Descriptions of extraverts and sociability

[Cone]

I think we can all agree that extraversion does NOT equal sociability.

But then why to most descriptions of extraverts state something about high sociability and having a wide circle of friends?

I think this is what scares many people away from concluding themselves to extraversion. People say, "well the ENFp description makes sense, but I like to be alone alot more than around people, so I am obviously not extraverted." Yet everything related to extraversion that is NOT related to sociability makes sense.

Are all ESFps hypersocial beings only focused on fashion and dominance? Why does this not make sense in terms of the non-social, intellectual, clingy INTp as their dual? And the same thing going for ESFjs and INTjs?

Does high sociability necessarily imply extraversion? Does very low sociability necessarily imply introversion? And what about everyone in between?

EDIT: And is extraversion really related to talkativeness?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Joy]

This topic makes me frown.

I think there are two versions of extraversion. One is the general social concept of an extravert -- that is, a loud person who talks all the time and has five million friends. I think this kind of person, socionically speaking, could be an I or E. And an "introverted" person could easily be an E as well.

The second way is through socionics, which measures this dichotomy in terms of function. So while I may extraverted socionically, most people see me as pretty quiet and shy. However, there seems to be a *general* correlation between socionics and the popular idea of extraversion/introversion, at least from my experience.

[Angel von Himmel]

I think we can all agree that extraversion does NOT equal sociability.

But then why to most descriptions of extraverts state something about high sociability and having a wide circle of friends?

I think this is what scares many people away from concluding themselves to extraversion. People say, "well the ENFp description makes sense, but I like to be alone alot more than around people, so I am obviously not extraverted." Yet everything related to extraversion that is NOT relatedto sociability makes sense.

Are all ESFps hypersocial beings only focused on fashion and dominance? Why does this not make sense in terms of the non-social, intellectual, clingy INTp as their dual? And the same thing going for ESFjs and INTjs?

Does high sociability necessarily imply extraversion? Does very low sociability necessarily imply introversion? And what about everyone in between?

EDIT: And is extraversion really related to talkativeness?

I agree exactly with what you said, that is why I had to change my inter-type relationship test intro/extro question into an objective/ subjective question, which includes other attributes that are not in them selves introverted or extroverted except through association and manifestation.

A. You perceive him or her to be predominatelly objective, disconnecting personal thought, wants, will, from reality and personal influences and only the observable is considered in the formation of his or her opinions. Very little attention is given to his or her own personal state with the acception of the supplementation of the externally observable and what could be tested through concrete or abstract experience.

B. You perceive him or her to be predominatelly subjective, where personal wants, needs, thoughts take precedance over all and little consideration is give to the external besides to direct to his or her own personal state. He or she may also have a tendency towards personal loyalties and tends to not deviate much from inner principles and morals, as opposed to consideration of the objective and observable.

I pretty much interpreted this that in the most purest form Objectivity would correspond to the ESTj type and Subjectivity would correspond to the INFp type, and that every other type has atleast one attributes from each of the two types that makes them predominatelly Objective or predominatelly Subjective.

People say, "well the ENFp description makes sense, but I like to be alone alot more than around people, so I am obviously not extraverted." Yet everything related to extraversion that is NOT related to sociability makes sense.

Basically that means that saying that Extroverts are the only social ones means jack, and that Subjective Extroverts [Like ENFps in the statement above] may have qualities that could be stereotypically applied to introverts with certain definitions of extroversion and introversion.

Am I making sense with this?

[Phaedrus]

I think we can all agree that extraversion does NOT equal sociability.

Yes, we can. But I think that David Keirsey has a point when he suggests that we instead may think of an extraverted person as "expressive" and an introverted person as "reserved". At least I find it intuitively helpful sometimes. One advantage is that you don't have to count the number of friends ...

[Creepy-aurora_faerie]

EDIT: And is extraversion really related to talkativeness?


No. I talk 24/7 and after being typed as INFp, I havn't doubted the I at all. I still like the saying that Joy has/had in her sig.

People are extroverted or introverted, functions are.

*shrugs*

[niveK]

While extraversion doesn't automatically mean socialibility and wide circles of friends, I can see how the characteristic of extraversion would cause a tendency towards socialibility.

E/I Dichotomy

Extraverts are more focused on the outer world and have a higher optimal level of arousal. While not necessarily requiring socializing, socialization is one effective method of achieving the "goal" of extraversion. Socializing as a "result" of extraversion would be more likely in ethical types (who are a bit more people-oriented than logical types). Still, extraversion by no means forces one to be more social.

[implied]

[Rocky]

Some people also say that Extraverts energy while with people, and Introvets energize by being alone. Bollocks.

Introverts are arroused by reflective thinking and Extravets are arroused through expression (Introverts are more susceptable to headaches). Nothing to do with people. In fact, an Introvert may be more energized while out with his friend than the Extraverts are. How so?

Say for example you go out to a really good movie with your friends (whereas you=Introvert and friends=Extraverts). You sit through the whole movie, trying to figure out the plot and where it is going (especially if it is a complicated one). You get so excited by the end, with your brain churning, thinking about what you have just seen. But to your surprise, you hear your friends start to say how tired they are and how they need to rest. But you can't rest! You have already sparked that kind of thinking that you can't turn off, and it makes you feel stronger.

