Subtype correlation to introversion/extroversion

[Azure Flame]

This is a poll to help give a glimpse as to how much generic introversion/extroversion is effected by subtype.

So what about you? Does your subtype correlate to your introversion extroversion?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Introversion/extroversion in both the Jungian and socionics sense refer to a mental orientation. These cognitive dispositions are often colloquially confused or conflated with the behavioral traits of being socially reserved or outgoing, but they are actually distinct and separate personal qualities.

Vertedness, as it's sometimes unofficially called, describes the prevailing direction of libido-¹ or information-flow² between objects and a subject's primary information-processing function, so it is mostly a mental phenomenon. On the other hand, the degree to which one is socially engaged or averse is a behavioral matter.

Behavior is usually epiphenomenal to cognition — action follows reflex, instinct, and thought, not the other way around. And moment-to-moment changes in situationally adaptive action have much less effect on the nature of one's essential psychical makeup than does the converse. In other words, while lifelong type-change remains up for debate, it is true that mentality is altered less readily than behavior. This fact goes far to explain the confusion we often see among self-typists who focus overmuch on correlating outward behaviors with sociotype profiles and who give insufficient attention to their habits of mentation. As a result they frequently wind up with incorrect or unstable typings.

Though it's true that we can make broad generalizations about extroverts being more socially confident and engaged, and introverts being more socially doubting and avoidant, we can also find many exceptions to this rule of thumb. Individuals of either psychical attitude can be found who exhibit the opposite postulated behavioral tendency, i.e. socially outgoing cognitive introverts and socially withdrawn cognitive extroverts. And so the aforementioned generalization is a faulty one and cannot be utilized reliably, and we must examine each person's characteristic mentality to determine their introvert or extrovert orientation.

So then, with regard to vertedness of subtypes, are you asking about a general inclination of thought or of action?

---

1. Jung
2. Kępiński, Augustinavičiūtė

[Korpsy Knievel]

To answer your poll, I'm an introvert of a probable base-subtype who can strike up conversations with strangers easily if I'm not set on a particular outcome. But if there's some preset objective I'm hoping to satisfy like securing a new job or chatting up unknown but sexually interesting women, then I can be more self-conscious and self-inhibiting about my interactions.

[Olga]

I can talk to anybody - no hesitation as such but I prefer most of the time not to if I dont have to. I treasure my solititude. But if I feel that I have talk - I will talk.

[Raver]

I'm rarely one to initiate conversation with a stranger, however I am very receptive if a stranger decides to initiate it with me though.

I think instinctual stacking and the enneagram may have a stronger influence on stereotypical extroversion and introversion than socionics. Take this with a grain of salt as it is merely conjecture:

Instinctual Stackings

Introverted - sp/sx, sp/so
Ambiverted - sx/sp, so/sp
Extraverted - sx/so, so/sx

Enneagram

Introverted - 4, 5, 6
Ambiverted - 8, 9, 1
Extraverted - 2, 3, 7

[InvisibleJim]

I talk when it creates a more bearable atmosphere when others are around especially when I don't know them. I am otherwise quite silent. @HelenOfTroy found it all quite weird.

[Azure Flame]

Introversion/extroversion in both the Jungian and socionics sense refer to a mental orientation. These cognitive dispositions are often colloquially confused or conflated with the behavioral traits of being socially reserved or outgoing, but they are actually distinct and separate personal qualities.

Vertedness, as it's sometimes unofficially called, describes the prevailing direction of libido-¹ or information-flow² between objects and a subject's primary information-processing function, so it is mostly a mental phenomenon. On the other hand, the degree to which one is socially engaged or averse is a behavioral matter.

Behavior is usually epiphenomenal to cognition — action follows reflex, instinct, and thought, not the other way around. And moment-to-moment changes in situationally adaptive action have much less effect on the nature of one's essential psychical makeup than does the converse. In other words, while lifelong type-change remains up for debate, it is true that mentality is altered less readily than behavior. This fact goes far to explain the confusion we often see among self-typists who focus overmuch on correlating outward behaviors with sociotype profiles and who give insufficient attention to their habits of mentation. As a result they frequently wind up with incorrect or unstable typings.

Though it's true that we can make broad generalizations about extroverts being more socially confident and engaged, and introverts being more socially doubting and avoidant, we can also find many exceptions to this rule of thumb. Individuals of either psychical attitude can be found who exhibit the opposite postulated behavioral tendency, i.e. socially outgoing cognitive introverts and socially withdrawn cognitive extroverts. And so the aforementioned generalization is a faulty one and cannot be utilized reliably, and we must examine each person's characteristic mentality to determine their introvert or extrovert orientation.

