ESFjs who are NOT socially super outgoing

[Minde]

One of my best friends is an ESE who is "introverted" in the more commonly understood way. She is not very social at all. In fact, sometimes she dislikes social events more than I do, and I find myself being the one to encourage her to go out. Too much social interaction wears her out and she's a big fan of going to bed early. And, yet, she has an EJ temperament, is a caregiver, has Fe as her first function and Si as her second, etc. (I'd actually put her as possibly a Si subtype, which in some sub-theories would explain some of the extra introversion.)

[tcaudilllg]

One of my best friends is an ESE who is "introverted" in the more commonly understood way. She is not very social at all. In fact, sometimes she dislikes social events more than I do, and I find myself being the one to encourage her to go out. Too much social interaction wears her out and she's a big fan of going to bed early. And, yet, she has an EJ temperament, is a caregiver, has Fe as her first function and Si as her second, etc. (I'd actually put her as possibly a Si subtype, which in some sub-theories would explain some of the extra introversion.)

What does she like to do?

[pianosinger]

Another thought: If you're sure about her being Fe and Si Ego, have you considered ISFp?

Also look at ISFj.

[xerx]

Eysenck's Extrovert / Introvert has no place in classical Socionics. DCNH offers its own correlations, however, which you're free to explore.

[Creepy-male]

Any chance your introverted ESE is an SEI?

[krieger]

Eysenck's Extrovert / Introvert has no place in classical Socionics. DCNH offers its own correlations, however, which you're free to explore.

Here, this is the opposite extreme and it also annoys me to death. There is a very obvious correlation between socionics type and Big-5 extroversion. Acknowledging this fact is not incompatible with also criticizing the stance of taking extroversion as an absolute distinction rather than just as a tendency. But "no place in socionics", my eye.

Also DCNH just obfuscates the issue. It doesn't clarify it so much as it makes whatever claim is made less testable. Socionics should go in the opposite direction.

[Crispy]

If it looks like an introvert, and acts like an introvert, it's probably an introvert. Also DCNH should be reserved for AFTER the original type has been confirmed (as far as you can confirm it), not a quick fix to make an original typing fit.

If you are on the Introverted side of the introvert/extrovert spectrum, there is 100% no way you are an Introverted Extrovert.

[xerx]

Here, this is the opposite extreme and it also annoys me to death. There is a very obvious correlation between socionics type and Big-5 extroversion. Acknowledging this fact is not incompatible with also criticizing the stance of taking extroversion as an absolute distinction rather than just as a tendency. But "no place in socionics", my eye.

There is no obvious correlation between Eysenck's Extroversion / Introversion and classical Socionics Extroversion / Introversion is what that was saying.

Also DCNH just obfuscates the issue. It doesn't clarify it so much as it makes whatever claim is made less testable. Socionics should go in the opposite direction.

Not sure how you're interpreting DCNH, but if you see it as a subtype theory based on the strengthened use of an information element, then it has a tendency to better flesh out that element. It's not that hard to see a correlation between Eysenckian extroversion with Dominant subtype (Fe / Te) and Creative subtype (Ne / Se), for example.