# Is ambiversion a thing?



## misstheground (Mar 11, 2012)

^see question above.

Ambiversion is supposed to be being extremely close to the middle in terms of extroversion/introversion.
Do you think it's valid?
What would it translate to on a cognitive function test?

If you're an ambivert, how do you choose which type to identify with?


----------



## pwiloson (Jan 15, 2011)

I think it is very valid, being one myself (about 55% E I'd say). How it translates in the tests, I don't know, but it should be taken into consideration for those that are only +/- 10% from the 50%.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I believe A-ness is a thing. I've seen it before.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Why not?

If you're referring to social extra/introversion, of course it is. A lot of people prefer a mixture of both.

If you're referring to Jungian intro/extraversion, then your typical functioning psyche needs a good mixture of both to allow you to live a balanced life. Too much subjective input and you lose touch with reality. Too much objective input and you lose touch with yourself.

I think most people still have a preferred leaning, but over time they adapt to a more balanced psyche, which can even make it difficult to figure out the dominant/base function later in life.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

You'll still technically have a function order so I'm not sure about calling yourself an "ANFJ" or something like that, but absolutely as far as social situations go you can be an ambivert. I consider myself one and I score nearly 50/50 on tests that aren't about the functions.


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

Being in the middle is great for everything


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

I believe the vast majority of people who call themselves ambiverts do so with poor or new understanding of the system, being social has naught to do with E/I preference, and percentages given in tests are meaningless beyond telling you the number of questions you answered for/against a preference, it's not a literal thing and I can't take it seriously when people use it that way.

I have no issue with the idea that some people are not strongly energised either by alone time or other people and have a preference for equal distribution of time between the two, I do believe this is a different point from are you energised from within or without, however I mostly find the MBTI definition of E/I to be quite vague and subjective, Socionics is much clearer in that regard.

With cognitive functions and how this works: It doesn't. 

I don't consider it a sound theory.


----------



## MirrorSmile (May 26, 2011)

I think it could go either way. Those who subscribe to this theory are either new at cognitive functions and don't understand it, _or_ they have developed their functions a lot to the point where they strike a good balance, thus seemingly becoming an ambivert.

I think there will still be preferences because I see intro/extroversion as how we gather energy, so to speak. But if the individual has very developed functions, he will probably feel comfortable enough in either situation regardless of preference.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm a weird example. I can spend months in my room, getting out of it only to take something out of a fridge and for a friendly chat here and there, and then I have a period of extroversion where I'm going out almost every day for a whole day. People that don't know me well think I'm an extrovert because I am very loud and talkative, even domineering in a way, but then they get to know me well and realize I'm spending most of my time with a book in my hand, closed in those precious 4 walls that I call my room.

In the end your functions show which type you are. My first two functions are Ti and Fi, only then followed by Ne.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Sonny said:


> I believe the vast majority of people who call themselves ambiverts do so with poor or new understanding of the system, being social has naught to do with E/I preference, and percentages given in tests are meaningless beyond telling you the number of questions you answered for/against a preference, it's not a literal thing and I can't take it seriously when people use it that way.
> 
> I have no issue with the idea that some people are not strongly energised either by alone time or other people and have a preference for equal distribution of time between the two, I do believe this is a different point from are you energised from within or without, however I mostly find the MBTI definition of E/I to be quite vague and subjective, Socionics is much clearer in that regard.


That's an alright assumption, but it neglects the possibility that an individual can vary between two different cognitive stackings.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Entr0py said:


> I'm a weird example. I can spend months in my room, getting out of it only to take something out of a fridge and for a friendly chat here and there, and then I have a period of extroversion where I'm going out almost every day for a whole day. People that don't know me well think I'm an extrovert because I am very loud and talkative, even domineering in a way, but then they get to know me well and realize I'm spending most of my time with a book in my hand, closed in those precious 4 walls that I call my room.
> 
> In the end your functions show which type you are. My first two functions are Ti and Fi, only then followed by Ne.


Which would make you no type! 

But I'm not any better since apparently my top two functions are Ne and Te, followed closely by Ti. Dunno bout that, but I don't know if its smart to assign any sort of solid type or even dominant function if you're gonna allow for the possibility of a shift in the ordering. One thing today might be misleading tomorrow.

But ambiversion, actually that seems like the preferable mode, and not in a I'm one extreme and then the other way, but more in the way of "I'm cool with whatever, my life rocks no matter what I'm doing" kind of way. Jealousy for those types.

I think I agree with Flatlander, he brings up an interesting predicament in that if you think that you are a type with a sort of intro/extra balance going in your functions, you sort of are an ambivert. So I guess if type theory is correct, everybody is an ambivert. So the E/I just tells you one thing- the way your _currently_ leading function orients. Hmm hmm hmm, not sure about this but it seems interesting.


----------



## k3vin (Feb 13, 2012)

yeah my brother/best friend is a tweener.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> That's an alright assumption, but it neglects the possibility that an individual can vary between two different cognitive stackings.


I'm not neglecting the possibility, I'm taking the personal stance that I do not see that as feasible.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

I believe in ambiversion.
Cognitive functions-wise, I'm an extrovert. Fine. That's been established, I accept that, great, moving on.
But by most people's standards, unrelated to functions, of social introversion/extroversion, I'm probably more of an introvert.
That's why I have xNTP in my signature. It's not that I haven't decided on introversion or extroversion, I have my type up under my name, but I'm more of a social introvert.
My alone time is golden. I'd probably rather read than go out and socialize. I hate crowds. My calming, recharging moments are when I am in solitude. Too much outside noise is overwhelming for me. I have very introspective tendencies. I don't tend to make friends easily in real life as I prefer to not approach people.

And FWIW, It's not a social anxiety disorder. Yes, I have some social anxiety but it's definitely not to the extent where it can be considered a disorder. I have more general anxiety than social anxiety and I can actually navigate conversations and social outings fairly well, although I prefer to stick to people I know and enjoy the company of, if anyone.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Title said:


> I believe in ambiversion.
> Cognitive functions-wise, I'm an extrovert. Fine. That's been established, I accept that, great, moving on.
> But by most people's standards, unrelated to functions, of social introversion/extroversion, I'm probably more of an introvert.
> That's why I have xNTP in my signature. It's not that I haven't decided on introversion or extroversion, I have my type up under my name, but I'm more of a social introvert.
> My alone time is golden. I'd probably rather read than go out and socialize. I hate crowds. My calming, recharging moments are when I am in solitude. Too much outside noise is overwhelming for me. I have very introspective tendencies. I don't tend to make friends easily in real life as I prefer to not approach people.


How is that substantially different from 75% of other ENTPs? And how does that make you an ambivert?

That's simply part of being a Ne dom imo, using ambiversion as a way of explaining you're a socially withdrawn ENTP is redundant. Especially if you're an E5.

When asked 8 out of 10 people who know me well would use the word "introvert" to describe me, I'm still not one.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Sonny said:


> How is that substantially different from 75% of other ENTPs? And how does that make you an ambivert?
> 
> That's simply part of being a Ne dom imo, using ambiversion as a way of explaining you're a socially withdrawn ENTP is redundant. Especially if you're an E5.
> 
> When asked 8 out of 10 people who know me well would use the word "introvert" to describe me, I'm still not one.


Because when people ask "are you an extrovert or an introvert?" outside of function-typing, they mean "Do you get energy from others or from yourself?"
I get energy from myself, and therefore by their definitions, I am introverted. Being E5 may have more to do with it than being Ne dom. I'm sure Ne doms are the most "in-their-own-head" of the extroverted types, but there are _plenty _of Ne doms who feel entirely extroverted.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

Ambiversion appears to definitely be a thing. Those who think it isn't are likely proceeding on a unjustified assumption. (I had always felt guilty about my introversion when I was younger, and consequently developed a very strong E).

The unjustified assumption is that extroversion and introversion are immutable inclinations. What proof have we of this? I subscribe to the ancient model of inclinations. The ancient model is that if, for example, you're inclined toward being an impatient person, then if you act patiently long enough, you will become inclined towards patients, derive pleasure from it etc. It's summed up by Socrate's quote "you are who you pretend to be" (paraphrased) or Aristotle's quote that these are "traits of character habituated through action". So here extroversion is analgous to patience. If one acts extroverted enough, the ancient model dictates that they will become extroverted. This is why a person of vicious character can become a person of virtuous character in the ancient sense. So what does this imply for cog functions?

The problems @_sunny_ feels this causes for functions is solved by 'zones'. 

entj cog func: TeNiSeFi intj cog func: NiTeFiSe

Just as an E can edge out the I in the four letters, a Te can edge out the Ni in cog functions and Se to Fi. When you're dealing with a horse race like that, it's irrelevant which is "dominant" since they're in a zone of equality, allowing you to go fluidly back and forth as you please, until you use one enough to make it clearly "dominant" over the alternative. 




Sonny said:


> I'm not neglecting the possibility, I'm taking the personal stance that I do not see that as feasible.


----------

