Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Introversion-Extraversion Scale

  1. #1
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Introversion-Extraversion Scale

    I have created an Introversion-Extraversion scale, based on the following criteria. Input, please

    (Note: "+1" denotes 1 point toward Extraversion, "-1" denotes 1 point toward Introversion)

    Points for Extraversion:
    Ego contains a Sensing function= +1
    Ego contains a Feeling function= +1
    Base function Extraverted= +3
    Base function Sensing= +2
    Base function Feeling= +2
    Creative function Sensing= +1
    Creative function Feeling= +1

    Points for Introversion:
    Ego contains an Intuiting function= -1
    Ego contains a Thinking function= -1
    Base function Introverted= -3
    Base function Intuiting= -2
    Base function Thinking= -2
    Creative function Intuiting= -1
    Creative function Thinking= -1

    Which results in the following chart:


    Interpretation of Chart:
    Introverted Introverts are: INTj and INTp
    Extraverted Extraverts are: ESFj and ESFp
    Introverts are: ISTj and INFp
    Extraverts are: ENFj and ESTp
    Introverted Extraverts are: ENTj and ENTp
    Extraverted Introverts are: ISFj and ISFp
    Ambiverted Extraverts are: ESTj and ENFp
    Ambiverted Introverts are: INFj and ISTp
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  2. #2
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I assume it's about social extroversion/introversion, outgoingness & al and how it's type-related. It's not about Socionics Extroversion/Introversion, right? As long as you capitalized them, it's confusing - I don't want to be pedantic, but capitalization is about the dichotomy.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  3. #3
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    I assume it's about social extroversion/introversion, outgoingness & al and how it's type-related. It's not about Socionics Extroversion/Introversion, right? As long as you capitalized them, it's confusing - I don't want to be pedantic, but capitalization is about the dichotomy.
    You're probably right; I hadn't really thought about all that. But yeah, probably more of a social observation. As in, your INTj's and INTp's will be noticeably socially introverted, but the ambiverts could swing easily either way and will be more difficult to type as either I's or E's.

    Good point on the capitalization. I will have to think about it...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  4. #4
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's very interesting! INTx are typically very introverted, but I imagine there are IEIs who can be like that, too. With the typical exceptions included, I would agree with this as a rough guideline.

    EDIT: ENTp might be a bit too introverted. Also, INFj can be very introverted in my opinion.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  5. #5
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It doesn't really match my observations when it comes to ISF and ENT, the latter always clearly seem extraverted when compared to the former...
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    ^What he said.

    All my duals are more socially extraverted and outgoing than me. I'm sure one could summon a counter-example, but as it stands that would be the exception, not the rule.

  7. #7
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    It doesn't really match my observations when it comes to ISF and ENT, the latter always clearly seem extraverted when compared to the former...
    Noted

    I don't know, though. Maybe subtypes have something to do with it(?) My mom, for instance, is most likely ISFj, but she can be pretty darn sociable, thanks to her Base Fi which requires her to go out and make an effort to maintain her various connections with people.

    My brother-in-law is either an INTj or and ENTj, and I'm leaning towards ENTj based on the above, as he is always quite eager to speak up and assert his views; but at the same time, he can spend a good deal of time alone and seem perfectly happy; but given the opportunity, he will eagerly jump into the middle of a conversation and steal the spotlight.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  8. #8
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So here's a question: do you think point should be added for being a Perceiver, or subtracted for being a Judger? Or vice-versa? Ack, no, that's probably going to be inaccurate, too.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  9. #9
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If this were accurate, I'd be an INTj/INTp/ISTj/INFp. I'm one of the most socially introverted people I know.

    That said, I don't really believe in the underlying assumptions you've built into the model.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  10. #10
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    If this were accurate, I'd be an INTj/INTp/ISTj/INFp. I'm one of the most socially introverted people I know.
    What's your type? (I have to ask, since it doesn't appear in your sidebar)

    That said, I don't really believe in the underlying assumptions you've built into the model.
    I have made essentially four assumptions:
    1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
    2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
    3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
    4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

    Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  11. #11
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is a good chart. ESFjs are very extroverted and yeah it's hard for me to even picture them as introverts.

    It's probably a bit more malleable complicated than this but I think I'd have to agree with it over all.

  12. #12
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IME, ENTp's are some of the most obnoxiously outgoing people I know.

    As far as I understand, INFp's can be pretty "extraverted" too.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with this to a large extent.

  14. #14
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    IME, ENTp's are some of the most obnoxiously outgoing people I know.
    *obnoxious* eh? Maybe cause we say what we want without paying attention to what others think? Only after... and that's usually too late.

