function. Would some people define that as a mixed type?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Khiro said:


> Have we even established exactly what a "mixed type" is?
> 
> I don't believe mixed types exist because I define them as types whose functions aren't ordered in a manner that fits into the 16 type model. That's pretty much it. I don't believe that landing in the middle of one of the dichotomies means your function stack doesn't fit one of the types. In the case of an ENFP with a very close T/F, for example, I believe they simply have a weaker than average auxiliary function and a stronger than average tertiary function. Would some people define that as a mixed type?


I'm inclined to think a dichotomy-centric understanding of type lends itself more to the idea of "mixed types" than the function-centic version. An ENFP with T/F very close differs from an ENTP with T/F very close on account of the close functions - I think, given the XYXY functions model, it's fair enough to say those aren't mixed types. But what about a person whose dominant and auxiliary, and tertiary and inferior, are both almost equivalent? Surely using the model I suspect you're using at least makes the possibility of being a mixed type in respect of whether you're an introvert or not possible?


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I'm inclined to think a dichotomy-centric understanding of type lends itself more to the idea of "mixed types" than the function-centic version.


I would agree with this. Using the functions I did type for a bit as INxP (leaning INFP) because my inferior Te tends to come out quite a bit. I'm not purely emotional or judging every single little thing as "good" or "bad", and I think the tests emphasise this a little too much. I or E is a bit hard to pick with a lot of people too.



> But what about a person whose dominant and auxiliary, and tertiary and inferior, are both almost equivalent? Surely using the model I suspect you're using at least makes the possibility of being a mixed type in respect of whether you're an introvert or not possible?


I think of myself as fitting this scenario a bit, but I suspect that most healthy individuals have an auxiliary that's near the dominant in strength, simply because there's got to be some way to make sense of the information you're taking in. I can relate to strong Ne and I can relate to parts of inferior Si as well. But when I compare myself to Ne-doms I am clearly a Ji-dom rather than Pe-dom, so that's how I know I'm not a more withdrawn ENFP.

If I'm having trouble typing someone, I assume I'm lacking in information rather than assume that the system doesn't work. Seems kind of arrogant to assume you know 100% how someone else ticks, although with time it's certainly possible to type someone you know well.

In a lot of cases I'd say that claiming to be a mixed type is a bit of a cop out due to lack of introspection. The functions especially are a bit daunting and it takes time to really figure them out and see how you use them. Of course @StunnedFox I know you've had some trouble in the past and I'm not saying that you're like this - but I think it's one possible reason for someone coming to that conclusion in general. I could probably come up with a number of other reasons but I've gotta go so I might be back if I think of something else worth contributing. But at this point in time I'm certainly sceptical.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

As for me I think I would have been an Extrovert if I had not got anxiety disorder. I still possess Extroverted tendency around people; even with stranger, each time when I am in my calmest mood. Therefore, it makes me wonder if I have a suppressed E? Yet that couldn't be much of a case here since I also like to spend my time alone to recharge myself spiritually. I don't know much about "mixed types" though.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> What mixed type am I?


xxFP

I don't believe in mixed types really? But I mean there are those people who "seem" to defy typology. Usually that's not the case, when you analyze them enough and get their feedback, but from a distance a lot of people (and *cough* characters) can look fuzzy.


----------



## Vayne (Nov 6, 2014)

Ha ! I get it. You just want to be more rare, didn't you !? :tongue:


----------



## FireThistle (Jan 28, 2015)

Whenever I take any tests I always get only around five to ten percent on the thinking/feeling and judging/percieving...


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I'm inclined to think a dichotomy-centric understanding of type lends itself more to the idea of "mixed types" than the function-centic version. An ENFP with T/F very close differs from an ENTP with T/F very close on account of the close functions - I think, given the XYXY functions model, it's fair enough to say those aren't mixed types. But what about a person whose dominant and auxiliary, and tertiary and inferior, are both almost equivalent? Surely using the model I suspect you're using at least makes the possibility of being a mixed type in respect of whether you're an introvert or not possible?


I'm inclined to believe there would still be a definitive type, but that discerning it might border on impossible.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





reckful said:


> Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.
> 
> Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:
> 
> ...


I have always get a slight extraversion score on SLOAN, so I don't know why you view my being an ENTP as so incongruent?


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

LuvGen said:


> As for me I think I would have been an Extrovert if I had not got anxiety disorder. I still possess Extroverted tendency around people; even with stranger, each time when I am in my calmest mood. Therefore, it makes me wonder if I have a suppressed E? Yet that couldn't be much of a case here since I also like to spend my time alone to recharge myself spiritually. I don't know much about "mixed types" though.


Sorry to hear about the anxiety. It's a bit of a pain, isn't it? I have social anxiety and it really messes with my self-perception. 

