Quiz: Are you an introvert or extrovert?

[Creepy-female]

.

[Beautiful sky]

Introvert.

[Creepy-]

I haven't determined my type yet, but I relate to introvert.

[CILi]

This is a pretty dumb question and all, but...

How does one "obtain gratification" from "one's own mental life"?

I can comprehend E ("bringing the fun IN"), but I'm struggling with I ("creating the fun SOLO, out of nothing").

[Creepy-male]

I have a constant stream of emotional impressions about the world, and I tend to constantly think about "things", like I have basic thoughts that I patch more and more into very gradually over time. My mindset is primarily reflective.

So, I'm focused on the past, my own emotional reactions to things, and my own thoughts.

I'm an introvert, and an introtim.

EDIT

This is also why I love spending time alone with nature. Larger crowds of people tend to contaminate my emotional relationship with my experience, and that's no good.

[Galen]

I related to both. Everybody is certainly capable of doing both of those things, but I'm not immediately sure which my brain automatically directs itself to. I guess it would be more external just out of simple habit, but I still definitely see how I focus in on my own mental life. It's kinda like outward focus is a background process to me that I do unconsciously, but the true importance lies in how my internal life relates to it.

Hmm, maybe that in and of itself is a sign of my focus on the external things around me. But then that means I'm putting more value on the secondary process?

Shindaiwa made a really good analogy for how extrotims and introtims understand objects and fields that I'm gonna steal for this exercise: extrotims create fields around the objects, and introtims arrange the objects within the fields. For this example we'll use spiderwebs. An introvert spider would have her web already built up and arranged neatly, and she fits the objects she finds into that web as she sees fit. Conversely, the extrovert spider would see the objects around him and build a web that encompasses those objects. Then from here we can see how subtypes affect the focus of the individual, where the creative subtype introvert would place primary focus on the placing of these objects into the web and the leading subtype introvert would focus more on the web itself. Leading subtype extroverts' main focus is just on the objects with the webs as having secondary importance, while the creative subtype extroverts would focus on the creation of this web around the objects more than the objects themselves.

[Creepy-male]

You could be an introverted extratim, Galen.

Anyway, here's another way of looking at it. Introtims internalise things from outside, extratims process them as they are.

The way my mind works is this:

I'm either monologuing to myself, verbally developing thoughts, or I'm out and about experiencing things as they affect how I feel. If I'm walking I'm focused on the emotional experience of my surroundings and my internal state. My body is working fine, the scenery is nice, I'm feeling alive and good. I leave suburbia and run into the traffic along the highway, and I feel like bluh, but okay, won't have to deal with it too much longer. I've been walking several kilometers now and my body is starting to run out of puff, okay, not feeling so good any more.

Etc, etc, etc. It doesn't translate so well into words. It's like having all these gauges at once and a general "sense of wellbeing" (by virtue of being Dynamic).

This might not be incredibly useful considering I'm an introverted introtim (very mild preference, and I'm sure most of you would be like YOU AN INTROVERT?!, but it's there).

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/0...traverted.html

The above article might help.

[Timeless]

Where's the "Fuck you, Slater!" option when you need it.

[Creepy-male]

I'd Like that post if I could

[pianosinger]

I believe I relate to both the definitions in the OP...

I like the longer list from Wikisocion:

Extraverted types
1.Psychic energy more often flows outwards.
2.Energy level increases when interacting with a large group of people.
3.Energy level decreases when they are alone.
4.Energy level is generally higher.
5.More often focused on their surroundings.
6.Tend to be more active and initiating.
7.Often make new friends easily.
8.Often better at presenting themselves.
9.Often prefer to work in a team.

Introverted types
1.Psychic energy more often flows inwards.
2.Energy level increases when they are alone.
3.Energy level decreases when interacting with a large group of people.
4.Energy level is generally lower.
5.More often focused on their thoughts and feelings.
6.Tend to be more passive, less initiating. 7.Often do not have many friends.
8.Often better at concentrating.
9.Often prefer to work alone.

