Subtype correlation to introversion/extroversion

[Korpsy Knievel]

Introversion/extroversion in both the Jungian and socionics sense refer to a mental orientation. These cognitive dispositions are often colloquially confused or conflated with the behavioral traits of being socially reserved or outgoing, but they are actually distinct and separate personal qualities.

Vertedness, as it's sometimes unofficially called, describes the prevailing direction of libido-¹ or information-flow² between objects and a subject's primary information-processing function, so it is mostly a mental phenomenon. On the other hand, the degree to which one is socially engaged or averse is a behavioral matter.

Behavior is usually epiphenomenal to cognition — action follows reflex, instinct, and thought, not the other way around. And moment-to-moment changes in situationally adaptive action have much less effect on the nature of one's essential psychical makeup than does the converse. In other words, while lifelong type-change remains up for debate, it is true that mentality is altered less readily than behavior. This fact goes far to explain the confusion we often see among self-typists who focus overmuch on correlating outward behaviors with sociotype profiles and who give insufficient attention to their habits of mentation. As a result they frequently wind up with incorrect or unstable typings.

Though it's true that we can make broad generalizations about extroverts being more socially confident and engaged, and introverts being more socially doubting and avoidant, we can also find many exceptions to this rule of thumb. Individuals of either psychical attitude can be found who exhibit the opposite postulated behavioral tendency, i.e. socially outgoing cognitive introverts and socially withdrawn cognitive extroverts. And so the aforementioned generalization is a faulty one and cannot be utilized reliably, and we must examine each person's characteristic mentality to determine their introvert or extrovert orientation.

So then, with regard to vertedness of subtypes, are you asking about a general inclination of thought or of action?

---

1. Jung
2. Kępiński, Augustinavičiūtė

[Azure Flame]

Introversion/extroversion in both the Jungian and socionics sense refer to a mental orientation. These cognitive dispositions are often colloquially confused or conflated with the behavioral traits of being socially reserved or outgoing, but they are actually distinct and separate personal qualities.

Vertedness, as it's sometimes unofficially called, describes the prevailing direction of libido-¹ or information-flow² between objects and a subject's primary information-processing function, so it is mostly a mental phenomenon. On the other hand, the degree to which one is socially engaged or averse is a behavioral matter.

Behavior is usually epiphenomenal to cognition — action follows reflex, instinct, and thought, not the other way around. And moment-to-moment changes in situationally adaptive action have much less effect on the nature of one's essential psychical makeup than does the converse. In other words, while lifelong type-change remains up for debate, it is true that mentality is altered less readily than behavior. This fact goes far to explain the confusion we often see among self-typists who focus overmuch on correlating outward behaviors with sociotype profiles and who give insufficient attention to their habits of mentation. As a result they frequently wind up with incorrect or unstable typings.

Though it's true that we can make broad generalizations about extroverts being more socially confident and engaged, and introverts being more socially doubting and avoidant, we can also find many exceptions to this rule of thumb. Individuals of either psychical attitude can be found who exhibit the opposite postulated behavioral tendency, i.e. socially outgoing cognitive introverts and socially withdrawn cognitive extroverts. And so the aforementioned generalization is a faulty one and cannot be utilized reliably, and we must examine each person's characteristic mentality to determine their introvert or extrovert orientation.

So then, with regard to vertedness of subtypes, are you asking about a general inclination of thought or of action?

---

1. Jung
2. Kępiński, Augustinavičiūtė

Hmm... Well the thought of talking to strangers intimidates me... however when I'm there in the present doing something with a goal in mind, I'll talk to people no problem. I'll ask people on the bus for directions, I'll talk to other gymnasts about their moves... put me in a bar with the active goal of being social in and of itself, I'll sit in the corner by myself and talk to no one.

So I suppose I'm asking about "thought." Being social simply for the sake of being social.

[ashlesha]

Hmm... Well the thought of talking to strangers intimidates me... however when I'm there in the present doing something with a goal in mind, I'll talk to people no problem. I'll ask people on the bus for directions, I'll talk to other gymnasts about their moves... put me in a bar with the active goal of being social in and of itself, I'll sit in the corner by myself and talk to no one.

So I suppose I'm asking about "thought." Being social simply for the sake of being social.

i'm the same. i think its not about the interaction per se but more about, idk - what to talk about, where is the conversation going, whats the point anyway.
but then sometimes there are people i find interesting and would like to talk to but i'm stopped by not knowing what to say or having any sort of common ground. and its just so much easier when there's some sort of practical reason to start a conversation, some kind of pretense. maybe its just discomfort with small talk.
constructivism comes to mind, dunno if sle is constructivist or emotivist.

what jim said also makes me think of how i also seem to have a much higher threshold for "awkward silences" than a lot of other people. they're only awkward when i can sense the other person feels awkward and it kind of annoys me when people are super sensitive to any silences. just relax, gah.

but i just plain prefer not talking to people i know i'm not going to form a friendship with or something anyway. those random elevator conversations or the clerk at the store starting to talk about their kids. sigh. i can be kind of aloof i guess but its not mean-spirited, i just don't get the point.

[Azure Flame]

i'm the same. i think its not about the interaction per se but more about, idk - what to talk about, where is the conversation going, whats the point anyway.
but then sometimes there are people i find interesting and would like to talk to but i'm stopped by not knowing what to say or having any sort of common ground. and its just so much easier when there's some sort of practical reason to start a conversation, some kind of pretense. maybe its just discomfort with small talk.
constructivism comes to mind, dunno if sle is constructivist or emotivist.

what jim said also makes me think of how i also seem to have a much higher threshold for "awkward silences" than a lot of other people. they're only awkward when i can sense the other person feels awkward and it kind of annoys me when people are super sensitive to any silences. just relax, gah.

but i just plain prefer not talking to people i know i'm not going to form a friendship with or something anyway. those random elevator conversations or the clerk at the store starting to talk about their kids. sigh. i can be kind of aloof i guess but its not mean-spirited, i just don't get the point.

SLE is constructivist.

Yeah I don't mind silence. Good point about conversation topics.

Constructivists
Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them. They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset. Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.

Emotivists
Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive. They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit". Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange. They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen. In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).

Actually I think that says it right there. I hate conversation for the sake of conversation. Its so much easier for me to talk to people regarding matters of business, so in that sense there is no problem with me walking up to a random stranger of a house and say:
"Hey I notice you like to flip houses. Got any advice on how I can get started?"
"Oh sure all you gotta do is blah blah blah"
"Awesome bro lets pound fists and be best friends!"
"ok! I'll go get my nerf guns!"

Matter of fact, one of the reasons I found my IEI ex so exciting yet terrifying was because she was an emotivist. She had this ability to walk up to anyone and just start talking. Meanwhile I'm sitting there like, "durr, can't talk now I'm on a mission."

Hmm, this requires a response to my other thread about IEI's.

[willekeurig]

Matter of fact, one of the reasons I found my IEI ex so exciting yet terrifying was because she was an emotivist. She had this ability to talk up to anyone and just start talking. Meanwhile I'm sitting there like, "durr, can't talk now I'm in a mission."

Interesting - I feel the same way about LSEs. I've also actually been criticized by more than one of them because of this.