Introversion-Extraversion Scale

[pianosinger]

I have created an Introversion-Extraversion scale, based on the following criteria. Input, please

(Note: "+1" denotes 1 point toward Extraversion, "-1" denotes 1 point toward Introversion)

Points for Extraversion:
Ego contains a Sensing function= +1
Ego contains a Feeling function= +1
Base function Extraverted= +3
Base function Sensing= +2
Base function Feeling= +2
Creative function Sensing= +1
Creative function Feeling= +1

Points for Introversion:
Ego contains an Intuiting function= -1
Ego contains a Thinking function= -1
Base function Introverted= -3
Base function Intuiting= -2
Base function Thinking= -2
Creative function Intuiting= -1
Creative function Thinking= -1

Which results in the following chart:


Interpretation of Chart:
Introverted Introverts are: INTj and INTp
Extraverted Extraverts are: ESFj and ESFp
Introverts are: ISTj and INFp
Extraverts are: ENFj and ESTp
Introverted Extraverts are: ENTj and ENTp
Extraverted Introverts are: ISFj and ISFp
Ambiverted Extraverts are: ESTj and ENFp
Ambiverted Introverts are: INFj and ISTp

[The Ineffable]

I assume it's about social extroversion/introversion, outgoingness & al and how it's type-related. It's not about Socionics Extroversion/Introversion, right? As long as you capitalized them, it's confusing - I don't want to be pedantic, but capitalization is about the dichotomy.

[pianosinger]

I assume it's about social extroversion/introversion, outgoingness & al and how it's type-related. It's not about Socionics Extroversion/Introversion, right? As long as you capitalized them, it's confusing - I don't want to be pedantic, but capitalization is about the dichotomy.

You're probably right; I hadn't really thought about all that. But yeah, probably more of a social observation. As in, your INTj's and INTp's will be noticeably socially introverted, but the ambiverts could swing easily either way and will be more difficult to type as either I's or E's.

Good point on the capitalization. I will have to think about it...

[FDG]

It doesn't really match my observations when it comes to ISF and ENT, the latter always clearly seem extraverted when compared to the former...

[Creepy-male]

^What he said.

All my duals are more socially extraverted and outgoing than me. I'm sure one could summon a counter-example, but as it stands that would be the exception, not the rule.

[pianosinger]

It doesn't really match my observations when it comes to ISF and ENT, the latter always clearly seem extraverted when compared to the former...

Noted

I don't know, though. Maybe subtypes have something to do with it(?) My mom, for instance, is most likely ISFj, but she can be pretty darn sociable, thanks to her Base Fi which requires her to go out and make an effort to maintain her various connections with people.

My brother-in-law is either an INTj or and ENTj, and I'm leaning towards ENTj based on the above, as he is always quite eager to speak up and assert his views; but at the same time, he can spend a good deal of time alone and seem perfectly happy; but given the opportunity, he will eagerly jump into the middle of a conversation and steal the spotlight.

[pianosinger]

So here's a question: do you think point should be added for being a Perceiver, or subtracted for being a Judger? Or vice-versa? Ack, no, that's probably going to be inaccurate, too.

[Pa3s]

That's very interesting! INTx are typically very introverted, but I imagine there are IEIs who can be like that, too. With the typical exceptions included, I would agree with this as a rough guideline.

EDIT: ENTp might be a bit too introverted. Also, INFj can be very introverted in my opinion.

[munenori2]

If this were accurate, I'd be an INTj/INTp/ISTj/INFp. I'm one of the most socially introverted people I know.

That said, I don't really believe in the underlying assumptions you've built into the model.

[pianosinger]

If this were accurate, I'd be an INTj/INTp/ISTj/INFp. I'm one of the most socially introverted people I know.

What's your type? (I have to ask, since it doesn't appear in your sidebar)

That said, I don't really believe in the underlying assumptions you've built into the model.

I have made essentially four assumptions:
1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?

[Creepy-Snaps]

Actually... not that I looked at the chart for more than half a second... the whole thing is crap.

There's no way ISFjs are considered outgoing. They may be friendly sometimes, and jovial, but not near the standard extroverted side in terms of outgoing-ness and no downtime. And there's no way INTjs and INTps are the most introverted. They're usually pretty outgoing/friendly too. Maybe moreso than ISFjs.

I'd say ESTps (up there with ESFps for the most outgoing), ENTps, ENTjs, and ENFps are more outgoing than you have listed.

I'd say ESFjs, INFps (probably the shyest), INFjs, ISFps, and ISTps are less outgoing than you have listed.

I have made essentially four assumptions:
1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?

