# Can you be borderline J/P?



## Reflect (May 31, 2013)

For any given type, the J and P versions (for instance, INFJ and INFP) share zero cognitive functions. To be borderline J and P, then, would mean that you border on two sets of functions that don't overlap. Is this possible? Is it any less common for people to get split J/P results on MBTI tests than split results for the other three dimensions? Finally, if someone was indeed very split down the J/P axis, what would such a personality be like?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Reflect said:


> For any given type, the J and P versions (for instance, INFJ and INFP) share zero cognitive functions. To be borderline J and P, then, would mean that you border on two sets of functions that don't overlap. Is this possible? Is it any less common for people to get split J/P results on MBTI tests than split results for the other three dimensions? Finally, if someone was indeed very split down the J/P axis, what would such a personality be like?


Nah, it just means that the dichotomies probably don't (in reality) have anything to do with the functions.

I get split J/P all the time. Usually I'm slightly more P than J, but not by much.

It just means that you're balanced. You're structured when you want to be, and spontaneous when you want to be.

When I was a teenager (I'm 30 now) I used to test borderline F, slightly more T than F, and now I test pretty strong into T consistently.

I've always tested I way more than E though, so I have a consistently strong preference there, and way more N than S. Never scored S even once, or even close to S.


----------



## Sun Lips (Jan 28, 2013)

In my opinion, there aren't really "borderline" functions. A person may turn up results close to 50/50 on any given letter in their type, but in the end, they still have one function dominant over the other.

I'm a pretty good example of exactly what you're talking about, so let me explain. I was mistyped for quite some time as INFP. Online MBTI tests _always_ gave me that result. The problem with these online tests, although they can get you heading in the right direction, is that they're usually very dichotomy-based. To determine J/P, they ask questions like, "Are you spontaneous?" I'd say in my mind, Of course I'm spontaneous! Sometimes I just get the urge to visit Disney World! And my J/P numbers were always right around 50/50, leaning slightly towards Perceiving.

Before I learned much about the cognitive functions themselves, I decided to take the MBTI again, but think very carefully about the answers. Yes, it's true that I sometimes entertain a whim to take the day off and go to a theme park. But when I actually think about it, I prefer routine - I am absolutely thrown off kilter by spontaneity that doesn't come from me. The only time I'm "flexible" is when I want to be. Suddenly, Judging starts to make more sense. Lo and behold, the MBTI decided that I was INFJ. Cue existential crisis.

That's when I decided to learn about the functions. The more I learned, the more it made sense that I was an introverted perceiver/extraverted judger (Ni-Fe) and not the other way around. And it became very clear to me that I was always mistyped because I was not being very careful with my answers to the online tests, along with the fact that the online tests don't use the best indicators for Judging vs Perceiving. It might be true that a J-type is _more likely_ to be organized and good at planning than a P-type, but it's not true all the time, so those questions end up being misleading.

I suppose the biggest problem with those tests is that they're treating J/P as their own functions. Really, the J or P in your type is an _indicator_ of which function is _extraverted_ - The judging function (F/T) or the perceiving function (N/S). In extraverts, it's the dominant function; for introverts, it's the auxiliary function.

Perhaps it could be true that someone whose results indicate very strong Judging would be a more organized, less spontaneous person than myself, who was always "borderline" on those two. My scores are also often borderline between T and F, and it may be true that my personality is a little more "T-like" than someone with a very high F level (I don't actually have any evidence to support that, I'm just saying it's possible). But I really do think it all comes down to functions, not dichotomy percentages.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Anhaga (Dec 11, 2012)

*NO*! No way -- it's not possible and it's not allowed! ...On the other hand, maybe there's some information about J/P splits that we haven't yet gathered... let's not be hasty.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Reflect said:


> For any given type, the J and P versions (for instance, INFJ and INFP) share zero cognitive functions. To be borderline J and P, then, would mean that you border on two sets of functions that don't overlap. Is this possible? Is it any less common for people to get split J/P results on MBTI tests than split results for the other three dimensions? Finally, if someone was indeed very split down the J/P axis, what would such a personality be like?


Based on my four years of participation in type-me threads (mostly at INTJforum), I'd say J/P is the _most_ common dimension for somebody to be borderline on. The single most common type-me dilemma at INTJforum (by a pretty wide margin) is "Am I INTJ or INTP?"

If the cognitive functions folks have you convinced that crossing that J/P line _flips all your functions_, you might want to take a look at this post and the two longer posts it links to.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

If you are attempting to determine your dominant cognitive function(s), ignore the J/P dichotomy. The J/P dichotomy is a valid personality trait (passive vs. assertive), but when applied to the cognitive functions, it confuses rather than enlightens.


----------



## Tru7h (Oct 16, 2012)

The Madman said:


> If you are attempting to determine your dominant cognitive function(s), ignore the J/P dichotomy. The J/P dichotomy is a valid personality trait (passive vs. assertive), but when applied to the cognitive functions, it confuses rather than enlightens.


Thank you! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can be borderline J/P in terms of the cognitive functions. As you folks may be well aware of, you are typed with the fourth letter J or P depending on the first extroverted function in your function stack. Now, that can either be a Judging or Perceiving function obviously, so depending on which you choose to identify the types with does not matter. For example, if you were to choose the P functions (Se, Si, Ne, and Ni) to determine the J and the P of a given type, then you would say that someone who uses Ti as their dominant function and Se as their auxiliary function is an IST"P" because Se is the first extroverted function. If someone uses Te as their dominant function and Si as their auxiliary function, then you would say that the person is an EST"J" because that person uses Te as their first extroverted function.

Again, this was for those who didn't already know about this.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_reckful_

I've been thinking a lot about your references to the correlation between MBTI and the Big Five. What if the fifth dimension is linked to MBTI, even though it is not currently measured. What if the borderline dichotomy splits are a measure of the Neurotic dimension in the Big Five? A borderline split could indicate balance or a source of neurotic imbalance. What do you think?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_reckful_
> 
> I've been thinking a lot about your references to the correlation between MBTI and the Big Five. What if the fifth dimension is linked to MBTI, even though it is not currently measured. What if the borderline dichotomy splits are a measure of the Neurotic dimension in the Big Five? A borderline split could indicate balance or a source of neurotic imbalance. What do you think?


Well, again, I think the MBTI dichotomies are tapping into the same real underlying dimensions as the other four Big Five factors, and it's been pretty well established, as I understand it, that neuroticism doesn't correlate with any of the other four (except for a mild correlation with introversion).

It's not hard to imagine that a neurotic MBTI T might feel like they were more "F" then they actually were if they didn't know anything about neuroticism and attributed some of the personality characteristics that _both_ F and being neurotic can potentially contribute to — e.g., greater emotional and/or artistic sensitivity — to F rather than neuroticism. But I'm not seeing how being neurotic is likely to somehow transform most of the MBTI preferences into a form that seems more borderline.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> It's not hard to imagine that a neurotic MBTI T might feel like they were more "F" then they actually were if they didn't know anything about neuroticism and attributed some of the personality characteristics that _both_ F and being neurotic can potentially contribute to — e.g., greater emotional and/or artistic sensitivity — to F rather than neuroticism. *But I'm not seeing how being neurotic is likely to somehow transform most of the MBTI preferences into a form that seems more borderline.*



Can you please explain what you mean by this as it relates to what I'm saying? Or perhaps could you rephrase what you think I'm saying? I feel like I am being misunderstood. 

I am saying that a borderline result of an MBTI preference could be an indication of a neurotic imbalance, a source of anxiety or emotional instability, rather than being perfectly balanced between the two functions as so many are wont to believe. Not just between T and F, but between E and I (which is a source of neurotic imbalance for me, in my opinion) S and N, or J and P.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Can you please explain what you mean by this as it relates to what I'm saying? Or perhaps could you rephrase what you think I'm saying? I feel like I am being misunderstood.
> 
> I am saying that a borderline result of an MBTI preference could be an indication of a neurotic imbalance, a source of anxiety or emotional instability, rather than being perfectly balanced between the two functions as so many are wont to believe. Not just between T and F, but between E and I (which is a source of neurotic imbalance for me, in my opinion) S and N, or J and P.


