Introverts, what do you see in extroverts?

[UDP]

I remember that when I was kid I used to think about death for example, and I never talked about it with my parents or friends, because I thought that it was going to depress them. I've never liked to affect people's moods negatively, without a regard to my own "needs" I guess. This made me mentally stronger, but it trapped me in some kind of mental block. Getting to some kind of point here (), I can simply say that the best thing that someone could do to me, even though it's not an easy path, is to help me reach my goal of extroverting my "inner world," and really that's my goal in life. I want to be entirely connected to the things happening around me, have my presence felt, and have control over it. It's a work in progress, but I think I've made substantial improvements from my early days. This is why it repulses me in a way when I read Socionics duality articles in how you just depend completely on the other person for things. I want to grow, I don't want to have someone cover my weaknesses... Sure, I'd be comfortable, but I bet I'd be happier in developing my strengths and weaknesses.

Hmm, then the duality articles you read must be missing something (not surprising). The underlying point of duality is that you both develop psychologically (Rick's talks about this some on his dualization page, I think). If you just grow to use someone else as a replacement, or a crutch, in decision making, that's not really growing, and it's a lesser form of duality. I'm not really sure how to differentiate between the two in terms of what really causes the more healthy psychological development in duality, but it is supposed to be part of it. It's how you become dualized - you're supposed to better be able to understand your dual and relate better to them (and even attract them more) the more you are around them. This involves them influencing (and expanding) your decision making actual psychological development. If I'm overstepping Rick's article then I'll say I'm speaking of myself and my own understandings.

Getting to some kind of point here (), I can simply say that the best thing that someone could do to me, even though it's not an easy path, is to help me reach my goal of extroverting my "inner world," and really that's my goal in life. I want to be entirely connected to the things happening around me, have my presence felt, and have control over it

This is going to sound ironic or perhaps staged, but, I realize a major part of things for me is connecting my "inner world" to my external world. Minde has brought about various forms of compartmentalization that I had/have, and was the first person to point it out in the way she did. For me it has to do with being able to be so simply task or objective oriented and not having a conscious connection to other things, or even thinking I need one.

So while I am not sure it is a "goal in life", I definitely can feel a sense that 'my dual' helps me by connecting my inner and outer worlds. I suspect that the connection process varies for different people or dual/type relationships, (perhaps my comment about compartmentalization might not apply to everyone) but, I suppose I can see a general trend where there is some sort of mutual assistance in terms of completeness (that sounds a bit fairy-tale, so I'm still not so sure how I feel about it... but I do see a bit of something here). "I want to be entirely connected to the things happening around me, have my presence felt, and have control over it" - I feel like that is something that I help EIIs do, really. Particularly in terms of implementation and execution.


PS: (general comments)
As an EII, 'growth', particularly in a relational/relationship sense, should be pretty important. So I can see how the idea of 'mere dependence' would be particularly unappealing. Also, in terms of LSE/EII duality, I've gotten a general sense (even from profiles) that the nature of growth and development over time is particularly important, to the couple and to how the couple functions. I suspect that each dual couple has their own way of going about that, but, I'm not really sure. There's probably variation in terms of valued functions / quadra values and maybe even rationality/irrationality, but I'm not sure. This is somewhat theoretical and 'magical' still, but, I don't see it as being too far fetched.

[Lobo]

Sereno rocks! You introverted guys should say what you think more often Just saying

haha, thanks. I do tend to keep what I think in my head, especially if I don't see the point in mentioning it. And yes, I tend to put a lot of thought into what I write, especially if it's more than one paragraph .

Going back to the OP, I tend to defend extraverts (or anyone for that matter) when they do something that leaves them very exposed, what you would call "making a fool of myself." If there's a group setting and all of a sudden someone says or does something that makes them stand out in a weird/awkward way I'll be the first one to try to redirect the topic of conversation or just ignore what just happened.

Hmm, then the duality articles you read must be missing something (not surprising). The underlying point of duality is that you both develop psychologically (Rick's talks about this some on his dualization page, I think). If you just grow to use someone else as a replacement, or a crutch, in decision making, that's not really growing, and it's a lesser form of duality. I'm not really sure how to differentiate between the two in terms of what really causes the more healthy psychological development in duality, but it is supposed to be part of it. It's how you become dualized - you're supposed to better be able to understand your dual and relate better to them (and even attract them more) the more you are around them. This involves them influencing (and expanding) your decision making actual psychological development. If I'm overstepping Rick's article then I'll say I'm speaking of myself and my own understandings.


This is going to sound ironic or perhaps staged, but, I realize a major part of things for me is connecting my "inner world" to my external world. Minde has brought about various forms of compartmentalization that I had/have, and was the first person to point it out in the way she did. For me it has to do with being able to be so simply task or objective oriented and not having a conscious connection to other things, or even thinking I need one.

So while I am not sure it is a "goal in life", I definitely can feel a sense that 'my dual' helps me by connecting my inner and outer worlds. I suspect that the connection process varies for different people or dual/type relationships, (perhaps my comment about compartmentalization might not apply to everyone) but, I suppose I can see a general trend where there is some sort of mutual assistance in terms of completeness (that sounds a bit fairy-tale, so I'm still not so sure how I feel about it... but I do see a bit of something here). "I want to be entirely connected to the things happening around me, have my presence felt, and have control over it" - I feel like that is something that I help EIIs do, really. Particularly in terms of implementation and execution.


PS: (general comments)
As an EII, 'growth', particularly in a relational/relationship sense, should be pretty important. So I can see how the idea of 'mere dependence' would be particularly unappealing. Also, in terms of LSE/EII duality, I've gotten a general sense (even from profiles) that the nature of growth and development over time is particularly important, to the couple and to how the couple functions. I suspect that each dual couple has their own way of going about that, but, I'm not really sure. There's probably variation in terms of valued functions / quadra values and maybe even rationality/irrationality, but I'm not sure. This is somewhat theoretical and 'magical' still, but, I don't see it as being too far fetched.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying, makes sense.

[Minde]

EIIs can ramble too. I suppose it takes an extravert to push in and get them to actually put their thoughts out there too.

Yes, I can be rather long-winded and share a lot of what I'm thinking. (Though, as a side note, I'd like to point out that even if Sereno's post was long, I doubt it was comprehensive of his thoughts - my guess is he worded it carefully so as to keep things fairly concise and make sure the point didn't get lost). But the circumstances need to be right for me to actually just start sharing a lot. And I'm not sure an extrovert "pushing" me will do it all the time. For one thing, I don't instinctively like to be pushed to do things, even if it isn't intentional. For another, if someone pushes for my thoughts on something, I'll try to give them what I think they're wanting, not necessarily the full scope of my thoughts. When I really share a lot is when, as Sereno said, I feel it is wanted and not "in the way". Which means room needs to be made, if that makes sense. And sometimes I think that some people feel uncomfortable when there is "room" in a conversation, so they keep talking and pushing to fill in those "gaps". What is nice is when someone indicates and maintains interest, but doesn't try to pry anything from me.

This is going to sound ironic or perhaps staged, but, I realize a major part of things for me is connecting my "inner world" to my external world. Minde has brought about various forms of compartmentalization that I had/have, and was the first person to point it out in the way she did. For me it has to do with being able to be so simply task or objective oriented and not having a conscious connection to other things, or even thinking I need one.

Perhaps you mean "...has brought up..."? I should hate to think I brought about various forms of compartmentalization in you.

haha, thanks. I do tend to keep what I think in my head, especially if I don't see the point in mentioning it. And yes, I tend to put a lot of thought into what I write, especially if it's more than one paragraph .

Going back to the OP, I tend to defend extraverts (or anyone for that matter) when they do something that leaves them very exposed, what you would call "making a fool of myself." If there's a group setting and all of a sudden someone says or does something that makes them stand out in a weird/awkward way I'll be the first one to try to redirect the topic of conversation or just ignore what just happened.

*nods* I know the feeling. Both of them.

[UDP]

"..has brought about the realization of various forms of compartmentalization..."

[Lobo]

Yes, I can be rather long-winded and share a lot of what I'm thinking. (Though, as a side note, I'd like to point out that even if Sereno's post was long, I doubt it was comprehensive of his thoughts - my guess is he worded it carefully so as to keep things fairly concise and make sure the point didn't get lost).

Yeah, I could have written more, but chose not to. I like writing so that it's all cohesive, but it takes me a long time .