# Thread: Are there really 24 types?

1. Originally Posted by highlander
Think about how rare something like that would be though - for a dominant and auxiliary function to be exactly equal. I guess it's theoretically possible but not worth changing the model for. There is also the concept of balance.
You're right about saying one is an introvert or an extravert is highly oversimplified. I think a lot of people with a dominant introverted function seem like extraverts (layman definition of that word).

It might be more helpful to look at a different system like Enneagram and combine that with MBTI or Cognitive functions. You then look at the overlaps and differences between the characteristics of each. Between those two things, you have an extremely rich framework for understanding.
you are correct in your assertion that the 1st and 2nd functions are rarely going to be exactly equal, but I do think that often the difference in preference isn't enough to make a significant diffence. if one uses Ne 40% of the time, Fi 37% of the time and other functions 23% of the time, I would consider that pretty ambiverted. on a scale from -100 (introverted) to 100 (extraverted) I would consider those who score between -20 and 20 to be true ambiverts with -30 to 30 being fairly ambiverted (assuming there was an accurate means of obtaining this measurement)

2. if you want to do some 24 type typology, i suggest starting from scratches instead modifying jungian typology like that. naturally you could take some concepts from it, but you will need to modify its basics more for it to have any chance of being validate or it will be just mbti gone wrong.

3. I see the E - I as a "line", where E is the other extreme and I is the other extreme. And people are situated differently in this "line", some are more extraverted than others, even inside one personality type. On the other hand, according to the theory, there are functions behind the 4 letters. So, actually, E nor I in the type doesn't tell anything about a person but there are functions behind them. Like with ENFP, The E only means, that the primary function (iNtuition in this case) is extraverted function. So, if a person would be "A", then what would be his/hers primary function or does it mean that her/his first 2 functions are as strong, othe being extraverted function and the other introverted function? And if a person is really extraverted, does it mean that s/he has several extraverted functions before any introverted functions in his/hers function order?

But, I think that MBTI tells only so much about people, it doesn't include everything. People inside of the same MBTI type can be quite different in other things than what is "measured" in MBTI. And on the other hand, I see the function definition in MBTI "theory" very problematic, because it seems that people inside of the same personality type has actually quite different function orders. Only few first functions seem to be similar with people who have same MBTi type (but it's not always so).

So, actually, there are as many personality types as there are people in the world, some have certain features that are incommon but even iside of the same "feature" we are all different. MBTI type doesn't include everything and people inside of one personality type have only so much in common but mainly people are still very different even inside of one type.

4. Originally Posted by Elfboy
you are correct in your assertion that the 1st and 2nd functions are rarely going to be exactly equal, but I do think that often the difference in preference isn't enough to make a significant diffence. if one uses Ne 40% of the time, Fi 37% of the time and other functions 23% of the time, I would consider that pretty ambiverted. on a scale from -100 (introverted) to 100 (extraverted) I would consider those who score between -20 and 20 to be true ambiverts with -30 to 30 being fairly ambiverted (assuming there was an accurate means of obtaining this measurement)
Ok, so if you create a new system then, with primary and auxiliary being "roughly close" representing an "A" vs "E" or "I", then you need to draw the line to say someone is in the middle. It's less about I or E and more about Fi vs Ne. So you'd need to say the two would be within 5 percentage points (or something). Then you would have the additional complication of confusing the function order for the tertiary and the inferior, which is not a trivial part of the model.

5. Originally Posted by Elfboy
Are Introversion and Extraversion really a choice between one or the other? many people on this forum are apparent ambiverts. perhaps there should really be an A option for the first dichotomy that would display traits of both the E and I types it shared the other letters with. for example an STJ could be an ESTJ an ISTJ or an ASTJ. Several ENFPs (in fact, the majority of them I've met), ENTPs and ENTJs in particular are just not very extraverted while several I types like ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ and ISTP are often times not very introverted.
my ENTJ best friend for instance can sometimes spend several days away from anyone and just study for 10-12 hours a day )only stopping to eat. he usually enjoys this and says that he just need to get away from people for awhile.
I'm an ENFP and I feel stressed and crammed if I don't have 3-5 a day to myself listening to music and web browsing. I also score Introverted on just about every MBTI test I've taken, but I feel like an ENFP simply because their behavior, communication style and cognitive ordering fits me more
my brother is an ISTP and he gets bored easily and is constantly out with his friends doing things while I would rather stay home and drink tea quietly for several hours (I get very cranky if my tea time is disturbed lol)
and i know several more examples like this. perhaps the first dichotomy needs an A as a middle option for those in the middle as introversion/extraversion is a spectrum as opposed to one or the other like thinking/feeling sensing/intuition and perceiving/judging
I can see a point in this, if you take the type description on face value. And disregard the idea of a function order and functions. While only using the basic general definition of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition, as Jung described them. And made a seperate description of perception and judging. Which would mean you'd have to change the already excisting type descriptions aswell.

Edit: the idea of a person using two functions equally would create mental instability. One would always need to be the ruling functions which would render the idea of an amibvert description worthless. In this regard. Not if you take out the functions.

edit 2: processes is the word, sorry...

6. Oh my god not this again...

7. ^^^

I had tried to extend the types with third poles in the dichotomies, but had to set that idea aside for now. I was trying to make it match this system:
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cente...-Inclusion.htm

The four blends down around the middle beginning with "Phlegmatic-" and blended with the other four temperaments are the "ambiverts". They "express" as a Phlegmatic, and "respond" as the other temperament. To express as a Phlegmatic means to express moderately, which is basically inbetween low expression (introversion) and high expression (extroversion).
But even then, they will still fall on one side or the other. A Phlegmatic Melancholy will be slightly on the introvert side, and Phlegmatic Choleric will be slightly on the extrovert side. Since the type code is based on "preference", then even such a slight preference would basically constitute a full-fledged I or E notation.

So I realized that trying to add a third pole in dead center probably was not worth the effort.
What I have found in using this system with people here, is that people who identify most with those moderate temperaments will often have ambiguity in the type letters. Like in this case, I/E. So there is a correlation; but just not any dead center "ambiversion" pole.

8. Originally Posted by Eric B
What I have found in using this system with people here, is that people who identify most with those moderate temperaments will often have ambiguity in the type letters. Like in this case, I/E. So there is a correlation; but just not any dead center "ambiversion" pole.
Right. By adding an "Ambivert" dimension to MBTI, you're asking that people show a preference for non-preference. It just doesn't fit well within the system. Yes, there are always going to be people who are undecided, but you can't adjust the framework to fit around those people. You have to build a whole NEW framework for that. Scientists before the theory of special relativity tried to do that with the concept of "the aether." It turned into a huge jumbled mess of hypotheses and speculation and people were so wrapped up with creating new parametres to explain why it wasn't working that they ignored all the evidence pointing towards the fact that there is no aether.

When you set out to bake a cake and you mess up the instructions, you can't just keep adding things to the batter to it to make it better. The best you can do is start over from scratch.

And yes, I am alluding to the idea that maybe the theory of MBTI is fundamentally flawed. But someone has yet to bake a better cake with similar ingredients so all we have in the line of Jungian function cakes is this one to enjoy and dissect the different flavours of.

9. XNTP => Ne=Ti

How do we quantify Ne to prove that it is equal to Ti?

We can't, therefor we can't prove Ne=Ti.

Why are people taking the MBTI so serious..........

10. Originally Posted by Elfboy
it's true that their are balanced people of every type, but for I/E it's not as black and white. a T/F balanced ENFP is still Ne, Fi, Te, Si a P/J balanced ENFP will share NONE of the functions with a balanced ENFJ, thus a middle letter for N/S, T/F and P/J is unfeasible.cognitively, an ANFP would simply be Ne=Fi, Te=Si as opposed to Ne>Fi>Te>Si. being A would merely close the preferential gap between the functions 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8. most scientists agree that simply saying one is an introvert or an extravert is highly oversimplified.
Actually most "scientists" (I think you mean psychologists) agree that the MBTI system is fundamentally nonscientific.

And your argument only makes sense if you think function order is always exactly as described in the model (i.e. that it never goes Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe or something)....which seems unlikely to me.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO