User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 14 of 14

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Summary of video.

    "Theres no such thing as being borderline because it's my opinion and stuff".

    Hmm yes seems like a good explanation indeed.

  2. #12
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Yeepers. I'd say that's one of the more jaw-droppingly goofy MBTI videos I've ever seen. Not only does she say that, as a factual matter, it's impossible to be exactly in the middle on any of the MBTI dichotomies — an assertion there's really no respectable data support for (as far as I know) — but she also claims there's no such thing as being a "mild" introvert or a "strong" introvert. All introverts are equally introverted, according to this wise type practitioner, because each of the MBTI dichotomies represents two "discrete states" with no gradations.

    Jung himself, as I never tire of pointing out, said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

    And it's important to never lose sight of the difference between theoretical assertions and factual assertions. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies were truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the continuum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best. By contrast, the woman in the video confidently proclaims that she somehow knows, as a factual matter, that middleness (not to mention mildness of preference) is impossible, and that anyone who thinks they're "borderline" just misunderstands themselves. As she puts it, "I can help anyone who believes they are borderline to accurately determine their true type in a single Skype conversation."

    It would all be silly enough if the state of the evidence was simply that there was, as yet, no firm support for the idea that you can't be "borderline." But in fact, as I understand it, and as noted in the Big Five articles at Wikipedia, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies exhibit something like a normal distribution, with the majority of people not that far from the middle.

  3. #13
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Yeepers. I'd say that's one of the more jaw-droppingly goofy MBTI videos I've ever seen. Not only does she say that, as a factual matter, it's impossible to be exactly in the middle on any of the MBTI dichotomies — an assertion there's really no respectable data support for (as far as I know) — but she also claims there's no such thing as being a "mild" introvert or a "strong" introvert. All introverts are equally introverted, according to this wise type practitioner, because each of the MBTI dichotomies represents two "discrete states" with no gradations.

    Jung himself, as I never tire of pointing out, said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

    And it's important to never lose sight of the difference between theoretical assertions and factual assertions. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies were truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the continuum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best. By contrast, the woman in the video confidently proclaims that she somehow knows, as a factual matter, that middleness (not to mention mildness of preference) is impossible, and that anyone who thinks they're "borderline" just misunderstands themselves. As she puts it, "I can help anyone who believes they are borderline to accurately determine their true type in a single Skype conversation."

    It would all be silly enough if the state of the evidence was simply that there was, as yet, no firm support for the idea that you can't be "borderline." But in fact, as I understand it, and as noted in the Big Five articles at Wikipedia, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies exhibit something like a normal distribution, with the majority of people not that far from the middle.
    While I actually side with you on this one, much more than I do her (although, as I argued in my post, I don't believe it simply works the same or means the same thing for each of the dichotomies [and, what I didn't say in that post is that I think you can actually show "middleness" in the second or third dichotomy, but that what such middleness really means, if it is genuine {i.e., not simply due to poor understanding of the test, or poor understanding of one's self}, is that one has developed their tertiary and/or inferior functions, such that they are relatively closer in "strength" and/or preference to their top two functions], and that the first dichotomy is the one which such balance is most naturally suited to, and that true balance on the others leads to a much more complicated explanation/situation), there is still a degree to which I think she is right in that, even if your S and N or T and F dichotomies are close, there is still one side which you actually are, and that, regardless of what the test says, it really doesn't matter, as what really matters are what functions you use.

    An INTJ and an INFJ could both come out looking extremely similar on a test, if the INTJs tertiary Fi is highly developed, and his auxiliary Te is, by comparison, not too well-developed (or "strongly preferred", or "strong" -- whatever wording you prefer), and if the INFJs tertiary Ti is highly developed, and his auxiliary Fe is, by comparison, not too well developed, but these two individuals, while highly similar on the dichotomies, could be completely different, when you really examine how their psyches work, based off the fact that one uses NiTeFiSe and the other uses NiFeTiSe.

    These differences become very apparent when you spend enough time, and have enough serious discussion, in a diverse place like this.

    Based on your post count here vs your post count at INTJForum, and some statements you've expressed relative to your introversion, I think exposure to more of this kind of diversity might cause you to start (and rightly so) questioning how much more insightful, relevant, important, and accurate the dichotomy-centric perspective really is relative to a function-centric perspective.

  4. #14
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    I feel like the problem here is it approaches types solely from the perspective of cognitive processes. In which case, it would not make sense that people would NOT have some borderline or mild preferences. I can imagine this easily if you think of the play between the dominant & the inferior - such as inferior Te in a Fi-dom. I think that Dario Nardi's book suggested that a type will often use & possess skills associated with their inferior. This means someone could easily "use" a preference alongside an "opposite one". But the point being missed, is that the dominant type is the ego. It's more of a whole mentality, not a literal process one favors. There seems to be obvious connection between these preferences for certain cognitive processes & ego types, but they're frequently spoken of as one & the same, when they are not describing the exact same thing.

    The Fi type (I'm using Fi because I feel I grasp it best) is really an ego built around valuation using the internal experience/self as a gauge, but the person in this limited state of consciousness uses other functions. When inferior functions are integrated, it raises their state to a higher consciousness, as they are less bound by the narrowness of their ego. Prior to any integrations, this does not exclude other functions from manifesting in their personality or from the person using their skills. Especially does the former happen, IMO, but people often just don't identify with it because it's often negative & they must distance themselves from it.

    But the development of the inferiors that others speak of seems to be more about using a function & it's associated skills, which often occurs in service of the ego's aims, so that I don't think this occurring in itself is expanding the ego. But I don't think the two are unrelated still, just not one & the same.

    I'm trying to think of a metaphor - perhaps borrowing & slightly altering Isabel Myer's example of the dominant being like a general & the other functions are manifested as foot soldiers under its authority, except the auxiliary operates more like a powerful, trusted, right-hand man. She also noted how a preference tends to show in situations where either is fine to use, but that a person may use the "opposite" of their preference in a situation which doesn't allow for their preference (although people sometimes avoid these situations also). This suggests people who find themselves often in situations which don't allow for their preference may feel or even be more "borderline". This wouldn't be a lack of self-knowledge, but simply viewing yourself as to how you are vs how you'd prefer to be. This is why they try & encourage you to test according to how you are outside of school or work & according to how you'd like to be over how you act (because we sometimes act as we must, not s we'd prefer).

    For me, this was helpful in testing as a Feeling type instead of a Thinking type. My Feeling preference is strong in terms of my ego, but in terms of skill sets associated with it, I test borderline because it's hard to find niches in life which suit a Fi preference.

    I think if people understood the difference (in this theory; I make no factual claims ) between USING cognitive functions & their associated skills vs BEING a certain ego type & everything falling under its "spell", then they'd consider that borderline types are both true & yet not.

    I think getting past the linear models would help too. The shadow concepts are meant to do that, I think, but people still want to order functions. I think dynamic between them in an individual is a better way to look at it, rather than an order of strength of preference.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

Similar Threads

  1. [E9] Type Nine: Are you drawn to other Type Nines?
    By gromit in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 09:44 PM
  2. Types that are driven by ideas
    By Typoz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 03:04 PM
  3. Borderline types?
    By Ardent15 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 10:41 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Testing as the type you are drawn to
    By OrangeAppled in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 04:09 PM
  5. Pure(100%), Borderline Types and behavior
    By EcK in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-17-2009, 06:29 PM

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