I disagree with all those assumptions. Socionics is about dichotomies. You can't stereotype any one pair of introverted/extroverted functions and say 'both Si and Se are more extroverted' like you do. That's incorrect. It's the combination which paint the picture of each type.

On even closer examination, I now noticed you only account for introverted/extroverted functions as the base function. No wonder every contrary pair is the same distance, 6, apart. That's incorrect. Maybe incorporate more introverted/extroverted function points in your assumptions? I dunno.

Each type differs a lot based upon the first 4 functions... Fi PoLR can affect the other functions differently for ENTps or ESTps, for example... adding pepper might make one dish of food a bit spicier, while in another dish it might just be tangier... pepper, in and of itself, is not introverted or extroverted. Taking out the bits and parts of each personality type, and rating each individual part for introversion/extroversion, loses picture of the whole. I think this experiment is doomed to fail.

Until you factor in: this introverted function here, in combination with this extroverted function here, makes the person overall more extroverted... I don't think the chart will be entirely accurate. And if you factor in different functions, in different orders, in combination with each other, wouldn't that just be re-writing socionics?

[Creepy-Snaps]

3rd reply in a row, I know my perspective is getting old... but.

Just wanted to say sorry for criticising your system so much. Maybe, for fun, you could just make a chart with which types you thought were more introverted/extroverted, rather than including some crazy point system to justify it.

[pianosinger]

Just wanted to say sorry for criticising your system so much.

Not at all. After all, I can neither assert nor retract the "system" without rl examples, and that's where all my fellow socionists come in. If your observations are different from what I have proposed in my theory, I want to know

There's no way ISFjs are considered outgoing. They may be friendly sometimes, and jovial, but not near the standard extroverted side in terms of outgoing-ness and no downtime. And there's no way INTjs and INTps are the most introverted. They're usually pretty outgoing/friendly too. Maybe moreso than ISFjs.

I have to wonder who are the ISFj's and INTp's you know. My INTp husband is very introverted, and my ISFj mom easily passes for an extrovert in several situations. And as for the "outgoingness and no downtime," I don't believe it is fair to say that any type could go forever with no downtime.

No wonder every contrary pair is the same distance, 6, apart.

To be picky: actually, it's 8 apart, not 6. But, that's hard to see because the grid didn't show up when I scanned my graph.

Hmm... an ENFp trying to rationalize being more Introverted than other Extroverts... go figure.

This wasn't about rationalizing myself.

Thank you for your input, though. I can't say I agree with all of it, but much of it was worth considering. Especially as regards the "introverted extraverts" and the "extraverted introverts," which others have also disagreed with.

And maybe you're right that I should just abandon my Ti-PoLR attempt at using a point system; though, I have not yet typed nearly enough people of each type irl to place them all on a scale based solely on observation.

[munenori2]

What's your type? (I have to ask, since it doesn't appear in your sidebar)

I have made essentially four assumptions:
1. Sensors are by nature more extraverted
2. Feelers are by nature more extraverted
3. Intuitors are by nature more introverted
4. Thinkers are by nature more introverted

Which of these ^ do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them? And why?

SEI, I think.

There are a few things that bug me about this approach. The first would be what exactly you're trying to measure here. It looks like it's generally been narrowed down towards the more colloquial definitions of introversion and extraversion, or as Ashton put it, gregariousness. I haven't exactly turned this thread inside out to see where or how it's been refined, if it has (sorry, kind of lazy today) other than differing interpretations, such as Krig's 'people skills' which, as FDG I think rightly pointed out is something altogether different than the more general concept of extraversion (that is, that someone may very well be extraverted and engaging while completely lacking any people skills at all). So the first bridge to cross would be what exactly you mean when you come out with these observations. Again if you mentioned it elsewhere feel free to point me to it or I'm sure I'll go back and reread the thread after I finish writing this whole messy thing. The tack I'm taking in resisting your observations mostly revolves around what FDG has mentioned.

One reason I'm somewhat reluctant to agree with you is that there seems to be very little theoretical underpinning or justification for how you've laid out this system save what is probably most persuasive to you, that being your personal experience with others and your particular typings of said individuals. Naturally, my own will differ from yours otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. However, this in and of itself isn't a damning criticism since it falls into a simple dispute over what each type is and how they behave. In other words, a fundamentally differing understanding of types based on strict theoretical principles that is not easily soluble. It's not enough for me to simply disagree with what you've said and expect you to change your mind. What I will try to do though is provide some measure of counterexamples and then to argue that their are myriad factors that substantially complicate the simple elegance of what I take you to be saying.

Let me begin by saying I'm not completely unsympathetic to the conclusions you've drawn. It's not as if I think there's zero merit to your system, just that I would note in my own conception of socionics and the people I've typed or interacted with within the socionics community that I would have a rough time suggesting to newcomers what you've said as a reliable or useful heuristic. There is, as with all people holding beliefs, the distinct possibility that I am full of shit. /end foreword

Notable counterexamples I can think of would be personal anecdotes of those people on the forum I have met in person. The most outgoing of them were an ILE, an SLE, and an LII (self typings). I was probably one of the quieter people in the group, maybe moreso than a couple of ILIs.

Ugh, general considerations to follow. I'm starting to get a little drunk and I've been trying to write this for like an hour and a half while watching a movie and it just isn't working out.

[Skeptic]

Introversion by nature is an inward focus. Extroversion is an outward focus. Supposedly, high focus on an introverted function simply implies high inward focus, the object of that focus depending on the function.

By this definition (the one by which socionics introversion is defined) no introvert is more 'inwardly focused' than the next.

But this chart does not seem to be measuring introversion based on inward focus because there appears to be different measurements for the introversion of introverts and exroverts. What, then, is this chart actually measuring when it says it measures introversion and extroversion? In other words, what do these words mean with respect to their use in the chart? Increased frequency of conversation? Increased skill in interaction? Increased social initiative? How is this skill or social initiative defined and what are their criteria?

Aside from what those two words mean, if I am correct in interpreting the rest of your chart, 'extroversion' is measured in your ability to gauge your conversational partner's emotional and physical state (SF > NT).

I cannot begin to question your chart until I know exactly how extroversion is interpreted; however, I can say that frequency of engagement has little relevance to physical and emotional recognition and social 'skill' covers vast social categories. So I would like to request clarification before guessing further at your meaning.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think this is a good chart. ESFjs are very extroverted and yeah it's hard for me to even picture them as introverts.

It's probably a bit more malleable complicated than this but I think I'd have to agree with it over all.

[Suz]

IME, ENTp's are some of the most obnoxiously outgoing people I know.

As far as I understand, INFp's can be pretty "extraverted" too.

[krieger]

I agree with this to a large extent.

[Creepy-Snaps]

IME, ENTp's are some of the most obnoxiously outgoing people I know.

*obnoxious* eh? Maybe cause we say what we want without paying attention to what others think? Only after... and that's usually too late.

@ topic though... Hmm... an ENFp trying to rationalize being more Introverted than other Extroverts... go figure.

It's cause of Ne. Seeing connections all over the place, sometimes around so many people, gaining so much energy, can cause over-stimulation imho. I need a fair amount of downtime too ('fair' being maybe one quiet evening after spending 3-5 days in a row out doing stuff with other people ). But, that being said, I'm incredibly outgoing, and by no means 'shy' or introverted.

Although I have been called shy before! Maybe 5 times now... in my entire life. Because I was extremely tired (little sleep) and exhausted from being around people, but the people I was with then didn't know that.

So all in all, I disagree with your chart. You didn't logically justify any of your assumptions for the point scale, where your numbers came from. I think you're arguing with bias. Some types are more outgoing than others, you're onto something, but I don't think your chart is quite correct. Also ISFps are incredibly shy imo, not near the Extroverted side. Also ESFps are noticeably more outgoing than ESFjs, who need quite a bit of downtime as well. Haven't bothered giving the rest of it much thought, just pointing out the glaring errors.

[Aleksei]

I have created an Introversion-Extraversion scale, based on the following criteria. Input, please

(Note: "+1" denotes 1 point toward Extraversion, "-1" denotes 1 point toward Introversion)

Points for Extraversion:
Ego contains a Sensing function= +1
Ego contains a Feeling function= +1
Base function Extraverted= +3
Base function Sensing= +2
Base function Feeling= +2
Creative function Sensing= +1
Creative function Feeling= +1

Points for Introversion:
Ego contains an Intuiting function= -1
Ego contains a Thinking function= -1
Base function Introverted= -3
Base function Intuiting= -2
Base function Thinking= -2
Creative function Intuiting= -1
Creative function Thinking= -1

Which results in the following chart:


Interpretation of Chart:
Introverted Introverts are: INTj and INTp
Extraverted Extraverts are: ESFj and ESFp
Introverts are: ISTj and INFp
Extraverts are: ENFj and ESTp
Introverted Extraverts are: ENTj and ENTp
Extraverted Introverts are: ISFj and ISFp
Ambiverted Extraverts are: ESTj and ENFp
Ambiverted Introverts are: INFj and ISTp

I strongly agree on LIE being a reserved type and ESE and SEE beng the most extroverted types. IEI is far more outgoing than you're making it seem though.