[MBTI General] Ambiversion

[Vendrah]

Have you ever heard about extraverted introverted types or introverted extraverted types? Which E types are less extroverted of all Es and which I types are less Is? This thread is to discuss ambiversion, which is the situation where a person does not have a preference for introversion or extraversion. So, give freely your opinions and As about which types tend to be more ambiverted, when ambiversion happens, why, etc...

It is important to take these notes from [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] in post 13:

Jung was also a strong believer in ambiverts. In fact, he thought more people were in the middle than were extraverted or introverted, and he referred to those ambiverts as "the normal man." But Jungian ambiverts are ambiverted because their functions are essentially undifferentiated — and are neither significantly introverted or significantly extraverted

Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and 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. What's more, the 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.

In the next paragraph is one "theory" of mine using Grant Function Stack (aka cognitive functions stack) and concepts about Ne and Si to justify a rank about extraversion and which types tends to be ambiverted. In the thread there is a big discussion about the validity of Grant Function stacks, starting from post 13 that states its invalidity.


Types more likely to have ambiversion

Im going to list here the 4 "ambiverts" type with arguments about it.

First, I would like to quickly point out about concepts of introversion or extroversion on MBTI. In common sense, extroverted are supposed to be talkative and social, while introverts should be reclused and more "listeners" type. However, there is a second branch that says that extroverted people are the ones who gets their energy from people while introverted are the ones that gets their energy by being alone. It is funny that, although there is a good bunch of people that claims that the second branch is the right one, a MBTI test that does not have any question related to being talkative and social ("Are you a talker or a listener?" "Are you described as social by other people?" "Do you like parties?" etc..) is very rare. Also, outside MBTI and talking more general, there is the concept that there is not such a thing as fully extraverted or fully introverted and that some people are neither introvert nor extrovert. There are some arguments, maybe I could link sources since discussing this hardly is not on-topic. But this topic is inside this line of thinking: Ambiversion is possible.

Second, by cognitive functions no type is fully extraverted or fully introverted. Every type has 3 main functions (Leading function, Secondary function and tertiary function), and at least one of them is introverted and at least one of them is extroverted in any given type.

(Third has been erased by edit)

Now reaching the point: The 4 ambiverts types are ENFP, ENTP (both can be mentioned as 'introverted extraverts'), ISTJ and ISFJ (both can be mentioned as 'extraverted introverts'). Here is why:

- ENFPs and ENTPs as introverted extraverts: Ne is a cognitive function that can "fire" and work perfectly while being alone (in simply words, by daydreaming and visualizing possibilities), since it works with possibilites and divergent thinking. Actually, Ne has nothing to do with people (different than Fe or Te, Fe specially) nor being outside (as Se is linked to). In the common type descriptions, Ne "doms" are supposed to find "inspiration" by outside envrioments and people, but it actually happens that they can also find inspiration inside their own houses by reading, watching, etc... Note that personal choice and enviroment plays a role here. A Ne-dom can choose to use their Ne inside or outside, so, some Ne users that chooses ways of using Ne that are linked to people wont be ambiverted, so a Ne-leading user can be ambiverted or extroverted by his choice. But, also, the enviroment can restrict choices. Not all enviroments can be inspiring for a Ne users, and sometimes they can be threating, forcing Ne to work in an introverted state. So, to make it clear, ENFPs and ENTPs can be either ambivert (with being slightly introverted) or heavily extroverted or anything between, depending on the enviroment and their own choices.

- ISFJ and ISTJ as extroverted introverts: From all 8 cognitive functions, Si (SJ types) is the one most found in population from several countries (thats true for United States, South Africa, Brazil, Australia and should be for some other countries as well; I plan create a topic about MBTI types in countries later). For this reason, for a Si leading type (ISFJ and ISTJ) it is easier to find other peoples with common interests and that have similar mentality. For this reason they may appear to have better social skills. There are two other arguments: Si function can work socially by telling stories and things about the past, also by stating comparisons with past and present (example: "It usually rains this time of the year"). Also, Si leading types and types with Si as secondary functions are all SJ types that are supposed to have somehow a "societal structure" (structured enviroment), and that results them into feeling or thinking that their life and survival demands socialization in order to structure and put order in their enviroment. In other words, socializing helps bringing more stability, and, therefore, in order to have more stability socializing is needed (when stating that socializing means more stability Im reproducing a Si-leading type mindset, I am not saying that as a general law/philosophy for life). Similar to ENFPs and ENTPs, ISFJs and ISTJs can make a choice into how they use their Si and if they are going to use the fact that Si is the most commom for social advantage or not. Also, not all enviroments are have a lot of Si. Therefore, ISFJs and ISTJs can be either ambivert (with being slightly extroverted) or heavily introverted, depending on the enviroment and their own choices.

EXTRA: [Warning: Extra is bigger than the main part] What about which types are more introverted from all or extroverted from all? Most introverted to extraverted? There are a lot of subjective aka "in my experience" answers but one full of arguments are rare. Im going to give my order with arguments [using mostly Grant Function Stack/cognitive functions stack] instead of experiences. However Im going to say that my arguments arent that strong on this matter, and also, as I said before, there is a variation on individual cases (such as choosing using Ne or Si in a more extrovert or introvert way, and there is also the enviroment factor) so this list is a little bit generic and for reference, since there is no absolute extroversion "hierarchy".

