.
Introverts realizing they are Extroverts
.
Last edited by female; 07-09-2015 at 04:02 PM.
I would say extroversion/introversion is really tricky in terms of how it is expressed. Read this post: http://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/0...traverted.html
By the way, I think you are more likely ESI than SEE. Generally you should type people based on what their values priorities are (i.e.vs.
) rather than whether they 'seem' introverted or extroverted. Initiative is the most consistent way to tell.
Intratim and extratim.Originally Posted by dolphin
Do you still think I'm an IxFp?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Introversion / Extroversion is said to be the easiest to see in someone at first, but harder as you get to know them. So if you can remember back to the first dozen interactions you had with someone, looking at how often they initiated would be a good clue.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Hey, Dolphin. Yeah, this is an issue I've had to face in my "which Beta NF" question. (And I know some people here are gonna view me as one or the other no matter what I do, but for now, EIE clarifies things for me overall, whereas IEI just seemed like a dead-end. I increasingly couldn't make basic sense of socionics when I related the IEs, the functions, and intertypes to myself and my life.)
Anyhoo ... I agree with most everything in Rick's article. And did you read the comments after the article? This one?
Not claiming that I'm particularly intelligent or whatever, but springboarding from that notion I can give an example of my life patterns for the last decade: among my ex's family and to an extent in our general social milieu, I'm sure I often seemed somewhat introverted. I tucked in all my true feelings and sometimes hid myself away in a hostile social environment. That was a way to protect myself. But once a month I'd go to a music group I belonged to in the Bay Area, and there, totally at ease among people I quickly came to care about, working on projects related to my true passions, I was easily one of the most outgoing, socially dominant people in the room--maybe THE most."Another issue is that more intelligent people with unusual abilities or interests less often find themselves in social situations where they can express themselves spontaneously without eliciting strange reactions."
Same thing in my old in-house publishing job, and when I was a pianist. Basically, if I look back at my life so far and say, "Here are the times, places, and situations when and where I felt truly like MYSELF," in all of those instances I could also say I would have looked stereotypically extroverted to anyone observing me. And not in a cute, on/off way, but full-steam-ahead, constant expansive MBTI-ish extroversion, and the high from social interactions where I feel like that are intense as a stimulating drug and can sustain me for days, even weeks. I soak in a ton of social energy IF I am in a hospitable setting or one I can change such that it serves my social needs.
When I've had a shitty job I hated, or have faced a dysfunctional social environment, what I've tended to do is find ways to make that environment be what I need, by working ON my co-workers or whoever to make them behave differently, or to tolerate different or new behaviors. And then I can go home and know that even if the work or the project or whatnot wasn't fulfilling, I haven't been totally drained or annoyed because I have fixed things socially to feed the vampire in me, lol. This can take time to accomplish, even in a fertile situation, and, as alluded to above, I've been in groups and environments where I'm just too misaligned or out of my element to rearrange or reconnect things so that I'm positioned properly to express myself.
I notice these days when I'm observing or approaching an introvert, there's often almost like a veil or a mist around that person to me. (I also notice that in my dealings with them, I will sometimes begin to "ramp down" or soften my energy in order to better match them.) That quality is something I actually find really charming. I had a relationship during college with a semi-dual (if I'm EIE), and probably the first thing that stood out to me was how he was in his own world, and how much fun it was to be the ... pursuer, in a sense, and approach him, draw him out, make things happen, put him in new situations--and also how beautiful it was to be drawn into his world.
Enough rambling. Maybe another chapter of this book another time.
Last edited by golden; 02-26-2011 at 05:58 AM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Extraversion
Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.
Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality, an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but will be quite pleasant when approached.
I think that above information is just plain shitty. My activity level was fine when I wasn't so depressed, it was just as high as extroverts, and I frequently led projects. Energy level correlates to basic mood in life, not extroversion/introversion.
I view extroversion/introverted in socionics, the dichotomy as just a rawly psychological thing in both parties, just how the functions work and how information is exchanged. I would go more detailed than that, but I don't want to stereotype anything. I just think that enfps and entjs can be shy, even quiet- but it's a lot more rare for an esfj to be that way, because of how the functions are lined up in their psyche.
I view it more as, okay this person told you the same thing as this person, but you are starting to listen to when this person says it, because you metabolize the information they're giving you in your brain differently, and it gives you a certain kind of natural energy that the other person didn't. The extrovert/introvert dichotomy is there mainly to describe the 'male-female' yin/yang process of how this is more or less technically happening. But IMO those are just the physical conduits, not markers on how we should generally judge others.
I mean, you don't exist in a vacuum. We find ourselves in relation to how we are to everybody else. Your real identity comes into play the more factors you put in the equation. You're not an infp because you're shy and quiet and introverted, you're an infp because that's how your brain best aligns with the psychological consciousness of everybody else on earth.
THEY'RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER! O:
So, I observed you a bit in tinychat, and you didn't say much, but your presence didn't strike me as particularly introverted. (Would be easier to tell in RL interaction.) You didn't seem to have a mist of subjectivity around you.
My dad was probably SEE. He was NOT a classic extrovert. Sometimes he'd get on a major roll socially and then you couldn't drag him away from a party, gathering, or conversation, but he considered himself a loner, and he spent a lot of time seeming detached. All the same, no magical introvert cloak around him. Just ... "this is an extrovert in a socially disengaged state."
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I'm not sure how to explain the difference any better than what others have already tried.
As someone who always used to self-type Introvert (back when I only knew MBTI, and also for the first few days on these forums), I look back on those times now and-- knowing what I now know-- wonder how I could ever have made that mistake? I am so obviously an Extrovert now, and I was all along; but I just had a very poor understanding of what Extraversion/Introversion really was.
When I thought I was an Introvert, I was typing almost everyone I knew as Introverts, because I was comparing them to myself and I would think, "well if I'm an Introvert, then so-an-so must be, too."
Now that I know I'm an Extrovert, though, my I vs. E typings are much more evenly split. Which makes a whole lot more sense.
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I think it has to do with a lot of what Ashton already said. Also, it's probably due to the kinds of demographics that personality typology, and this website in particular, seem to attract. That is, a lot of ostensibly introverted, possibly shut-in, personalities. People also generally misunderstand introversion and extroversion in terms of a cognitive "function," and outwardly associate it with the common stereotypes prevalent throughout popular culture and society.
I've always self-typed introverted, and even the people who seem to dispute my self-typing do not appear to dispute my IP temperament. Hooray for consistency? I will say that over the course of the past 6 years or so, I've been coming out of my shell a lot and have become a much more confident, sociable person than I ever was in the past (especially as an adolescent). I wouldn't be surprised if people who didn't know me well enough could confuse me for an extrovert.
You need to pick up typing by temperaments. Never get confused by I/E, but completely screw up on people's role functions, lol.
Lol yea... I completely agree with the OP
Back at the genesis of this whole thing for me with MBTI, I used to think people would change type dynamically, and everyone thought I was like insane for thinking this... but I still contend to it.
I still relate to INTj
and INFp, ISTj, ESTp, ENFp, and ENTp
I think the Model A is too static, every cubby is filled with a function and remains there statically from birth to death... its really nice and organized, but I have trouble believing that reality works like that.
maybe you should observe reality instead of making assumptions how it should work.
I've never seen anyone change type. I did however see the rigid patterns in which types stay.
lol no you didn't... you didn't "see" them. You thought the rigid patterns in the theory correlated well with your experience in observing reality. But you didn't "see" them.
Anyways, I'm not interesting in arguing the point, I've said what I thought, and you have said what you think, and its pretty obvious your position isn't going to be moved.
what's the difference between seeing and observing. You are hiding behind mysticism to avoid the scientific approach which could uncover your delusions.
Last edited by Jarno; 02-26-2011 at 01:53 PM.
Well, do the fundamental ways in which you perceive the reality and your relationships with people in terms of comfort and ease of communication change in any significant way not attributable to by increase in maturity and an ability to socially navigate?
Dolphin, at the end of the day, you may have used all the functions in the system, but you have to anwer to one:your dominant. The extravertedness/introverdness of your dominant function defines whether you are an extravered or introverted type(and not simply and extrovert or introvert which are single and independent words thrown around by pseudo psychologists, who use them outside any kind of organized, pieced togther sysetm of thought).
Now you may be asking yourself how you define whether a function is introverted and extroverted, in other words what is introversion is and what extroversion is but thats not what you're asking.
Prolix over-complications and other beside-the-point obfuscations aside, here's the quick 'n dirty:
This directional psychic flow of attention and intent is what lies (along with its functional N/S/T/F flavorings ) at the causal root of the behavioral check-lists posted in this thread.Extroversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self".
Introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being [...] predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life".
...Nice.
Faggy mist, lmao. This thread gets ajust for that.
Mysticism, really? lol where did you get that accusation from, I'm sure you have a very scientific and directly observable answer for that.
Last edited by male; 02-26-2011 at 06:33 PM.
Lol apparently I'm guessing if I answer yes this somehow is infallible proof that Socionics Model A is the only correct and valid characterization of personality ever invented and ever to be invented?
Right?
The most vital reason that type never changes in Socionics/Model A is that it is defined that way. Your type IS the part of you that never changes/stays static. If you have found a part of yourself that has changed permanently, by definition that part of you has no relation to Socionics at all. The reason socionics works is because over the course of any one life there will be a tendency towards either introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, feeling/thinking, judging/perceiving, and all other dichotomies related to socionics.
The reason people think type change is plausible at all is because they are afraid of their weaknesses. If a thinking type had a 3 month phase of being over-emotional, he/she is not going to want to admit his/her emotions were a weakness, but instead say "i was temporarily a feeling type" and claim that those emotions were strong. One believes everything about oneself is strong, but it's not true. The key is to find what your consistent (over the course of entire lifetime) strengths and weaknesses are so you can identify your type and learn more about problems that may arise in your life.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I guess its reasonable to impose an arbitrary condition such as "type is that which does not change about the self"... but then one would have to verify the coherency of that definition to what is explicit defined in model A.
Secondarily, I don't think the only reason for considering a type changing theory is purely to rationalize away one's weaknesses or anything, I mean some people may feel that way, but that isn't my intention in the least. I think a dynamic model of personality could explain the fluctuations and changes in mood/outlook/cognition and so forth.
I don't really like debating the concept of a dynamic model of personality, because it offends a lot of people for some odd reason. It's not really the arguments people make, but the quickness and fervency that the community seems to make to explain away its existance whenever its mentioned... largely model A is studied on this forum, which is a one type theory. So I'm fine studying that theory, but I definitely don't feel beholden to believe its the only reasonable approach to explaining or characterizing one's personality. It's not hard to generate reasonable doubt as to the basic claims socionics makes.
yes personality can change.
no type cannot change.
Type is rather a part of personality.
Basic claims of socionics are (and have been) easely validated. So I'm curious to your contrary ideas.
So.. basically the "preferences" idea, like the one promoted in MBTI?
I try to own up to my weaknesses. It's sad that someone wouldn't. There isn't any lesson to learn by ascribing one's faults to some function mishap. That's as bad as saying the devil made you do it. There's stuff I've done that was shitty Se-like behavior (not that Se is shitty.. I mean, I was being shitty). I've learned from it though..
Alright well so to keep the semantics simple, lets assume personality can change but type cannot.
Then what are the psychological functions related to... personality or type?
Secondarily, with model A, certain functions are valued and certain functions are strong/weak... what is the physical interpretation of strong/weak and valued/unvalued?
Strong/Weak can be thought of as Effective/Ineffective or Causes-Intended-Results/Does-Not.
Valued/Unvalued can be thought of as Feels-Good-Man (to use)/Feels-Bad-Man (to use)
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
this:Can someone please summarize what dolphin said so that I don't supervise that wall of ESFp?
type
its just people being stupid.
Do you have a general tendency to think about the future, or to listen to your internal monologue?
Yeah this is the typical response, especially on this forum, but I think I may disagree with you on the finer points... but I really don't feel like entertaining this whole conversation -- if your interesting though please PM, what we are talking about is a tangent from the main point of this topic.
A predictable answer, and this is very coherent with model A, which is good, at least your consistent... but I really don't feel like entertaining this whole conversation -- if your interesting though please PM, what we are talking about is a tangent from the main point of this topic.
Yes. Over time, introverts will spend the majority of their mental time "thinking", listening to their internal monologue (or dialogue). Extraverts, on the other hand, spend the majority of their mental time planning and anticipating the future. People can and will do both, but it's what you spend the majority of the time doing.
This is for social introversion/extraversion, though; but I don't think it necessarily contradicts introtim/extratim.
I do a lot of reflecting (trivializing). I need my dual to help me be more productive
Although, I have a dual and I'm very comfortable with the routines and they do keep me more productive.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
He was. That's the definition.
One consequence is that introtims are reflective, and primarily think about the present and past, while extratims are the opposite, and primarily think about the present and future. Funnily enough that does sound rather a bit like introversion/extraversion thinking patterns.
From here: http://socionics.us/theory/ext_int.shtml
Don't get too wrapped up in those tables, a lot isn't necessarily meaningful in any way and will just confuse you.
Yes. Though they seem to be the same thing. I'm partly curious as to which one of the two you are, because this ties into extraverted introtims and introverted extratims.
What I quoted was excerpted from here. I stripped the rest of the entry away to point out that introversion and extroversion describe a mental phenomenon*. The outward, behavioral manifestations of this are better understood in terms of gregariousness, which can be regarded as a measure of social engagement. The distinction can be illustrated by considering that a person who prefers frequent interactions with others is still capable of experiencing or being guided by a rich inner life, just as a quiet or asocial person may still be focused primarily on externalities.
* Our good buddy Jung says, in brief, that the extroverted subject assimilates himself to the object; the introverted subject assimilates the object to himself (Timeless's post does a good job of demonstrating this http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...64&postcount=1). If you think about this directional psychic interflow between subject (person) and object (surroundings) as it applies to the NSTF functions you'll better grasp the nature of the different IEs (Ni, Se, etc. etc.) as well as the behavior patterns that their styles of thinking inform.
Last edited by Korpsey; 02-27-2011 at 05:00 AM.
Posting Permissions
