# How do cognitive functions work for ambiverted people?



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

MBTI is only relevant insofar as its ability to apply usefully to the real world. Ambiversion is useless as a term. I would give an example to compare it to, but I actually cannot think of a more useless term to describe yourself than "ambivert." It asserts nothing. It's a wash. Even saying you were "a person with a nose" would be more helpful, because there are people out there without noses, and you are positively separating yourself from those people. I really cannot be more clear without repeating everything I've already said.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ksilva said:


> MBTI is only relevant insofar as its ability to apply usefully to the real world. Ambiversion is useless as a term. I would give an example to compare it to, but I actually cannot think of a more useless term to describe yourself than "ambivert." It asserts nothing. It's a wash. Even saying you were "a person with a nose" would be more helpful, because there are people out there without noses, and you are positively separating yourself from those people. I really cannot be more clear without repeating everything I've already said.


Assuming for the sake of argument that, _as a factual matter_, and for evolutionary reasons we may never fully understand, introverts exist and extraverts exist and ambiverts exist, I'm finding it awfully hard to understand your notion that identifying an ambivert as an ambivert would "assert nothing" — or how it could possibly make more sense to insist on the greater "usefulness" of a theoretical system that (incorrectly) asserted that ambiverts don't exist and that forced ambiverts to be (incorrectly) classified as either introverts or extraverts.

And, for the umpteenth time, you haven't pointed us to a single respectable source for the notion that, _as a factual matter_, ambiverts don't exist. Your real objection to the "ambivert" label essentially seems to boil down to the fact that you've got this nifty little typology that (in your non-Jungian version) puts people in sixteen categories, and if any possible fact threatens to complicate your nifty little typology, then that fact must be dismissed, regardless of whether there's any respectable evidence to justify the dismissal.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> MBTI is only relevant insofar as its ability to apply usefully to the real world. Ambiversion is useless as a term. I would give an example to compare it to, but I actually cannot think of a more useless term to describe yourself than "ambivert." It asserts nothing. It's a wash. Even saying you were "a person with a nose" would be more helpful, because there are people out there without noses, and you are positively separating yourself from those people. I really cannot be more clear without repeating everything I've already said.


You're *still* misunderstanding what is meant by "ambiversion" - the term is not being used to describe people who "are both introverted and extraverted", but rather people who are "in the middle" on the introversion/extraversion scale. I can't see how that is a nothing statement - provided you admit for different degrees of introversion and extraversion (and, given your reference to MBTI only being useful if it has real-world application, I should hope you admit for this), the possibility of people being in the middle of that scale - what is being termed "ambiversion" - needs also to be admitted for.


----------



## Mikasa (Jun 15, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> *Alright, no. This is not what I was saying, nor suggesting. So. For the third time, EVERYONE is ambiverted. We must be ambiverted in order to function healthily in society. We have a mix of introversion and extroversion, as the functions dictate. No one is a complete introvert, and no one is a complete extrovert, unless they are a hermit or have separation anxiety, respectively (that said, they still have introverted and extroverted functions). No one is a complete thinker, no one is a complete feeler. Etc. etc. What we have is inclinations toward one or the other, and this is literally the purpose of MBTI, to find out what your cognitive inclinations are. I did not say it was impossible for someone to be in the middle, on the contrary that is almost precisely what I just said. My main point, which I keep having to reiterate, is that bottom line, you are introverted, or you are extroverted, in the MBTI. Saying you are "ambiverted" is a statement of nothing. It is futile as a word, and thus, dumb.
> 
> This post is about cognitive functions, is it not? If we were to design a quiz pinning down someone's functions, how would you suggest "being more outgoing" or "talking more" be classified as a function? Does this make them dominantly Fe? Ne? Te? Se? The answer is none, because it is too vague of a question, and because, once again, cognitive functions do not have to do with how much you like talking*.


So your view of ambiversion is based on merely possessing both extraverted and introverted functions, regardless of the weighted difference between them? You view it as a more qualitative aspect of one's personality?

If that is how most viewed ambiversion, then indeed, most people would see little point in delving much more into it; however, those in opposition are viewing ambiversion in a different manner. They view it as something more measurable. They try to find ways that it can be calculated reliably to account for people that don't seem to fit well into the current theories. 

As for the current MBTI-theory, I agree that it does not take into account the idea of "ambiversion". Thus if one uses this theory (MBTI) in its current form, they'd have to choose a preference for introversion/extraversion or look to a different theory. 

The idea of topics such as these is to potentially delve into/refute new theories and expand old ones. 

--Can ambiversion ever truly be measured? How?/Why not? I suspect this is the biggest divide.
--And if so, assuming everyone was still considered an ambivert, does it mean the level of ambiversion would never be variable between people? Or could some people have more or less ambiversion than others? Etc...




> *Nah, I'm not ducking the issue because there is no issue. I've explained everything. We are just going around in circles. Regardless of "middle ness", you have a dominant function that's Xe or Xi. You perceive the world, or judge it, outwardly or inwardly, more than you do the opposite, even if it's just by 1%. One of your functions naturally comes first.*


I get your arguments, but there is a flaw here. If something differed by only 1%, it would by default be considered statistically the same due to the existence of margins of error. Only if tests were ~100% accurate with no variance between similar subjects could one say such small percent differences mattered significantly. (I'm assuming you agree that functions can be quantified against one another.)

Unfortunately, the accuracy of personality tests leaves much to be desired. Most research studies allow for a 5% difference between things to consider them the same. This accounts for error and natural variability. Perhaps the current personality tests (regardless of theory) would have a wider margin until they are fine-tuned. 

If people were to define ambiversion as a measurement of the difference between Xe-function(s) and Xi-function(s), then _theoretically_ there would be those people who lie within the margins. That said, there is no current agreed-upon measurement for ambiversion (to my knowledge). 

It is an interesting discussion. 



> *Saying "I like talking sometimes but also I like not talking at other times" provides no insight into someone's personality.*


Indeed, it doesn't. At least not on the surface.... You can't take a statement like that at face value alone if you want to understand the implications. There are many factors that could result in them "talking more sometimes and less at other times". 

Related underlying questions: When they do talk, _who_ is it they like speaking to? What topics to they prefer to contribute to? Why? What manner do they speak with? How do they feel before/afterwards? Do their inward thoughts match what they portray outwardly? etc...




> *It's called "special snowflake syndrome" because the only people who call themselves ambiverts are the ones who want to be "different",*


This is a blanket statement and a false one. Some people refer to themselves as "ambiverts" due to the lack of a better solution when no set personality type has emanated well with them. For these people, it's not about wanting to be "different". It's about finding what fits best.

In other words, people are people. There are people who want to be unique and "special snowflakey". There are people that actually _want _to be like the majority. And then there are people that could care-a-less either way and just want to know "what is". This can be applied to everything. There is nothing special about "ambiversion" when it comes to this.



> *when ironically, it's a statement that you're the same as everyone else*


No arguments here, if we go by your view of ambiversion being everyone simply possessing both introverted and extraverted functions. It's a different story for those who actively look at percent differences between the functions.



> *Like I said. I didn't say snowflakes were smart.*


I guarantee you that non-snowflakes and actual-snowflakes are equivalent when it comes to smartness/dumbness.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ksilva said:


> No, no no no. Ambivert is a dumb word and the world would do kindly to forget its existence. Every one of us is an "ambivert". At the same time, we are either more introverted or extroverted. This is dependent on your dominant function. Shyness and quietness have nothing to do with how you cognitively perceive or judge the world/ideas/etc. If your dominant function is Xe you are an extrovert, Xi introvert. This has nothing to do with sociability but COGNITIVE FUNCTION.
> 
> Ambiversion in the MBTI is akin to saying "I am an INTP/INFP because I think and feel".


What if both base and aux functions have equal strength & preference? Sociability ofc has nothing to do with this. it is at least theoretically possibly to be a true ambivert with no preference for either introversion or extroversion, but a balance.

I for example have no preference for either & I'm reclusive by nature aka not sociable.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> What if both base and aux functions have equal strength & preference? Sociability ofc has nothing to do with this. it is at least theoretically possibly to be a true ambivert with no preference for either introversion or extroversion, but a balance.
> 
> I for example have no preference for either & I'm reclusive by nature aka not sociable.


I am not quite sure I understand. You say sociability has "nothing to do with this"... But it does. Having dom Xe and tertiary Ye makes people much more interested in the external world, and thus makes them more sociable. And if both the dom and aux functions are equal, wouldn't the tertiary and inferior function draw an individual to a part or the other?


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

TopCatLSD said:


> Easy! :wink:
> 
> They don't exist.


Flawless argument...


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

HGM said:


> I am not quite sure I understand. You say sociability has "nothing to do with this"... But it does. Having dom Xe and tertiary Ye makes people much more interested in the external world, and thus makes them more sociable. And if both the dom and aux functions are equal, wouldn't the tertiary and inferior function draw an individual to a part or the other?


Hmm, maybe that would explain my Te usage, which is supposed to be unlikely/impossible for a Fi dom.
With socializing for me its mainly to exchange ideas and to think. Thinking alone is all fine, but I require external input to filter through and validate ideas. The process itself gives me energy, but I don't gain anything from taking part in a loud party, where people just drink and yell words at each other. Superficial talk has the same value, I get bored and move on by default & it drains me because both are boring & a unproductive waste of time on top of that. Reading a good book is more entertaining then going to a party for example & for me provides info, which is of higher value, then talking to a drunk friend about being drunk or the weather...

I'm one of those ppl who can't sit & watch tv to "chillax", because of the above mentioned.

I'd say extroverting may have less to do with socializing in the classical sense & more with preferring various kinds of external input, possibly based on type. I'm a 6w7 for example and I require mental stimulation-exchange.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> Hmm, maybe that would explain my Te usage, which is supposed to be unlikely/impossible for a Fi dom.
> With socializing for me its mainly to exchange ideas and to think. Thinking alone is all fine, but I require external input to filter through and validate ideas. The process itself gives me energy, but I don't gain anything from taking part in a loud party, where people just drink and yell words at each other. Superficial talk has the same value, I get bored and move on by default & it drains me because both are boring & a unproductive waste of time on top of that.


That's it. There is more to being an extrovert than being a social butterfly.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

HGM said:


> And if both the dom and aux functions are equal, wouldn't the tertiary and inferior function draw an individual to a part or the other?


If we're taking the tertiary and inferior into account, then we also need to really rephrase the notion of "ambivert" in terms of dominant plus tertiary being collectively equivalent to auxiliary and inferior in degree, whatever the individual balance between dom/aux and tert/inf is. Either way, the concept can be admitted for...


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> If we're taking the tertiary and inferior into account, then we also need to really rephrase the notion of "ambivert" in terms of dominant plus tertiary being collectively equivalent to auxiliary and inferior in degree, whatever the individual balance between dom/aux and tert/inf is. Either way, the concept can be admitted for...


Ok. So how does it work? Despite a great number of replies, no one seemed to adress this issue.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Ksilva said:


> MBTI is only relevant insofar as its ability to apply usefully to the real world. Ambiversion is useless as a term. I would give an example to compare it to, but I actually cannot think of a more useless term to describe yourself than "ambivert." It asserts nothing. It's a wash. Even saying you were "a person with a nose" would be more helpful, because there are people out there without noses, and you are positively separating yourself from those people. I really cannot be more clear without repeating everything I've already said.


I understand, in an abstract logical sense, why you assert that ambiversion is a useless term. It is, in and of itself, nothing.. and tells us nothing. 

However, it is also true that most people are effectively ambiverts (in the same way that most 'black' objects are not actually black, but are effectively black). 

Understanding this is actually key to understanding typology. I/E is the least significant dichotomy, in my opinion, from either MBTI or Jung perspectives. However, the existence of a strong differentiation of introversion or extraversion of course very much does exist and is of great consequence when it does.

Lastly, from a cognitive function perspective, introversion and extraversion are perhaps most significant when considered in the context of the functions themselves. That is to say, that while a person may be effectively ambiverted, they may be firmly, say, Fi rather than Fe. In terms of rational value-based cognition, they are quite introverted... despite being not strongly so, on the whole. 

It is significant that an Se-dom is an Se-dom, even if an ambivert. 

The real trouble is that failure to accept the significance of effective ambiversion (which you accept, if I read you correctly) forces one to only view typology in extremes that do not function in the real world. Most people don't fit well into type descriptions because these descriptions necessarily latch on to the extremes of observable behavior shown by those who are not ambiverted. This causes a problem in typology that must be understood and addressed... regardless of the logical point that there is no true absolute ambiversion, which you aptly point out.

It is semantics, though. My black shirt may not be black... but it is, effectively and for all intents and purposes, black...


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

HGM said:


> Ok. So how does it work? Despite a great number of replies, no one seemed to adress this issue.


Quite simply, I don't think the answer is clear; we can but speculate. It does matter, quite significantly, which aspects of personality theory you consider to be true and which you don't (and which you're not so sure on). But in terms of ambiversion meaning "in the middle on introversion/extraversion", and specifically in relation to cognitive functions, I'm thinking the sense would be one where the relative strengths of the functions are such that it could be said no preference for either introversion or extraversion exists. Like @arkigos points out, though, working with this model we ought to take note of the fact that, even if introversion and extraversion are equivalent, which functions are introverted and which extraverted is still just as significant.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

The cake is a lie.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

HGM said:


> Flawless argument...


My logic has no flaw. :laughing:


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

I believe in cognitive ambiversion, in the sense of an adjective at least, as in "ambiverted extravert" or "ambiverted introvert." It means that the auxiliary function is simply more influential than the average. I identify as this - as being very Ti influenced but not quite Ti dominant.


----------