Extraverted cognitive functions are Ne, Te, Se and Fe. As I said, from these four, Ne is the more introverted one. Fe is the most extraverted one since it deals directly about people. Te and Se are the middle ones, since Te can be done through planning and organizing by your own, and Se is more about outside experiences and not about people itself.

Introverted cognitive functions are Ni, Ti, Si and Fi. As I said, Si is the more extraverted from all 4. Fi is partially people related, however values and principles (principles in a Fi way) can be quite detached from people. Ni and Ti got nothing to do at all with people and are mostly, sometimes all the time, used by being alone.

So, in order from most extraverted to most introverted, Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
How that relates to types? Well, by considering the primary, secondary and tertiary functions of each type in function stack. However this would get really complicated, so I will consider the primary and secondary functions onl, so I will take the tertiary off to simplify (also the tertiary is the less important one, so considering only the 1st and 2nd is quite accurate).

So, in order from most extraverted type from most introverted type, here we go:

PS: Using and combining: Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

a) Supposed to be Very Extraverted
1) ESFJ: Fe is the most extraverted function while Si is the most extraverted introverted function, so, ESFJ is the supposed to be the most extraverted type. Its the best possible combination for extraversion: Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
2) ESTJ: Te is a reasonbly extraverted functions but Si is the most extraverted introverted function.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
3) ESFP: Se is a reasonbly extraverted function while Fi is ranked in middle on introversion.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

b) Extraverted
4) ENFJ: Its a true yin and yang here, since Ni is along with the most introverted functions and Fe is the most extroverted function.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
5) ESTP: A draw with ENTJ in this theory (although in my personal experience I think ESTPs are more extroverted than ENTJs usually). If numbers are equal on the list, its not a mistake, but a draw.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
5) ENTJ: Very similar in terms of ESTP in these terms. For ESTP, Ti is the function that holds the extroversion back, while for ENTJ thats the Ni function. Ni is the most rare function in the population, mainly because INFJ and ENFJ are the rarest types, so an ENTJ has a little bit of an awkard side because of Ni which holds the extroversion back.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

c) Ambiversion
7) ISFJ: Its the same argument for ESFJs, except that its Si-doms instead of Fe-doms.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
7) ENFP: As explained before.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
9) ENTP: As explained before. Ranked below ENFP because Fi has a relation with people while Ti is completely people independent. Considering only the two first functions, ENTPs tends to be slightly more introverted than ENFPs, however if we consider the tertiary function (Fe for ENTPs and Te for ENFPs) its a draw.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
9) ISTJ: As explained before. Ranked below ISFJ because Fe is more extraverted than Te. However, if we consider the tertiary function (Fi for ISTJ and Ti for ISFJ) its a draw.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

d) Introverted
11) ISFP: Below Si-leading types in extraversion, but ranks better than Ni or Ti types.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
11) INFJ: Yin and yang again, just backwards.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
13) INTJ: Very held by Ni, but got Te.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
13) INFP: Ne is the weakest extroverted function in terms of extraversion, but gets balanced by Fi, which gives a little bit of incentive for socializing. Socializing style can be a lot varied because of this.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.
15) ISTP: Very held by Ti, but got Se.
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

e) Heavily introverted
16) INTP: Ne is the weakest extroverted function in terms of extraversion while Ti is the weakest of all in this matter, so, INTP is supposed to be the most introverted type of all (by considering the first 2 functions).
Fe>Te=Se>Ne=Si>Fi>Ni=Ti.

Im going to skip the explanation, but considering the tertiary function INTPs and ISTPs are the most introverted types.

 

[Pionart]

Seemingly ambiverted traits can come up in a person who uses more than average of their auxiliary and/or inferior function(s).

Te and Fe are the most verbal functions, so in terms of how much a person talks, this is correlated to being a J.

 

[Norexan]

Enneagram 1 and 8 are ambiverted people while ennargam 3,7 and 2 are extroverted. Difference.
I know many 3s want to be 8s but they are not. Main trait of healthy 8 is SELF-RELIANT.
Also 8 is heavy correlate to dom Te while 3 is heavy correlate to dom Se and 7 is heavy correalte to dom Ne.
So ENxP CANNOT BE ambivert! ExxP wants to grab the world. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT. MOVE IT. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT.
Ambivert is ExxJ or IxxP.

So if you are XNTJ you are ENTJ or if you are xNFP you are INFP. Period.


Imagine you wrote "I am ENTP type 7" What you wrote It would sound like "Hello all flat earthers all around the globe"

 

[Vendrah]

Seemingly ambiverted traits can come up in a person who uses more than average of their auxiliary and/or inferior function(s).

Te and Fe are the most verbal functions, so in terms of how much a person talks, this is correlated to being a J.