It's a myth that introverts can't be chatterboxes. I used to talk people's ears off all the time when I was a kid (and less self-conscious). Even now I really open up when I hang out with my friends. I'm not even that tired after spending hours with certain people, even though in most situations I'm very much an introvert.

That's why typing purely on behaviour is such a bad idea. Different people are going to see different sides of you, and their own type can affect how they interpret your behaviour as well. My INFP friend sees me in a totally different light to my ENTP boyfriend, as I was (somewhat painfully) reminded of when I was writing a job application in their native language over the weekend. I'm pretty consistent in my presentation, too, so I can only imagine how much more extreme the differences would be with a more chameleon-like personality.

The question for you to think about would be, do you use Se to take in just enough information to satisfy your Ti? Or do you go all out with your Se and then use Ti just enough to make sense of what you're observing/experiencing? For me, I tend to view things in terms of how they could be, and am always thinking of how things are connected or how they might be part of a pattern. But I don't have the same need for new ideas and experiences that an ENxP has. If my Fi isn't interested, it's very easy for me to switch off the Ne. Fi, on the other hand, I really can't switch off. In this way I can see that it's Ne serving Fi and not the other way around - therefore, cognitively speaking, I'm an introvert rather than an extrovert. 

Social introvert vs. extravert is maybe a bit more difficult to answer, especially if you don't know how you'd be without the anxiety weighing you down. It's probably safe to say you'd be more outgoing, but how much more energy you'd gain from social interactions is a bit harder to guess.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Mixed types don't exist.

People confused about their type do exist. 

erc2:


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

ElliCat said:


> Sorry to hear about the anxiety. It's a bit of a pain, isn't it? I have social anxiety and it really messes with my self-perception.
> 
> It's a myth that introverts can't be chatterboxes. I used to talk people's ears off all the time when I was a kid (and less self-conscious). Even now I really open up when I hang out with my friends. I'm not even that tired after spending hours with certain people, even though in most situations I'm very much an introvert.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I think those questions have been quite helpful. From what I have experience, I use a lot of Se in the activities that I do.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Khiro said:


> I'm inclined to believe there would still be a definitive type, but that discerning it might border on impossible.


That's an interesting perspective. If the functions are merely near-equal, then I could perhaps accept that, but if they're actually equivalent? If a person's natural preferences are actually so balanced as to have I/E be completely level, what would it be that makes saying they are one or the other, and it's simply near-impossible to discern, the right way of classifying that, as opposed to admitting for mixed types? I'm curious...



ElliCat said:


> I would agree with this. Using the functions I did type for a bit as INxP (leaning INFP) because my inferior Te tends to come out quite a bit. I'm not purely emotional or judging every single little thing as "good" or "bad", and I think the tests emphasise this a little too much. I or E is a bit hard to pick with a lot of people too.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


I certainly think tests generally have a tendency to seem a touch extreme, making picking either definitive option seem too bold a statement if your own preference isn't quite as strong as descriptions suggest, and leading people to consider the possibility of a middle position instead. And, in typing oneself or, particularly, in trying to type others, concluding that you sit quite close to the middle could quite easily be a substitute for not being able to discern something about people due to a lack of sufficient introspection (in typing oneself) or the myriad of problems with trying to get at the psyche of others (in other cases). And, as you say, there could be many other reasons for people electing to consider themselves as a hypothetical hybrid type - from the "special snowflake syndrome" people on here love to refer to so much, to misinterpreting a test result ("this functions test says "unknown" for "most likely type", that must mean I'm an in-between type), to attempting to fuse two different conceptions of the theory together ("I'm clearly Si-Fe, but I also have a clear T preference, so that makes ISxJ"), to all sorts of other possibilities. 

But it does seem to me, regardless of whether any real person actually fits such a pattern, that any MBTI theory in which the degree of preference on a dimension/between functions is said to be able to vary should admit for the possibility that said variance can in some cases result in an equivalence. In one sense, the fact that it appears to be possible to be on "either side" of some line on a spectrum - whether that's between, say, S and N, or whether that's between Fe-Ni and Ni-Fe - surely at least raises the question of why we discount the possibility of S=N, or Ni=Fe, or whatever. In that sense, if not necessarily in the sense of there being a currently existing person with such a set of preferences, I would say I'm skeptical of any claim that "mixed" types don't exist as theoretically possible personality configurations (in much the same way that if tomorrow there were no Se-dominant people, that wouldn't mean ESxP types don't exist so much as that no-one who is an ESxP exists - the type itself still does, a set of zero members). Perhaps I'm just taking the question differently from how you are?


----------



## lumostartarus (Apr 1, 2014)

Anyone has their Se and Si absolutely equal to each other?