This of course is different from what usually goes on when you go out, so I understand where the confusion is. Generally, when we are out socializing, we are forced to express ourselves, take in new stimuli, and so on. This of course would tire out an Introvert first before the Extravert.

But as long as the Introvert can keep finding things to interpret, he will keep on getting energized. As long as the Extravert can keeping on expanding and expressing himself, he will be fine. It's when you force one of them to do the opposite that causes them to tire.

[XoX]

Many good definitions like Cone, Trans, Darkie possibly others (didn't read them all).

Anyways I'm under the impression that E-types have hidden (and not so hidden) needs of getting something from other people. Where I-types have hidden (and not so hidden) needs to give something to other people (like to love, to be loved). Is this wrong interpretation? Somehow I think this makes extrovert types more dependent on other people.

Extroverts are more likely to seek more people to give them that "something". Introverts can more easily settle for a small amount as it is harder to give than take. It might be easy to take love from 10 people but giving it to 10 is hard. Anyways I guess there are extroverts for whom even one person can be fulfilling enough and introverts who want to give something to everyone.

Ok there are some flaws in this (T/F differences etc) but is the approach generally correct?

[snowyc]

As far as I know, an "Introvert" appears reserved, quiet and solitary whilst an "Extrovert" appears expressive, talkative and outgoing.

It seems therefore that stereotypically, "Introverts" would appear shy* whilst "Extroverts" would appear sociable** - a generalization which for the most part appears true.

Perhaps we should now ask ourselves, how would each of the 8 Socionics functions/attitudes appear to influence a person's "sociability"?

*uncomfortable with others: reserved, diffident, and uncomfortable in the company of others; timid: easily frightened; cautious: unwilling to trust or put confidence in somebody or something

**gregarious: inclined to seek out the company of other people; friendly: friendly and pleasant to other people; offering opportunity for social interaction: allowing people to mix in an informal way

[Cone]

Let's take all of your definitions of extraversion and introversion that are NOT related to sociability, namely:

Extroversion: anchored in the outside world

Introversion: anchored in the inner world

For instance, both may be somewhat similar, except that under increasing "psychological pressure" they will move off to thier favorite "world".

Like, for extroverts, they derive meaning from the external world and how it is sythesized or acted upon. For introverts, they derive meaning from thier own internal representations of things.

Extraverts are more focused on the outer world and have a higher optimal level of arousal. While not necessarily requiring socializing, socialization is one effective method of achieving the "goal" of extraversion. Socializing as a "result" of extraversion would be more likely in ethical types (who are a bit more people-oriented than logical types). Still, extraversion by no means forces one to be more social.

Introverts are arroused by reflective thinking and Extraverts are arroused through expression (Introverts are more susceptable to headaches). Nothing to do with people. In fact, an Introvert may be more energized while out with his friend than the Extraverts are.

So more or less, an extravert focuses more on the outer world, needs more stimulation for better performance, and is aroused through expression, while an introvert focuses more on the inner world, does not need as much stimulation, and is aroused through reflective thinking.

Now imagine an extraverted man in a Twilight Zone situation where everyone on Earth except for him magically disappeared. If there are no people, then his sociability (or lack thereof) has no meaning. Then is it still possible for him to function at a healthy level by himself? Well, according to your definitions, there are many more forms of stimulation that he can pursue that would just as easily satisfy him as a social group would.

The world is a dynamic, ever-changing place. In a desolate world the mere need for survival would be enough to provide a constant form of high-level stimulation that would probably be even too much for any modern-day extravert to handle.

The world is huge and expansive. If the extravert needs to focus on the outer world, then all he has to do is open his eyes and observe. It is large enough to allow a change of scenery anywhere you go, thus the need for change (which is related to the need for high-level stimulation) is satisfied.

If the extravert wants to express himself, he is more than free to do so. No one is there to listen or to observe, but the need for people is something common to every person and is not related to sociability.

Now imagine a more realistic, yet still farfetched scenario. We have an ESFp who is by definition expansive, absorbing, and highly focused on the outside world. Yet to satisfy these attributes, he does not need to ever open his mouth. An ESFp can still be all these attributes by simply listening and observing everything that goes on around him. He is still focused on the outside world, and he is absorbing information. Getting bored with this non-changing situation? Move to something else, like reading a book or watching TV. Now he is expanding his environment.

Imagine the quiet, bookish ESFp. It is definitely possible. But she is still not anything like a quiet, bookish INTp. She is a storehouse of information, but the Ni is lacking.

Did you know that shy folks have a stronger want to be around people more than non-shy folks? And how many times have we heard here extraverts stating that they are not as social or outgoing as the descriptions say they should be?

Maybe an even better question is: is sociability related to ANYTHING?

[Joy]

When I first came here, someone said that extroverts are not more social, but rather more active than introverts. Aren't ISTps active though? Is this description of introversion/extroversion totally worthless?

[Rocky]

@Joy: depends. Sometimes I can be very active, but then I will lie around on the couch just thinking about shit. It's kinda weird how I can switch back and forth between the two easily. Something to do with the nature of Si I suppose.

[Joy]

I'm friggin lazy. Actually, I work hard at work (because I enjoy it), but when I get home I sit around. The only activity I do is take the kid and dog to the park and the woods and stuff, and get laid.

[Slacker]

This is hard for me to figure out because to some extent my husband and I are stereotypically extraverted/introverted. I can sit and laze around (trust me) but I really like to get out around people at least somewhat every day or I get a bit bummed out. Even if it's just a run to the grocery store. If we get snowed in for a few days I'm crawling up the walls by the end of it.

My husband, on the other hand, considers a day successful if he's been able to work all day alone in the garage without interruption.

On the other hand, there are days where I want to relax around the house and he wants to get out and do something.

[XoX]

I'm always mentally active but i can be physically inactive for long periods of time. By mentally active I mean I have to do something like read, write, play a game, talk with someone, work on some idea, occasionally watching tv (usually doesn't give enough impulses for me though). Something to keep my mind busy with. But physically I'm a bit lazy...physical activity often means something "hardcore" like some sports or fast-paced exercise. Slow-paced physical activity bores me easily and I rather switch back to mental activity. I can be alone for long hours if I have something to busy my mind with. And I don't necessarily have to physically interact with people to fulfill my social needs. On a given day if I interact with my wife physically and with some people through internet, generally I do fine.

[Slacker]

I'm always mentally active but i can be physically inactive for long periods of time. By mentally active I mean I have to do something like read, write, play a game, talk with someone, work on some idea, occasionally watching tv (usually doesn't give enough impulses for me though). Something to keep my mind busy with. But physically I'm a bit lazy...physical activity often means something "hardcore" like some sports or fast-paced exercise. Slow-paced physical activity bores me easily and I rather switch back to mental activity. I can be alone for long hours if I have something to busy my mind with. And I don't necessarily have to physically interact with people to fulfill my social needs. On a given day if I interact with my wife physically and with some people through internet, generally I do fine.

OK I can see that I'm the same way. If I'm stuck at home it isn't bad if I have the computer, a book, a crossword puzzle, or something like that.

I'm not fond of talking on the phone though. I don't know why that doesn't really do much for me.

[Eidos]

I think we can all agree that extraversion does NOT equal sociability.

But then why to most descriptions of extraverts state something about high sociability and having a wide circle of friends?

I think this is what scares many people away from concluding themselves to extraversion. People say, "well the ENFp description makes sense, but I like to be alone alot more than around people, so I am obviously not extraverted." Yet everything related to extraversion that is NOT related to sociability makes sense.

Are all ESFps hypersocial beings only focused on fashion and dominance? Why does this not make sense in terms of the non-social, intellectual, clingy INTp as their dual? And the same thing going for ESFjs and INTjs?

Does high sociability necessarily imply extraversion? Does very low sociability necessarily imply introversion? And what about everyone in between?

EDIT: And is extraversion really related to talkativeness?

According to this definition of "sociable" (no entry for sociability):

1 a: inclined by nature to companionship with others of the same species
2 a : inclined to seek or enjoy companionship

I would definitely say yes.

Extraverts are also talkative. This is why they need other people Also, as an extravert, I rarely accurately know what I think about something before I say it - which explains for me the need to talk (or to write) to others.

But it may not be the MOST important component. Research on the nature of extraversion/introversion has recently been saying that the "core" characteristics of extraversion are cheerfulness, positive emotions, optimism and enthusiasm.

[snowyc]

"Socialising" appears to me as whatever I personally perceive it as. I believe we can either search indefinitely for the definite article on "sociability" or we can scientifically battle this out methodically. For example, how does each of Keirsey's temperaments view socialising?

If the question of "do i seem sociable enough?" appears to cause a personal hang-up/neurosis periodically then I would suggest that one finds another activity.

In my opinon, make independent choices, feel no shame, follow your heart/head not the overwhelming herd. A person lives for themself, not for others. For example, I started going to a social organisation under the cloak of my independence and some members had a "jumping-to-conclusions" mentality assumming I had come to join as it were when I would appear to have been taking part on my own terms.

[Michaelus]

Let's take all of your definitions of extraversion and introversion that are NOT related to sociability, namely:

Extroversion: anchored in the outside world
Introversion: anchored in the inner world

According to Jung extraversion and introversion are the two types of world view. Neither of them "good" or "bad" They are just different.
Each of the ways has its own strengths and weaknesses. Each type can have its "abberations". For introvert its a fear of changing the outside world, for extravert its a fear of changing the inside world. Something like that. But it doesn't mean that thay always have these abberations. They can have.

In socionics literature it's often said that extravert directs his attention to the "object". And introvert directs his attentions to the "subject". Where object means "external circumstances", and subject means "personal opinion". That means for introvert his own opinion more important than opinion of other people for example. Otherwise for extravert. It doesn't mean that extravert acts always better than introvert since he better adapts himself to the external world. Often subjective opinion is more correct than objective data from outside world.