Ne types: shy and/or bouncy?

[schrödinger's cat]

I've come across the following characterizations of Ne dominant types:

• Bouncy, life of the party, boundless enthusiasm, good talkers, bla bla. Can't remember the exact words, but you'll know what I mean.
  
  ENFp = shyest of all the extraverted types. ENTp = pretty shy as well.

It looks like a contradiction. It probably isn't one. How does this correlate? If Ne-dominant extraversion doesn't mean that we're outgoing and bouncy all the time, then what does it mean?

[ScarlettLux]

I have sooo many ENFp friends. Sure they may be shy at first, but then that description really rings true once you get to know them

[Dioklecian]

I've come across the following characterizations of Ne dominant types:

• Bouncy, life of the party, boundless enthusiasm, good talkers, bla bla. Can't remember the exact words, but you'll know what I mean.
  
  ENFp = shyest of all the extraverted types. ENTp = pretty shy as well.

It looks like a contradiction. It probably isn't one. How does this correlate? If Ne-dominant extraversion doesn't mean that we're outgoing and bouncy all the time, then what does it mean?

Great topic! Your observation is true at some level, not sure why though. My sister is ENFP and my father ENTP and I agree with your points.

[Slacker]

I'm shy in a new situation, or with people I'm not comfortable with. Not necessarily with people I don't know well - if I'm comfortable in the situation I can be very outgoing even with strangers. But sometimes I have to warm up to a situation.

If I am comfortable and secure, I am definitely bouncy. LOL.

[Joy]

Fe is bouncy (at least it is as the 2nd function... prolly the 1st function too, not sure).

[Rocky]

Fe is bouncy (at least it is as the 2nd function... prolly the 1st function too, not sure).

I agree with this.

Though Ne dominants often seem airy and free in a sense...

[Joy]

I've met a few people IRL who I got to know online, and all of them said that they were suprised when they met me. They didn't expect me to be so smiley or bouncy.

[Joy]

Back to the original topic of conversation, I do think that ENxps are the shyest of the "extroverted" types. IxFps may very well be the most socially outgoing of the "introverted" types. Any thougts on this?

[Rocky]

ENTPs can be rather outgoing. They can be some of the most outspoken types... but of course not always.

If you're talking about social... then ISFP may be the most likely to be social of all the Introverts. But they can also be of few words even if they are outgoing. And I don't like to make generalizations like that anyway because sociablity is a different quality from type. It's also possible ISTP is the most energetic of the Introverted types (compared to say, INTJ)... but again, that's not always true.

[Joy]

Rocky, I am a bit confused about why ISTps are so into working out.

[Slacker]

= health?

My husband is very concerned about his health, my health, our daughter's health. Health in general. Food, exercise, outdoor play (for our daughter), etc.

[Rocky]

I'm not into working out. I do have one ISTP friend who is a "meat head" though... but then I have an ENFP friend who works out with the ISTP. So, meh.

As for me, I prefer actual activities to physical work. For example, I may enjoy practicing a sport, perfecting it and working on it, etc... because I feel its challenging and rewarding. If you want to talk functions... it may have something to do with Si. Si like be able to experience and feel different stimuli, etc...

[Joy]

Si is about health, but it's also about feeling good. I think it depends on the type and/or individual which is more apparent. For example, INxjs have a Si hidden agenda... from my experience, INFjs are more concerned about health while INTjs are more concerned with feeling good... hence the number of INTj pothead/druggies.

I've done both. I've gone through phases of being obsessed with health and wellness, and I've gone through hedonistic phases with lots of drinking/drugs.

[Slacker]

I've done both. I've gone through phases of being obsessed with health and wellness, and I've gone through hedonistic phases with lots of drinking/drugs.

As I understand from my mother-in-law, my husband had hedonistic phases like that too.

[Rocky]

= health?

My husband is very concerned about his health, my health, our daughter's health. Health in general. Food, exercise, outdoor play (for our daughter), etc.

hmm... yes... sometimes I don't understand how people foget to take care of these things. I mean... it's your body! How can you continue to function if you are not healthy?

[Joy]

= health?