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> That's an interesting perspective. If the functions are merely near-equal, then I could perhaps accept that, but if they're actually equivalent? If a person's natural preferences are actually so balanced as to have I/E be completely level, what would it be that makes saying they are one or the other, and it's simply near-impossible to discern, the right way of classifying that, as opposed to admitting for mixed types? I'm curious...


I suppose I see the range of preferences as infinite, therefore I see 50/50 as too unlikely to be plausible.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

I believe that 16 types is not enough .,. uh, hybrid? perhaps I'm INTJ ENFP ENFJ INTP I guess


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> But it does seem to me, regardless of whether any real person actually fits such a pattern, that any MBTI theory in which the degree of preference on a dimension/between functions is said to be able to vary should admit for the possibility that said variance can in some cases result in an equivalence. In one sense, the fact that it appears to be possible to be on "either side" of some line on a spectrum - whether that's between, say, S and N, or whether that's between Fe-Ni and Ni-Fe - surely at least raises the question of why we discount the possibility of S=N, or Ni=Fe, or whatever. In that sense, if not necessarily in the sense of there being a currently existing person with such a set of preferences, I would say I'm skeptical of any claim that "mixed" types don't exist as theoretically possible personality configurations (in much the same way that if tomorrow there were no Se-dominant people, that wouldn't mean ESxP types don't exist so much as that no-one who is an ESxP exists - the type itself still does, a set of zero members). Perhaps I'm just taking the question differently from how you are?


I think you're nitpicking much more than I am, bloody Ti-dom. XD I'm not very precise with this sort of thing, I'm afraid. Maybe because I think of this as a framework rather than a box that one must fit into, I'm a bit more flexible with how it applies to people. *shrugs* 

I really honestly think that if you're talking functions, there would be one preferred dominant, even if it's by the tiniest fraction. But sure, if you're talking theoretically, it _could_ be true. What are the chances of someone being exactly 50/50 in the middle, though? It kind of flies in the face of how I understand the role of the dominant function, which is that of one which can't be switched off. Whether that lies in actual theory or whether it's just something I've picked up somewhere, I don't really know. But that's probably why I balk at saying it's possible in a practical sense - because if your Ni=Fe type does exist, does it mean that they switch between the two as dominant (and therefore turning one off at a time)? Or does it mean that they are locked into both Ni and Fe at the same time?


----------



## Falhalterra (Apr 24, 2011)

From the many times I tried out different tests from being online to in books, I seem to always get a mix of INFJ/INFP, with sometimes really getting close to getting sensing over intuition, but my J and P almost balance out. I am more perceiver than judger, and I know that now, but I am not surprised how close to both I am.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Chesire Tower said:


> I have always get a slight extraversion score on SLOAN, so I don't know why you view my being an ENTP as so incongruent?


You chose the introverted response to 16 of the 21 E/I items on the official MBTI, and have noted that you usually come out introverted on MBTI-related tests — including the 3DPsyche test that you thought captured you especially well. And introversion fits 5w4 considerably better as well.

Most importantly, though, you've made many self-descriptive posts here at PerC, and as you know, I rounded up quite a lot of them as part of my type-you project — and I've put a collection of some of the ones that got you introversion points in the spoiler. They're the biggest reason I view an E typing for you as "incongruent" — and again, I'd say they're incongruent with _both_ Myers's _and Jung's_ descriptions of extraverts.


* *






Chesire Tower said:


> When I was a kid, I was very shy and introverted and mostly kept to myself. The problem was that the other kids didn't approve of this behaviour and would bully me.
> 
> I had to figure out a way to stop the bullying; so I changed my behaviour: I _forced_ myself to talk to the other kids, sit at other kids' lunch tables - even though I preferred to eat alone. I always made it a point to not stand out and be a target and you know what, it worked! No one bullied me anymore but I paid a very high price for this because I am still "performing" to this day. Around other people, I wouldn't know how to be myself if I tried.





Chesire Tower said:


> I don't think it's as much as being "socially accepted" but more about being extremely introverted. Like most people, I have a strong need for companionship, however I intrinsically dislike relating to other people not because I don't like them; in fact I do like other people. It just feels _unnatural_ for me to interact with them because I am much more comfortable withdrawing into myself.
> 
> ... I'm not sure if it is just "childhood conditioning", although I suspect it does play a big role in it. It might also be genetic. Perhaps, I have an inborn temperament to be so withdrawn; I don't know.





Chesire Tower said:


> [IEI] seems to be the only description that values humour, aesthetics and ideas and imagination, logic and ethics while taking account my extreme introversion.





Chesire Tower said:


> While I do relate to a lot of the description; I am extremely introverted. I practically live in my head and the term "disembodied mind," seems to have been conceived for me.





Chesire Tower said:


> Okay, I do understand why you think that. I do realize that I come off as an extrovert on this forum. All I can say to you, is; that you would have no difficulty pegging me as an introvert, if this conversation was happening IRL.
> 
> I can spend weeks without talking to another living being and I am fine with it. While, I adore my two closest friends; I literally have to force myself to call them every two weeks just to keep the friendship going. I sometime honestly would prefer to remain my head and not have to interact with anyone. ... I originally did think that I was sp/sx but after reading the description of 5 so/sx; it fit me better as sps tend to take care of themselves better than the other two leading variants. That said, I could be wrong about that, but I am _not_ wrong about being an introvert and as I said before; the only extraverted Socionics type that I relate to at all, is ILE; probably because it sounds to be the most introverted of the extroverted types. I don't have any emotional investment in being an introvert, In fact, I know that my life would be so much easier if I could wave a magic want and turn into one. I would do this BTW, if it were all possible, but the reality is that I, for all practical purposes, really do live in my head. So, yes, there is no possibility that I am an EIE (let alone an ESE, =XD).





Chesire Tower said:


> I am rarely relaxed about anything when it pertains to the outside world.
> When I am by myself, however, I can zone out for hours. I often lose track of time because I can't/don't want to get out of my head.
> Not usually. I can go with the flow but it is usually a struggle to get myself in sync with the external world.
> Again, I always find dealing with the outside world, a struggle but when I am by myself; I have no trouble relaxing.





Chesire Tower said:


> As far as extroversion and introversion being connected as to how expressive one is; I strongly disagree with you; that's probably why I scored as a SLOAN extrovert. I am very expressive and dramatic but I am also extremely introverted. When I am around others, I can be extremely expressive but its an act (albeit one I happen to be good at and enjoy) I put on because my natural state is going off in my head, thinking, imagining, daydreaming etc. To me, the outside world often feels like a dream to me; it never seems as real as whatever happens to be going on in my mind at any time. So, no I totally disagree with you there. My favourite part of any social interaction - no matter how positive, enjoyable, interesting, etc. is ALWAYS once I am once again by myself and can relive it in my head.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Khiro said:


> I suppose I see the range of preferences as infinite, therefore I see 50/50 as too unlikely to be plausible.


In cases that are very close to complete balance, I think it would still be more correct or a better description to say 'mixed' instead of 'a little preference is still a preference'.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Why is the placeholder so necessary? People who know themselves well would subject themselves under a single type already.


You're _still_ missing the point - the Xs there are not meant to be any function that a person has. The point @Dastan was making with that comment wasn't even about ambiverted preferences or mixed types at all, just about difference interpretations of Jung to the one you're adhering to. It's a "placeholder" in that referring to the model that applies to all sixteen types necessitates not referring to specific functions at all (in fact, what Dastan presents is still only applicable to introverts; perhaps a better phrasing would be XYXY vs. XXYY vs. XYYY...)



KraChZiMan said:


> Possibility of 50/50 can only exist in a perfect, idealized world. Just as how something being 0% and 100% can only exist in the most perfect of conditions. In the real world, there can never be such perfect conditions. It must always be 49.9999999999999999999 or 50.0000000000000000001 but never a perfect 50/50 split. And even the slightest of factor can tip the balance in favour to either towards the introversion preference or extroversion preference.
> 
> There is really no point in bringing Jung or Myers into this, because they wouldn't create the theory in the first place if they seriously considered the possibility of ambiversion as main preference.
> 
> It still remains very simple, no reason to make the whole thing soggy and complicated with a label that does not benefit people in any way. What advice you can give to people if they all exist in the singularity of ambiversion? None!


If a person is 50.0000000000000000001% extraverted, then what value is there in the extraversion label for that person? Your claim seems to be that "function stacks" are where the substantial difference lies, but, even putting aside any problems with functions models in general and accepting the notion of the XYXY function stack, you clearly accept that some people favour their auxiliary more than others, so why not a person who favours their auxiliary almost to the degree to which they favour their dominant (and likewise with tertiary/inferior, if you're inclined to treat that as I/E relevant also)? The degree of preference for extraversion over introversion is so slight that this person is, surely, better served by the knowledge of their own "middleness" than by knowing they lean ever so marginally to one side?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> If you were to type purely based on letter dichotomies in MBTI, then _maybe _you could say that mixed types exist.
> 
> But, once you start bringing in cognitive function, that theory falls flat on its face. You simply _cannot _be introverted and extroverted at the same time, according to the theories. Your brain would explode with sheer incredulousness.