Strong or weak secondary functions can lead to ambiversion too, but that case is more complex and less likely/current. I could include that in the future althought.
Actually, thats a more broad subject since strong or weak tertiary or secondary functions can lead to being balanced in N-S or F-T or I-E axis (for J-P I doubt however). For example, a INFJ with slightly weaker Fe and relatively good developed Ti can strike as INxJ. I pretend creating another topic regarding that and link this one to it. In the case of Introversion or Extroversion is a little bit more complicated and less likely. In the INFJ example, for an INFJ get xNFJ it would be required to have a weaker Ni and Ti and stronger Fe at the same time (only one of these events isnt enough), which is less unlikely and more complicated than simply use Ne in an introverted manner. Also, the weaker Ti could lead another function to assume tertiary role which would lead to a hell of confusion while typing (I post a lot in the typing forum and that happens).

Enneagram 1 and 8 are ambiverted people while ennargam 3,7 and 2 are extroverted. Difference.
I know many 3s want to be 8s but they are not. Main trait of healthy 8 is SELF-RELIANT.
Also 8 is heavy correlate to dom Te while 3 is heavy correlate to dom Se and 7 is heavy correalte to dom Ne.
So ENxP CANNOT BE ambivert! ExxP wants to grab the world. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT. MOVE IT. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT.
Ambivert is ExxJ or IxxP.

So if you are XNTJ you are ENTJ or if you are xNFP you are INFP. Period.


Imagine you wrote "I am ENTP type 7" What you wrote It would sound like "Hello all flat earthers all around the globe"

I dont know much about ennegram, I barely know my ennegram to be honest (I think its 1w9 or 9w1, I dont even remember). But, as you say, it has a correlation, but its not an absolute conversion. Being enneagram type x or y doesnt mean being MBTI type 1 or 2. So, I dont think you can freely carry the ideia that "type 7 is extroverted", "type 7 is ENTP" and "Therefore, ENTP are extroverted" because not all ENTP are type 7 nor all type 7 are ENTP. Same goes for any other type. Ambiversion in ennegram deserves a topic by its own and the person to create it is not me. And as I made clear, ENFP and ENTP can use Ne outwards or not, so some ENTP and ENFP (and the "standard" ENFP and ENTP) will be quite extroverted while some others not. I am going to edit the main topic to make clear that the same is somewhat valid for ISFJ and ISTJ as well.

OFF-TOPIC: I would also to state that when you write "thats it, period" is kind of cute (specially with emoctions along), makes it look more like a belief (God is here to save us all, period) than a discussion about exceptions and degrees of extroversion in MBTI.

 

[Norexan]

Strong or weak secondary functions can lead to ambiversion too, but that case is more complex and less likely/current. I could include that in the future althought.
Actually, thats a more broad subject since strong or weak tertiary or secondary functions can lead to being balanced in N-S or F-T or I-E axis (for J-P I doubt however). For example, a INFJ with slightly weaker Fe and relatively good developed Ti can strike as INxJ. I pretend creating another topic regarding that and link this one to it. In the case of Introversion or Extroversion is a little bit more complicated and less likely. In the INFJ example, for an INFJ get xNFJ it would be required to have a weaker Ni and Ti and stronger Fe at the same time (only one of these events isnt enough), which is less unlikely and more complicated than simply use Ne in an introverted manner. Also, the weaker Ti could lead another function to assume tertiary role which would lead to a hell of confusion while typing (I post a lot in the typing forum and that happens).



I dont know much about ennegram, I barely know my ennegram to be honest (I think its 1w9 or 9w1, I dont even remember). But, as you say, it has a correlation, but its not an absolute conversion. Being enneagram type x or y doesnt mean being MBTI type 1 or 2. So, I dont think you can freely carry the ideia that "type 7 is extroverted", "type 7 is ENTP" and "Therefore, ENTP are extroverted" because not all ENTP are type 7 nor all type 7 are ENTP. Same goes for any other type. Ambiversion in ennegram deserves a topic by its own and the person to create it is not me. And as I made clear, ENFP and ENTP can use Ne outwards or not, so some ENTP and ENFP (and the "standard" ENFP and ENTP) will be quite extroverted while some others not. I am going to edit the main topic to make clear that the same is somewhat valid for ISFJ and ISTJ as well.

OFF-TOPIC: I would also to state that when you write "thats it, period" is kind of cute (specially with emoctions along), makes it look more like a belief (God is here to save us all, period) than a discussion about exceptions and degrees of extroversion in MBTI.

INFJ can be extravert as ENFJ. Difference? Easy. INFJ is too much N. ENFJ is too normal to be N.


"type 7 is extrovert" this is just truth form one type system. So when you are type 7 you actually says about you that you are extrovert prone to philanthropy and fun. 7s want everyone to be happy but first they..

Type 7 is any dom Ne or dom Se.

Type 7. Enthusiast
World View: The world is full of opportunity and options. I look forward to the future.
Basic Desire: to be happy
Basic Fear: of being deprived

ealthy loop controlled by Basic Desire:
Need to be happy -> explore and appreciate world -> happy -> Need to be happy
In the healthy state, the need to be happy induces Type Sevens to explore the world and genuinely appreciate what they find. They derive great happiness as a result, thus their need is satisfied and a balance is reached.

In the average state, when Sevens' are not exploring and appreciating the world, they become restless and unhappy. The the need to be happy increases, which helps Sevens to again reach out to the world and find things to appreciate. Thus the balancing loop can help Sevens to recover.

Unhealthy loop controlled by Basic Fear:
Fear of being being deprived -> numbly seek sensations -> happy -> Fear of being being deprived
In the unhealthy state, the basic fear of being being deprived can cause Type Sevens to numbly seek new and different sensations and adventures without truly appreciating the experience. This means they will derive little happiness from all the highs, which further increases Sevens' feeling of emptiness and basic fear of being deprived. The cycle continues to build up.



Period.

 

[cacaia]

Wouldn't you add INFJs to the ambivert list? I would...

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I play one on TV.



TV is code for the internet.

 

[Yuurei]

Sometimes I wonder if I might be an ambivalent. Then I think nah, I'm just an Extrovert with little tolerance for bullshit.

So I love being around people for all of about ten minutes and then I remember what they be like.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

No. Extroverted and introverted is much more than just talkative, reclused. It is about nature dynamics of psychic energy orientation from a standpoint of subjective reality and objective reality. I keep telling that the Myers want to make the Psychological Types be more accessible for common people by developing a testing instrument known as MBTI, but it becomes oversimplifed. However, Myers work seemed to achieve the goal she had dreamt of. what A work from an INFP!!

Literally, Subject means an agent who does something to the object. Object means a thing to which receives an action (s)from the subject.

Following jung(you can read this in Psychological Types: Chapter 10: General description of the types). I try to explain with my own words. But you may find largely still follow jung's theory. It is called extroverted when, the object is judged or perceived as higher in value than the subject. As a consequence, the subject always adjust itself to the object. It is called introverted when the subject is always judged or perceived as higher in value than the object.
The extroverted and introverted nature of psychic energy is applied further to basic psychological functions: feeling, thinking, intuion, sensation. By doing so, 8 basic psychological functions is found: extroverted feeling (Fe), introverted feeling (fi), extroverted thinking(Te), introverted thinking(Ti), extroverted intuition(Ne), introverted intuiton(Ni), introverted sensation(Si), extroverted sensation(Se).
Jung himself, explains each of the unsconscious and conscious nature of each psychological function in Psychological Types. But he never combines it. He said there is no such thing like a pure type in the actuality. The possible combination does not follow factorial formula in mathematics: since there are 8 function, then them will be the number that the thread starter posted.
How myers briggs find only 16 types.

Myers actually followed Jung guidance in combining basic psychological functions.
Jung categorizes sensing and intuition as a perceiving functions, while thinking and feeling as a judging function. When combining it, the perceiving function must be paired with judging function with opposing nature of psychic energy orientation. And A feeling function can never be combined with its opposite a thinking function, since when feeling conscious, thinking is unsconscious. For example, a possible combination of judging function and perceiving function for introverted feeler, only two perception function: either extroverted intuition, or extroverted sensation, so it becomes Fi-Se, or Fi-Ne. About the other function in unsconscious, is Ni-Te and Si-Te. When feeling is primary function, thinking naturally becomes an inferior function vice versa. So When Fi is Primary,Te is inferior. It will be the least developed function. When Te is inferior, the third function, has to be Si, for Fi-Ne, and has to be Ni for Fi-Se.
Try combining the 8 psychological function following jung guidance, you'll find what Myers has found: the 16 Types.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

- ENFPs and ENTPs as introverted extraverts: Ne is a cognitive function that can "fire" and work perfectly while being alone (in simply words, by daydreaming and visualizing possibilities), since it works with possibilites and divergent thinking. Actually, Ne has nothing to do with people (different than Fe or Te, Fe specially) nor being outside (as Se is linked to). In the common type descriptions, Ne "doms" are supposed to find "inspiration" by outside envrioments and people, but it actually happens that they can also find inspiration inside their own houses by reading, watching, etc... Note that personal choice and enviroment plays a role here. A Ne-dom can choose to use their Ne inside or outside, so, some Ne users that chooses ways of using Ne that are linked to people wont be ambiverted, so a Ne-leading user can be ambiverted or extroverted by his choice. But, also, the enviroment can restrict choices. Not all enviroments can be inspiring for a Ne users, and sometimes they can be threating, forcing Ne to work in an introverted state. So, to make it clear, ENFPs and ENTPs can be either ambivert (with being slightly introverted) or heavily extroverted or anything between, depending on the enviroment and their own choices.
.

I will only talk personally with what I had been discovering for myself.
What you write here makes sense to me and there are many videos about ENF on the subject.
"Adventure of an ENFP", "Erick Thor" to quote the most objective on the subject.

When I take any test, I always find myself around 52 extraversion, and 48 introversion, or the contrary.
That belongs to me and how I do perceive the world.
And yes I can remain a few days at home as long as I get inspired, with my books, my cat, my music and my FREE SPACE.

Other types can speak about themselves, I cannot comment about other "ambiversions", I didn't study them.
I know I even seem introverted to some friends who think they do know me.

Only my ex's can know I'm not an extrovert

 

[cascadeco]

I'm not sure why it's being discussed that certain types are the 'true ambiverts'?

The bulk of the population is going to be ambiverted, given a bell curve distribution of the extroverted/introverted continuum. Introversion and extroversion isn't a black and white either/or thing in terms of behaviors. There isn't a high % of really extroverted people, just like there isn't a really high percentage of really introverted people. Thus on forums like this almost everyone - regardless of type - is going to say things like, 'Oh sometimes I need to recharge for a while', 'I get bored with small talk', 'I don't like being by myself for weeks at a time', 'Sometimes I'm talkative, sometimes I'm really quiet', etc. Most people are this way. And, I'd say this probably fits all of the 16 types to a degree -- though the difference being, the eight extroverted types won't have any member who's an extreme introvert (they'll only have ambiverted and extroverted members), and the 8 introverted types won't have anyone who's an extreme extrovert (they'll only have introverted and ambiverted members).

A lot of people find the extreme extroverts really annoying; we probably all know a few - I work with one and she's a drain on everyone, she just talks and talks and could do so indefinitely; no filter to speak of. You have to start walking away and she's still talking. Then the extreme introverts - in contrast with much of the world, the ambiverts -- might be perfectly content not speaking or interacting with anyone at all for great lengths of time. And extreme introverts can be equally challenging in different ways.

 

[Norexan]

Myers ENTJ is actually Jung dom Ne.
While Jung dom Te is Myers dom Si.

"Anything new that is not already contained in his formula is seen through a veil of unconscious hatred and condemned accordingly." - Jung on ENTJ, ESTJ and they view on novelty which makes sense.

Also difference between ENTJ and ESTJ is

ENTJ is combination of type 8 and 1 (ambivert both) -which makes him outspoken and revolutionary speak what nobody would say, teach people what INTJ know but hide from them, while ESTJ is combination of 8 and 3 (extrovert but far for extreme) - more conventional and oriented to success and also conformist.

 

[reckful]

Your OP reflects some significant confusion in the theoretical-background department.

for Jung, at least I think (got read it later so correct if Im worng). Jung psycology is not about 16 types, its about cognitive functions. In Jung, cognitive functions and preferences does not have to follow any specific order, so, for Jung, the functions can appear in any order (for that reason Jung pure theory opens space for 8! or 40320 different types). So, someone with ambiversion is possible in some cognitive function possible orders (thats different from cognitive function stack, since stacks does requires specific orders).

Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. I'm not really a Beebe fan, but he certainly characterized Jung's perspective accurately when he said:

For Jung the attitude type was the primary thing, and the function type a kind of subsomething that expressed that attitude in a particular way. Accordingly, he organized his general description of the types in terms of the attitudes, describing first "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the extraverted attitude" and then going on to "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the introverted attitude."​

In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of Psychological Types, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X as the essence of the book, and explained that he'd put the eight specific "function-type" descriptions at the end of the book for a reason. He said, "I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V." And Chapters II and V are pretty much all about extraversion vs. introversion, with Chapter V devoted to a long analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which Jung calls "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," explaining that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies."

And the central focus on extraversion/introversion, and the things Jung thought all extraverts and all introverts tend to have in common, runs through every chapter of Psychological Types other than Chapter X — the only part of the book with any substantial description of the eight functions. As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved two all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion and conscious/unconscious.

And Jung's function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — and if you're interested, you can find a long discussion of Jung's function model in the two-part post starting here.

Taking the aux into account, Jung's typology had 16 types, like the MBTI, and here are Jung's 16:

The "extraverted rational types" (extraverted J-doms)

Te-Ne-Si-Fi
Te-Se-Ni-Fi
Fe-Ne-Si-Ti
Fe-Se-Ni-Ti

The "extraverted irrational types" (extraverted P-doms)

Ne-Te-Fi-Si
Ne-Fe-Ti-Si
Se-Te-Fi-Ni
Se-Fe-Ti-Ni

The "introverted rational types" (introverted J-doms)

Ti-Ni-Se-Fe
Ti-Si-Ne-Fe
Fi-Ni-Se-Te
Fi-Si-Ne-Te

The "introverted irrational types" (introverted P-doms)

Ni-Ti-Fe-Se
Ni-Fi-Te-Se
Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
Si-Fi-Te-Ne

Jung's 16 types were 8 varieties of introvert and 8 varieties of extravert, and Jung said that extraverts were extraverted in both their judgments and perceptions, because both of their "conscious functions" (dom and aux) were extraverted — and likewise for introverts and their introverted judging and perceiving functions.

All that said, tho, Jung was also a strong believer in ambiverts. In fact, he thought more people were in the middle than were extraverted or introverted, and he referred to those ambiverts as "the normal man." But Jungian ambiverts are ambiverted because their functions are essentially undifferentiated — and are neither significantly introverted or significantly extraverted — rather than because of some kind of standoff between introverted and extraverted functions.

for Myers-Briggs, ambiverts are not supposed to exist

This is incorrect. Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and 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. What's more, the 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.

As a final note, and speaking of Jung and the MBTI, your references to the tertiary function make it clear that you're a subscriber to the Harold Grant function stack, and just in case you're not aware, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and for good reason: namely, that unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it, and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point. In 50 years of correlating the types with countless personality-related things (both internal and external), the patterns associated with those HaroldGrantian function axes have stubbornly failed to show up.

Just in case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

[NOTE: The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.]

 

[Pionart]

the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it, and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

I do type reads by identifying sequential manifestation of cognitive functions in forum posts. Noting that said phenomenon occurred is the reason that I endorse the Grant or Beebe or whatever it's called function stack (i.e. the one with INFJ as Ni-Fe-Ti-Se conscious, Ne-Fi-Te-Si unconscious). I've seen it manifest over and over, so, to me, it's essentially proven. Though, I don't expect others to just take my word for it, but to look for it themselves.

I considered that other function stacks, or none at all, might be correct, but my investigations led me to the conclusions they have.

 

[Vendrah]

I would like to give the emphasis that Im not working with enneagram thing on the topic, so I dont have any answers about enneagram type 1,2,3... being ambiverts or not or their conversions to MBTI. Ambiversion for enneagram deserves a topic on its own, but I dont really see any problem people trying to relate with enneagram, I just cant say yes or no for these relations.

And I am using Grant function stack (except the 4th function), as known informally as cognitive function stack, so all my reasoning through was based on it. So, although there are ENTJs and INFJs claiming ambiversion either, I dont see by the stack why they would think so, and, just emphasizing, INFJs are NOT among the most introverted types and ENTJs are not among the most extroverted types by the reasoning above. However I would like to listen to the arguments, and, well, maybe the majority types could be ambiverted.

However I dindt know, as stated by [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], that the cognitive functions stack (Grant Function Stack) was actually tested and that it fails the tests. I dont know what to do with the OP knowing this now (the topic as it is presented has no reason to exist anymore; Unless I transform it in a general discussion about ambiverson, and I think thats what I am going to do). And, well, I actually used Grant Function Stack (and a lot people still do use it too) to type people on "whats my type" forum.

Your OP reflects some significant confusion in the theoretical-background department.



Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. I'm not really a Beebe fan, but he certainly characterized Jung's perspective accurately when he said:

For Jung the attitude type was the primary thing, and the function type a kind of subsomething that expressed that attitude in a particular way. Accordingly, he organized his general description of the types in terms of the attitudes, describing first "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the extraverted attitude" and then going on to "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the introverted attitude."​

In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of Psychological Types, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X as the essence of the book, and explained that he'd put the eight specific "function-type" descriptions at the end of the book for a reason. He said, "I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V." And Chapters II and V are pretty much all about extraversion vs. introversion, with Chapter V devoted to a long analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which Jung calls "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," explaining that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies."

And the central focus on extraversion/introversion, and the things Jung thought all extraverts and all introverts tend to have in common, runs through every chapter of Psychological Types other than Chapter X — the only part of the book with any substantial description of the eight functions. As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved two all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion and conscious/unconscious.

And Jung's function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — and if you're interested, you can find a long discussion of Jung's function model in the two-part post starting here.

Taking the aux into account, Jung's typology had 16 types, like the MBTI, and here are Jung's 16:

The "extraverted rational types" (extraverted J-doms)

Te-Ne-Si-Fi
Te-Se-Ni-Fi
Fe-Ne-Si-Ti
Fe-Se-Ni-Ti

The "extraverted irrational types" (extraverted P-doms)

Ne-Te-Fi-Si
Ne-Fe-Ti-Si
Se-Te-Fi-Ni
Se-Fe-Ti-Ni

The "introverted rational types" (introverted J-doms)

Ti-Ni-Se-Fe
Ti-Si-Ne-Fe
Fi-Ni-Se-Te
Fi-Si-Ne-Te

The "introverted irrational types" (introverted P-doms)

Ni-Ti-Fe-Se
Ni-Fi-Te-Se
Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
Si-Fi-Te-Ne

Jung's 16 types were 8 varieties of introvert and 8 varieties of extravert, and Jung said that extraverts were extraverted in both their judgments and perceptions, because both of their "conscious functions" (dom and aux) were extraverted — and likewise for introverts and their introverted judging and perceiving functions.

All that said, tho, Jung was also a strong believer in ambiverts. In fact, he thought more people were in the middle than were extraverted or introverted, and he referred to those ambiverts as "the normal man." But Jungian ambiverts are ambiverted because their functions are essentially undifferentiated — and are neither significantly introverted or significantly extraverted — rather than because of some kind of standoff between introverted and extraverted functions.



This is incorrect. Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and 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. What's more, the 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.

As a final note, and speaking of Jung and the MBTI, your references to the tertiary function make it clear that you're a subscriber to the Harold Grant function stack, and just in case you're not aware, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and for good reason: namely, that unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it, and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point. In 50 years of correlating the types with countless personality-related things (both internal and external), the patterns associated with those HaroldGrantian function axes have stubbornly failed to show up.

Just in case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

[NOTE: The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.]

Thanks for your post! That was a very good and very respectable "reasoning", if thats the correct word for it.

I read a lot of stuff you linked too, specially about the Grant Function Stack (GFS), including the whole paper critisizing and even invalidating it. I would like to ask you what interesting reads you have about MBTI and "post-Jung" stuff, specially on the tested departament since the test departament seems slightly more serious than I expected. I have been taking an "approach" to read a lot of MBTI using difused website sources (I admit I did it for fun and that I didnt made that in a orderly and methodical fashion), and some people see Si on me because of that library I build in my mind with these sources (since I know what is usually around the internet on this subject, but I am not the same on other parts of my life). Actually, although I dindt quoted, the argumentation towards ENFPs and ENTPs being the least extroverted types are diffused on the internet, with several discussions including the justifications I synthesized (with the Ne introversion use) and I did extended the principle to Si types. But I think I might have made a mistake in my approach, since it seems that I could absorbed a good ton of B.S. and wrong stuff by "digesting" literraly anything I read about (I also absorbed a good ton of differents points of views and I frequently switches on the "thinking lines"). GFS specially failed in the 4th function, since for some sources it is expected to be the last function preference and the person greatest weakness while for others its the 4th function out of eight, and in that controversy there are even sources claiming about unconscious personality and creating strange lines that says that our subconscious is the opposite of the conscious on the 4-letter type.

Still on GFS, I would like to say why (and maybe a lot of people either) likes GFS a lot and prefer function stack over personality dimensions. Personality dimensions looks quite superficial and shallow, while Grant function looks complex and deep. Actually, GFS looks more scientific (because of its complexity) than personality dimensions. It is as simple as that.

However, as long as GFS is not that much scientific, I still wonder how these cognitive functions really plays a role in personality type. Although you stated Jungs answers or interpretations (was that an interpertration or Jung stated these stacks you say directly?), they seem incredible awkard. ENTJ as a Ne-dom type and INTP as a Ni-dom type is incredibly inconsistent with the types descriptions versus the cognitive functions descriptions, specially the former. Also, as the article critisizing GFS stated, there are conversions about types where the GFS repeats MBTI in other words, whereas Si goes to SJ and Ne goes to NP. Ne translates as NP, so how Jung got Ne-Te for ENTJ? For me it looks like that Jung function stack is as right as Grant function stack.

But that wouldnt put the whole concept about functions aside. For example, Fi and Fe specifies and differentiates about Feeling, so, as in personality dimensions you have a preference for T or F or none, Fe and Fi specifies and gives depth by creating a feeling dimension on its own, so, you can have a preference for Fe or Fi on the feeling dimension. Fe and Fi provides a very interesting and even phylosophical differentiation to ethics, since it differentiates values (the fastest and superficial description for Fi ever: "Values") from community and "inclusional" Feeling. I know my description is shallow now but you should know the richer descriptions about these functions. It happens that, as stated in paper, in GFS high Fi (as dominant or aux) translates as FP, so high Fi should be always on Perceveing types. However, Fi is about values and it does a lot more judgment than Fe, Fe is inclusive and yet Fe in GFS is translated as FJ. So, I think these conversions doesnt seem to really follows all the time.

I dont think that the 8 cognitive functions are useless and I see potential on them. I think that they could create subtypes and they could be used to enrich MBTI a lot. I wonder if anyone has already tried to see the 8 cognitive functions NOT as a rigid function stack with assumptions like "the auxiliary must be the opposite of the dominant in one way or another" but rather a function stack that is freely moves into the 8!=40320 possibilites I pointed out before. I would say, but I could be wrong, that the only constrains on them should be that if a person has preference for Sensing then Si+Se>Ne+Ni (and the opposite for N) and following the same for T and F, and following a structure of Se+Ne+Fe+Te>Si+Fi+Ni+Ti for people who have preference for extraversion (the opposite for I), and also following Te+Fe+Fi+Ti>Se+Si+Ne+Ni for a judging type and the opposite for a perceveing type, and in case of non-preference aka ambivalence the > sign turns in a = sign. I dont see why the auxiliary must be opposed to the dominant in anyway or even a necessity for having one single dominant after seeing that GFS quite failed empirically. Is there any place tackling cognitive functions like that?

 

[reckful]

Still on GFS, I would like to say why (and maybe a lot of people either) likes GFS a lot and prefer function stack over personality dimensions. Personality dimensions looks quite superficial and shallow, while Grant function looks complex and deep. Actually, GFS looks more scientific (because of its complexity) than personality dimensions. It is as simple as that. ...

I dont think that the 8 cognitive functions are useless and I see potential on them. I think that they could create subtypes and they could be used to enrich MBTI a lot. I wonder if anyone has already tried to see the 8 cognitive functions NOT as a rigid function stack with assumptions like "the auxiliary must be the opposite of the dominant in one way or another" but rather a function stack that is freely moves into the 8!=40320 possibilites I pointed out before. ... Is there any place tackling cognitive functions like that?

The notion that the dichotomies only involve superficial stuff and the "functions" are about deeper stuff is just functionista nonsense.

There isn't a single valid thing that can be said about "Fe types" that can't just as well be said with a dichotomy-centric framing. Instead of saying "Fe types" are like this and "Fi types" are like that, the dichotomy-centric MBTI says FJs are like this, and FPs are like that.

And FJ-vs-FP differences don't involve two kinds of feeling to any greater extent than EF-vs-IF differences, or NF-vs-SF differences.

Every one of the 24 two-dichotomy combinations has aspects of personality that are particularly associated with it — because it's an aspect of personality that tends to be influenced (and most influenced) by contributions from both of those associated preferences. But there's nothing particularly fundamental about the eight combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions."

Myers was the one who made those eight associations — and the cognitive function descriptions that you'll most often encounter on your forum and other internet journeys are a set of descriptions that differ in many ways from Jung's original concepts, and are essentially a set that was jerry-rigged to match the (supposedly) corresponding MBTI types.

But not even Myers thought that those eight combinations were the most important contributors to your personality. Not by a long shot. On top of emphasizing the dichotomies over the functions, Myers didn't even think those eight were the most important two-dichotomy combinations.

In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

The reason James Reynierse concluded — in that article I often link to (from the official MBTI journal) — that, stack considerations aside, the cognitive functions themselves are a "category mistake" isn't that "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions don't include aspects of personality that are validly associated with MBTI FJs and FPs, respectively. They often do!

But an INFJ, assuming four equal-strength preferences for the sake of argument, is no more an NJ or an FJ than they are an NF, and an IN, and an IF, and so on. Nor are they any more NJ than an ENFJ, notwithstanding the mistaken notion that "Ni" (NJ) plays a more dominant role in an INFJ's personality than in an ENFJ's personality.

As Reynierse rightly emphasizes, although there are multiple things that functionistas have asserted over the past 30 years that purport to go beyond what fits within the framework of what I call the Real MBTI Model, not a single, solitary one of those "type dynamics" assertions can point to any respectable empirical support. As part of that linked article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of eight studies involving type dynamics — which Reynierse aptly summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

 

[rav3n]

The notion that the dichotomies only involve superficial stuff and the "functions" are about deeper stuff is just functionista nonsense.

MBTI dichotomies aren't much better since they're pseudo-science. Most recently, there was a robust study that found the vast majority of the population falls within four personality clumpings, not 16.

 

[Hot Dog]

MBTI dichotomies aren't much better since they're pseudo-science. Most recently, there was a robust study that found the vast majority of the population falls within four personality clumpings, not 16.

It's the stereotyped descriptions and interpretation of MBTI that is pseudo-science, not the dichotomies. Every single person I've come across fits into one of the 16 categories concerning Jungian cognitive functions. They just don't fit the stereotyped MBTI description.

 

[rav3n]

It's the stereotyped descriptions and interpretation of MBTI that is pseudo-science, not the dichotomies. Every single person I've come across fits into one of the 16 categories concerning Jungian cognitive functions. They just don't fit the stereotyped MBTI description.

Nope. The MBTI statistics per type, don't align with the four predominant personality type clumpings.

These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science | Time

These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science

To answer this question, Amaral and postdoctoral fellow Martin Gerlach sifted through 1.5 million responses to four different personality surveys from quiz-takers of all ages from around the world. The pair used an algorithm to sort the responses into different clusters and uncovered four personality types that appeared across all four survey datasets with disproportionate frequency.

Most people, Gerlach says, will track closest to the average personality type, which is fairly agreeable and conscientious, quite extraverted and neurotic but not terribly open. Meanwhile, self-centered types score below-average on openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, but high on extraversion. Reserved individuals are fairly stable in all domains except for openness and neuroticism, in which they’re relatively low. Role models, finally, have high levels of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and comparably low levels of neuroticism.

 

[reckful]

MBTI dichotomies aren't much better since they're pseudo-science. Most recently, there was a robust study that found the vast majority of the population falls within four personality clumpings, not 16.

The MBTI dichotomies correspond to four of the Big Five dimensions, and its 16 "types" are just the 16 possible combinations of preferences with respect to those four.

That "robust study" you're talking about framed its "clumpings" in terms of the Big Five dimensions, and if you think its results should be taken as undermining the validity of those dimensions (or the MBTI), I'd say you've misunderstood the study.

As for the "MBTI is pseudoscience" charge... I've put some recycled reckful in the spoiler, just for you.

After a large meta-review of the existing data, supplemented by a large supplemental study, in 2003, Robert Harvey and his co-authors summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.​

...and they went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.​

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and authors of the NEO-PI-R, and after reviewing the MBTI's history and status (including performing their own psychometric analysis) back in 1990 — using an earlier version of the MBTI (Form G) than the one being used today — they concluded that the MBTI and the Big Five might each have things to teach the other, approvingly pointed to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into those dimensions of personality, as well as "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this TC Wiki article.