What if there were letters for the balanced functions?

[Chad]

Extended typology
( E ) Extroversion, ( A ) Ambiverion, ( I ) Introversion
( S ) Sensing, ( R ) Realization, ( N ) Intuition
( T ) Thinking, ( B ) Balanced, ( F ) Feeling
( J ) Judging, ( C ) Cycling, ( P ) Perceiving

IN MBTI a would be a balance between E and I so when the score difference is less than 16.5% on average this would imply that you use both extroverted and Introverted functions effectively in your life. On a scale on a extroverted Scale were 1 is 100% extroverted and 100 is 100% Introverted.


Any score between 1-34 is Extraverted, 34-67 is Ambiverted 67-100 is Introveted. (A score of 34 or 67 could go either way.


This first function purpose is to describe were your motivations come from: Primarily External, both the External and Intern, or Primarily the Intern. (Where is the information coming from?)


The Second function explains how we gather information. (What information are you processing?)


Any Score between 1-34 is Sensing, 34-67 is Realizational, 67-100 is Intuition.



Were raalizational is were sensing of realty and understand the prospect of possibilities come together. Basically you balance both your observational and Intuitional reasoning.



The Third function explains what mechanisms you use to make decisions.. Thinking being your since of logical is primary, Feeling being your since of right and wrong (morality) is primary or a balanced approach to both logical and morality. (How or what mechanism are you using to process this information?)


Any Score between 1-34 is thinking, 34-67 is Balanced, 67-100 is Feeling


The Forth function is what stage you spend the majority of your processing in. (When or what stage is your primary processing function in dominantly) Judging means your dominant process is decision making therefore decision driven. (You primarily perceive information as a necessity to making chooses.) Perceiving mean your dominant process is perceiving information therefore perceiving driven. (You primarily make decisions to help farther your perceptions.) I refer to the balance of this function as circulation or Cycling the idea as you spend nearly as much time perceiving as you spend Judging. (in a way you perceive to judge to perceive to judge in a cycle. Everyone does these but if you’re a C you don’t for the reason of advantaging the other and you don’t find importance in either decision making or perceiving information. However you may likely prefer the balance or both of these acts a they work together.



Any score between 1-34 is Judging, 34-67 is Cycling, and 67-100 is Perceiving.



However the all the middle (balanced) terms and used about are my own interpretation at words that my describe this balance the only world that I could find that technically fits is Ambiversion as it actually means a balance between extraversion and Introversion.



I believe this would greatly improve typing as it allows for the fact that most people don’t have extreme close to the polar end of the spectrum. Therefore one could assume that someone closer to the middle ground is more likely to have tendencies form both sides of the perspective.

I also know that these added functions make determining cognitive functions harder if not impossible. However here is the list of new possible functions under this understanding.


ESTJ ESTC ESTP ESBJ ESBC ESBP ESFJ ESFC ESFP
ERTJ ERTC ERTP ERBJ ERBC ERBP ERFJ ERFC ERFP
ENTJ ENTC ENTP ENBJ ENBC ENBP ENFJ ENFC ENFP

ASTJ ASTC ASTP ASBJ ASBC ASBP ASFJ ASFC ASFP
ARTJ ARTC ARTP ARBJ ARBC ARBP ARFJ ARFC ARFP
ANTJ ANTC ANTP ANBJ ANBC ANBP ANFJ ANFC ANFP

ISTJ ISTC ISTP ISBJ ISBC ISBP ISFJ ISFC ISFP
IRTJ IRTC IRTP IRBJ IRBC IRBP IRFJ IRFC IRFP
INTJ INTC INTP INBJ INBC INBP INFJ INFC INFP


This turns MBTI 16 types into 81 types. More types would necessarily mean more accurate. However, in this case I think it would show more about some people who are more balanced in nature. Also the ARBC type would be a very interesting type were none of your normal function actually stand out. I think this is possible however most likely not that common. This person may actually be the atypical normal person. Someone that doesn’t have any biases toward any particular functions at all.



If I were to classify myself in this system I might classify myself as an ANTP of course under father interpretation I may even be classified as ANTP bordering ANBP due to the fact that I have a high since of morality even though I usually don’t use it when making decisions.


Just out of curiosity what would your define yourself as, if you had an option to chose between a balance between dichotomy functions or the two extremes of the functions?

 

[Ink]

What would be the point of such a categorization though? To me, the only thing that makes MBTI useful is that it's supposedly something that doesn't change as your personality develops, "the letters" always stay the same...

 

[Chad]

What would be the point of such a categorization though? To me, the only thing that makes MBTI useful is that it's supposedly something that doesn't change as your personality develops, "the letters" always stay the same...

@Ink
I don't think the letters would change or at least not any more than they already do.
The point the having the balanced letters in the system is that not everyone fits into the current system. Many people have balanced functions. I was reading a article that says that this is why Jung didn't try to type everyone. He said there was a large sect of people that didn't fit into the categorizes like Extroverted and Introverted.

He said there was a middle ground that was no type. What I was thinking is that this system would give a type to these with balanced functions.

This system has nothing to do with development. the point of this system would be to be more inclusive and more accurate in typing.

 

[Ink]

Isn't personal development largely seen as achieveing psychological balance in various ways? So I do think people would, or would have the potential to change a lot in your system still...

 

[Chad]

@Ink
The point is that balance in functions such as I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P are represented poorly in the traditional MBTI system. I not saying personal development isn't achievable and you are confusing terms her I am not speaking of Balanced Psychology I am talking about I am speaking of Balance with-in the functions themselves not Balance between all of them. Some people may think that it's best to be balanced in all the functions (this actually may be the case I don't know) but there is not way to measure this even if it were to happen with the traditional MBTI system.

I personally am not extremely Introverted or Extroverted. However, in the traditional version I test as INTP because I have the slightest leaning too Introversion. Truthfully that I am an Ambivert. (Which is a technical term for being between Introvert and Extrovert.)

Being an Ambivert effect my personality as much as being and Introvert or and Extrovert would effect someone else's personality. I have traits that are common among both inverts and Extravert. As well as Ambivert traits that aren't common among Inverts or Extroverts.

However, in traditional this personalty combo is non existent. Of course there were still be people that are borderline balanced not balanced but I think it easier enough to say that these people are at least slightly leaning one way.

 

[Ink]

I understand. But it's all about categorizing a person then isn't it? I believe Jung and others didn't want to categorize people because it can be limiting putting yourself in a box, a self-fulfilling prophecy...

 

[Chad]

I understand. But it's all about categorizing a person then isn't it? I believe Jung and others didn't want to categorize people because it can be limiting putting yourself in a box, a self-fulfilling prophecy...

Possibly, I honestly don't have an issue with being typed. Its good to know yourself and what your personal advantages and disadvantages are. This doesn't mean I can't improve myself it just mean I now have a better understanding of were I am coming form.

If you don't now who you are how can you improve yourself.

I understand I am more than just my type but my type does give me a starting point to interpreting my own self.

If you have ever read any of my other post you would realize that there is a lot of life experience that has lead me to the point that I am at today.

I am sure I will be farther down that journey tomorrow and the next day. But the only way I can grow is by knowing were I am and self examination. This is were typing come into play.

The closer the typing the more helpful it is. You could probably get even more accurate than my system however, I think when you get pass a 100 types you are really getting into issue that are too hard to type using typology. Just a guess.

However as an new found Ambivert I can see clearly what makes me different form Introverts and Extroverts.

 

[Ink]

I see... But typology is an imperfect system within psychology, so perhaps looking for other sources would be better than expanding on one? I like to learn a lot from Ne users personally, Ti needs breadth to be able to grasp all the variables etc...

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not sure what the point would be.

Ambiguity in the shorthand is already handled by inserting an X into the type code (IxTP for example).

And the problem with a "balanced" function is that is specifies nothing -- it can't tell you how you might react in a given situation or what you would perceive, you could fall on either end of things. It basically acts as a null function, not something that can be codified, and the type description would get more vague, not more specific.

 

[BigApplePi]

Extended typology
( E ) Extroversion, ( A ) Ambiverion, ( I ) Introversion
( S ) Sensing, ( R ) Realization, ( N ) Intuition
( T ) Thinking, ( B ) Balanced, ( F ) Feeling
( J ) Judging, ( C ) Cycling, ( P ) Perceiving

Intuitively this makes some sense. Balance is good so we don't fall over. Even the MBTI alternates the i and e functions so we get two each. Now if two lean one way and two the other, that's an awkward balance, but it is something. A question would be, do we tend to lean or do we oscillate thus presenting a middle ground average?

Personally I'm fond of i = internal and e = external because it would seem the distinction is crisper than introversion and extroversion, but you decide.

I hope to shed more light (some) on this when I post "Hierarchical Behavior Theory" in a few days. So look for that posting.