That's funny, because Jung certainly "brought in the cognitive functions," but Jung also said more people were in the middle on E/I than were introverts or extraverts, and he didn't say anything about those people's brains exploding. In fact, he referred to the ambivert as the "normal man."

More here.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

While I agree you could have balanced E/I, T/F and things like that, you always have natural preference for the one or the other. Becoming balanced is the cause of maturing and practicing your weaknesses.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

reckful said:


> That's funny, because Jung certainly "brought in the cognitive functions," but Jung also said more people were in the middle on E/I than were introverts or extraverts, and he didn't say anything about those people's brains exploding. In fact, he referred to the ambivert as the "normal man."
> 
> More here.


Well, it depends on what Jung meant. A lot of people seem to misinterpret his writings, but, insofar as I understand it, what he's writing about is the balance of the functions. Not that someone is dominantly two functions at the same time.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that I'm an IXTJ. ITJ is fairly clear, but S/N has always been 50/50. Been trying to figure out my type with function theory for over a year now and it hasn't worked. I have been typed as literally every type via cognitive functions. If cognitive functions don't exist then everything makes sense.


----------



## 1000BugsNightSky (May 8, 2014)

Gentleman said:


> I'm pretty sure that I'm an IXTJ. ITJ is fairly clear, but S/N has always been 50/50. Been trying to figure out my type with function theory for over a year now and it hasn't worked. I have been typed as literally every type via cognitive functions. If cognitive functions don't exist then everything makes sense.


I am getting a lot of Si/Ne from this paragraph, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Moonious said:


> I am getting a lot of Si/Ne from this paragraph, but I'm not sure.


Why do you get Si/Ne? What is Si/Ne and why? Is Si the ability to recognize/create internal physical states in oneself and others? Is Si the ability to have a large store of internal sensory data (i.e recalling the taste of something you ate ten years ago)? Is Si storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with past ones (smelling roses makes you remember playing in a garden with grandma)? Is Si the digestion of subjective sensory data, i.e keeping a clean, nice smelling house because of the way it appeals to the subjective senses, or wearing certain clothes because they feel good?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> You're _still_ missing the point - the Xs there are not meant to be any function that a person has. The point @_Dastan_ was making with that comment wasn't even about ambiverted preferences or mixed types at all, just about difference interpretations of Jung to the one you're adhering to. It's a "placeholder" in that referring to the model that applies to all sixteen types necessitates not referring to specific functions at all (in fact, what Dastan presents is still only applicable to introverts; perhaps a better phrasing would be XYXY vs. XXYY vs. XYYY...)
> 
> 
> 
> If a person is 50.0000000000000000001% extraverted, then what value is there in the extraversion label for that person? Your claim seems to be that "function stacks" are where the substantial difference lies, but, even putting aside any problems with functions models in general and accepting the notion of the XYXY function stack, you clearly accept that some people favour their auxiliary more than others, so why not a person who favours their auxiliary almost to the degree to which they favour their dominant (and likewise with tertiary/inferior, if you're inclined to treat that as I/E relevant also)? The degree of preference for extraversion over introversion is so slight that this person is, surely, better served by the knowledge of their own "middleness" than by knowing they lean ever so marginally to one side?


I appreciate that you take your time to explain me all of this, but the first paragraph of your reply almost seems to suggest as if your reason for favouring X's in type names is simply that you prefer Keirsey over Function Stack theory. In Keirsey, of course that is possible. So many things are possible in Keirsey system. It's just that the school of Socionics does not have anything to say about this kind of mixed types.

Strong preference for the auxiliary function does not turn people into dominants of their auxiliary function. The theory can not work in that way. Sooner or later, everyone of that kind, no matter how proficient in their auxiliary function, shall fall back into their dominant function.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> I appreciate that you take your time to explain me all of this, but the first paragraph of your reply almost seems to suggest as if your reason for favouring X's in type names is simply that you prefer Keirsey over Function Stack theory. In Keirsey, of course that is possible. So many things are possible in Keirsey system. It's just that the school of Socionics does not have anything to say about this kind of mixed types.
> 
> Strong preference for the auxiliary function does not turn people into dominants of their auxiliary function. The theory can not work in that way. Sooner or later, everyone of that kind, no matter how proficient in their auxiliary function, shall fall back into their dominant function.


I certainly wouldn't characterise myself as having a preference for Kiersey, and there are far more schools of thought on type that merely the function-stack theory you're presenting and Kiersey's take on it. I'm simply extrapolating from what I think is a fairly basic notion - that the degree to which a person is introverted or extraverted varies - and saying that there will be points along that I/E continuum where the value of saying "this person is an Ixxx/Exxx" is lesser than saying "this person is close to the middle on I/E"...

I don't think the point I'm making actually requires people to have their auxiliary become their dominant: again, my claim is based in the idea that people vary in their degrees of preference for functions. If people can vary in the degree to which they prefer their dominant to their auxiliary, then, assuming the degree of I/E preference links directly to this (which tallies with the idea that the attitude of the dominant determines whether one is I or E), I don't see what's implausible about the idea that for some people, their degree of preference for dominant over auxiliary is so slight as to make an "ambivert" label the more preferable option. 

In general, I'm inclined to think functions-driven theories have some serious issues that are hard to resolve, in that the "rules" they set out about how personality supposedly works often exclude certain possibilities without reasonable grounds for doing so, and then seek to redress their own rigidity through vague and malleable function descriptions. So I do think you could fairly say I'm not much of a "function stack theory" devotee - and certainly, I've little interest in Socionics for pretty much those reasons - but that hardly means I prefer Kiersey...


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Seeing as the difference between I or E doesn't actually change any of the functions, jsut the way they're stacked, I can see that as a possibility. However, I can't see being confused between F and T, or N or S, or ESPECIALLY P or J, they cause far too much of a difference.


----------



## LarryL (Apr 2, 2015)

Does an EXFP mix exist? Every time I took the test it's really about 55-45 or 50-50.
Also, many things characteristic of both types apply or don't and it really is a split, yet I've never seen a mention of this?


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Up =)




lycanized said:


> I hope so, because that would be what I am. I can't for the life of me figure myself


You seem to be a ESTP/INFJ mixed type =). Se and Ni co-dominant and co-inferior. Se supported by Ti and Ni supported by Fe. 



Frenchies :
-Coluche (famous humorist) ISTP/ENFJ
-Maximilien de Robespierre (revolutionary leader) ENFP/ISTJ it seems
-Norman Thavaud (youtuber) XNFP
-Guillaume Lorentz (dancer) XSFP








-Chris Thompson (left) XNFX and TJ Smith (right) ENTP/ISFJ








-Edward Snowden INXP it seems 
-Jacky Chan ESXP
-Tara Sivec EXXX
-Emma Chase XXXX


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

LarryL said:


> Does an EXFP mix exist? Every time I took the test it's really about 55-45 or 50-50.
> Also, many things characteristic of both types apply or don't and it really is a split, yet I've never seen a mention of this?


If it helps, you remind me more of an ENFP.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

LarryL said:


> Does an EXFP mix exist? Every time I took the test it's really about 55-45 or 50-50.
> Also, many things characteristic of both types apply or don't and it really is a split, yet I've never seen a mention of this?



Any mixed type containing Xs seem possible. Plus mixed types that are a mix of one type and its opposite (like ESTP/INFJ)


----------



## Zii (Mar 13, 2015)

I am pretty convinced that mixed types are real at this point, especially because a well-developed person should be capable of using more than 4 functions on a daily basis.

Though I generally think online tests are bunk, I did take a cognitive functions one recently that gave me this strange result:

Ni= Fe 85%
Te 75%
Ti 70%
Si 65%
Fi 60%
Ne 55%
Se 50%
Type: unknown

XD


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

There is no such thing as x, only mistyping and uncertainty. Even if you're approaching 50-50 you still have an original preference, this is your type, the other one is learned behavior. Search your past for reasons as to why you act as you do.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Zii said:


> I am pretty convinced that mixed types are real at this point, especially because a well-developed person should be capable of using more than 4 functions on a daily basis.
> 
> Though I generally think online tests are bunk, I did take a cognitive functions one recently that gave me this strange result:
> 
> ...


 My cognitive functions are apparently (strongest) Ne, Fi, Ti, Ni, Te, Si, Se, Fe (weakest).

Either the Cognitive Functions system of categorizing combinations is incorrect (Ne being strongest means that Si MUST be my fourth, Ni MUST be my fifth, and Se MUST be my weakest*), or my personality is incorrect.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Blue Soul said:


> There is no such thing as x, only mistyping and uncertainty. Even if you're approaching 50-50 you still have an original preference, this is your type, the other one is learned behavior. Search your past for reasons as to why you act as you do.


So every human is born with one of sixteen personality types? This is why I must prefer one side of the N/S dichotomy? Are these preferences hereditary or random? What evidence do you have to support these assertions? 

Before adolescence I had the personality of an ENFP. My personality is almost completely different now. Does that mean I should identify as ENFP because it is my original preference?


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

Gentleman said:


> So every human is born with one of sixteen personality types? This is why I must prefer one side of the N/S dichotomy? Are these preferences hereditary or random? What evidence do you have to support these assertions?
> 
> Before adolescence I had the personality of an ENFP. My personality is almost completely different now. Does that mean I should identify as ENFP because it is my original preference?


MBTI isn't perfect, and I don't think 16 is a number high enough to adequately describe the complexity and diversity of human personality. Part of our personality is genetic, part of it is environment. Can you say you are born as an ENFP for instance? Probably not. Can you say you are born with the specific assets to form into an ENFP with development? More likely. Nothing is random, everything could theoretically be explained, but this is perhaps practically impossible in some cases. 

If you believe you have changed your type you were either mistyped before, mistyped now, or both. It takes a great deal of self-knowledge and knowledge about the theory to type yourself, and this is why it can be hard to type an adolescent if they don't know themselves yet.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Zii said:


> I am pretty convinced that mixed types are real at this point, especially because a well-developed person should be capable of using more than 4 functions on a daily basis.





Blue Soul said:


> There is no such thing as x, only mistyping and uncertainty. Even if you're approaching 50-50 you still have an original preference, this is your type, the other one is learned behavior. Search your past for reasons as to why you act as you do.





Gentleman said:


> Before adolescence I had the personality of an ENFP. My personality is almost completely different now. Does that mean I should identify as ENFP because it is my original preference?



Cognitive preferences don't normally change, they are innate so the type remains through life. When I talk about mixed types, I'm not talking about people who have developped some functions so well that they appear balanced, I'm talking innate preferences too.

Also, the type doesn't change but behaviours are more flexible so you can momentarily act like another type especially in adolescence or when in unhealthy state (depression, stress etc.)


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Recap :

*
1-Borderline on dichotomies*

XNFP - Norman Thavaud 
XSFP - Guillaume Lorentz

INXJ - Ryan Gosling 
ENXP - Sophie Kinsella 
INXP - Edward Snowden 
ESXP - Jacky Chan

ISFX - Ellen Degeneres 
ESTX - Janet Evanovich, Madonna 

XNFX - Julia Roberts, Chris Thompson
XSFX - Marilyn Monroe, Isaac Marion 
XNTX - Steve Jobs, Bella Jewel 

EXXX - Tara Sivec
XXXX - Emma Chase

*
2-Mix of one type and its opposite*

ESFP/INTJ - Meryl Streep 
ESFJ/INTP - Stephen King 
ESTP/INFJ - Steven Spielberg, Angelina Jolie, Robert Hoffman, Kanye West 
ESTJ/INFP - John Lennon 
ENFP/ISTJ - JK Rowling, Barack Obama, Tim Burton, Maximilien de Robespierre
ENFJ/ISTP - Tom Cruise, Eminem, Amanda Sing, Sacha Baron Cohen, Coluche
ENTP/ISFJ - TJ Smith


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

@miranda1

It's a problem with MBTI due to the dichotomies not accounting very well for weak preferences, and boxing them in with people with stronger preferences. The Big 5 only has a single scale for extroversion for instance.

I'd still argue that x is a bad way to name it, it's only useful as a notation of uncertainty. What do you think happens under stress?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Blue Soul said:


> It's a problem with MBTI due to the dichotomies not accounting very well for weak preferences, and boxing them in with people with stronger preferences. The Big 5 only has a single scale for extroversion for instance.
> 
> I'd still argue that x is a bad way to name it, it's only useful as a notation of uncertainty.


 Maybe a lowercase "n" for "neutral"? Equal sign?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Blue Soul said:


> It's a problem with MBTI due to the dichotomies not accounting very well for weak preferences, and boxing them in with people with stronger preferences. *The Big 5 only has a single scale for extroversion for instance.*


You're right that the "Big 5" has a "single scale for extraversion," but being _in the middle_ of that scale is equivalent to being an MBTI "X," and not only have I never heard of a Big Five source claiming someone couldn't be in the middle, but on the contrary, Big Five sources tend to stress that most people are in or not far from the middle.



Blue Soul said:


> There is no such thing as x, only mistyping and uncertainty. Even if you're approaching 50-50 you still have an original preference, this is your type, the other one is learned behavior. Search your past for reasons as to why you act as you do.


Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. And as noted in my first post in this thread, Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially _in the middle_ on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

Can you point me to any well-regarded MBTI theorist (either dichotomy-centric or function-centric) — or Big Five theorist, for that matter — who says it's been reasonably well-established that it's impossible to be in the middle on E/I (or S/N or T/F, or their Big Five equivalents), or to any respectable body of studies that you think has established that?

And if you can't, what's your basis for confidently proclaiming that "there is no such thing as x," and _everyone_ must "have an original preference"?


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

reckful said:


> You're right that the "Big 5" has a "single scale for extraversion," but being _in the middle_ of that scale is equivalent to being an MBTI "X," and not only have I never heard of a Big Five source claiming someone couldn't be in the middle, but on the contrary, Big Five sources tend to stress that most people are in or not far from the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember Dr. Mike Boudria from NFGeeks stating something along the lines that the term X needs to be rooted out, and I agree with that because I believe it doesn't bring any insight to the table about a person's personality type or learned behavior. Unfortunately I don't know which exact video that was from, but here's the channel anyway. Definitely recommend it if you haven't seen it before.

https://www.youtube.com/user/nfgeeks/playlists 

Otherwise, as far as I know, the functions themselves aren't even clearly proven to exist, even by Jung's work. Still, so much is based on his theory. More research definitely should be made.

Now this is only what I think, but I don't think it's impossible to approach the middle of the dichotomies. In fact, I think it's a natural process of development, but I don't think it's natural for anyone to start there and a big part of the confusion over this is lacking self-knowledge when self-typing.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

I guess only people who are "in-between" types and learn about the mbti would know that it's possible, plus people who are really good typers.

The thing is integrating "mixed" types in the system would make it more complex. As I said from my personal sample of population they are less than 8% (still enough that you can't ignore).

Mixed type people seem "chameleon"-like healthy or not, that's one indicator. Also, lots of them are enneagram 6, even 6w7 (the X—X types and “type-opposite type” hybrids).


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

miranda1 said:


> I guess only people who are "in-between" types and learn about the mbti would know that it's possible, plus people who are really good typers.
> 
> The thing is integrating "mixed" types in the system would make it more complex. As I said from my personal sample of population they are less than 8% (still enough that you can't ignore).
> 
> Mixed type people seem "chameleon"-like healthy or not, that's one indicator. Also, lots of them are enneagram 6, even 6w7 (the X—X types and “type-opposite type” hybrids).


Did you notice that many of the people you listed are actors?

Also JK Rowling is a self-typed INFJ, confirmed.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

How would one even begin to respon Stephen King as partially ESFJ...? I just don't see that at all... I know a kid whose mom went to high school with him, the way she described him was certainly not ESFJ. And just in general, he seems very not Fe...


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Blue Soul said:


> Now this is only what I think, but I don't think it's impossible to approach the middle of the dichotomies. In fact, I think it's a natural process of development, but I don't think it's natural for anyone to start there and a big part of the confusion over this is lacking self-knowledge when self-typing.


Why is it unnatural ? Natural according to what ?


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

miranda1 said:


> Why is it unnatural ? Natural according to what ?


I'm assuming we're talking about MBTI here. Everyone are capable of every cognitive function, but as we get older we develop our weaknesses and even the functions that aren't natural for us to use get rounded out as well to some extent. We can approach a middle ground, but our true types don't get disintegrated.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Bruce Willis IXXP ...
Emma Watson ESFJ/INTP ...


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Threads like this are what mistypes are made of.
Typology is already a pseudo-science and nothing more than a self exploration tool.

No need to destroy what makes sense and works with ridiculous notions.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

Hotaru said:


> Threads like this are what mistypes are made of.
> Typology is already a pseudo-science and nothing more than a self exploration tool.
> 
> No need to destroy what makes sense and works with ridiculous notions.



At the origin middleness in dichotomies weren’t dismissed so I’m not trying to destroy anything. 
Sure the 16-types model works for most people but there are people who seem to be uncertain of their type despite thorough research or certain to be in-between types. I guess it doesn’t matter anyway.


----------



## LordDarthMoominKirby (Nov 2, 2013)

I'm aware in very rare cases that mixed types exist, but they're extremely rare and though most people replying to this probably identified their least strong preference and decided that they were a mixed type, I seriously doubt that everyone who replied to this saying they're a mixed type actually are.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

To clarify about the “type-opposite type” mix in case it wasn’t clear, for a ESTP/INFJ for example, the person has 2 co-dominant functions Se and Ni, Se supported by Ti and Ni supported by Fe. It’s like the focus bounces from one end to the other in the Se-Ti-Fe-Ni line. The four main functions are all somewhat under control and conscious.


----------



## miranda1 (Jun 10, 2014)

To add:
-Richard Feynman EXXX
-Louis CK XNXP
-Seinfield ENTJ/ISFP






LordDarthMoominKirby said:


> I'm aware in very rare cases that mixed types exist, but they're extremely rare and though most people replying to this probably identified their least strong preference and decided that they were a mixed type, I seriously doubt that everyone who replied to this saying they're a mixed type actually are.


Mixed types aren't "that" rare, maybe 4-8% (which is more than many types like infj, intj, etc - http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm) though admittedly each kind of mixed type is indeed rarer (because of all the combinations possible, ETXJ, XXFP, IXFJ etc.). so this should be a legitimate option for those who can’t decide on their type despite serious research.

Also not many people seriously said they were mixed types in this thread and those who did might actually be.


----------

