# Not everyone has a type



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

In a lecture included in the Collected works edition of Psychological types, Jung said:




> "It gradually became clear to me that there must be two fundamentally different attitudes which would divide human beings into two groups -provided the whole of humanity consisted of highly differentiated individuals. Since this is obviously not the case, one can only say that this difference in attitude becomes plainly observable _only when we are confronted with a comparatively well-differentiated personality_" (Jung, 1971, p.549)






> "There is [...] 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 [...]" (Jung, 1971, p.516)


In my experience, this is true, I encounter many people IRL and online that I find "typeless", not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

But this leaves me slightly confused, and my mediocre understanding of Jung can't help me.
If there is a differentiated state and an undifferentiated state, are there intermediary states?
As in, can a person be only partially differentiated? What might that look like?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Of course there are intermediary states. Several people on this site fall between differentiated and undifferentiated but tend to as a whole, lean more towards undifferentiated. That is, they have a preference but it is not made overly clear or obvious. 

Of all the people I have observed in this site, I would say only a handful are clearly differentiated. Notably, the smallest group out of those handful of people are perception types, and the absolute smallest are intuitive types.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Of course there are intermediary states. Several people on this site fall between differentiated and undifferentiated but tend to as a whole, lean more towards undifferentiated. That is, they have a preference but it is not made overly clear or obvious.
> 
> Of all the people I have observed in this site, I would say only a handful are clearly differentiated. Notably, the smallest group out of those handful of people are perception types, and the absolute smallest are intuitive types.


Could you elaborate on what the functions of a non-differentiated type look like?

(Do they have something that sort of resembles a dominant function, but isn't used to its full potential?
Or do they rely on their dom and aux equally?
Or have four functions which they don't have an order of preference for?
Or any recurring pattern you might've noticed)


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

He's telling you aren't an INFP, beat him up.

No, now seriously, it's so difficult that i would totally throw myself into that third group.
Eventhough that i definitely lean towards introvertion, in a period of let's say 1 year i've been able to more or less reduce chances to a clear group of 3 types that could work for me, for me this is the fardest i can go. Now from then on the chances to know your "true type" are almost 0. To be capable of really knowing what's natural on you and what's not is beyond human capacity and in my perspective you always will be influenced by your deep desires, it's still cool to measure possibilities and change perspectives of every situation for yourself.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> he's telling you aren't a INFP, beat him


You again ! 

Even if he were I wouldn't take that personally, I don't believe I'm fully differentiated as of yet


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

I knew you were an INFP before entering this topic and seeing you're type.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> I knew you were an INFP before entering this topic and seeing you're type.


How did you know?


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Preference strength is a factor. And personal values may trump preferences in certain circumstances. 
There is an interesting interview in the current _Smithsonian_ that suggests the personal values of obedience to the state and national pride overcame people's preference to letting innocent people live in WW II Germany and the unthinkable Holocaust happened.
Jung's work is a model constructed to study and define human behavior. It is not reality, and as is any model, it is incomplete and imperfect.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Probably he used his Ni to get an insightfull realization.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I think thats mostly the case for me, though I finally did just settle on what type I'm _most_ like, and without caring much that I don't fit the stereotype. Theres no type thats going to box in all of me comfortably.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Hurricane said:


> How did you know?


I don't know if I can really explain it properly or do it justice, honestly. It just kind of aligns with something an INFP would have interest in for short. Haha.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Could you elaborate on what the functions of a non-differentiated type look like?
> 
> (Do they have something that sort of resembles a dominant function, but isn't used to its full potential?
> Or do they rely on their dom and aux equally?
> ...


1. Differentation matters in the sense that the ego consciously indulges in the perspective, which in itself does not really suggest potential. It is more about obvious expression really. How likely are they to express such a perspective, indulge in it, live in it? I can PM you with examples of members on this site who I think are well-differentiated. 

2.They have a preference towards say, thinking as a dominant, but may also occasionally switch to sensation so they switch between thinking and sensation, thus in a sense, having neither but yet both as a dominant preference.

3. In truly undifferentiated individuals this would hold true, yes. Even in differentiated individuals it holds somewhat true in the sense that we need all functions to operate normally and we use all at a very basic primal level. I need sensation to even just observe my environment at all (which is not the same as taking in information via the 5 senses quite), and I need thinking in order to articulate myself and my thoughts, and I need feeling to rationalize my own desires, likes, dislikes etc, and I need intuition when thinking about something else than what is present in front of me. What matters is how conscious all of these functions are, and how much my ego identifies with anyone of them. In undifferentiated individuals the ego has no real preference. 

4. Other recurring patterns is dom-inf and aux-tert switches, and switches between some vague idea between introversion and extroversion.

5. Re: the snarky joke, yes, you don't strike me as overly differentiated towards Fi though as you noted, you don't need to hear me tell you that because I think to anyone with sufficient insight into the subject it's rather obvious. I know one person IRL and most Fi types on this forum don't even come close to her, she's a living embodiment of Jung's Fi portrait. You seem to mostly fall in the second category, enjoying both Ne and Fi but really not having a strong preference towards either one.


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

They'd still fit an 8 type model.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm pretty sure I used to be mostly undifferentiated until recently. When I look back at things I've posted in the past, a lot of it doesn't sound much like me. I was pretty inconsistent and didn't know my preferences. I'm going through a gradual process of developing preferences and becoming aware of already existing preferences. So far, I seem to be leaning toward ISTJ.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> 1. Differentation matters in the sense that the ego consciously indulges in the perspective, which in itself does not really suggest potential. It is more about obvious expression really. How likely are to express such a perspective, indulge in it, live in it? I can PM you with examples of members on this site who I think are well-differentiated.


If you can be bothered to do that then yes !



> 5. Re: the snarky joke, yes, you don't strike me as overly differentiated towards Fi though as you noted, you don't need to hear me tell you that because I think to anyone with sufficient insight into the subject it's rather obvious. I know one person IRL and most Fi types on this forum doesn't even come close to her, she's a living embodiment of Jung's Fi portrait. You seem to mostly fall in the second category, enjoying both Ne and Fi but really not having a strong preference towards either one.


That's definitely how I experience it, I consider myself ambiverted in terms of functions, though as I'm behaviorally introverted its simpler to posit as INFP.


----------



## Deftodon (Jul 27, 2013)

He wasn't talking about MBTI types though. 

You just need to read the descriptions of his pure types to know that most people are not like that, especially INxJs.


----------



## ButterflyWingsNDayDreams (May 4, 2014)

It may also be possible to be multiple types. For example, you could be bubbly and very outgoing like an ENFP, but you could also enjoy debating and sticking to your opinions like an ENTP. There are so many subcategories within these types, no two people are alike. Just 16 personalities for over 7 billion people? I don't think so. I just think it's easier to look at it in a limited amount of categories.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ButterflyWingsNDayDreams said:


> It may also be possible to be multiple types. For example, you could be bubbly and very outgoing like an ENFP, but you could also enjoy debating and sticking to your opinions like an ENTP. There are so many subcategories within these types, no two people are alike. Just 16 personalities for over 7 billion people? I don't think so. I just think it's easier to look at it in a limited amount of categories.


I'm sorry but this is a vast simplification of the actual theory. That's not how it works in my opinion. If we can just change type on the fly there is no point in having discreet categories in the first place.


----------



## ButterflyWingsNDayDreams (May 4, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> I'm sorry but this is a vast simplification of the actual theory. That's not how it works in my opinion. If we can just change type on the fly there is no point in having discreet categories in the first place.


Do you not agree that people can be multiple types? Do you really think that EVERYONE fits into just one type? Or are you implying that you don't like the way I've introduced this idea


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> 1. Differentation matters in the sense that the ego consciously indulges in the perspective, which in itself does not really suggest potential. It is more about obvious expression really. How likely are they to express such a perspective, indulge in it, live in it? I can PM you with examples of members on this site who I think are well-differentiated.


I would actually like this PM as well. (Plus maybe a quick thought on where I stand if I'm not on the differentiated list. XD)

Meanwhile, though. this actually leads me to another question for you (because I'm curious about your opinion, honestly):

Is the degree of differentiation one has capable of changing, you think? As (for example) a previously strong thinker starts to overload analyzing things logically and begins to rely more on personal preferences and values to pick up the slack?


----------