    @ topic though... Hmm... an ENFp trying to rationalize being more Introverted than other Extroverts... go figure.

    It's cause of Ne. Seeing connections all over the place, sometimes around so many people, gaining so much energy, can cause over-stimulation imho. I need a fair amount of downtime too ('fair' being maybe one quiet evening after spending 3-5 days in a row out doing stuff with other people ). But, that being said, I'm incredibly outgoing, and by no means 'shy' or introverted.

    Although I have been called shy before! Maybe 5 times now... in my entire life. Because I was extremely tired (little sleep) and exhausted from being around people, but the people I was with then didn't know that.

    So all in all, I disagree with your chart. You didn't logically justify any of your assumptions for the point scale, where your numbers came from. I think you're arguing with bias. Some types are more outgoing than others, you're onto something, but I don't think your chart is quite correct. Also ISFps are incredibly shy imo, not near the Extroverted side. Also ESFps are noticeably more outgoing than ESFjs, who need quite a bit of downtime as well. Haven't bothered giving the rest of it much thought, just pointing out the glaring errors.

  15. #15
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Actually... not that I looked at the chart for more than half a second... the whole thing is crap.

    There's no way ISFjs are considered outgoing. They may be friendly sometimes, and jovial, but not near the standard extroverted side in terms of outgoing-ness and no downtime. And there's no way INTjs and INTps are the most introverted. They're usually pretty outgoing/friendly too. Maybe moreso than ISFjs.

    I'd say ESTps (up there with ESFps for the most outgoing), ENTps, ENTjs, and ENFps are more outgoing than you have listed.

    I'd say ESFjs, INFps (probably the shyest), INFjs, ISFps, and ISTps are less outgoing than you have listed.

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    I have made essentially four assumptions:
    1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
    2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
    3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
    4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

    Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?
    I disagree with all those assumptions. Socionics is about dichotomies. You can't stereotype any one pair of introverted/extroverted functions and say 'both Si and Se are more extroverted' like you do. That's incorrect. It's the combination which paint the picture of each type.

    On even closer examination, I now noticed you only account for introverted/extroverted functions as the base function. No wonder every contrary pair is the same distance, 6, apart. That's incorrect. Maybe incorporate more introverted/extroverted function points in your assumptions? I dunno.

    Each type differs a lot based upon the first 4 functions... Fi PoLR can affect the other functions differently for ENTps or ESTps, for example... adding pepper might make one dish of food a bit spicier, while in another dish it might just be tangier... pepper, in and of itself, is not introverted or extroverted. Taking out the bits and parts of each personality type, and rating each individual part for introversion/extroversion, loses picture of the whole. I think this experiment is doomed to fail.

    Until you factor in: this introverted function here, in combination with this extroverted function here, makes the person overall more extroverted... I don't think the chart will be entirely accurate. And if you factor in different functions, in different orders, in combination with each other, wouldn't that just be re-writing socionics?

  16. #16
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    3rd reply in a row, I know my perspective is getting old... but.

    Just wanted to say sorry for criticising your system so much. Maybe, for fun, you could just make a chart with which types you thought were more introverted/extroverted, rather than including some crazy point system to justify it.

  17. #17
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just wanted to say sorry for criticising your system so much.
    Not at all. After all, I can neither assert nor retract the "system" without rl examples, and that's where all my fellow socionists come in. If your observations are different from what I have proposed in my theory, I want to know

    There's no way ISFjs are considered outgoing. They may be friendly sometimes, and jovial, but not near the standard extroverted side in terms of outgoing-ness and no downtime. And there's no way INTjs and INTps are the most introverted. They're usually pretty outgoing/friendly too. Maybe moreso than ISFjs.
    I have to wonder who are the ISFj's and INTp's you know. My INTp husband is very introverted, and my ISFj mom easily passes for an extrovert in several situations. And as for the "outgoingness and no downtime," I don't believe it is fair to say that any type could go forever with no downtime.

    No wonder every contrary pair is the same distance, 6, apart.
    To be picky: actually, it's 8 apart, not 6. But, that's hard to see because the grid didn't show up when I scanned my graph.

    Hmm... an ENFp trying to rationalize being more Introverted than other Extroverts... go figure.
    This wasn't about rationalizing myself.

    Thank you for your input, though. I can't say I agree with all of it, but much of it was worth considering. Especially as regards the "introverted extraverts" and the "extraverted introverts," which others have also disagreed with.

    And maybe you're right that I should just abandon my Ti-PoLR attempt at using a point system; though, I have not yet typed nearly enough people of each type irl to place them all on a scale based solely on observation.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  18. #18
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eldanen (if you know of him) made a list kinda like this, except he based it solely on temperament + subtype. I don't really agree with what he says, but it goes (from most extroverted to most introverted):
    Pe-Ep, Je-Ej, Pi-Ej, Ji-Ep, Je-Ip, Pe-Ij, Ji-Ij, Pi-Ip

    I'd say something more along the lines of:
    Je-Ej, Pe-Ep, Pi-Ej, Ji-Ep, Je-Ip, Pe-Ij, Pi-Ip, Ji-Ij

    Then F > T, S > N, although I feel like this could be expanded to IEs. Probably something like Fe, Te, Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Fi, Ti.
    Last edited by Galen; 12-30-2010 at 05:25 AM.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  19. #19
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is pretty much exactly how I see it, except I called it "social skills" instead of "extraversion", and I hadn't tried to break it down in such a detailed manner. "Gregariousness" is probably a better term, like Ashton said. But yeah, it's pretty clear from my observations of Real Life that STs and NFs both tend to be more socially skilled than NTs, but less than SFs (and obviously Extraversion plays a role).

    If I had to break it down, I speculate that it would be something like:

    INTx -- ISTx -- INFx -- ENTx -- ISFx -- ESTx -- ENFx -- ESFx

    Not entirely sure of the placement of ENTx and ISFx there.

    And like others have said, subtype plays a significant role, as does the setting. A geeky C-LII will be much more outgoing at something like ComiCon than a businesslike N-ESI in the same setting, who may be somewhat weirded out by it all.
    Quaero Veritas.

  20. #20
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    This is pretty much exactly how I see it, except I called it "social skills" instead of "extraversion", and I hadn't tried to break it down in such a detailed manner. "Gregariousness" is probably a better term, like Ashton said. But yeah, it's pretty clear from my observations of Real Life that STs and NFs both tend to be more socially skilled than NTs, but less than SFs (and obviously Extraversion plays a role).

    If I had to break it down, I speculate that it would be something like:

    INTx -- ISTx -- INFx -- ENTx -- ISFx -- ESTx -- ENFx -- ESFx

    Not entirely sure of the placement of ENTx and ISFx there.

    And like others have said, subtype plays a significant role, as does the setting. A geeky C-LII will be much more outgoing at something like ComiCon than a businesslike N-ESI in the same setting, who may be somewhat weirded out by it all.
    Sorry, but do you understand that if you switch ENT-ISF (which is how it should actually be, based on what most people of this tread have said) that's simply a scale which places all extraverts as more extravert than all introverts? Then, given E or I, simply places the most socially closed functions as more introvert, and the most socially open function as more extravert? Which basically means that it's a tautological scale?

    I don't know, though. Maybe subtypes have something to do with it(?) My mom, for instance, is most likely ISFj, but she can be pretty darn sociable, thanks to her Base Fi which requires her to go out and make an effort to maintain her various connections with people.

    My brother-in-law is either an INTj or and ENTj, and I'm leaning towards ENTj based on the above, as he is always quite eager to speak up and assert his views; but at the same time, he can spend a good deal of time alone and seem perfectly happy; but given the opportunity, he will eagerly jump into the middle of a conversation and steal the spotlight.
    But...you see that you're describing your brother-in-law as clearly more extraverted. Jumping in a conversation and being its center, quickly asserting your views and speaking up - this is something introverts tend to do with low frequency. It doesn't matter if an ISFj has more close friends, visits people more often...

    the same is valid for ENTp-ISFp. Basically comparing an ENT vs ISF you will have ENT as:

    1) higher energy levels
    2) more assertive
    3) more likely be in the spotlight
    4) more likely to start conversations with a stranger

    while the ISF has an higher amount of close relationships, but lower energy levels, lower tone of voice, less likely to start conversations with a stranger, less likely to start something new just for the hell of it etc. etc. etc.

    If ENT-ISF are switched, this scale becomes - as I said to Krig - simply an I/E scale ranked on socially closed / open functions.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  21. #21
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This chart took a dump on the definition of extroversion. There is already an Introvert/Extrovert Scale. All introverts are on one side and all extroverts are on the other. Having a few types switch sides is dangerous thinking that breaks the legitimacy of the model. There is a better way to represent what you are trying to get across than messing with definitions: SF types are the most Social (not Extroverted) and NT types are the least Social. Your mistake seems to be confusing Extroversion with Strong Se/Fe (of which ESFx's have the strongest, and INTx's have the weakest).
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  22. #22
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, I see my chart has been misleading. What about just focusing on the following:

    Introverted Introverts are: INTj and INTp
    Extraverted Extraverts are: ESFj and ESFp
    Introverts are: ISTj and INFp
    Extraverts are: ENFj and ESTp
    Introverted Extraverts are: ENTj and ENTp
    Extraverted Introverts are: ISFj and ISFp
    Ambiverted Extraverts are: ESTj and ENFp
    Ambiverted Introverts are: INFj and ISTp
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  23. #23
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you really think that an ESTj is generally more extraverted (socially) than an ENTp or ENTj? :s

    Consider another axis: democratic-aristocratic. Democratic extraverts are positivists - they can be described as people that feel like the world is their oyster and are relatively free to explore whatever they feel like. Aristocratic extraverts are negativists - they can be described as people that feel like the world has some specific rules they unwillingly need to enforce (even on themselves). On the other hand introverted democrats are negativists - people that feel like they need to perfectly understand a situation before being sure of what they're doing. Introverted aristocrats are postivists - people that feel like guiding others towards an understanding of a part of the world they know well.
    This dimension can render E-aristocrats socially more "closed" than E-democrats, while I-aristocrats can be socially more "open" than I-democrats.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  24. #24
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Do you really think that an ESTj is generally more extraverted (socially) than an ENTp or ENTj? :s
    Like I (think) I said before, I can't know the validity of any of my assertions for certain without more rl observations to back them up. So, no, I don't really think one way or the other, not positively, anyway.

    I realize that I have somewhat asserted myself as if I knew all this stuff was fact, but that's only because I believe that the best way to find out if something really fits is to just go ahead and wear it for a while, yk? Even if it turns out to be wrong...

    Consider another axis: democratic-aristocratic. Democratic extraverts are positivists - they can be described as people that feel like the world is their oyster and are relatively free to explore whatever they feel like. Aristocratic extraverts are negativists - they can be described as people that feel like the world has some specific rules they unwillingly need to enforce (even on themselves). On the other hand introverted democrats are negativists - people that feel like they need to perfectly understand a situation before being sure of what they're doing. Introverted aristocrats are postivists - people that feel like guiding others towards an understanding of a part of the world they know well.
    This dimension can render E-aristocrats socially more "closed" than E-democrats, while I-aristocrats can be socially more "open" than I-democrats.
    Thank you
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  25. #25
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sorry, but do you understand that if you switch ENT-ISF (which is how it should actually be, based on what most people of this tread have said) that's simply a scale which places all extraverts as more extravert than all introverts? Then, given E or I, simply places the most socially closed functions as more introvert, and the most socially open function as more extravert? Which basically means that it's a tautological scale?
    Er... except that I was attempting to rank social skills rather than extraversion. An ILE might be more outwardly-focused, but he is in no way a better "people person" than an SEI. When I said I wasn't sure of the placement of ENTx, I was actually thinking of moving them lower on the scale, not higher.
    Quaero Veritas.

  26. #26
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Er... except that I was attempting to rank social skills rather than extraversion. An ILE might be more outwardly-focused, but he is in no way a better "people person" than an SEI. When I said I wasn't sure of the placement of ENTx, I was actually thinking of moving them lower on the scale, not higher.
    People person isn't a valid definition for extraversion. Looking at a typical fictional example: Sheldon Cooper. Nobody would question his strong extraversion, even if his people skills suck.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  27. #27
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    This chart took a dump on the definition of extroversion. There is already an Introvert/Extrovert Scale. All introverts are on one side and all extroverts are on the other. Having a few types switch sides is dangerous thinking that breaks the legitimacy of the model. There is a better way to represent what you are trying to get across than messing with definitions: SF types are the most Social (not Extroverted) and NT types are the least Social. Your mistake seems to be confusing Extroversion with Strong Se/Fe (of which ESFx's have the strongest, and INTx's have the weakest).

    This.


    Shouldn't the dichotomies be independent of each other?

    NT introverts manifest their extraverted side differently than SF introverts but it doesn't make them any more or less introverted or extraverted.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  28. #28
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    What's your type? (I have to ask, since it doesn't appear in your sidebar)

    I have made essentially four assumptions:
    1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
    2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
    3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
    4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

    Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?
    SEI, I think.

    There are a few things that bug me about this approach. The first would be what exactly you're trying to measure here. It looks like it's generally been narrowed down towards the more colloquial definitions of introversion and extraversion, or as Ashton put it, gregariousness. I haven't exactly turned this thread inside out to see where or how it's been refined, if it has (sorry, kind of lazy today) other than differing interpretations, such as Krig's 'people skills' which, as FDG I think rightly pointed out is something altogether different than the more general concept of extraversion (that is, that someone may very well be extraverted and engaging while completely lacking any people skills at all). So the first bridge to cross would be what exactly you mean when you come out with these observations. Again if you mentioned it elsewhere feel free to point me to it or I'm sure I'll go back and reread the thread after I finish writing this whole messy thing. The tack I'm taking in resisting your observations mostly revolves around what FDG has mentioned.

    One reason I'm somewhat reluctant to agree with you is that there seems to be very little theoretical underpinning or justification for how you've laid out this system save what is probably most persuasive to you, that being your personal experience with others and your particular typings of said individuals. Naturally, my own will differ from yours otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. However, this in and of itself isn't a damning criticism since it falls into a simple dispute over what each type is and how they behave. In other words, a fundamentally differing understanding of types based on strict theoretical principles that is not easily soluble. It's not enough for me to simply disagree with what you've said and expect you to change your mind. What I will try to do though is provide some measure of counterexamples and then to argue that their are myriad factors that substantially complicate the simple elegance of what I take you to be saying.

    Let me begin by saying I'm not completely unsympathetic to the conclusions you've drawn. It's not as if I think there's zero merit to your system, just that I would note in my own conception of socionics and the people I've typed or interacted with within the socionics community that I would have a rough time suggesting to newcomers what you've said as a reliable or useful heuristic. There is, as with all people holding beliefs, the distinct possibility that I am full of shit. /end foreword

    Notable counterexamples I can think of would be personal anecdotes of those people on the forum I have met in person. The most outgoing of them were an ILE, an SLE, and an LII (self typings). I was probably one of the quieter people in the group, maybe moreso than a couple of ILIs.

    Ugh, general considerations to follow. I'm starting to get a little drunk and I've been trying to write this for like an hour and a half while watching a movie and it just isn't working out.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  29. #29
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Introversion by nature is an inward focus. Extroversion is an outward focus. Supposedly, high focus on an introverted function simply implies high inward focus, the object of that focus depending on the function.

    By this definition (the one by which socionics introversion is defined) no introvert is more 'inwardly focused' than the next.

    But this chart does not seem to be measuring introversion based on inward focus because there appears to be different measurements for the introversion of introverts and exroverts. What, then, is this chart actually measuring when it says it measures introversion and extroversion? In other words, what do these words mean with respect to their use in the chart? Increased frequency of conversation? Increased skill in interaction? Increased social initiative? How is this skill or social initiative defined and what are their criteria?

    Aside from what those two words mean, if I am correct in interpreting the rest of your chart, 'extroversion' is measured in your ability to gauge your conversational partner's emotional and physical state (SF > NT).

    I cannot begin to question your chart until I know exactly how extroversion is interpreted; however, I can say that frequency of engagement has little relevance to physical and emotional recognition and social 'skill' covers vast social categories. So I would like to request clarification before guessing further at your meaning.

  30. #30
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    People person isn't a valid definition for extraversion. Looking at a typical fictional example: Sheldon Cooper. Nobody would question his strong extraversion, even if his people skills suck.
    Yes, I agree fully. That's why I think "social skills" and/or "gregariousness" are better words for what pianosinger is talking about.
    Quaero Veritas.

  31. #31
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    I have created an Introversion-Extraversion scale, based on the following criteria. Input, please

    (Note: "+1" denotes 1 point toward Extraversion, "-1" denotes 1 point toward Introversion)

    Points for Extraversion:
    Ego contains a Sensing function= +1
    Ego contains a Feeling function= +1
    Base function Extraverted= +3
    Base function Sensing= +2
    Base function Feeling= +2
    Creative function Sensing= +1
    Creative function Feeling= +1

    Points for Introversion:
    Ego contains an Intuiting function= -1
    Ego contains a Thinking function= -1
    Base function Introverted= -3
    Base function Intuiting= -2
    Base function Thinking= -2
    Creative function Intuiting= -1
    Creative function Thinking= -1

    Which results in the following chart:


    Interpretation of Chart:
    Introverted Introverts are: INTj and INTp
    Extraverted Extraverts are: ESFj and ESFp
    Introverts are: ISTj and INFp
    Extraverts are: ENFj and ESTp
    Introverted Extraverts are: ENTj and ENTp
    Extraverted Introverts are: ISFj and ISFp
    Ambiverted Extraverts are: ESTj and ENFp
    Ambiverted Introverts are: INFj and ISTp
    I strongly agree on LIE being a reserved type and ESE and SEE beng the most extroverted types. IEI is far more outgoing than you're making it seem though.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •