Borderline Type's Are A Myth

[highlander]

This is a very good explanation of why "borderline" type doesn't work.

 

[Ene]

Thanks for sharing and I agree that it is a good explanation of why borderline doesn't work.

 

[Cellmold]

Jung also mentioned that the type is nothing static and changes with the course of life.

He could have just been talking about how an individual type develops, or how a person might even switch type altogether. But it's open to interpretation.

She makes a good point though, although these theories tend to largely be about convincing people with good points.... I'm not sure myself, it's almost as if someone could just make this stuff up.

 

[Tiltyred]

I need to do one of those Skype sessions with her. Or somebody.

 

[Seymour]

I respectfully disagree with the OP. There's no empirical evidence for type dynamics or that the preferences are dichotomous (despite many studies trying to find evidence). If you look at the data, people's preference seem pretty bell-curvy, which I think partially explains some people's difficulty in typing. See Reynierse, Wilde, etc. Also see the introversion/extraversion continuum, which includes physically measurable difference between introverts and extraverts that do, in fact, seem to exist on a continuum (see, for example, the lemon test).

I also think claiming that a middling preference score means "you don't really know yourself" is shaky ground, at best. I agree that people not knowing themselves is a confounding factor when typing, but it's hardly the only thing that might result in a middling preference score.

Her acorn/tree references also seem to indicate that type is entirely inborn, while most studies seem to indicate a 40% to 60% nature/nuture balance. I personally believe that type is mostly set by early adolescence, but that's more a personal theory, rather than being proven.

Regardless, I think type dynamics are an interesting concept and it's good for people to understand the model, whether they agree or not. I think the "functions" are a good way for people to hone in on their likely type, even if I think the functions mostly represent preference combination.

 

[Totenkindly]

I heard a lot of conceptualizations in that video (for example, the comparison to the oak seed -> oak tree), but no actual proof that that's the way it is. I think she is describing more the suppositions of MBTI from her particular perspective than any actual kind of certainty about how personality in general works.

I happen to agree with some of her ideas, though, such as how the number ratings of dichotomous test is just describing consistency of preference and not strength of preference.

 

[WALMART]

Absolutely terrible.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

I wanted her to disprove borderline personality types because they disturb the way I view functional stacks. But, like Jennifer said, it didn't prove anything. It was just theorizing on why they're a myth. IMO, it would've improved the video if she would've presented it that way.

 

[Zarathustra]

It depends on which part of the dichotomies we're talking.

On the middle two letters, I agree, there is no borderline type - it's one or the other.

On the first letter, tho - introversion vs extroversion - there can definitely be borderline types.

On the last letter - J vs P - that is the most complicated, because with development of your 3rd thru 6th functions, you do actually develop toward the other side. Most people that put INTx, or what not, however, are not referring to this, and, rather, simply don't know what type they really are.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

It depends on which part of the dichotomies we're talking.

On the middle two letters, I agree, there is no borderline type - it's one or the other.

On the first letter, tho - introversion vs extroversion - there can definitely be borderline types.

On the last letter - J vs P - that is the most complicated, because with development of your 3rd thru 6th functions, you do actually develop toward the other side. Most people that put INTx, or what not, however, are not referring to this, and, rather, simply don't know what type they really are.

This makes sense. Borderline S/N and T/F preferences are more difficult to understand.

 

[Hazelstein]

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.

 

[reckful]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

 

[OrangeAppled]

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.