I don't see being in the middle on any of the MBTI dimensions (assuming that's possible) as likely to be a problematic (or "imbalanced" or "neurotic") situation, so I guess I'm not understanding why you'd think being high in neuroticism would somehow mimic (if that's what you're saying) an in-the-middle condition in a situation where the person actually had a preference.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> I don't see being in the middle on any of the MBTI dimensions (assuming that's possible) as likely to be a problematic (or "imbalanced" or "neurotic") situation, so I guess I'm not understanding why you'd think being high in neuroticism would somehow mimic (if that's what you're saying) an in-the-middle condition in a situation where the person actually had a preference.


So what does a borderline score mean to you?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> So what does a borderline score mean to you?


I'd expect it would mean the person's temperament doesn't really give them a tug in either direction.

For what it's worth, that's how Jung viewed the ambiverts, who he thought were more numerous than the introverts or extraverts. He referred to the ambivert as the "normal man," and said it meant he was "influenced as much from within as without."


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Reflect said:


> For any given type, the J and P versions (for instance, INFJ and INFP) share zero cognitive functions. To be borderline J and P, then, would mean that you border on two sets of functions that don't overlap. Is this possible? Is it any less common for people to get split J/P results on MBTI tests than split results for the other three dimensions? Finally, if someone was indeed very split down the J/P axis, what would such a personality be like?


S, N, F, T are cognitive functions, not Ne, Ni, Fe and Fi.

Some INFs mainly focus on functions. They are borderline INFJ/ENFPs and INFPs/ENFJs.

Some others focus on their orientations.. INFJ/ISTJ, INFP/ISTP ..

Some are hybrids.. INFJ/INTJ, INFP/INTP, INFJ/ISFJ, INFP/ISFP.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

I've heard stuff from many sides, including:
Jung made no explicit mention of exclusion of types: *The MBTI is an adaptation of Jungarian theory--not purely his theory.
*It confuses you in terms of functions: *On the contrary, it may give you a way to find your subtype. *

Pure Jung can give you insight on the skeleton of contemporary theories, but it will not flesh it out for you.

*Can you be J/P borderline:
* I think ABSOLUTELY--it's indicative of a subtype. Now, when borderlines scores come around quite often, it would behoove you to read function theory. 

But to substantiate the point: It is obvious that if one finds such a trait borderline that they do not express that trait as much as people that are solid-scorers. 
*
Let's take INFJ and INFP. 


*If the person is indeed an INFJ with P-leaning borderline scores, then they most not express their extroverted judgement as much as those with stronger J scores. 

Now it's a longshot to think that this means they have some Fi and Ne/Si--but not so much to think that they rely more heavily on their next, more introverted, judging function - Ti. 

A Ni-Fi subtype INFJ who dwells more deeply in their inner-world than an Fe-subtype. This is well established in socionics.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> *
> Let's take INFJ and INFP.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why Ne/Si have to enter into the equation. It could just be the person is being heavily influenced by their inferior function, Se in the case of a Ni-dom. Von Franz in particular seems to describe introverted intuitives as being erratic and spontaneous and ungrounded. This is why I don't think tying J/P to functions works. It's fine on its own because you could then bring in other factors to help explain it (conscientiousness, neuroticism, socialization, worldview, etc), but I think its mistake to say that for instance, an Introverted Intuitive MUST express extraverted judgment and this is necessarily because of Fe or Te.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

And then there's this thing called MBTI Step II™.

It further breaks the four MBTI dimensions down into different sub-categories, so that people who score borderline J/P or borderline anything else for that matter, can see why without ever having to look at their cognitive functions, worry about their Big 5 scores, etc.

I posted a thread about it.

http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/99661-descriptions-mbti-step-ii-facets.html


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

reckful said:


> I'd expect it would mean the person's temperament doesn't really give them a tug in either direction.
> 
> For what it's worth, that's how Jung viewed the ambiverts, who he thought were more numerous than the introverts or extraverts. He referred to the ambivert as the "normal man," and said it meant he was "influenced as much from within as without."


Not that I disagree with you, but I was wondering if you could give a citation on those Jungian quotes you are mentioning? I'd like to read about it, but I confess I don't have as penetrating a memory of all his work as I'd like to have. I can't recall where he said that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I was wondering if you could give a citation on those Jungian quotes you are mentioning?


In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After first introducing the audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, Jung said this:



Jung said:


> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group.


----------

