Introversion and extraversion relation with shyness

[Raver]

There is a great deal of confusion between introversion and extraversion, especially on my part. I have realized that introversion and extraversion deals with more on how you perceive the world and how you get energized. It has almost nothing to do with how many friends you are and very little whether you like to go in public or stay at home. I know a lot of introverts that are outgoing and extraverts that like to relax at home.

For example an ISFj can be outgoing for the fact that is has as a secondary dominant function and that can be enough to make that person appear extraverted and not have problems talking to people and doing extraverted activities.

I believe that introverts use their second function to make them appear extraverted and extraverts also use their second function to make them appear introverted. What do you guys make of this?

[Raver]

Oh shite, I didnt see Hugos thread when I posted this. Damn, I thought of the idea through random pondering, but I guess he was first.

[Expat]

Hugo's thread was about something else.

I believe that introverts use their second function to make them appear extraverted and extraverts also use their second function to make them appear introverted. What do you guys make of this?

I'm not aware of using to appear introverted, nor do I see how that would be possible.

It has almost nothing to do with how many friends you are and very little whether you like to go in public or stay at home. I know a lot of introverts that are outgoing and extraverts that like to relax at home.

It has also been discussed here that there seems to be little or no correlation, which is one of the differences with MBTI and still causes problems when people type themselves, and others, saying stuff like "no, I can't be an E".

To me it's simple. I am "socially outgoing" if I can meet people with whom I can talk about things that interest me and do things I like to to. I have no interest in meeting people just to do small talk in noisy bars or go dancing. What does that have to do with having an extraverted or introverted first or second function?

[Creepy-]

I don't think functions are "used" in the way you described, but I think the producing subtypes sometimes come across more introverted (for extroverts) or extroverted (for introverts). But I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a "rule", just a thought I've had myself.

But for me, using doesn't necessarily make me outgoing. I am still as shy as ever (and even more paranoid, lol)

[Cone]

Introversion/extraversion have more to do with reservedness/enterprise. An introvert does not have to be shy in the social sense, but rather he is more apt to believe an unknown situation to be potentially harmful than potentially beneficial (like an extravert). The introvert would rather preserve his current state than risk harm, whereas the extravert would rather test the situation to see if it could possibly benefit him.

[Slacker]

Introversion/extraversion have more to do with reservedness/enterprise. An introvert does not have to be shy in the social sense, but rather he is more apt to believe an unknown situation to be potentially harmful than potentially beneficial (like an extravert). The introvert would rather preserve his current state than risk harm, whereas the extravert would rather test the situation to see if it could possibly benefit him.

I've never heard that explanation but I love it. It very accurately describes a major difference between myself and my husband.

Thanks!

[anndelise]

Introversion/extraversion have more to do with reservedness/enterprise. An introvert does not have to be shy in the social sense, but rather he is more apt to believe an unknown situation to be potentially harmful than potentially beneficial (like an extravert). The introvert would rather preserve his current state than risk harm, whereas the extravert would rather test the situation to see if it could possibly benefit him.

Moving towards and moving away from have nothing to do with I/E.

I am very much an extrovert ...and a very much move away from/prevent potential damage/harm.

My very introverted (and shy) bf constantly moves towards and looks for the potential benefits of a situation.

I also know of extroverts who move towards, and introverts who move away from.

edited to include:
no one person maintains an all towards or all away from approach. Circumstances may change or an event may occur that will prompt a person to switch to one or the other under certain contexts.

[Cone]

Introversion/extraversion have more to do with reservedness/enterprise. An introvert does not have to be shy in the social sense, but rather he is more apt to believe an unknown situation to be potentially harmful than potentially beneficial (like an extravert). The introvert would rather preserve his current state than risk harm, whereas the extravert would rather test the situation to see if it could possibly benefit him.

Moving towards and moving away from have nothing to do with I/E.

I am very much an extrovert ...and a very much move away from/prevent potential damage/harm.

My very introverted (and shy) bf constantly moves towards and looks for the potential benefits of a situation.

I also know of extroverts who move towards, and introverts who move away from.

Then you are defining I/E by shyness/outgoingness, are you not?

[anndelise]

Moving towards and moving away from have nothing to do with I/E.

I am very much an extrovert ...and a very much move away from/prevent potential damage/harm.

My very introverted (and shy) bf constantly moves towards and looks for the potential benefits of a situation.

I also know of extroverts who move towards, and introverts who move away from.

Then you are defining I/E by shyness/outgoingness, are you not?

Note that "and shy" was placed in parenthesis...one way of pointing out that he is BOTH introverted AND shy. NOT that introversion equals shyness.

For extra information, in a number of my posts, especially those regarding E/I, I have pointed out that I am both an extrovert and shy.

[Cone]

But then how are you defining I/E?

[anndelise]

But then how are you defining I/E?

I was not trying to give a definition of I/E. That would be a toward thing to do. I am an away from person. I edit. Specifically away from inaccuracies (at least I try to).

However, in an attempt to answer how I might define I/E, I came up with the following.

I suppose one of my ways of defining I/E is that I've noticed that when each is in normal response mode, there is a tendency in introverts to seek out more information BEFORE they respond, whereas extroverts tend to seek out more information BY responding.

Another tendency is that when in normal response mode, introverts will think about what they are going to say/do before they say/do it...whereas extroverts tend to say/do before they know what they were going to say/do.

I'm sure that the two paragraphs above are connected, if not saying the same thing with different words.


Using the above,
A person seeking more information BEFORE responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

A person seeking more information BY responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

Hence, my response that towards/away from motivation is not related to I/E.


I have to say though, that even the above definition doesn't seem quite right to me. So I had to look into how do I identify an I/E. Basically it comes down to the energy vibes I feel. Being around another extrovert, MY thoughts/feelings/etc tend to branch too far out, a whole bunch of little ones, all over the place. They say something, I branch, I respond, another branch, they respond, another branch, etc... Whereas when I am around an introvert, while my neuroticness might still cause branching out, being around them reduces the amount of branching. As if their energy is soothing out the prickles. When I am around an extrovert, I cannot trust what they are saying/doing as being authentic. When I am around an introvert, it is easier for me to sense when what they are saying/doing is authentic.

I also have never agreed with the "where one gets energy". As if an extrovert doesn't/can't seek rest and relaxation by being alone, nor an introvert get enjoyable stimulation from being with people.

[Cone]

However, in an attempt to answer how I might define I/E, I came up with the following.

I suppose one of my ways of defining I/E is that I've noticed that when each is in normal response mode, there is a tendency in introverts to seek out more information BEFORE they respond, whereas extroverts tend to seek out more information BY responding.

Another tendency is that when in normal response mode, introverts will think about what they are going to say/do before they say/do it...whereas extroverts tend to say/do before they know what they were going to say/do.

I'm sure that the two paragraphs above are connected, if not saying the same thing with different words.

Perhaps the introvert is more afraid of being wrong or acting stupid than the extravert? If this is true, then is not the introvert an "away" person and the extravert a "toward" person, at least in this way, although not necessarily in totality?

Using the above,
A person seeking more information BEFORE responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

A person seeking more information BY responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

Hence, my response that towards/away from motivation is not related to I/E.

But I am saying that the extravert is more willing to sacrifice his current state in order to resolve an ambiguity. Which is exactly what you are saying.

Anyway, my original post was simply a conjecture of my own. However, I don't think I was being very concrete with my explanation (it's a weakness of mine.) It should be interpreted as I have interpreted it in this post.

[Scrummy]

I posted my thoughts on the subject a while back in the following thread:

oldforumlinkviewtopic-2710-15.html

Scroll down towards the middle of the page. The post I'm talking about is the long one.

[anndelise]

However, in an attempt to answer how I might define I/E, I came up with the following.

I suppose one of my ways of defining I/E is that I've noticed that when each is in normal response mode, there is a tendency in introverts to seek out more information BEFORE they respond, whereas extroverts tend to seek out more information BY responding.

Another tendency is that when in normal response mode, introverts will think about what they are going to say/do before they say/do it...whereas extroverts tend to say/do before they know what they were going to say/do.

I'm sure that the two paragraphs above are connected, if not saying the same thing with different words.

Perhaps the introvert is more afraid of being wrong or acting stupid than the extravert? If this is true, then is not the introvert an "away" person and the extravert a "toward" person, at least in this way, although not necessarily in totality?

Based on the above, yes, an introvert can be afraid of saying/doing something due to being viewed as stupid/other. This would be an Away From action. However, that does not mean introverts refrain from saying/doing, nor that they would refrain for that reason. An introvert could just as easily not be saying/doing something because they are busy working out how to gain a benefit or reach a desired goal, etc. This would be a Towards action. Both introverts, different motivations, hence neither motivation is an attribute of being an introvert.

Using the above,
A person seeking more information BEFORE responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

A person seeking more information BY responding can be motivated by either obtaining a benefit or preventing a harm.

Hence, my response that towards/away from motivation is not related to I/E.

But I am saying that the extravert is more willing to sacrifice his current state in order to resolve an ambiguity. Which is exactly what you are saying.

"Sacrifice" implies that the current state was a positive thing. In the example given, the extrovert is willing to sacrifice a positive thing in an attempt to gain something else. This would be a Toward action because the focus is on the gaining, not the sacrificing. Likewise, if the current state was a negative state, then this extrovert can be taking action to move away from the negative state or taking action to move towards a better state. The first being away from, the latter towards, both by an extrovert. Hence, again, neither motivation is an attribute of being an extrovert.

Anyway, my original post was simply a conjecture of my own. However, I don't think I was being very concrete with my explanation (it's a weakness of mine.) It should be interpreted as I have interpreted it in this post.

While I still maintain that the towards/away from motivations are not related to I/E, I understand using a post to test a conjecture. In writing how I might have defined I/E, I began to see some errors in the definition, your response helped me to see the errors a little clearer. So, while I may not be able to say what I/E IS, I feel I can still help to figure out what it is NOT.

[Cone]

Based on the above, yes, an introvert can be afraid of saying/doing something due to being viewed as stupid/other. This would be an Away From action. However, that does not mean introverts refrain from saying/doing, nor that they would refrain for that reason. An introvert could just as easily not be saying/doing something because they are busy working out how to gain a benefit or reach a desired goal, etc. This would be a Towards action. Both introverts, different motivations, hence neither motivation is an attribute of being an introvert.

"Sacrifice" implies that the current state was a positive thing. In the example given, the extrovert is willing to sacrifice a positive thing in an attempt to gain something else. This would be a Toward action because the focus is on the gaining, not the sacrificing. Likewise, if the current state was a negative state, then this extrovert can be taking action to move away from the negative state or taking action to move towards a better state. The first being away from, the latter towards, both by an extrovert. Hence, again, neither motivation is an attribute of being an extrovert.

Hmm, ok, you are misinterpreting me. I am trying to define the dichotomy of I/E based on one's attitude toward ambiguous situations where the outcome is either unknown or undefined in terms of benefit/harm. I am saying that the extravert is more likely to interpret an ambiguous situation as potentially beneficial, whereas the introvert is more likely to interpret it as potentially harmful. We do not know whether the situation is actually harmful or beneficial; we can only guess. The difference in attitudes comes from the attitudes towards one's subjective state, whether one is willing to give up the current subjective state for something (hopefully) better, or whether one would really not rather risk the situation.

So, does your argument still apply?

[anndelise]

Hmm, ok, you are misinterpreting me. I am trying to define the dichotomy of I/E based on one's attitude toward ambiguous situations where the outcome is either unknown or undefined in terms of benefit/harm. I am saying that the extravert is more likely to interpret an ambiguous situation as potentially beneficial, whereas the introvert is more likely to interpret it as potentially harmful. We do not know whether the situation is actually harmful or beneficial; we can only guess. The difference in attitudes comes from the attitudes towards one's subjective state, whether one is willing to give up the current subjective state for something (hopefully) better, or whether one would really not rather risk the situation.

So, does your argument still apply?

Definitely a cleaner description to go by, but yes, my argument still applies.
I have seen extroverts being willing to give up the current subjective state for something better, and I've seen them refuse to risk it, depending on the context.
Also, I have seen introverts being willing to give up the current subjective state for something better, as well as refuse to risk it, depending on the context.
Therefore, I do not see that one's approach in whether or not to give up a current subjective state applies to E/I. I do, however, see that whether or not to give up a current subjective state is context dependent for each individual, and that given a different slant or pov on the context, an individual may change their approach.

Edited to add:

am trying to define the dichotomy of I/E based on one's attitude toward ambiguous situations where the outcome is either unknown or undefined in terms of benefit/harm.

Based on this, I think that if we take out the "benefit/harm" part, then we may get closer to something more accurate.

[Cone]

Definitely a cleaner description to go by, but yes, my argument still applies.
I have seen extroverts being willing to give up the current subjective state for something better, and I've seen them refuse to risk it, depending on the context.
Also, I have seen introverts being willing to give up the current subjective state for something better, as well as refuse to risk it, depending on the context.
Therefore, I do not see that one's approach in whether or not to give up a current subjective state applies to E/I.

However, my conjecture is just a different interpretation of what most psychologists and even Jung agree as to what I/E is. The common biological definition of I/E is, taken straight from Jung:

The typical attitudes to the object [I/E]...are processes of adaptation. There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation [which are introversion and extraversion]. -- Carl G. Jung, Psychological Types, 1971 ed., pg. 331.

Is this not what I was saying, only in different words? The reason you see extraverts and introverts running counter to the definition is because there are obviously many other factors involved in the determination of one's action. That's why these things are so vague, and why one must define them in terms of a scale of preference, i.e. one tends to do X. Ultimately, the way you determine one's preference is highly subjective. There's really no objective criteria to go by. But perhaps some day we can figure out a formula for all of this, but it may end up so complex that no one can use it practically.

I do, however, see that whether or not to give up a current subjective state is context dependent for each individual, and that given a different slant or pov on the context, an individual may change their approach.

Technically, there is only one context in my conjecture, but that is only if we are speaking in abstract terms. The context is one of "complete ambiguity", i.e I don't know what the results of my actions will be in this situation. The situation could potentially be absolutely anything, only as long as I have no information as to the outcome of it. But this is only a formal definition (that needs some work). So don't take it seriously.

Edited to add:

am trying to define the dichotomy of I/E based on one's attitude toward ambiguous situations where the outcome is either unknown or undefined in terms of benefit/harm.

Based on this, I think that if we take out the "benefit/harm" part, then we may get closer to something more accurate.

What else is there? Is not the sole goal of ANY goal-directed action to increase self-benefit?

[BlendieOfIndie]

To accomplish anything, everyone needs to get on the same page of what "shy" means. "Shy" can mean many different things.

It can mean:
* Afraid to approach someone
* Being uncomfortable with a specific situation
* Untalkative
* Introverted (don't read to far into this one)
* etc.

The last two describe someone who "keeps to themself". I can guarantee you the MAJORITY of the time these people are introverts. The idea that extroverts are more talkative than introverts is a safe stereotype to assume.

"But I know an extrovert and he isn't talkative sometimes"

Picture an ESFp in a physics convetion where a bunch of scientist are discussing the grand unification theory. How talkative do you think he will be?

This leads to the first 2 type of shyness that I listed. Everyone is shy when a situation requires liberal use of their week functions.

[Functianalyst]

I have always understood that E/I cannot be discerned based on how one relates to other people. I think that someone alluded to an ISFJ appearing extraverted.

E/I, in my understanding, only relates to energy. An example that I give of self, is when I couch potato all day I am lethargic by the end of the day. However, when I am up and doing things I seem to gain energy. Whether I ever speak to anyone the entire day is irrelevant. I may clean up my yard, do some errands, etc. But, just lying around drains me.

[Cone]

I have always understood that E/I cannot be discerned based on how one relates to other people. I think that someone alluded to an ISFJ appearing extraverted.

Extraverted as in "talks to many people" or extraverted as in "is a loud mouth and/or won't sit still"? An ISFj can talk to a stranger for hours, but he certainly isn't loud-mouthed or bouncing off the walls.

[UDP]

Cone gets a candy bar for his posts in this thread

[Scrummy]

However, in an attempt to answer how I might define I/E, I came up with the following.

I suppose one of my ways of defining I/E is that I've noticed that when each is in normal response mode, there is a tendency in introverts to seek out more information BEFORE they respond, whereas extroverts tend to seek out more information BY responding.

Another tendency is that when in normal response mode, introverts will think about what they are going to say/do before they say/do it...whereas extroverts tend to say/do before they know what they were going to say/do.

I'm sure that the two paragraphs above are connected, if not saying the same thing with different words.

Perhaps the introvert is more afraid of being wrong or acting stupid than the extravert? If this is true, then is not the introvert an "away" person and the extravert a "toward" person, at least in this way, although not necessarily in totality?

I'm not sure if I have fully understood what you are saying, Cone, but I would be a bit wary to link introversion/extraversion to fear, if for no other reason that the fear itself doesn't really describe anything significant. It may well be a symptom of introversion, but is not the root of the issue. Such a fear would then make one susceptible to being shy in social situations.

In terms of your dichotomy of "potential benefit" vs. "potential threat" we are dealing with the issue at the surface, in my opinion. In order for an extravert to view a situation as potentially beneficial, he must first have an idea of what he values, that which an introvert would not place value on. This set of value would thus be a manifestation of that from which he gains gratification (emotional, sensory, social, material, etc.) from, and probably that which is most accessible to him. This is essentially what will differentiate him from the introvert.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

I'm not sure if I have fully understood what you are saying, Cone, but I would be a bit wary to link introversion/extraversion to fear, if for no other reason that the fear itself doesn't really describe anything significant. It may well be a symptom of introversion, but is not the root of the issue. Such a fear would then make one susceptible to being shy in social situations.

Good point. Let's then not use the word "fear". What I meant was a more general avoidance reaction. Perhaps I should also replace "harm" with the much more general term "discomfort".

In terms of your dichotomy of "potential benefit" vs. "potential threat" we are dealing with the issue at the surface, in my opinion. In order for an extravert to view a situation as potentially beneficial, he must first have an idea of what he values, that which an introvert would not place value on. This set of value would thus be a manifestation of that from which he gains gratification (emotional, sensory, social, material, etc.) from, and probably that which is most accessible to him. This is essentially what will differentiate him from the introvert.

This is true, but I will argue that it is the result of, not the cause of, my dichotomy. Here is a somewhat ad-hoc explanation: when a child is born, I think it is safe to say that almost every new situation is ambiguous for it (the definition for "ambiguous" being the one I have given.) Now, through some complex phenomenon of which I will not get into now, the child develops an attitude towards ambiguous situations, the commonly-accepted "shy" and "outgoing" attitudes (the terms to be adjusted to fit the neonate's level of development.) Now, a shy child has more time to introspect, since he is always shrinking away from situations, thus he develops "introverted" values. The outgoing child spends more time exploring situations, thus he develops "extroverted" values. And now we have our common views of I/E derived from one environmentally-determined dichotomy.

[implied]

I kinda like Mr. Ganin's idea of a "bomb shelter".

Like, when life gets you down, where do you conciously seek comfort.

Do you...

Impulsively try new things, and look for new ideas?
Seek physical stimulation or positions of leadership?
Look inside to contemplate the spiritual issues, who you are, where you are going?
Create physical comfort, pleasure, and new sensations?
Lose yourself in a project, work, or other thing that has objective value?
Laugh and have fun with friends, family, or even strangers?
Contemplate your own and other's value systems, fight for the rights of the fallen?
Analyze the consistency of your actions, and the logical structure of reality?

Whatever this is, it is likely to be your dominant function. When push comes to shove, you go back to this function for solace.

this is interesting. i actually agree with this.

[Creepy-]

Look inside to contemplate the spiritual issues, who you are, where you are going?

I picked that one, followed the a lesser extent by...

Analyze the consistency of your actions, and the logical structure of reality?

...but that is more like a distraction. It lifts my mood but it more more like satisfaction than comfort.

[Scrummy]

I will argue that it is the result of, not the cause of, my dichotomy. Here is a somewhat ad-hoc explanation: when a child is born, I think it is safe to say that almost every new situation is ambiguous for it (the definition for "ambiguous" being the one I have given.) Now, through some complex phenomenon of which I will not get into now, the child develops an attitude towards ambiguous situations, the commonly-accepted "shy" and "outgoing" attitudes (the terms to be adjusted to fit the neonate's level of development.) Now, a shy child has more time to introspect, since he is always shrinking away from situations, thus he develops "introverted" values. The outgoing child spends more time exploring situations, thus he develops "extroverted" values. And now we have our common views of I/E derived from one environmentally-determined dichotomy.

I see your logic. Although... just to go even further wouldn't there be something underlying a tendency to develop the avoidance reactions towards such ambiguous situations that is preexisting before they can manifest themselves in regulated behavior? Or would this just be attributed to those complex phenomena that you mentioned, and the psyche itself is virtually a blank slate beforehand? I think you've got a pretty good idea here, but I think we can go a step even further than this.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Angel von Himmel]

Most definitions intended to make diffrentiations between extroversion and introversion are completelly flawed, except in the case of self-perceptions and the perceptions of others and intertype relationships [which still are not 100% accurate all of the time depending upon circumstances]. But, it is a step in the right direction as opposed to some other rediculous theories out there.

If anyone could come up with a model that works in the absolute 100% of the time, I'd like to see it and have the man or woman get an award or something.

[Rocky]

http://braintypes.com/

At least I've heard claims of being 100% accurate when applied carefully, and I believe it.

[Creepy-]

Look inside to contemplate the spiritual issues, who you are, where you are going?

I picked that one, followed the a lesser extent by...

Analyze the consistency of your actions, and the logical structure of reality?

...but that is more like a distraction. It lifts my mood but it more more like satisfaction than comfort.

Ishy, those are your two introverted quadra values. That actually kinda makes sense.

is your base, and is your "activation" function, which raises your mood.

Would most people pick their estimative function after their base function or would some people pick their creative function?

[Cone]

I see your logic. Although... just to go even further wouldn't there be something underlying a tendency to develop the avoidance reactions towards such ambiguous situations that is preexisting before they can manifest themselves in regulated behavior? Or would this just be attributed to those complex phenomena that you mentioned, and the psyche itself is virtually a blank slate beforehand? I think you've got a pretty good idea here, but I think we can go a step even further than this.

I am not arguing that the modern human being is either a blank slate or purely genetically determined; that is a problem for developmental psychologists. However, you are right that there would "be something underlying a tendency to develop the avoidance reactions towards such ambiguous situations that is preexisting before they can manifest themselves in regulated behavior", and yes, that's what I was referencing to with "those complex phenomena" that I mentioned. Even if I/E is completely genetically determined, some sort of environmental process must have occurred during the evolutionary stages to produce such behavior.

I have the conjecture and its origin written down on paper and on my computer. Just let me revise it, and I will have it up eventually.