# Thread: Hybrids Unite! Complicated personalities rule!

1. Originally Posted by reckful
Well, first, Jung said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he referred to the people in that large middle group as the "normal man." And Myers likewise allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. The official MBTI test is designed on the operational assumption that people have four preferences, and assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension. But that's a very different thing from saying that the MBTI claims it isn't possible for someone to be in the middle on any dimension — and in fact, the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. And the more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of some of them and the I side of the rest.
I never heard jung saying that anyone is exactly in the middle, instead i have heard him saying that people have both introverted and extraverted sides and that extremes to either end is rare. I think that this is what you heard as well and somehow twisted it.

To quote myself:
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
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).

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—??

2. Originally Posted by INTP
I never heard jung saying that anyone is exactly in the middle, instead i have heard him saying that people have both introverted and extraverted sides and that extremes to either end is rare. I think that this is what you heard as well and somehow twisted it.

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).

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..
Wow. So much wrongness in one post.

When I refer to Jung saying that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted (and calling the ambivert the "normal man"), I'm referring to a lecture he gave in 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — that was separately published in 1925 and later included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types. After first introducing the audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, he said this:

Originally Posted by Jung
There is, finally, 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.
The ambiverted "normal man" Jung is describing here is an ambivert because he's "less differentiated" than an introvert or extravert, rather than because his differentiated attitude is balanced by an equal amount of unconscious compensation.

And Jung certainly didn't believe that being ambiverted could potentially mean the person had dom and aux functions of equal strength. Myers acknowledged that the vast majority of Jung scholars agreed that Jung thought the dom and aux functions would have the same attitude, and the vast majority of Jung scholars are almost certainly right about that, as explained at length in this post and the post that follows it.

As for the notion that moving from J to P flips all your functions (making an INTx, for example, extremely problematic if not impossible), that's only if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And if you're interested, you can find more discussion of those issues in this post and this post.

3. Originally Posted by DerekEvans01
I made it clear that this thread was only for people that wanted to discuss the theory of hybrid types . . .
The type combinations may be of interest to you in the book Jung's Typology in Perspective, written by Angelo Spoto.

4. Originally Posted by reckful
Wow. So much wrongness in one post.

When I refer to Jung saying that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted (and calling the ambivert the "normal man"), I'm referring to a lecture he gave in 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — that was separately published in 1925 and later included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types. After first introducing the audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, he said this:

The ambiverted "normal man" Jung is describing here is an ambivert because he's "less differentiated" than an introvert or extravert, rather than because his differentiated attitude is balanced by an equal amount of unconscious compensation.

And Jung certainly didn't believe that being ambiverted could potentially mean the person had dom and aux functions of equal strength. Myers acknowledged that the vast majority of Jung scholars agreed that Jung thought the dom and aux functions would have the same attitude, and the vast majority of Jung scholars are almost certainly right about that, as explained at length in this post and the post that follows it.

As for the notion that moving from J to P flips all your functions (making an INTx, for example, extremely problematic if not impossible), that's only if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And if you're interested, you can find more discussion of those issues in this post and this post.
First of all in your quote jung says this:

What comes for the jungs quote, you are missing one pretty important thing he mentioned: "There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without."

Even jung is saying that its just hard to type.

Also this part needs some explanation as well: "This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man"

First lets review what this differentiation means:

Originally Posted by psytypes definitions
Differentiation
Means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions—as for example thinking with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc.—as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.c. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency and ambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriée"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible'; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.
So no, jung is not saying that an average person is equally both introvert and extravert, he is saying that both conscious and unconscious sides are playing a big role in them since they havent brought the functions to consciousness much. Its the attitude of the consciousness that matters and in average undeveloped person its hard to say which side is the conscious side and which one is the unconscious and because of this, its hard to determine whether the person is introverted or extraverted, as it is the conscious attitude that matters, not whether the person is influenced by internal or external world per se.

You still see much wrongness in what i said?

What comes to myers and briggs, they interpreted that jung saying that aux tert and inferior are all the opposite in I/E than dom. Nowadays the "official" MBTI folks are divided, some say that its the opposite(which i assume you mean by harolds model) some think its the same as dom. Even the official guidelines differ on this issue. Usually the I/E is just left out of tert because of the unclarity.

5. Originally Posted by DerekEvans01
Well my apologies for appealing to all of your negative sides, but either I'm just an ENFP with a high IQ, thirst for adventure and conflict, good senses and reflexes, and that is logical to a point, or I'm a hybrid. I don't see how anyone with demonic Se could have reactions as good as I do, and sometimes people ask me if they could punch me in the abdomen to see how I can take it, and when I say yes, I end up blocking it without thinking. Really now, can someone with the lowest Se out of all the types be able to do that?
Huh. Well, that would make sense for an unconscious Se. Hrrm. I'm thinking, but don't feel like expressing myself. I think that I am suppressing my Se, my reaction time is very high at around 2 seconds, but you are not, it is unconscious, and you have no control of it. And if this is so the case, why haven't you thought of ESFP?

I apologize for my tangent, but I am compelled to ask this.

6. what about: personalities rule

7. Talking about hybrids..i almost consider one.. i am not born hybrid but am one now...now listen
i am both introverted and extroverted (typical ENFP you would say)
i have equal Ne and Si ..though Ne is my primary function according to MBTI....introverted Sensing is too high.
THIS IS WHAT I LOVE BEST ABOUT ME- I have equally developed Fi and Ti. (please its not a confusion..i weigh both to make a decision)..so since i have high Fi and Ti,i tend to enjoy being alone in a good place
Last but not least ,in all personality tests my J and F are almost equal ..i might be naturally more of P ,,but now i take decisions concerning J/f using my Ti-Fi reasoning ..which take things balanced more or less..

and especially for you DEREk. i have almost the same reflexes and i get startled easily..but my Se is poor..i think its is because of tremors caused when we forced to drift between a quasi-imaginary world and the reality because of a violent change in environment. ...
i used to word violent as a metaphor..
consider this example,
i am in my room in deep thought ..and suddenly there is a sound ...i startle easily...it doesn't mean i am Se..i caused by a violent drift b/w two worlds..
or i in the same situation i accidently knocked over a tumbler i would automatically catch it...this has happen at least twice a week...

also Absence of Se never means that you are completely unaware of your surroundings

8. I was about to make a thread about this! Though for convenience's sake I usually identify as INFP, I identify strongly with many aspects of INTPs and am pretty close to the middle on the T/F scale. I don't understand why some are against the concept. Personality theory is not a hard science. I see no reason to believe someone can't be a mix of two (or maybe more!) types or so close to the middle they can't really be said to be solidly one or another. And I strongly agree with reckful's criticism of the functions model.

9. I have seen many xNFP's who have powerful thinking.I dont know why this problem occurs mainly in this class.One explanation is because of a powerful intuition which somehow adapts or evolves because of some reason in XNFPs
.Well i see MBTI as only a platform for development ..they outcome can never be modelled.

10. I love it when some post: "the official MBTI people." (As if that means they have the last word on anything.) It started with a mother-daughter team, based on nothing more than their own personal observations. Anyone is capable of challenging the old observations and substituting their own. There is no right or wrong answer.

#### 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