# Why not Ambiverted Types?



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

reckful said:


> "Amen" indeed. That's the kind of word you expect to hear when the speaker's in religious/dogmatic mode.
> 
> When you say, "Each type has a cognitive function preference"…. If, by "type," you mean a person who actually belongs to a particular type category, and if you've set up those categories in terms of "cognitive function preferences," then there's no arguing with your assertion that "each type has a cognitive function preference" — but in that case your assertion is just a theoretical tautology.
> 
> ...


You can be in the middle of the spectrum on "introversion and extroversion", you just can't be two MBTI types, because MBTI types are structured from an exact order of Jungian function preferences. 

A Ni-Ti-Se-Fe isn't an ENTJ, it doesn't exist. ENTJs are Ni-Te-Se-Fi. If we're considering Jung's system, it's equally impossible to be dominant in both Pe and Ji or Je and Pi, while at the same time being equally inferior in Pe Ji or Je Pi.

I'm "ambiverted", sure. I'm not a strong extrovert, nor am I a strong introvert. I'm an ENTP because I'm Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. If I were an INTP, I'd be Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. That's two pairs of functions flipped, and thus an entirely different type. 

My Ne-Ti is external object focused, not people focused, my auxiliary Ti can be strong and my Ne suppressed, but that still doesn't make me an ANTP. For that to happen, you'd need to rework the system with the addition of several "new" functions without attitude orientation, with totally new accompanying theories. In the end, it just doesn't end up working. A fairly introverted ENTP? Sure. An ANTP? Impossible per Jung's functions, and by extension, MBTI.

It is logically and psychologically impossible for a person to be an Axxx in Jung's and Myers-Brigg's system. I'm not trying to shut down the possibility of an ambiversion trait in another typology system, but in Jung/MBTI, that's not only stupid, but impossible.

On Earth, can my body spontaneously transform from that of a human into a lizard without any intermediary steps? No. 
In JKR's Harry Potter universe, can the same thing occur? Yes!

In MBTI, which is based on Jung, can you be an Axxx, and therefore Xx=Xx, Xx=Xx? No.
In Global 5 or similar psych typology system where it's not a question of functions, and is instead a question of "Social or Reserved", could someone be on the line to such an extent that they're just an Axxxx? Yes!


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Don't seek out something that possesses the intention of typing you and whose entire existence is based upon such and then yammer about being boxed in.

Please? That said, it seems common. But ultimately the person will most lieklly ft one type. l leave xNTP as my type because l don't give a fuck but l am probably an ENTP.


----------



## Dommm (Oct 23, 2012)

reckful said:


> "Amen" indeed. That's the kind of word you expect to hear when the speaker's in religious/dogmatic mode.
> 
> When you say, "Each type has a cognitive function preference"…. If, by "type," you mean a person who actually belongs to a particular type category, and if you've set up those categories in terms of "cognitive function preferences," then there's no arguing with your assertion that "each type has a cognitive function preference" — but in that case your assertion is just a theoretical tautology.
> 
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, But even though he still suggests that people closer to the middle than they are to the extremes they still have a dominant function, which is either Introverted or Extraverted, yes? 



> 2. If, on the other hand, you're saying that, not just as a theoretical matter, but as a _factual_ matter, you're confident — and by confident, I mean an "Amen" level of confidence — that it's biologically/psychologically impossible for any actual human being to be in the middle on I/E, what's the source of your confidence? Can you point us to any studies?


What we have to work with is the very limited work of one man and the people he has taught. If people want to throw ideas like "Ambiversion" then the burden of proof is on them, not us. Although infinite variation is compelling argument it is still not proof.

Human cognition is such a complex field and I agree that discussion should exist here but the one thing I'm beginning to tire of most on this forum are pet theories by armchair psychologists that are based more on the creators bias and own anecdotal observations than actual research.


----------



## jontherobot (Sep 11, 2012)

If you are a function purist, there is no room for ambiverted types.


Only if you follow the basic four letter structuring do things make sense.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

jontherobot said:


> If you are a function purist, there is no room for ambiverted types.
> 
> 
> Only if you follow the basic four letter structuring do things make sense.


 If you don't acknowledge functions, MBTI is nothing. Myers and Briggs did not invent a new system, they abbreviated and then grouped Jung's function work into 16 distinct types. If you told Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs that you wanted to include 8 new ambiverted types, they'd scoff. They based their system upon Jungian cognitive functions, and function logic dictates that each individual has a preference for functional order. The development and expressions of those functions varies from individual to individual of the same type, but the natural functional preference still exists. To make ambiverted types, you'd need to say Xx=Xx, Xx=Xx, instead of Xx, Xx, Xx, Xx. If you actually took the time to read any of the source material from M&B and Jung, instead of just learning from posts around the internet, you'd realize that such an idea is ridiculous, and entirely outside the realm of functional logic.

Can we say someone's an ambiverted ENFP? Yes, but they're still Ne-Fi-Te-Si, and therefore still an ENFP.

By using the terminology "function purist", you're making it sound like actually doing research on MBTI and understanding how it works is a bad thing. The creators of MBTI were "function purists", the people who have done more than an hour and a half of googling on MBTI are probably "function purists" as well. The interpretation of the functions differed from Jung to Myers+Briggs, but both still utilized the same functions to build a system. MBTI is entirely based on (Jungian) cognitive functions, and to understand how the system works, one needs to understand the underlying building blocks.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dommm said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, But even though he still suggests that people closer to the middle than they are to the extremes they still have a dominant function, which is either Introverted or Extraverted, yes?


No. Where does Jung say that he thinks every person has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted?

I'm not aware of any passage in Jung where he allows for the possibility of a person who is neither introverted nor extraverted but has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted. Are you?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> You can be in the middle of the spectrum on "introversion and extroversion", you just can't be two MBTI types, because MBTI types are structured from an exact order of Jungian function preferences.


As I said before, I'm not aware of any well-known MBTI theorist who says subscribing to the MBTI typology rules out the possibility of ambiverts. If that's your theory, it's inconsistent with Jung and Myers both.

Myers considered including a middle "X" result on all four dimensions in the official MBTI instrument. She ultimately decided against it, but not because she thought it was impossible to be effectively in the middle. The 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who could have come out as a different "type" by just answering one or two questions differently, and who has essentially _split the difference_ rather than offered much evidence of a preference.



MBTI Manual said:


> MBTI results are, of course, not always right. ... If the reported ... type does not seem right, respondents can discover and decide for themselves ... which type more accurately describes them.
> 
> These cautions are more important for the MBTI than for instruments where scores are reported on a continuum, because types are reported in letters and descriptions which can give a sense of certainty that goes beyond the data. ...
> 
> When preference scores are 1 through 9, a change of one or two questions could change the letter designation. The respondent has essentially "split the vote."


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

reckful said:


> No. Where does Jung say that he thinks every person has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted?
> 
> I'm not aware of any passage in Jung where he allows for the possibility of a person who is neither introverted nor extraverted but has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted. Are you?


Psychological Types, Jung, paragraphs 666-667, page 405 depending on the translation. That should probably do the trick, read that general bit of writing as well, I may be off on the exact paragraph.

According to Jung, function attitudes are either extraverted or introverted, and for function attitudes there is no in-between. He also states that rarely is the expression of a person in socialization entirely extroverted or introverted. There is the allowance for an ambiverted individual of a type, in that a Ne dominant user could dislike socialization. This does not make him a Ji-dom user, and thus he is still the same, extraverted, type.


----------



## Dommm (Oct 23, 2012)

reckful said:


> No. Where does Jung say that he thinks every person has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted?


Isn't that what he is trying to explain in Psychological Types? Granted I only got the book a few days ago and still haven't finished it but examples he uses, i.e Tertullian (Introverted Thinking) vs Origen (Extraverted Thinking), pretty much explains the idea of dominant/developed/differentiated functions and the conscious/unconcious



> I'm not aware of any passage in Jung where he allows for the possibility of a person who is neither introverted nor extraverted but has a dominant function that is either introverted or extraverted. Are you?


That isn't what I said, from my understanding someones introversion and extraversion (as defined by Jung, i.e Object/Subject not social sterotypes) is dependent on their most developed dominant function.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Psychological Types, Jung, paragraphs 666-667, page 405 depending on the translation. That should probably do the trick, read that general bit of writing as well, I may be off on the exact paragraph.
> 
> According to Jung, function attitudes are either extraverted or introverted, and for function attitudes there is no in-between. He also states that rarely is the expression of a person in socialization entirely extroverted or introverted. There is the allowance for an ambiverted individual of a type, in that a Ne dominant user could dislike socialization. This does not make him a Ji-dom user, and thus he is still the same, extraverted, type.


It sounds like you and I agree that, contrary to what I thought Dommm was suggesting, Jung believed that a person who fit one of his eight "type" categories would have a dominant function that was either introverted or extraverted, and would accordingly either be an introvert or an extravert.

Does this not suggest that a person who was neither an introvert nor an extravert (the "normal man," according to Jung) would not be one of Jung's eight "types" — i.e., would not really have a dominant function?

To Jung, an introvert was, by definition, a person whose _conscious attitude_ was introverted — and was compensated, to a greater or lesser degree, by an _unconscious extraverted attitude_. What made the introvert an introvert wasn't so much the relative _strengths_ of those conscious and unconscious attitudes as the fact that introversion was the attitude that was _conscious_ and _differentiated_ — and constituted the attitude of the dominant function.

Are you suggesting that Jung thought a person could have, say, introverted thinking as their dominant function, and therefore a _conscious introverted attitude_ (compensated by an _unconscious extraverted attitude_) and yet somehow _not_ be a Jungian introvert? Can you point me to any passage in Jung that's consistent with that idea?

And meanwhile, back in the world of facts, if some actual real-world people (including perhaps the OP) are neither introverted nor extraverted — i.e., they're in Jung's "middle group" — but they have reasonably clear N, T and P preferences, why do you think it's inappropriate for them to consider themselves MBTI xNTPs? Or is it your position that a person in Jung's middle group on I/E _must_, as a factual matter, also be right in the middle on S/N, T/F and J/P? That certainly wasn't Myers' view.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

reckful said:


> It sounds like you and I agree that, contrary to what I thought Dommm was suggesting, Jung believed that a person who fit one of his eight "type" categories would have a dominant function that was either introverted or extraverted, and would accordingly either be an introvert or an extravert.
> 
> Does this not suggest that a person who was neither an introvert nor an extravert (the "normal man," according to Jung) would not be one of Jung's eight "types" — i.e., would not really have a dominant function?
> 
> ...


xNTP is fine, alluding to a lack of certainty for a preference. ANTP implies that there's a separate group of persons whose preference for introversion and extroversion, as well and dom/aux and tert/inf are exactly balanced and coexist _without _preference at all. A true "ambivert" would be AAAA, which is entirely ridiculous, may I add. That would imply a complete non-preference for functions, and thus the person would either be a vegetable, done far too many recreational drugs, had a series of lobotomies or some combination of those.

If you're unsure of your preference, put an "x" there to indicate this, but as functions work, everyone has a preference, regardless of development or reliance. As far as true ambiversion, that's an impossibility. Given that the individual is a human being, and our understanding of human cognition through the lens of Jung and Myers/Briggs is sound, there will always be a preference. Can someone be in a sort of grey area as far as how they socialize? Of course! Can someone have no preference for an introverted or extroverted function attitude? No.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> As far as true ambiversion, that's an impossibility. Given that the individual is a human being, and our understanding of human cognition through the lens of Jung and Myers/Briggs is sound, there will always be a preference.


You've ducked the questions in the last two paragraphs of my last post and basically circled back to where you began. You say "true ambiversion" (in the middle on introversion/extraversion) is "an impossibility" — but, as a _theoretical_ matter, that's inconsistent with Jung and Myers and, as a factual matter, it's an assertion with, as far as I know, no studies to back it up.

Chapter X of Psychological Types — where Jung describes his eight function-types — is, as I assume you know, hierarchically organized. Part 1 is the Introduction and then Part 2 is _The Extraverted Type_. In Part 2 he first describes the extraverted rational types (Te-doms and Fe-doms), and then the extraverted irrational types (Se-doms and Ne-doms). Part 3 is _The Introverted Type_, and in Part 3 he first describes the introverted rational types (Ti-doms and Fi-doms), and then the introverted irrational types (Si-doms and Ni-doms).

In other words, Jung viewed his eight function types as _four sub-types of extraverts_ and _four sub-types of introverts_. Do you disagree? Because, if you don't disagree, I'd like to hear how you avoid the conclusion that someone who was neither an extravert nor an introvert (in Jung's view) couldn't be one of Jung's eight function-types.

You keep asserting that "through the lens of Jung and Myers/Briggs," a person can't really be an ambivert because that doesn't fit with the eight functions ("as functions work, everyone has a preference"), while continuing to avoid addressing the fact that Jung himself appears to have taken the view that there were a lot of people who didn't fall into one of his eight type categories — and, in fact, thought that there were more ambiverts than there were introverts or extraverts.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> The thing with those tests I've noticed is that they really have a poor means of distinguishing Si/Ni and Ne/Se.
> 
> Another thing is that, under theory, the only real thing that doesn't change or deviate much is your dom and inferior. Now if you came here saying that you somehow see yourself using Si daily like an ESTJ, I'd question you being an ENTP.
> 
> ...


But WHY does your dom and inferior not change? I am only on the first page of this thread--maybe it will be answered within the next pages


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> For all practical purposes introverts in the Myers-Briggs system are ambiverts otherwise it becomes very inappropriate to apply J/P to the aux function. Because J/P points to extraversion in MBTI, we then have to assume that the introvert's aux function is so well-defined as to it being able to be a reliable indicator of a preference, which would suggest it being developed enough to be on par with the dominant. Since in MBTI the aux is the opposite attitude of the dominant, then we must conclude that from a practical standpoint introverts are close to being ambiverted.


How did you answer a question I asked today, yesterday? JK--I know that's just how stuff works. I see what you're saying with Myers. But I also read that she was very much an introvert. I think she just thought that the auxiliary would produce visible results that were contrary to the dominant--but that they wouldn't be as consistent and true as what an extrovert shows(as she talked about how introverts don't always show their ideas or what they have to contribute). Whereas an extrovert would show a consistent appearance (unlike the introvert that probably wasn't showing what they truly thought).

I do see how her J/P thing (combined with Kiersey) makes introverts seem ambiverted but I don't agree that they are.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

the full Introvert Extrovert scale isn't really part of the MBTI system. it's all about the functions which are either I or E.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I have to say that I came upon a similar idea that Myers wrote about in Gifts Differing on my own (or did I somehow catch the threads of it on PerC or somewhere else). But I felt like I used my Fe to deal with the external world and I used the other functions introvertedly. But this doesn't really make sense with her idea of J/P because I certainly don't act all invested in the external world by planning GOAallls (in a whiny voice) or being on time (though I actually AM on time almost all the time now). But IDK--this is an extension of something I was talking about in another thread--how I don't get the J/P dichotomy according to Kiersey. 

As far as ambiversion goes--why not? What if people do generally prefer to be introverted but they also feel comfortable with certain aspects of the external world? Like--what if I was anti-everything external, but I really loved butterflies? And so I spent my time watching and cultivating butterflies because they were that sole thing that I was able to identify with externally? How do the function theories explain that--how do they explain what we have preference for? It's not just about nature (functions) but maybe also about the reasons why our functions are activated.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

meltedsorbet said:


> How did you answer a question I asked today, yesterday? JK--I know that's just how stuff works. I see what you're saying with Myers. But I also read that she was very much an introvert. I think she just thought that the auxiliary would produce visible results that were contrary to the dominant--but that they wouldn't be as consistent and true as what an extrovert shows(as she talked about how introverts don't always show their ideas or what they have to contribute). Whereas an extrovert would show a consistent appearance (unlike the introvert that probably wasn't showing what they truly thought).
> 
> I do see how her J/P thing (combined with Kiersey) makes introverts seem ambiverted but I don't agree that they are.


The point of contention here is the passage in PT where Jung says the aux shall be _in every way_ different from the dominant. Myers took this to include attitude which is a deviation from the more conventional Jungian ways of looking at it (I say conventional loosely though because Myers' point of view has largely become the accepted point of view these days even among a lot of Jungians). I, like others have pointed out, don't believe Jung believed everyone to fit into a rigidly defined Introverted or extraverted category (it is true that type dynamics generally does however) and that he alludes to an undefined third category. But again Jung's conceptualization of type revolved around the interplay between conscious and unconscious not dom/aux so in any regard the role of the auxiliaries would be to play a minority component in ego consciousness. 

Someone asked why don't dom/inferior change, and I think Jung sort of alludes to the fact that none of these variables are static but many of the exceptions that people claim are just that: exceptions. That his typological system was reliable enough to where most people would fit loosely into one of those eight categories and you might have the occasional outlier. I think there is a tendency however for people to want to believe they are the outliers and that these ideas can't apply to them but in most cases they are simply deluding themselves into the fallacy of somehow being superior or special. One of the problems with a system like typology is, on the one hand people like the idea of being categorized, and having some elements of life come into focus and make sense, but on the other hand being categorized betrays the fact that many people are also narcissistic and want to believe they are unique and special and not able to be nailed down into a category. It seems often people want to have it both ways thus all the "I'm the exception to the rule" talk that gets floated around. I personally think most of these people could probably be nailed down by a properly trained analyst pretty quickly (it's sort of like the person who wants to be his own personal stylist because he doesn't want anyone deciding for him what looks good and thinks he is so unique, but in reality this person just has bad taste and is simply doing what a million others have done before and isn't all that unique). It's not that these phenomenon that Jung (and later Myers and others) are trying to describe are necessarily static, there is some acknowledgement of fluidity. Its just that I think any system that tries to conventionalize very dynamic factors runs the risk of being seen as depersonalizing and thus you get the duality of intrigue and recoil that seems so prevalent in type communities. Everyone wants to belong, but also be the exception to the rule (guilty here as well).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

For those who take this stuff seriously enough, I think there might be an element of insecurity that comes with it, like whether or not it should impact one's decisions and whatnot about their lives any differently from how they operated beforehand (I mean, I always viewed this stuff as justifying reality - opening it up with more defined flavor - I never saw this stuff as anything more than a fitting descriptor of reality, but of course, you get the people who think this stuff is supposed to change your life (whatever that means), rather than actually, just enable you to see and think about life in ways you might not have considered or might have not been able to explain rationally, yet might have noticed anyway). It's only as good as the person using it - really has nothing to do with making scientific discoveries and figure out fantasy problems you had (like the shit that passes for fact online about, say, how "INTJs should improve themselves by learning to keep their judgment functions to a minimum, which really really makes no sense whatsoever in any context, because these types lead with perception, not judgment - not even MBTI says that their "J" indicator equates to being over judgmental in the conventional sense, even though this site was accusing such types as making overly quick judgments - and then again, is this always even a bad thing? That's an inherently biased way of looking at judgment to begin with in the scheme of self-improvement, because for some, maybe it has it's benefits - maybe it just means they know more than the other person - It's a wonder people get into these ridiculous debates about who the narrow-minded types are and whatnot when you have this overly baised stuff passing for fact.).


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I say there's no reason why some of us aren't somewhere close to the middle of the whole "introversion/extraversion" thing. I feel much more comfortable thinking of myself as an "ANTP" rather than an ENTP.


You may be close to the middle, but some side will be more anyway.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Because the position of the dominant and inferior processes would radically shift; the dominant is thought to be ingrained since childhood, along with the inferior. They are far more static than the aux/tert.
> 
> If we go by functions for example:
> 
> ...



My thinking is that something is getting lost in the translation. Breaking our preferences down into functions and looking at them individually is useful to a point, but then the point has to become to reintegrate them and see them as part of a larger whole. Nobody is absolutely this, or that. We all deviate in some way. As I've said so many times before, there is more to us than just our type. 

I have managed to develop an awareness of my inner world and my outer world. It's a sort of "balancing act." I don't always get it just right, but somewhere between my brain chemistry, my experiences, my aptitudes, I can also move between worlds (metaphorically speaking, of course). My _preferences_ are what makes me an ENTP, but everything else that I am makes me something more.


----------