My husband is very concerned about his health, my health, our daughter's health. Health in general. Food, exercise, outdoor play (for our daughter), etc.

hmm... yes... sometimes I don't understand how people foget to take care of these things. I mean... it's your body! How can you continue to function if you are not healthy?

depression

[Slacker]

I honestly just don't think about it, unless prompted by my husband. Well, unless I start feeling sick - then I worry. But if all is going well I kind of figure it'll just keep going well.

[Jonathan]

So if ENTps are so shy, it's very possible that someone who perceives himself as introvert / intuitive / thinking / perceiving would be ENTp rather than INTp. How would you tell the difference?

I suppose someone who's very quiet, reserved, likes to be by himself, is good at generating lots of ideas and thinking that "anything's possible," and not so good at organization, business matters, being on time, etc., is probably ENTp?

By the way, I think whether ISFps are outgoing or shy depends in part on their subtype. In another post, someone mentioned that the Si subtype is very shy, which seems to correspond with my experience.

[Slacker]

ENTp is and INTp is so it seems like they'd be different enough to tell them apart regardless of how outgoing they are.

[Joy]

The problem is that people say "I'm xNTp, and I'm shy, so I must be an INTp." You can tell the difference between ENTps and INTps in a lot of ways, and the most apparent is prolly their attitude toward new ideas. The ENTp LOVES new ideas, and is always coming up with new ideas and talking/thinking about other people's new ideas. He's all about possibilities. He doesn't worry much about the problems that may arise because he knows that he can find a solution.

The INTp is critical of ideas, new or not. He seeks to determine the practicality of new ideas, often seeing problems before they arise. He is also more polite than the ENTp.

[schrödinger's cat]

The problem is that people say "I'm xNTp, and I'm shy, so I must be an INTp."

And some type descriptions help people make this mistake. Sometimes the first thing you see when you read about an ENFp (not sure about ENTps, it's probably similar) is: extraverted, outgoing, life of the party, etc.etc. No wonder it makes people go "ah - then I'm an INFj/INTj."

So dominant Ne = reserve and shyness? Why? Dominant Ni doesn't seem to do that to a person. Isn't that a paradox? You have extraverted intuition and it introverts you?

[MysticSonic]

"hmm... yes... sometimes I don't understand how people foget to take care of these things. I mean... it's your body! How can you continue to function if you are not healthy?"

Laziness.

[schrödinger's cat]

For some types, focussing on the body is optional.

[flower]

I have an ENTp friend who I mistakenly typed an introvert initially because he was very quiet/reserved. You can tell ENTp's though because they always have many many ideas on how to make money or exploit some law or something, and they absolutley love it when you talk to them about stuff like that, it seems like the more crazy and unrealistic an idea is, the more they are energised and amused by it. Also, the hidden agenda of an ENTp is 'to be loved', and this was fairly apparent.

[Joy]

You can tell ENTp's thought because they always have many many ideas on how to make money or exploit some law or something, and they absolutley love it when you talk to them about stuff like that.

I dunno about that... ENTps are drawn to things that are interesting more than things that can make them money or whatever.

[flower]

Hmm.. ENTp's certainly are drawn to things that are interesting, and their sence of spirituality is to persue a diverse range of knowledge/information . I think generally ENTp's find most things interesting, and will certainly listen to / give anything a chance.

http://www.socionics.us/practice/spirituality.shtml

Making money isnt always the purpose of my friends ideas/schemes, but it often is, maybe the fact he dosent have a large income and he has some debts, has something to do with it.

[anndelise]

For some types, focussing on the body is optional.

After all...it's just a body...it's not as if it's our mind/soul or anything as important.

---
Regarding Ne and shy/introvertedness: (just some thoughts off the top of my head, nothing coherent)

Things that might affect vertedness and socialbility of an Ne dominant:
* feeling as if they need to question their perceptions
* feeling as if they need to be more exact in their communications
* feeling as if they need to be more careful of what they say/do
* feeling as if they are being consistently misunderstood
(i'm sure given time I could list quite a few more...but the point's there)

If an Ne dominant feels any of the above (or more), then they will likely spend more time developing/focusing on their introverted functions. For an ENFp, they will probably spend more time evaluating the situation with their Fi. An ENTp will probably spend more time analyzing the situation with their Ti.

Basically, for whatever reasons, they have/are learning to modify their initial perceptions...or at least what to do with those initial perceptions. This takes energy away from "bounciness" and "life of the party". Hence, seeming more introverted.

[Jonathan]

Joy: The ENTp LOVES new ideas, and is always coming up with new ideas and talking/thinking about other people's new ideas. He's all about possibilities. He doesn't worry much about the problems that may arise because he knows that he can find a solution. ... The INTp is critical of ideas, new or not. He seeks to determine the practicality of new ideas, often seeing problems before they arise. He is also more polite than the ENTp.

Okay, what if someone loves new ideas, is always coming up with ideas, is also big on critiquing ideas, and is also polite (or tries to be)?

Also, there seem to be a lot of people on these forums who seem sure that they're INTp but are very much into coming up with and discussing new ideas....What about them?

Sometimes I think the problem with Socionics is that it looks at people as if they're about as complicated as a fax machine...with functions in some sort of a fixed arrangement. It's frustrating though, because of course whether one believes Socionics or not, there's a tendency to believe that *other* people have well-defined personalities.

[schrödinger's cat]

Things that might affect vertedness and socialbility of an Ne dominant:
* feeling as if they need to question their perceptions
* feeling as if they need to be more exact in their communications
* feeling as if they need to be more careful of what they say/do
* feeling as if they are being consistently misunderstood
(i'm sure given time I could list quite a few more...but the point's there)

If an Ne dominant feels any of the above (or more), then they will likely spend more time developing/focusing on their introverted functions. For an ENFp, they will probably spend more time evaluating the situation with their Fi. An ENTp will probably spend more time analyzing the situation with their Ti.

Basically, for whatever reasons, they have/are learning to modify their initial perceptions...or at least what to do with those initial perceptions. This takes energy away from "bounciness" and "life of the party". Hence, seeming more introverted.

That is interesting. I think I know what you mean. It's like I need to focus myself, otherwise I'd just spout off undirected Ne weirdness all over people. Hate it when that happens.

Question to other Ne dominants: do you relate to that as well?

...(just some thoughts off the top of my head, nothing coherent)

I like you.

[schrödinger's cat]

Sometimes I think the problem with Socionics is that it looks at people as if they're about as complicated as a fax machine...with functions in some sort of a fixed arrangement. It's frustrating though, because of course whether one believes Socionics or not, there's a tendency to believe that *other* people have well-defined personalities.

True. The alternative is being very cautious: "Most representatives of this type show a certain tendency to... and are likely to be good at..." This gets tiresome, of course, so many type descriptions just say: "This type does ... and is good at ...". Type descriptions don't describe real representatives of a certain type, they only describe archetypes. Problem is they don't always point this out explicitly. That makes people take it all too seriously. So they zig-zag between those two extremes: saying that everyone is entirely different, and saying that all ISTps (or whoever) are LIKE THIS, basta.

Only us ENFps are different, since we operate with fuzzy logic anyway.

[Phaedrus]

The INTp is critical of ideas, new or not. He seeks to determine the practicality of new ideas, often seeing problems before they arise. He is also more polite than the ENTp.

I agree. But the INTp is also interested in (more so than "practicality" in my case) the question of whether the new ideas are true or false.

Here are some general differences in attitude between Alpha and Gamma (as I now understand those quadras) that I think are relevant to the differences between ENTps and INTps:

Alpha (ENTp) comes up with new ideas - Gamma (INTp) criticizes them.
Alpha makes references to logic - Gamma makes references to facts.
Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand.
Alpha seeks understanding - Gamma seeks knowledge.
Alpha seeks Meaning - Gamma seeks Truth.

[Joy]

I totally agree with all but this one:

Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand.

who are mere humans to decide what is subjective and what is objective? you can be as objective as you can be... but because you aren't omniscient, you couldn't possibly be 100% objective.

[Slacker]

Things that might affect vertedness and socialbility of an Ne dominant:
* feeling as if they need to question their perceptions
* feeling as if they need to be more exact in their communications
* feeling as if they need to be more careful of what they say/do
* feeling as if they are being consistently misunderstood
(i'm sure given time I could list quite a few more...but the point's there)

If an Ne dominant feels any of the above (or more), then they will likely spend more time developing/focusing on their introverted functions. For an ENFp, they will probably spend more time evaluating the situation with their Fi. An ENTp will probably spend more time analyzing the situation with their Ti.

Basically, for whatever reasons, they have/are learning to modify their initial perceptions...or at least what to do with those initial perceptions. This takes energy away from "bounciness" and "life of the party". Hence, seeming more introverted.

That is interesting. I think I know what you mean. It's like I need to focus myself, otherwise I'd just spout off undirected Ne weirdness all over people. Hate it when that happens.

Question to other Ne dominants: do you relate to that as well?

...(just some thoughts off the top of my head, nothing coherent)

I like you.

I definitely relate to that. I sometimes feel like I have to focus on myself carefully or I'll spout off garbage and embarass myself.

[Joy]

I totally agree with all but this one:

[img]Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand. [/img]

who are mere humans to decide what is subjective and what is objective? you can be as objective as you can be... but because you aren't omniscient, you couldn't possibly be 100% objective.

Being objective doesn't mean knowing absolutely. It means using the information you have in the most logical way. Just because you don't know what you don't know doesn't mean you aren't being objective with what you DO know. It is also possible to identify a person as being subjective when analyses of their actions shows a lack of critical reasoning.

[Phaedrus]

I totally agree with all but this one:

[img]Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand. [/img]

Yes, maybe it should be refrased somehow. The point is that Gamma tries to be objective and might think that it is possible to be objective. Alpha are more satisfied with being subjective, and might think that a meaningful distinction between subjective and objective is impossible to make.

[Kim]

Being objective doesn't mean knowing absolutely. It means using the information you have in the most logical way. Just because you don't know what you don't know doesn't mean you aren't being objective with what you DO know. It is also possible to identify a person as being subjective when analyses of their actions shows a lack of critical reasoning.

To be objective means to be without bias. It has nothing to do with logic. You are objective when your judgement is based on empirically observable phenomena (which themselves can be flawed). As soon as you pick and chose those observations that support your argument and disregard others, you are not objective. You argue based on personal prejudice and bias. The more you know and the more you are able to move away from your personal bias, the more objective you are.

It is also possible to identify a person as being subjective when analyses of their actions shows a lack of critical reasoning.

Not true, a person can Ne all over the place and throw out possibilities and be perfectly (no, not perfectly! hehe) objective in considering all possibilites. Critical reasoning comes in when you construct your actual argument. But you don't have to critically reason to be objective. You just have to consider the alternatives.

So Joy is right, when it comes to taking a position and arguing it, nobody can be 100% objective because nobody can take into account all possibilities and nobody can entirely move away from personal bias. But that has nothing to do with logic or universal truths.

[Kim]

I'm shy in a new situation, or with people I'm not comfortable with. Not necessarily with people I don't know well - if I'm comfortable in the situation I can be very outgoing even with strangers. But sometimes I have to warm up to a situation.

If I am comfortable and secure, I am definitely bouncy. LOL.

Exactly the same for me.

[anndelise]

I totally agree with all but this one:

[img]Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand. [/img]

Yes, maybe it should be refrased somehow. The point is that Gamma tries to be objective and might think that it is possible to be objective. Alpha are more satisfied with being subjective, and might think that a meaningful distinction between subjective and objective is impossible to make.

Another way of looking at it is that one is subject oriented (what did the action) vs object oriented (what was done to).

Another is one looks from the inside to out...the other from outside to in.

[Joy]

I meant "subjective" to mean that you're seeing something through a specific perspective, and "objective" to mean that you're seeing something from every perspective and are do not show extra consideration to any particular perspective.

[anndelise]

I meant "subjective" to mean that you're seeing something through a specific perspective, and "objective" to mean that you're seeing something from every perspective and are do not show extra consideration to any particular perspective.

Even under this definition at the point that a person picks/chooses (even subconsciously) which perspective(s) to view it from, they are still limited by their own ability to see other perspectives...quality as well as quantity.

A person who sees two perspectives is more subjective than a person who sees three perspectives who is more subjective than a person who sees five perspectives. A person who sees two perspectives believes themselves to be objective..not even realizing that there are at least 1-3 other perspectives that they are not even aware of.

Also, at any point that one judges a persepective in any way..their biases naturally come in. Again, it has to do with previous experiences, previous judgments, previous perspectives, previously developed skills, etc.

Because we are limited by the above, any perceptions/judgements we utilize/make will naturally be limited to our own perceptions/abilities, thus making everything each individual does...subjective by nature.