To quote myself:
But you are missing the essential point and the basic premise of the whole MBTindicator here. MBTI does not dictate type, it is simply a tool that can be used to point towards a possible type that is then decided by a professional with the client(its called best fit type).50/50 on I/E from an MBTI test means that its I
50/50 on S/N means that its N
50/50 on T/F means that its F
50/50 on J/P means that its P
Also if I/E would be in the middle in MBTI, that would mean that dom and aux would be equal and also that tert and inferior would be equal, not just that the person is balanced between I and E.
If J/P would be in the middle that would fuck up the whole thing. Take INTX for example, that would mean that Ti and Te are both dom and that again would take the E/I out of the equation and turn the type into XNTX and that again would mean that the person is now ENTP ENTJ INTP and INTJ. Or we could assume that we could apply some dual type thing that would be INTJ/INTP, whose dom function would be equally Ni and Ti, aux equally Ne and Te, tert equally Fi and Si and inferior equally Fe and Se.
Doing this sort of "hybrid" thing on the two middle letters would fuck up the things even worse.
Also you are supposed to be a thinking type, i shouldnt have to explain the obvious to you when it comes to simple logic like this. Its hard for me to understand how anyone over 5 with even the basic understanding of MBTI isnt able to see this..
But second, and more importantly, assume for the sake of argument that the MBTI theory posited that it wasn't possible to be an ambivert (which, as just explained, it really doesn't). Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. Given that today, as I understand it, there's quite a lot of accumulated data that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies (and the Big Five dimensions they correlate with) exhibit something along the lines of a normal distribution, with the majority of people in or not that far from the middle, why aren't you inclined to respond to that data by saying that the MBTI needs to be adjusted to allow for the middle possibility, rather than sit there and say, well, fine, maybe there are ambiverts in, y'know, real life, but don't be messing with my sacred theory—??