The "ambivert" issue - conflicts between Socionic and Classical E/I

[Petter]

Of course, such "ambiverts" don't really exist. I'm talking of course of Extrovert Introtims and Introvert Extrotims.

I mean, there are many conflicting definitions of E/I. No dichotomic trait pair is more polysemic than it.

Classical E : outgoing, social, loud, afterthinking, public
Classical I : reserved, lonely, quiet, forethinking, private

Socionic E : active, energy-expanding, initiating, focus on bodies, gives others attention (like "electricity")
Socionic I : passive, energy-saving, responding, focus on fields, attention-seeking (like "magnet")

Most of the time (I think 62% or something), such definitions don't conflict. But on certain cases, they conflict. When they conflict, we can say that we're in an ambivert case.

I mean, there are two types of ambiverts :

- Extrovert Introtims
- Introvert Extrotims

When we're in such case, there's a risk of mistyping or self-mistyping.

.

I really doubt that there are "extrovert introtims" and "introvert extrotims". For example, Socionics tests usually measure classical E/I.

http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html

Often reserved and quiet?
Outgoing and talkative?
Appreciate solitude?
etc.

http://socionist.blogspot.se/2008/03...traverted.html

"The extraverted introtim

These people tend to be socially involved and feel comfortable expressing themselves publicly without feelings of self-consciousness. They tend not to think a lot or hesitate before speaking out loud and are highly verbal."

Some introtims, like myself, are fairly comfortable expressing themselves in public etc. His argument assumes that there are only two levels; extroverted and introverted. But classical E/I is related to neurotransmitters, Dopamine etc, so there are many possible levels.

[Pookie]

I really doubt that there are "extrovert introtims" and "introvert extrotims".

I find the structure of this sentence very odd. Are you saying you doubt someone could be an extrovert in the common sense and an introvert in the socionic sense, and vice versa?

[Exodus]

I find the structure of this sentence very odd. Are you saying you doubt someone could be an extrovert in the common sense and an introvert in the socionic sense, and vice versa?

He thinks that socionics and Myers-Briggs types are the same.

When an introverted extratim uses his creative function (and other introverted functions), he does so "carelessly" or "for fun" -- more just to get a kick out of it (suggestive function) or because he is in the mood at the moment (creative function). When an introtim uses his leading function, there is a sense of seriousness and greater concern and carefulness about what he is saying and doing.

Compare, for instance, the playful theorizing of ILEs and SLEs with the weighty thoughts of LIIs and LSIs. Or the haphazard and situational emotionality of SEIs and IEIs with the deliberate and focused emotions of ESEs and EIEs. The situational technical solutions of SLIs and ILIs and the productivity and efficiency-based life philosophy of LIEs and LSEs. Or the playful and changeable friendliness of SEEs and IEEs with the long-term alliances and moral awareness of ESIs and EIIs.

This is a VERY important point. Energy levels vary drastically within the same type. ( @Petter Rick was definitely not of the view that there are only two different levels, btw.) The main thing is to see which ego function is more important to someone (the leading function), and what someone is really unable to do (the suggestive function) with vs. what they can sort of do on their own, albeit clumsily (mobilzing function).

[Petter]

He thinks that socionics and Myers-Briggs types are the same.

No, I don't think the types themselves are the same. Descriptions of types by socionists differ from descriptions of types by MBTI typologists. But a socionics type corresponds to exactly one MBTI type; ILI corresponds to INTJ etc.

@Petter Rick was definitely not of the view that there are only two different levels, btw

I don't think that was his view, but he argues (in the blog post) as if there are only two levels.

[wacey]

Originally posted by Rick:

When an introverted extratim uses his creative function (and other introverted functions), he does so "carelessly" or "for fun" -- more just to get a kick out of it (suggestive function) or because he is in the mood at the moment (creative function). When an introtim uses his leading function, there is a sense of seriousness and greater concern and carefulness about what he is saying and doing.

Compare, for instance, the playful theorizing of ILEs and SLEs with the weighty thoughts of LIIs and LSIs. Or the haphazard and situational emotionality of SEIs and IEIs with the deliberate and focused emotions of ESEs and EIEs. The situational technical solutions of SLIs and ILIs and the productivity and efficiency-based life philosophy of LIEs and LSEs. Or the playful and changeable friendliness of SEEs and IEEs with the long-term alliances and moral awareness of ESIs and EIIs.

@thehotelambush I don't know where you found this quote. I absolutely give it the thumbs up.

[Exodus]

Originally posted by Rick:


@thehotelambush I don't know where you found this quote. I absolutely give it the thumbs up.

That's from the blog post linked above

[Petter]

I find the structure of this sentence very odd. Are you saying you doubt someone could be an extrovert in the common sense and an introvert in the socionic sense, and vice versa?

An introtim has a Leading white information aspect. Introversion in the common sense is used in Socionics as well, right?

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...hov_and_Tsypin

This dichotomy, apparently, is a motivating one: it determines what "triggers" information metabolism. For the extrovert the "trigger" occurs when a signal is received about events in the outside world, while for the introvert – with a change in his inner condition.

Definition:

Extraversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by developments in the outside world.

Introversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by intrapersonal (or individual) factors.