Ambiversion, pure types, hybrid types, and missing letters

[Base groove]

A regular phenomenon I have noticed is that certain people are completely unable to settle on their type, but are usually able to narrow it down to 3/4 of the MBTI dichotomies.

To eliminate bias, when citing prototypes I will use an X to represent a missing letter and a ~ to represent a selection.

To start off, there are some people who think they are INTP/J. I would call these types ~~~X and they are neither ambiverts nor pure types, but hybrid types. I do not profess to have any understanding of how hybrid types are formed but I believe the phenomenon is so prevalent that it must be true. Although I would readily accept that a compelling majority of people have their type wrong, as according to Jungian descriptions, on a rare occasion, a legitimate hybrid type occurs.

Hybrid types, by definition, have no dominant function, I suppose ... and it seems the working theory is that the interaction between one dominant and auxiliary pair produces effects that are similar to/indistinguishable from another function pair (indistinguishable both subjectively and objectively). In this instance, it is most difficult to distinguish between which functions are manufactured and which ones are natural, and people seem to settle on a hybrid type. I would submit at this time, that if a hybrid type were to actually exist, they would most certainly not lean to one side or the other. In this way, I deliberately mean to exclude those who claim to "switch" between one type and another, as they are clearly one type, and only one type.


Ambiversion:

This is a curious subject as well, because once more, these types have no dominant function. Jung wrote of the auxiliary as being ever-present, and only slightly repressed as it only slightly opposes the psychic functioning of the dominant. The auxiliary is thus defined as a balancing function, meaning in effect that all people (or .. most people) are somewhat ambiverted. This natural ambiversion is what makes it exceedingly difficult to identify the dominant function (which, as we know, is critical to typing somebody accurately). Modern theories reflect this, and those who express the auxiliary in equal proportions to the dominant are known as true ambiverts. These people have the type code X~~~, and relate equally well to two different Jungian descriptions.


Pure Types:

Approximately nine tenths of Types, Chapter X, is devoted to exploring "pure types", that is, types that express only one function in consciousness, and repress the other three to a significant degree. Although Jung makes explicit mention that pure types should not be expected to occur in reality, that they are an extreme rarity, they do appear to exist, at least ... they appear to exist.

A modern interpretation of the text would be to examine each "type" as having two sub-types (i.e. the Te type being ESTJ and ENTJ) ... from which it naturally follows that the more energy one focuses into the dominant, and neglects the auxiliary, the more the auxiliary is naturally repressed as a result. When this happens to such an extreme degree that the inferior functions are all completely repressed into unconsciousness, leaving only the dominant remaining, we can confidently speak of a "pure type".

At the very least, we might expect a pure type to be extremely neurotic and single minded.

Pure types have a type code of IX~P, I~XJ, EX~J, E~XP.


Summary:

Missing letters produce valid type codes, in these three instances: ambiversion, hybrid types, pure types.

 

[TBerg]

I know of the plausibility of my INTP essence because my critical period of individuation was marked by mental compulsion to describe accurately the psychology of my behavior and opinions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Because in reality people are not expected to conform to hypothetical constructs(whether based on substantial anecdotal observation & literary research or not) the use of hybrid types to explain type confusions is not only psychologically redundant but invalid in Jung's system.

The letters are references to what functions a person holds, so such a thing as INTX doesn't actually exist[1], even hypothetically, and is only an illusion. Additionally, the inability to test into a letter type is a result of inaccurate tests, inaccurate testing, and reality vs constructs. According to Jung, there still would exist a prominent function even if it's not totally distinguished from the others.

Ambiversion isn't really relevant here as it's a social psychology term and Jungian/cognitive introversion & extraversion can't be understood in the same way. It's not just about where you fall on a scale, but that you would process information differently(quantity vs quality).


[1] - "INTX", meaning the similarities between TiNe and NiTe, is valid, but "INTX", meaning a mix of TiNe and NiTe, is not valid. However, letters based on the dominant function would be valid, such as ExTJ for Te dominance.

 

[clockwork]

From these assumptions:
1) functions are just markers on a spectrum
2) there is a spectrum between certain functions (and thus MBTI types), but not between all functions.

I derive:
- The first 3 letters of MBTI could be "x" as a spectrum in between functions.
- The last letter (J/P) of MBTI cannot, as it has to pass through other types first, thus if one would really be in between there is probably another type that is more close and describes the sitation better.

example:
INTJ=NiTe is quite a stretch from INTP=TiNe, it will have passed a lot of other types/functions first for the road in between

 

[Base groove]

I believe a fundamental assumption of the theory is that first and foremost, the functions are T, F, N and S.

Next is that T and F oppose each other very strongly and so do S and N.

From here, we also derive that where one is dominant, the other three are naturally repressed as a result. The dominant function defines ones consciousness.

The assumption that implies the auxiliary exists - is that the rational/irrational functions do not oppose each other as strongly, thus, one of the inferior functions will tend to make its way into consciousness as it will only slightly be repressed by the dominant.

There is an assumption that each function can be manifest with two distinct attitudes that also directly oppose each other. From this, the theory states that the attitude of the dominant function (the one that defines consciousness), will oppose the attitude of the inferior functions (or really, it's the other way around).

Reconciling the tertiary function with MBTI - it's simple, really ... as the auxiliary function is actually a product of consciousness and is not fully repressed into unconsciousness, it must also have some capacity of its own to repress the function that most strongly opposes it. Because of this, the attitude of the tertiary (the function most strongly opposed by the auxiliary) ... markedly displays an opposing attitude to the auxiliary ... naturally implying the tertiary and dominant share the same attitude.

The concept of inferior functions vs. "the inferior function" is somewhat of a moot point. Jung mentions that where one function is dominant (one of FOUR), the other three will be repressed into unconsciousness to some degree and are known as "inferior" (as in they are inferior to the dominant).

We define "the" inferior function as being the one that most directly opposes the dominant, in the case of T - it is F ... and in the case of S - it is N. This does not change that the other two repressed functions are also somewhat inferior.

So what am I getting at???

The two middle letters of an MBTI code X~~X represent the functions that define an individual's consciousness. If an individual were to hypothetically not have a dominant function (i.e. they are a hybrid type, as defined above) ... with the type code X~~X, we can expect that ~ and ~ are the functions that define this persons consciousness.

The MBTI does not allow for "shadow functions" to enter consciousness and become a part of the persons personality, however, my theory of hybrid types allows for fluidity in function attitudes. So your argument that TiNe and NiTe are a major stretch because it has to pass a lot of types along the way, is taking the approach of the MBTI, that is to say Ti and Te are separate functions altogether as well as Ni and Ne. My point (as will follow in the next paragraph), is that Ne and Ni are the same function with differing attitudes, and the attitude of an inferior function directly depends on the attitude of the function that opposes it.

I am trying to incorporate an element of fluidity (as I just mentioned) to the concept of attitudes. Why do you suppose that "thinking types" score high on Ti and Te in cognitive function tests? Is it because the tests are invalid? Possibly.... is it because they use "both" functions ... possibly?

Is it because they are a thinking type and attitude is remarkably fluid? Possibly.

So if the functions N and T define somebody's consciousness to relative equal proportions, where we actually have the case that neither is dominant, we have a clear case of ambiversion... however, if this person's expression of type is fluid enough that they have "TWO" dominant functions, they will still oppose each other (say.. N and T), to a small degree, and the possibility for fluidity in attitude implies that perhaps ~~~X isn't such an alien type code after all, one that should be automatically rejected because it doesn't comply with the current theory.

With regards to the argument that the modern (social-cognitive) definitions of introversion and extroversion differ from the original usage of Jung, so therefore ambiversion is a null concept, I simply disagree. Possibly we (you and I) are speaking of different meanings of the term ambiversion. I speak of a consciousness that is equally defined by its extraverted and introverted counterparts, where they oppose each other but neither is specifically dominant. I don't get why this is not allowed ... as Jung makes explicit mention of this phenomenon in Types and actually explains that it can be rather difficult to tell which is dominant in some people. Truly, there must reach a certain point where the two (dominant and auxiliary) cross over ... at this point the dominant function switches from an introverted to an extroverted one. If a person maintains this specific point, they are functionally ambiverted. There is no reason why this can't be the actual case, some of the time.

 

[Base groove]

What specifically marks the difference between my definitions of an ambivert (X~~~) with a hybrid (~~~X) type?

As I have just explained, I believe hybrid types occur as a way for ambiversion to claw its way to the surface.

However, the (supposed) existence of two distinct types of ambiverted personalities means that there must be a difference between the two modes of ambiversion that clearly differentiates hybrid from ambiverted.

As I explain, ambiverted (X~~~) types maintain the same attitudes of the dominant and auxiliary functions. Their ambiversion is manifest through equal expression of their primary introverted function and their primary extroverted function. The result of this is that neither attitude gains dominance, and the person has a clearly defined personality X~~~. They are still either a "J" or a "P" by applying the simple MBTI heuristic - the "first extroverted function" being either an irrational or a rational function.

The fundamental difference in a hybrid type, as proposed by myself, is that there is a clear preference in dominant attitude... that is to say a hybrid type is still primarily either introverted OR extroverted, however, just like the ambivert, there is not one, but two dominant functions. Because the ambiverted hybrid is still functionally/cognitively I OR E, this preference is accommodated for by the expression of both attitudes of both dominant functions, in this way, an I~~X is still always introverted and an E~~X is always extroverted, and ~~ are always the dominant functions of consciousness. Thus, they lose the J/P distinction because it is invalid to the expression of their consciousness, as their J and P functions express both attitudes (not simultaneously per se), but they access both modes of functioning, with clear preference exhibited only for I or E, as well as ~ ~ in general.

The final implication, then, is that there must be a fourth exception to the rule, and that is a type of code X~~X who is both cognitively ambiverted as well as functionally ambiverted, who's consiousness is simply defined by ~ and ~.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So what am I getting at???

The two middle letters of an MBTI code X~~X represent the functions that define an individual's consciousness. If an individual were to hypothetically not have a dominant function (i.e. they are a hybrid type, as defined above) ... with the type code X~~X, we can expect that ~ and ~ are the functions that define this persons consciousness.

I don't follow. The middle letters are N/S and T/F, without a dominant function those groupings could not define the consciousness either. If you consider ambiversion, then E/I and J/P could define consciousness as well. They're all connected through inherent properties, is my point, the letters aren't discrete and don't exist on their own.

The MBTI does not allow for "shadow functions" to enter consciousness and become a part of the persons personality, however, my theory of hybrid types allows for fluidity in function attitudes. So your argument that TiNe and NiTe are a major stretch because it has to pass a lot of types along the way, is taking the approach of the MBTI, that is to say Ti and Te are separate functions altogether as well as Ni and Ne. My point (as will follow in the next paragraph), is that Ne and Ni are the same function with differing attitudes, and the attitude of an inferior function directly depends on the attitude of the function that opposes it.

I am trying to incorporate an element of fluidity (as I just mentioned) to the concept of attitudes. Why do you suppose that "thinking types" score high on Ti and Te in cognitive function tests? Is it because the tests are invalid? Possibly.... is it because they use "both" functions ... possibly?

Is it because they are a thinking type and attitude is remarkably fluid? Possibly.

So if the functions N and T define somebody's consciousness to relative equal proportions, where we actually have the case that neither is dominant, we have a clear case of ambiversion... however, if this person's expression of type is fluid enough that they have "TWO" dominant functions, they will still oppose each other (say.. N and T), to a small degree, and the possibility for fluidity in attitude implies that perhaps ~~~X isn't such an alien type code after all, one that should be automatically rejected because it doesn't comply with the current theory.

Yes inaccurate tests is definitely a factor but I see what you're getting at.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation but never with feeling....The auxiliary function is usefully only in so far as it serves the dominant function ....the unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition."​

- Psychological Types Ch. X

Jung makes the argument here that functions are naturally grouped into pairs which could logically only produce SF, NT, ST, or NF and that T includes Ti+Te, and N includes Ni+Ne and so forth.

With that, I don't disagree with your idea that there is a fluid nature to the functions, in fact I agree that a mix of the functions can be expressed but you are talking about types. And types are defined by consciousness. If your idea relies on the concept of ambiversion meaning no single function is so prominent then what you have is a failure to establish dominance in the consciousness of an individual, in other words there is no ambiversion of a "hybrid type", it's the lack of a type or undeveloped functions/consciousness.

Another relevant excerpt from Psychological Types that I think should be contemplated before moving on:

The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality. ​

With regards to the argument that the modern (social-cognitive) definitions of introversion and extroversion differ from the original usage of Jung, so therefore ambiversion is a null concept, I simply disagree. Possibly we (you and I) are speaking of different meanings of the term ambiversion. I speak of a consciousness that is equally defined by its extraverted and introverted counterparts, where they oppose each other but neither is specifically dominant. I don't get why this is not allowed ... as Jung makes explicit mention of this phenomenon in Types and actually explains that it can be rather difficult to tell which is dominant in some people. Truly, there must reach a certain point where the two (dominant and auxiliary) cross over ... at this point the dominant function switches from an introverted to an extroverted one. If a person maintains this specific point, they are functionally ambiverted. There is no reason why this can't be the actual case, some of the time.

Yes it is mentioned that not everyone is a fully developed type, or is easy to diagnose, but he clearly spoke against the idea that functions could be balanced in the conscious sphere

 

[Reluctantly]

I find it strange though. Ni was described as relating to mysticism, something closely linked to the collective unconscious - that grabs images, visions, prophetic dreams, symbolism of the surrounding world; it was described as lacking a strong ego. Ni seems so described as if a dreaming (or unconscious) consciousness, a unique kind of imagination, as if there is a photographer letting the mind roam free and then capturing its wanderings. For someone who is Ni, it seems individuation would be more a process of connecting with the conscious and learning from that in order to be aware of oneself and how that affects their Ni ego, rather than connecting with the unconscious, like someone who is say Se would.

And I kind of disagree with Jung though. The auxiliary taps into the repressed function of the dominant, turning the tertiary and dominant into a repressed function. One can then develop two dominant aspects (extroverted and introverted) in this regard without being undifferentiated. In fact, such people are much easier to differentiate for an observer, though they seem to have a poor understanding of themselves. I guess it's ironic then because although they clearly have dominant aspects, they are not individuated in the sense that they can understand their own motivations and how that relates them with other people. I suppose though it complicates things or maybe they are just incapable of heavily investing their minds into a deeper manner of being, scattering into more shallow investments. It's hard to say, but I've seen it.

 

[clockwork]

Next is that T and F oppose each other very strongly and so do S and N.

so do E an I, they are just a (diagonal in the below) X and Y axis on a circle

E N
Ne
\ | /
Se - + - Ni
/ | \
Si
S I


(you can replace N/S with F/T for the same thing)

Basically there is a spectrum on the circle around the + (the zero point)

But you can't go from Se to Ni because there is a void/zero-point in between, you have to go around the circle through Ne or Si first.

there is also circles like this possible with half irrational half perception function, like for example F/N combination. its all circles in circles in circles, but all the circles have opposites with a void/zero-point in between.

 

[clockwork]

Next is that T and F oppose each other very strongly and so do S and N.

so do E an I, on a circle: they are just ends of an X and Y axis (diagonal in the below)

E------------------N
---------Ne---------
------\---|---/------
---Se----+-----Ni--
------/---|---\------
---------Si----------
S-------------------I


(you can replace N/S with F/T for the same thing)

Basically there is a spectrum on the circle around the + (the zero point)

But you can't go from Se to Ni because there is a void/zero-point in between, you have to go around the circle through Ne or Si first.

its all circles in circles in circles, but all the circles have opposites with a void/zero-point in between.

--------------

P.S. rational/irrational functions dont have to be seperate circles, there is also a circular spectrum possible between the mix of rational/irrational funcitions, but if you combine half rational/irrational in a circle, things are a bit more twisted and the F/N/T/S axis stuff will not be so simple anymore. its because this stuff is actually 4d in a hypercube, thus by converting them in slices of 2d or 3d there is a bit of a twist to make them possible:

E------------------F
---------Fe---------
------\---|---/------
---Se----+-----Fi-- = wrong, because Fe is not opposite of Si
------/---|---\------ and Se is not opposite of Fi
---------Si----------
S-------------------I


E----------------N/F
---------Ne---------
------\---|---/------
---Te----+-----Fi-- = right, because its all oppposites here
------/---|---\------
---------Si----------
T/S-----------------I