So then, with regard to vertedness of subtypes, are you asking about a general inclination of thought or of action?

---

1. Jung
2. Kępiński, Augustinavičiūtė

Hmm... Well the thought of talking to strangers intimidates me... however when I'm there in the present doing something with a goal in mind, I'll talk to people no problem. I'll ask people on the bus for directions, I'll talk to other gymnasts about their moves... put me in a bar with the active goal of being social in and of itself, I'll sit in the corner by myself and talk to no one.

So I suppose I'm asking about "thought." Being social simply for the sake of being social.

[Azure Flame]

I'm rarely one to initiate conversation with a stranger, however I am very receptive if a stranger decides to initiate it with me though.

I think instinctual stacking and the enneagram may have a stronger influence on stereotypical extroversion and introversion than socionics. Take this with a grain of salt as it is merely conjecture:

Instinctual Stackings

Introverted - sp/sx, sp/so
Ambiverted - sx/sp, so/sp
Extraverted - sx/so, so/sx

Enneagram

Introverted - 4, 5, 6
Ambiverted - 8, 9, 1
Extraverted - 2, 3, 7

You could be right about that. Where'd you find that?

I need to get one of the enneagram books and read all the more in depth stuff, I've heard good things. I wonder if it has something to say on extro/introversion

[SyrupDeGem]

I talk when it creates a more bearable atmosphere when others are around especially when I don't know them. I am otherwise quite silent. @HelenOfTroy found it all quite weird.

She did indeed. No admittance of nerves playing a factor here though? Or the ESFp blue meanies

[willekeurig]

This depends on a lot of things of course, but generally speaking I prefer to have others initiate conversations. I hate small talk. If I have to I can make myself do it (like in a job interview), but it's super draining - especially is the person is not actively holding up their end of the conversation. One thing I've noticed is that socialising with friends earlier makes me more prone to talking to strangers, and, in the contrary, if I've spent the day mostly on my own saying hello to the bus driver can sometimes be pretty difficult.

What I love about MDMA so much is that it makes talking to people energy-gaining rather than energy consuming. I really am interested in getting to know other people and their worlds, but normally I'm stuck too deep in my own inner world to be able to do it. Every now and then I spot people (usuallyTe/Fi + sx folks) with whom everything's super natural from the beginning and we can skip all the getting to know you-bullshit and get to personal stuff immediately. In these cases initiating is not a problem at all, but encounters that fall into this category are an extremely small majority.

[Azure Flame]

@Agarina
baha you have to take ecstasy to be social?

I totally identify with you with the social rut phenomenon. If I'm out talking to people constantly, I'll have no problem doing it again. The problem comes when I spend 3 days recharging my batteries talking to no one... getting back out there again isn't something I'm willing to do, and I don't even want to THINK about saying hi to the bus driver, haha.

People sit here and tell me, "oh just practice!"

NO! I've had 18 years of practice in high school walking up and talking to random folks being an extrovert. Then came college and somewhere along the line I was in control of my own life and never ventured outside of my room again. Buh bye extroversion!

So for the most part I'm in a rut and need to climb out of it... over and over and over again. Maybe I should just take a shot before I go out.

[ashlesha]

Hmm... Well the thought of talking to strangers intimidates me... however when I'm there in the present doing something with a goal in mind, I'll talk to people no problem. I'll ask people on the bus for directions, I'll talk to other gymnasts about their moves... put me in a bar with the active goal of being social in and of itself, I'll sit in the corner by myself and talk to no one.

So I suppose I'm asking about "thought." Being social simply for the sake of being social.

i'm the same. i think its not about the interaction per se but more about, idk - what to talk about, where is the conversation going, whats the point anyway.
but then sometimes there are people i find interesting and would like to talk to but i'm stopped by not knowing what to say or having any sort of common ground. and its just so much easier when there's some sort of practical reason to start a conversation, some kind of pretense. maybe its just discomfort with small talk.
constructivism comes to mind, dunno if sle is constructivist or emotivist.

what jim said also makes me think of how i also seem to have a much higher threshold for "awkward silences" than a lot of other people. they're only awkward when i can sense the other person feels awkward and it kind of annoys me when people are super sensitive to any silences. just relax, gah.

but i just plain prefer not talking to people i know i'm not going to form a friendship with or something anyway. those random elevator conversations or the clerk at the store starting to talk about their kids. sigh. i can be kind of aloof i guess but its not mean-spirited, i just don't get the point.

[Azure Flame]

i'm the same. i think its not about the interaction per se but more about, idk - what to talk about, where is the conversation going, whats the point anyway.
but then sometimes there are people i find interesting and would like to talk to but i'm stopped by not knowing what to say or having any sort of common ground. and its just so much easier when there's some sort of practical reason to start a conversation, some kind of pretense. maybe its just discomfort with small talk.
constructivism comes to mind, dunno if sle is constructivist or emotivist.

what jim said also makes me think of how i also seem to have a much higher threshold for "awkward silences" than a lot of other people. they're only awkward when i can sense the other person feels awkward and it kind of annoys me when people are super sensitive to any silences. just relax, gah.

but i just plain prefer not talking to people i know i'm not going to form a friendship with or something anyway. those random elevator conversations or the clerk at the store starting to talk about their kids. sigh. i can be kind of aloof i guess but its not mean-spirited, i just don't get the point.

SLE is constructivist.

Yeah I don't mind silence. Good point about conversation topics.

Constructivists
Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them. They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset. Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.

Emotivists
Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive. They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit". Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange. They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen. In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).

Actually I think that says it right there. I hate conversation for the sake of conversation. Its so much easier for me to talk to people regarding matters of business, so in that sense there is no problem with me walking up to a random stranger of a house and say:
"Hey I notice you like to flip houses. Got any advice on how I can get started?"
"Oh sure all you gotta do is blah blah blah"
"Awesome bro lets pound fists and be best friends!"
"ok! I'll go get my nerf guns!"

Matter of fact, one of the reasons I found my IEI ex so exciting yet terrifying was because she was an emotivist. She had this ability to walk up to anyone and just start talking. Meanwhile I'm sitting there like, "durr, can't talk now I'm on a mission."

Hmm, this requires a response to my other thread about IEI's.

[willekeurig]

@Agarina
baha you have to take ecstasy to be social?

Ha, nope. But I enjoy how it allows me to turn into an extreme extrovert; to draw energy from other people and the world around me rather than be drained by external stimulation. I can act extroverted whenever, but mdma really makes me one.

[Raver]

You could be right about that. Where'd you find that?

I need to get one of the enneagram books and read all the more in depth stuff, I've heard good things. I wonder if it has something to say on extro/introversion

I didn't really find it anywhere specifically as it's derived from a combination of multiple sources and my own hypothetical reasoning.

[willekeurig]

Matter of fact, one of the reasons I found my IEI ex so exciting yet terrifying was because she was an emotivist. She had this ability to talk up to anyone and just start talking. Meanwhile I'm sitting there like, "durr, can't talk now I'm in a mission."

Interesting - I feel the same way about LSEs. I've also actually been criticized by more than one of them because of this.

[Absurd]

Don't have tremendous problems with initiating something/whatever this thread is about anyway, but I don't usually find many people stimulating in a sense that the convo won't die a great death.

Plus the moment some person would want to get back to it, I think I would forget what I have been talking about...

Absurd dilemma.

[Olga]

Why do we ralate extroversion - introversion to sybtypes in this topic but talk about types? I dont get it quite. Reinin dychotomies have never been used as such as a subtype either - do not remember anything like that. Different schools use Reining dychotomies to type into type usually.
So I a talking about type qualities and not subtype. Otherwise we may think that the type only thinks and the subtype only acts. Rubbish.

[Minde]

I feel I can't answer the poll. I'm an introvert type with introvert subtype, and I feel like I'm in the middle somewhere, particularly in terms of "difficulty" and "conversation."

If the small-talk is on a topic that I find interesting (like a shared experience or interest) then it can be easy, especially in shorter bursts and where I don't have to sustain it. But I usually have no problem smiling at strangers and initiating a person-connection with them. Those interactions tend to be quiet and somewhat understated, and they usually tend to focus on the person themselves, their feelings and what they're experiencing.

For example, the other night while buying something and waiting for the cashier to finish the transaction, they looked/felt a little tired to me so I asked if they had to work much later that night. She said a couple more hours, and I replied with an attempt at an encouraging smile and comment, something like, "You can do it." Obviously some people are more receptive/needy to connections like that than others, so it isn't a hugely common thing.

And it does depend on my mood, how I'm doing that day. If am tired or already socially drained then I even withdraw from contact. On the other hand, sometimes I can get in the social state of mind, and it comes easier. (Although, I get drained more quickly after those times of high energy social focus.)

I do tend to remain quieter when in groups, and will focus in on one or two people at a time when conversing.

I've found it can be relative easy for me to get people talking deeply about themselves, even if they don't know me that well. But I'm careful about that because it can get exhausting for me. (I had a couple of experiences in my early teens that kind of scarred me...)



Is that helpful at all? Or have I managed to just splash a bunch of muddy water, lol?

[InvisibleJim]

She did indeed. No admittance of nerves playing a factor here though? Or the ESFp blue meanies

Well thats the point really.

If you are an introvert with an extroverted slant and particularly with an enneagram sp instinct, you are paying attention to your environment for things which will limit your introversion, it makes you nervous and stand on edge. Therefore when you first meet someone in your environment it is a nerve racking experience, but the learned person will engage with the problem to see if that person is a threat/problem, if you are sp/so you will see if they will fit the social group, if you are sp/sx you'll show some of the famous random. So as an sp/sx you can appear moderately introverted as you throw out some statements and ideas to see how the other person reacts. If the reaction is negative they fail the test, and that is where they attempt to stop you having your opinions or seek to limit your freedom of thought, particularly where they don't let you fully pursue those ideas you are throwing out there. If they are accepting of that behaviour then they pass the test. What is more strange to people is when they pass the test the first few times and then fail it on the fourth or fifth attempt and find the sp introvert much less willing to engage with them.

The last thing people should want to do to an introverted sp/sx if they want any sort of positive engagement is limit that freedom of thought or action, because they think they can demand it should move at a different pace or be in a different order, or form an alternate opinion. Ultimately they will hit the immovable object; it doesn't matter what the immovable object is; you've hit it and it just isn't going anywhere.

[SyrupDeGem]

Well thats the point really.

If you are an introvert with an extroverted slant and particularly with an enneagram sp instinct, you are paying attention to your environment for things which will limit your introversion, it makes you nervous and stand on edge. Therefore when you first meet someone in your environment it is a nerve racking experience, but the learned person will engage with the problem to see if that person is a threat/problem, if you are sp/so you will see if they will fit the social group, if you are sp/sx you'll show some of the famous random. So as an sp/sx you can appear moderately introverted as you throw out some statements and ideas to see how the other person reacts. If the reaction is negative they fail the test, and that is where they attempt to stop you having your opinions or seek to limit your freedom of thought, particularly where they don't let you fully pursue those ideas you are throwing out there. If they are accepting of that behaviour then they pass the test. What is more strange to people is when they pass the test the first few times and then fail it on the fourth or fifth attempt and find the sp introvert much less willing to engage with them.

The last thing people should want to do to an introverted sp/sx if they want any sort of positive engagement is limit that freedom of thought or action, because they think they can demand it should move at a different pace or be in a different order, or form an alternate opinion. Ultimately they will hit the immovable object; it doesn't matter what the immovable object is; you've hit it and it just isn't going anywhere.

Yah, was just requesting you make it clear for all.


Hmm, very interesting post you make here. I identify with the bolded very much myself... though i'd not thought of it as test conditions before now. And yes to the last paragraph, been there.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It depends on the person.

I'm generally a shy and quiet person. Also i'm introverted and that just basically means I have trouble carrying a conversation if it isn't personally interesting to me. Introverts are kinda narcissistic in that sense. It's draining for me to just blabber about something that doesn't personally align with my own essence. Doing that does make you more likeable like objectively and like easy to make friends but my brain isn't really wired for that.

when i was more socially confident I could just kinda go up and talk to the person. It isn't that big of a deal... it's just kinda if you live in the world you get sorta the pragmatic sense most people won't fuck you over too badly but they also won't really coddle you either... so you sorta learn to take a more balanced, worldly approach with them. Idk how to explain it, it just happens naturally when you get used to people but yeah you just gotta sorta stick out the natural 'weak emo' period where you feel vulnerable around others. Don't attack people insecurely when you feel this way though, just try to stick it out.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

sorry but im in a giving, helpful oprah mood today...

i also want to add how important reading social cues are and having empathy is. Like it really depends on the stranger. You can't just blanket say 'i have trouble talking to strangers.' Only some idiot would just go to a psychopath and start telling their deepest darkest secrets. [oopsie i probably did that once or twice in my life haha] It's important to trust your instincts. If somebody feels unsafe and scary and dangerous they probably are... if you sense somebody is just a little pissed off and angry at you, it isn't wise to get that bent out of shape about it. Like I love ppl so much that sometimes if I have fights with my closest friends it bothers me, however this is just natural and part of growth lol. i would say most people don't care, they're just going to tease you playfully. both to look cool/popular, 'whee im a hollywood celebrity' and also because maybe they find you cute. I find too much teasing annoying though [cuz it can be like whee I'm actually being cruel here but it's okay because I'm sugar coating things and saying it in a fun charming way so everybody still likes me whee I'm such a preppy mean girl] but it's the common way americans socialize.

yeah if you read how people accurately feel you get a better sense of what to do , for your *own* benefit. if i don't wanna be approached people aren't really going try and bother me cuz they will sense this about me and vice-versa... sometimes though I wish ppl would lighten up more around people esp. in society it's soooo tense sometimes. =/