I've bolded the items which are particularly applicable to me. You'll notice the entire Extraverted list is bolded, except for "prefer to work in teams."

[The Ineffable]

I relate to the Extroverted description, though it appears to me that the Introverted one is not good, it's kinda generic (possibly the Extroverted too) - hence my second choice.

Yes, I normally look for something "outside", whether it's to validate my hypotheses, or get some motivation, whatever. Also, I barely can understand something new if I'm not given examples; when I do programming, I'm testing every little piece, as soon as possible, I never trust this "this looks fine; I've done it correctly" - although I need to understand how it's built, I have to see if it really does what it was supposed to do. I have a hard time using my untested set-ups in life-and-death situations, this being one of the few things which I may entrust to "experts", though I've done this when it was the only option.

You could be an introverted extratim, Galen.

My guess is that he hinted at the contradiction between multiple option and the impossibility to be both I and E, without engaging in criticism. If it was not so, it would have been contradictory to the idea that he knows his type, but this is a different matter .

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Many of the IEE descriptions I've seen have called them the "introverted extrovert" and make mention of IEEs requiring more time alone than other extrotims.

Still, don't confuse the mental nature of introversion/extroversion with the outward behavioral patterns it can produce. Horses pull carts; horses are not carts.

[Creepy-]

I believe I relate to both the definitions in the OP...

I like the longer list from Wikisocion:



I've bolded the items which are particularly applicable to me. You'll notice the entire Extraverted list is bolded, except for "prefer to work in teams."

If I may ask you, what does it mean "Energy level decreases/increases when 'x'"? I've never been exactly sure. What is "energy level"?

[FDG]

Yes, I normally look for something "outside", whether it's to validate my hypotheses, or get some motivation, whatever. Also, I barely can understand something new if I'm not given examples; when I do programming, I'm testing every little piece, as soon as possible, I never trust this "this looks fine; I've done it correctly" - although I need to understand how it's built, I have to see if it really does what it was supposed to do. I have a hard time using my untested set-ups in life-and-death situations, this being one of the few things which I may entrust to "experts", though I've done this when it was the only option.

Same. E and Is seem to approach tasks in a distinctively different fashion, Es are more "experimental" (even intuitive Es), which fits what the OP was trying to abstractly convey.

[Creepy-male]

I know my dominant function is Ne, from going back to the bare basics and reading Jung in depth and thinking on it, I'm 99.99% convinced Ne is my dominant function.

So in that sense it would make me an extrovert, but in the stereotypical sense of pop culture, I'm probably more introverted.

I prefer to make close friends and work on those relationships rather than maintain a large group of friends which I frequently bounce around with and hang out with but only at a superficial level.

I get really annoyed when people I don't know bother me in public for no reason, when I'm shopping or trying to do something and someone is standing next to me looking at the same thing or is intrusive I get annoyed, one of my friend used to say I put out vibes that I wanted to be left alone in those circumstances. I hate large crowds and groups, I'm paranoid of social hysteria from ignorant masses of people, and have a tendency to hate pop culture. I feel like a tool engaging in happy community activities -- like pep rallies, party politics, holiday activities, and so forth.

I appreciate individualism and can have misanthropic moods, its easy to feel like everything is a clusterfuck, everyone makes unreasonable demands and can't see how their demands are incompatible with reality instead of coming up with a solution for things that is pragmatic and will work, most people don't have a clue whats going on around them but they think they do.

I dislike when people rub things in your face or bother you, like bragging and being arrogant, "Oh look at me how awesome I am", try to impress you, going out of there way. I hate it when I see men acting like douche bags to impress women, and I hate stupid superficial women that just look sexy and contribute nothing to impress men.

It annoys me when people are very happy and cheery like the progressive insurance lady and ask you a lot of personal questions... or the guy from office space, "Brian" the server... "Looks like someone has a case of the mondays!". I also hate it when people act all sweet and motherly, like your in a bad mood, and they come up to you and say "AWwww, isn't that cute, you're all sad.... smile... tehehehe"... I just want to punch them in the face and then laugh. To me its patronizing. I hate it when I'm in a bad mood and just want to be left alone and people try to cheer you up and say things like "hey smile"... I feel like saying "Oh really that was my fucking problem, I forgot to smile?" -- To me people need to just leave me alone when I'm sad, because usually I just think and try to develop a solution to my problems rather than get pitied or patronizingly cheered up.

In some ways the best thing to do when I'm in a bad mood, is to spend time alone, not being emo, but just to get away from the problem for a while... get in the zone, engage in some enjoyable activity, get a fresh perspective and then approach it again with new vitality and mental clarity.

So in all those ways, I'm pretty much a misanthropic introvert.... but Ne is my dominant function, so socionics would seem to say I'm extroverted.... so you know.... MODEL A is always correct and valid, as scientists have proven this in the laboratory and it is infalliable proof heathens!!!!!!!!!

I'm not really one to express gushy emotions in interpersonal dealings, mostly I'm pretty calm and cool, silent, laid back, and enjoy engaging in fun activities and interesting intellectual discussion with people I feel are real and not phony. However some of the artistic things I've done are very dramatic and emotional, but I'm not like that at all in dealing with people in real life, if I do have a powerful feeling, I mostly keep it to myself. I'd also say I'm articulate, I don't have trouble expressing ideas in my head to people, even the most complex of ideas... however I do have a tendency to be very verbose and ramble as opposed to being taciturn, matter of fact, and so forth. My favourite literary device or method of expressing things is the analogy and I love to debate, but personal arguing annoys me.

[Jarno]

I know my dominant function is Ne

I still relate to INTj and INFp, ISTj, ESTp, ENFp, and ENTp

Do you see how you contradict yourself?

[Simon Ssmall]

I believe I relate to both the definitions in the OP...

I like the longer list from Wikisocion:



I've bolded the items which are particularly applicable to me. You'll notice the entire Extraverted list is bolded, except for "prefer to work in teams."

6.Tend to be more active and initiating.
6.Tend to be more passive, less initiating

[Creepy-male]

Do you see how you contradict yourself?

First of all, there are billions of people out there that contradict themselves, why don't you go bother someone else and get off my fucking back.

Second of all, its not a contradiction because what I related to for Ne is the description of Ne that Jung had written relative to the other functional descriptions he had written, what I related to for the types I mentioned are type descriptions... its only a contradiction if any two of those descriptions are logically mutually exclusive.

Such as the ISTj description saying "prefers X" and the Ne description saying "doesn't prefer X"... ok which is not the case, because likely the parts of the ISTj description I do relate to which isn't 100% of the description, are the parts that are not based on Ne-PoLR. When I say relate to X type or relate to X function I mean relative to the other options in the closed system of functions/types... and not an absolute relation.

[pianosinger]

If I may ask you, what does it mean "Energy level decreases/increases when 'x'"? I've never been exactly sure. What is "energy level"?

I've noticed that, when I am out of the house most of the day, either directly or indirectly interacting with my outside world, I come home afterward and I am pumped-- ready to work and be super productive; it's like I have all this charged-up energy that I just have to spend before I can settle down again.

Whereas if I've been stuck at home for a few days, with no company but my boys and my husband, after a few days I just so tired and down. It is difficult for me to find the motivation to get up and be really productive. Mentally, in these situations, I am usually still pretty energized, but physically I am exhausted. At these times, I get much more lazy and low-energy, and stuck in my head.

[Beautiful sky]

Do you see how you contradict yourself?

Stop demoing your Ti.

First of all, there are billions of people out there that contradict themselves, why don't you go bother someone else and get off my fucking back.

Second of all, its not a contradiction because what I related to for Ne is the description of Ne that Jung had written relative to the other functional descriptions he had written, what I related to for the types I mentioned are type descriptions... its only a contradiction if any two of those descriptions are logically mutually exclusive.

Such as the ISTj description saying "prefers X" and the Ne description saying "doesn't prefer X"... ok which is not the case, because likely the parts of the ISTj description I do relate to which isn't 100% of the description, are the parts that are not based on Ne-PoLR. When I say relate to X type or relate to X function I mean relative to the other options in the closed system of functions/types... and not an absolute relation.

Yeah, that's a huge problem with going by descriptions. The human mind keeps saying, "yes, I must be this and that, so what type does that make me..LOL" Makes you an INSTj

Does looking at quadra values help?

[pianosinger]

6.Tend to be more active and initiating.
6.Tend to be more passive, less initiating

So, I'm split down the middle. Sometimes I am more active and initiating, and sometimes I am more passive and less initiating. Attribute it to my being a p temperament, I guess.

[Jarno]

First of all, there are billions of people out there that contradict themselves, why don't you go bother someone else and get off my fucking back.

Second of all, its not a contradiction because what I related to for Ne is the description of Ne that Jung had written relative to the other functional descriptions he had written, what I related to for the types I mentioned are type descriptions... its only a contradiction if any two of those descriptions are logically mutually exclusive.

Such as the ISTj description saying "prefers X" and the Ne description saying "doesn't prefer X"... ok which is not the case, because likely the parts of the ISTj description I do relate to which isn't 100% of the description, are the parts that are not based on Ne-PoLR. When I say relate to X type or relate to X function I mean relative to the other options in the closed system of functions/types... and not an absolute relation.

If you don't see types as mutually exclusive, you will always say, I'm 70% this en 10% that and etc.

I relate to a lot of things that woman have. Does this make me 30% woman?

No I'm 100% male, even though I relate to both woman and man. Do you see how you are approaching typology wrong?
Do you now understand why you can only be 1 type as you can only be 1 gender even though you relate somewhat to both.

[Creepy-male]

I've noticed that, when I am out of the house most of the day, either directly or indirectly interacting with my outside world, I come home afterward and I am pumped-- ready to work and be super productive; it's like I have all this charged-up energy that I just have to spend before I can settle down again.

Whereas if I've been stuck at home for a few days, with no company but my boys and my husband, after a few days I just so tired and down. It is difficult for me to find the motivation to get up and be really productive. Mentally, in these situations, I am usually still pretty energized, but physically I am exhausted. At these times, I get much more lazy and low-energy, and stuck in my head.

This is people-related

I'm the same way. Except, I find people draining. I need alone time to charge up, or for someone else to be feeding me energy and attention. Even then, I generally don't feel like I have LIKE SO MUCH ENERGY that HAS TO BE BURNED OMG. That's a transient and rare mood.

In social situations I only have as much energy as is being fed to me. Otherwise I just kind of chill on the sidelines.

[Creepy-male]

And Jarno, either shut up or take it to PM as requested. Try and show some respect for once.

[EyeSeeCold]

If I may ask you, what does it mean "Energy level decreases/increases when 'x'"? I've never been exactly sure. What is "energy level"?

It should mean what you think it means. "Vitality", for a lack of a better word.

It's my understanding that Extraverts have a need to exert(more apparent in Exxj?) and Introverts have a need to conserve(more apparent in Ixxp?).

It probably works like basic physics with conductors and insulators: the more energy you exert continuously, the faster the "current" becomes and the more you feel you have to exert more energy.

[Jarno]

And Jarno, either shut up or take it to PM as requested. Try and show some respect for once.

respect is to be earned.

[Creepy-male]

respect is to be earned.

Good. Disregard is equally earned, and you are more than deserving in that regard.

[Jarno]

Good. Disregard is equally earned, and you are more than deserving in that regard.

You are pretty harsh, I'm trying to teach a noob how socionics works and this is what I get in return.

[EyeSeeCold]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Creepy-male]

If you don't see types as mutually exclusive, you will always say, I'm 70% this en 10% that and etc.

I relate to a lot of things that woman have. Does this make me 30% woman?

No I'm 100% male, even though I relate to both woman and man. Do you see how you are approaching typology wrong?
Do you now understand why you can only be 1 type as you can only be 1 gender even though you relate somewhat to both.

Actually your over simplifying things to drive your argument home, your not looking at all the facts... the criteria for male or female, what is it? If your judging by the presence of an XY chromosome versus an XX chromosome then sure your 100% male. However, I'm guessing that what you relate to isn't the XX chromosome, but some of the more outwardly observable traits of being male/female. By that criteria you aren't 100% male. Lets say the criteria was instead testerone versus estrogen levels, then it possible to break male or female ness down into percentages.

Type is the same, your over simplifying a very deep issue that essentially reverts back to a basic question in psychology: nature vs nuture. Many academic papers have been written over whether personality, type, temperament, an so forth... is in born or developed through experiences.

Now I'm completely fine accepting that model A, in so far as it is defined is a single static not changing inborn type theory... but as the absolute, infalliable, truth.... this is completely ridiculous. There is more than enough evidence for anyone whiling to look for it, to generate even a drop of reasonable doubt. However you've selectively ignored this.

You know when Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relatively, there was a movement in germany called "german physics", part of this was refuted Albert Einstein's theory because he was jewish and not a true german, one scientist spent 10 years of his life attempting to re-create the photoelectric experiment purely because he had it made up, pre determined in his mind, that he was wrong.

I'm not saying I'm einstein, I'm not saying I'm right, what I'm asking for you is to stop bothering me, because from what I've seen you are pre-determined are imposing a ridiculously hardlined view on me... when really what I think about personality typology theory on some obscure forum on the internet.... is truely.... none of your business.

If this is your sad pathetic way of getting your jollies of, please get a job in real life or go annoy someone else... you are really not worth my time or effort, now please for the 1-thousandthn time, let it be.

[Jarno]

Actually your over simplifying things to drive your argument home, your not looking at all the facts... the criteria for male or female, what is it? If your judging by the presence of an XY chromosome versus an XX chromosome then sure your 100% male. However, I'm guessing that what you relate to isn't the XX chromosome, but some of the more outwardly observable traits of being male/female. By that criteria you aren't 100% male. Lets say the criteria was instead testerone versus estrogen levels, then it possible to break male or female ness down into percentages.

Type is the same, your over simplifying a very deep issue that essentially reverts back to a basic question in psychology: nature vs nuture. Many academic papers have been written over whether personality, type, temperament, an so forth... is in born or developed through experiences.

Now I'm completely fine accepting that model A, in so far as it is defined is a single static not changing inborn type theory... but as the absolute, infalliable, truth.... this is completely ridiculous. There is more than enough evidence for anyone whiling to look for it, to generate even a drop of reasonable doubt. However you've selectively ignored this.

You know when Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relatively, there was a movement in germany called "german physics", part of this was refuted Albert Einstein's theory because he was jewish and not a true german, one scientist spent 10 years of his life attempting to re-create the photoelectric experiment purely because he had it made up, pre determined in his mind, that he was wrong.

I'm not saying I'm einstein, I'm not saying I'm right, what I'm asking for you is to stop bothering me, because from what I've seen you are pre-determined are imposing a ridiculously hardlined view on me... when really what I think about personality typology theory on some obscure forum on the internet.... is truely.... none of your business.

If this is your sad pathetic way of getting your jollies of, please get a job in real life or go annoy someone else... you are really not worth my time or effort, now please for the 1-thousandthn time, let it be.

If you would simply use a humanistic approach, then I'm 100% male. Since gender is a dichotomy, there is simply no discussion about. When you start looking into the definition of male or female, yes ofcourse there is room for discussion. But I'm using simple humanistic approach, then there is clearly just one type for a person. Just like his gender. You make simple things difficult. If I ask you what gender you are, do you seriously have trouble answering that?

[Crispy]

I don't know if this helps at all considering you relate to Jungian Ne Base but this quote sounds a lot like Fe-PoLR:

It annoys me when people are very happy and cheery like the progressive insurance lady and ask you a lot of personal questions... or the guy from office space, "Brian" the server... "Looks like someone has a case of the mondays!". I also hate it when people act all sweet and motherly, like your in a bad mood, and they come up to you and say "AWwww, isn't that cute, you're all sad.... smile... tehehehe"... I just want to punch them in the face and then laugh. To me its patronizing. I hate it when I'm in a bad mood and just want to be left alone and people try to cheer you up and say things like "hey smile"... I feel like saying "Oh really that was my fucking problem, I forgot to smile?" -- To me people need to just leave me alone when I'm sad, because usually I just think and try to develop a solution to my problems rather than get pitied or patronizingly cheered up.

Fe as a vulnerable (4th) function (ILI and SLI)
The individual tries hard to never let himself "come apart at the seams" emotionally or even let out strong feelings publicly, because displays of passion do not come naturally and make him feel self-consciousness and vulnerable to painful criticism. This makes the individual generally seem emotionally neutral and politely indifferent to excitement and agitation around him. The individual deeply dislikes attempts by others to get him to "cheer up" or "join the fun", especially in the context of group activities with loud emotional expression.

IME LII's (and I could only assume ILE's) will appreciate the cheering up and its a big reason Alpha SF's are considered the Adoring Mothers/Fathers of the socion.

On a coincidental side note, I find the progressive woman adorable, even though I hate most every commercial I see.

[The Ineffable]

If I ask you what gender you are, do you seriously have trouble answering that?

This bothers me too at HLD, he does have a problem in answering clear and sensible questions with clear ad sensible answers .

I don't know if this helps at all considering you relate to Jungian Ne Base but this quote sounds a lot like Fe-PoLR:

Interesting and yeah, matches my experiences with XLIs too. In the big picture of his I see rather subdued Fe, Logical Irrational sounds out of question, as he rarely if ever feels obliged to answer relevantly, to justify his claims, while Tp's are maybe the most anal over accuracy and justification. Ne was also pretty evident in him along the time, IMO.

IME LII's (and I could only assume ILE's) will appreciate the cheering up and its a big reason Alpha SF's are considered the Adoring Mothers/Fathers of the socion.

I don't know if an ILE who never analyzed his life could verbalize this - and how, but I have an opinion on it: I don't like to be cheered-up but I don't have a problem with it, unless it becomes forceful or harassing, especially how EIEs do, eg the exalted mob taking me by force to a party cause that's "what I was supposed to do". Two cases I could recall right now, once my BIL made a nasty remark when I was excusing myself to leave, like "yeah, your wife waits for you" (meaning my computer). Another case: Gilly asked me to make fun of someone then insisted that everyone does, but, although I understood the fun of it, I was really not in the mood, I could not just do it like that, on command.

So yeah, I don't necessarily "appreciate" this cheering up - maybe the sincere attention involved, that someone cares for me - and I may even put a smile on hearing the guys having fun, but only as long as I'm not harassed, pointed the finger at, tentatively manipulated or patronized (which sometimes EIE > ESE do ).

[Creepy-male]

If you would simply use a humanistic approach, then I'm 100% male. Since gender is a dichotomy, there is simply no discussion about. When you start looking into the definition of male or female, yes ofcourse there is room for discussion. But I'm using simple humanistic approach, then there is clearly just one type for a person. Just like his gender. You make simple things difficult. If I ask you what gender you are, do you seriously have trouble answering that?

Oh damnit, fucking forgot to use the humanistic approach... *bangs head against wall*... I have to admit it Jarno, you surely did pwn me... I'll have to listen to you more often! I don't know why I bothered. At this point I really realize I was wrong, thanks for clarifying things. I may be too stupid to realize what gender means, but I'm not too stupid to realize when I've been outsmarted! :wink: