Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
ENTP | 7w6 | so/sx
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
At least in MBTI terms. Everyone I talk to has a different idea of what it means to be an introvert or and extrovert within the framework of the MBTI.

Personally, I like the cognitive function model and I think that social introversion vs extroversion doesn't have an influence on if you're an E or an I type. MBTI-extroverts rely on external sources for their immediate interaction with the world, whereas MBTI-introverts rely on internal sources for their immediate interaction with the world. Of course, if you're a social extrovert you are more likely going to type as an Exxx, but I think there's some room for malleability here.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that social intro/extroversion determines if you're an E or an I? Why? If not, what's your opinion? I'm interested to hear more. :]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
In the context of MBTI, I define the E/I as the interpersonal behaviour. For cognitive functions, I use Jung's definitions (the only definition in that context).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
At least in MBTI terms. Everyone I talk to has a different idea of what it means to be an introvert or and extrovert within the framework of the MBTI.

Personally, I like the cognitive function model and I think that social introversion vs extroversion doesn't have an influence on if you're an E or an I type. MBTI-extroverts rely on external sources for their immediate interaction with the world, whereas MBTI-introverts rely on internal sources for their immediate interaction with the world. Of course, if you're a social extrovert you are more likely going to type as an Exxx, but I think there's some room for malleability here.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that social intro/extroversion determines if you're an E or an I? Why? If not, what's your opinion? I'm interested to hear more. :]
I'd agree. I wouldn't say I'm especially social but I'm externally focused. Descriptions of introversion don't suit me. I much prefer to be out and interacting with the physical world. I don't lose energy talking to people or gain energy talking to people. These interactions are net neutral for me.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,889 Posts
At least in MBTI terms. Everyone I talk to has a different idea of what it means to be an introvert or and extrovert within the framework of the MBTI.

Personally, I like the cognitive function model and I think that social introversion vs extroversion doesn't have an influence on if you're an E or an I type. MBTI-extroverts rely on external sources for their immediate interaction with the world, whereas MBTI-introverts rely on internal sources for their immediate interaction with the world. Of course, if you're a social extrovert you are more likely going to type as an Exxx, but I think there's some room for malleability here.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that social intro/extroversion determines if you're an E or an I? Why? If not, what's your opinion? I'm interested to hear more. :]

Where one gets their energy. Do they tend to get energized being around others, or do they tend to get energized being alone? Some fall somewhere in between. I am one of those people. While I am slightly more extroverted than introverted, the difference is not that great. I can go long stretches of time without being around others and then I start to really crave it, even if I don't actually interact with those others. I really like learning about other people, what makes them tick, what makes their perspectives different from my own (the only way we really learn is to expose ourselves to as many perspectives as we can). So I consider myself an "ambivert" of sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YearseRayneDon

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Personally, I like the cognitive function model and I think that social introversion vs extroversion doesn't have an influence on if you're an E or an I type.
It does highly correlate with social extroversion, in fact I think the big five conception of extroversion is far superior to "cognitive functions".

Jung made genuine mistakes, linking introversion with imagination/reflection, he said introverts are motivated by fear and aversion which is basically saying introverts are shy and bashful by nature(very stereotypical). This is clearly the self consciousness scale of neuroticism which the big five recognizes.

The big five has a higher degree with granulation with introversion/extroversion, with assertiveness and enthusiasm as subsects of extroversion.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
The cognitive model makes a very open and shut case about it: Which ever function is your dominant designates whether you're I pr E, end of story.

But people being people, they often can't grasp that and prefer to look at behaviors (outgoing, energetic, talkative etc. vs. the opposite of that) which is a decent but flawed way to look at it. If I went off based on that, at 30% of the people I typed in my life I would have them typed wrongly.
 

·
Premium Member
INFJ 4w3 sp/sx
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
I prefer to use Jung's perspective on introversion and extroversion - the extrovert is more focused on the outer world, the introvert is more focused on their inner world. A simple concept, really. Many times (probably most of the times) this translates to extroverts being more social than introverts, but I can see how the concept isn't necessarily black and white and how some extroverts don't see themselves as extremely focused on social interaction (but focused on other aspects of the outer world).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,388 Posts
Where one gets their energy. Do they tend to get energized being around others, or do they tend to get energized being alone?
i hear this definition a lot, and i think it's good but i'm starting to question whether that notion of 'energy' really fits what it's about. i've never questioned my introversion - i don't think there's a facet of me that's more of a slam dunk than that one.

but left to myself i don't think i'd ever have seen it as a question of energy, except in the negative sense of 'too much people-ing drains me.' i actually get very amped up by spending time with people. it's just a) not a state that i can sustain for long, and b) not a form that feels inherent to me. it's more like the kind of rush that lasts for a while after exercising.

so i enjoy [some] people time. but to me what marks the introvert is that being outside my own mind is not natural to me. after being with people, i need processing time in order to get back to my own private baseline, which is internal to me. i need to integrate anything that comes at me from outside, and it's not so much that i lose 'energy' if i don't get it. it's more like i start to feel like i'm losing myself or disintegrating.

that seems to lean towards more of a cognitive/processing style definition for my particular case. but for all i know there are more than one flavour of intro/extravert. in other words, maybe it's another thing that's actually not as binary as we are used to thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
What are your thoughts? Do you think that social intro/extroversion determines if you're an E or an I? Why? If not, what's your opinion? I'm interested to hear more. :]
Link in the signature. Just as Jung defined it minus a fallacy that had to be fixed, about the extraverted nature of sexuality: No, extraversion isn't gregarious, invasive or lustful. MBTI terms are supposedly Jung's terms, they never attempted to change it. It just drifted away out of misunderstanding.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,889 Posts
i hear this definition a lot, and i think it's good but i'm starting to question whether that notion of 'energy' really fits what it's about. i've never questioned my introversion - i don't think there's a facet of me that's more of a slam dunk than that one.

but left to myself i don't think i'd ever have seen it as a question of energy, except in the negative sense of 'too much people-ing drains me.' i actually get very amped up by spending time with people. it's just a) not a state that i can sustain for long, and b) not a form that feels inherent to me. it's more like the kind of rush that lasts for a while after exercising.

so i enjoy [some] people time. but to me what marks the introvert is that being outside my own mind is not natural to me. after being with people, i need processing time in order to get back to my own private baseline, which is internal to me. i need to integrate anything that comes at me from outside, and it's not so much that i lose 'energy' if i don't get it. it's more like i start to feel like i'm losing myself or disintegrating.

that seems to lean towards more of a cognitive/processing style definition for my particular case. but for all i know there are more than one flavour of intro/extravert. in other words, maybe it's another thing that's actually not as binary as we are used to thinking.
You may well be like me in that the divide between introversion and extroversion is not that great. My type is considered one of the: "...Most introverted of the extroverts," so I guess I see myself as someone who has some flexibility in this aspect (I'm also an Ennegram 5, so there's that). I feel the same way. After being with people, I go home and process the interactions I had. I like small to medium crowds, but large crowds eventually drain me. I can't do conventions for more than a couple of hours. Concerts and performances are okay because everyone is focusing on the show. My ideal crowd is about 25-50 people. Much larger than that, I start to get overwhelmed.

The word you're looking for is: "Ambivert."
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilysocks

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,944 Posts
@Roslyn said it very well.

My extroversion is not dependent simply on socializing in itself.

I can very much take or leave socializing.

In fact I’d say even though I’m an extrovert, I can get like super drained on days with excessive Fe use. That can make my battery lower. Tert Fe, means I can have and I can use it. It’s not dominant. My INFJ sister can last longer in small talk with people than me. Who is flat out like 🤣 Um yeah I’m bored don’t care bout the weather, what you do, where ya live. I mean I care if it’s someone, 1:1 I’m trying to connect with. But like small talk. Bleh. Yuck.

I prefer people either 1:1. Or to public speak Lead, or train others (but that’s using my Ti and Fe). Or I have no problem flexing my Se skills in front of others. But group settings with heavy socializing. Meh. Sorta yuck to me. Strangely my ambivalence serves me though. Because my give a fucks is so low on social dominance. I think I’m more so dominant enough in work setting it just makes me super laid back and passive in social settings. I’m not the shyest person. But I’m also not the outspoken social person. If anything I’m more like the wise cracking troll who plays off everyone in this setting. Most the SF & NFs, and some ESTJs I know take the lead in this setting.

I consider my Se as liking to be in environmental stimulation. I can take myself out alone to alotta places and be content. I just like to hear the chatter, and plates clash, and register close, or watch people passing, or be amongst. I don’t have to be actually speaking with the group direct though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Link in the signature. Just as Jung defined it minus a fallacy that had to be fixed, about the extraverted nature of sexuality: No, extraversion isn't gregarious, invasive or lustful. MBTI terms are supposedly Jung's terms, they never attempted to change it. It just drifted away out of misunderstanding.
I just read your sig, you have completely misinterpreted Jung into some incoherent jumble, what the heck are you talking about

People, this is the misinformation that will confuse you, extroverts simply participate in immediate external happenings more, they are influenced by and like to influence external circumstances in a give and take way.

Introverts are more observers of events until something strikes a particular personal interest, Jung describes introverts very clearly as taciturn and reserved, having a disinterested demeanor or being avoidant. You call introversion "invasive" which is so ridiculous that it seems like you're trolling here.

This is basic common sense, not turning the dimension into some convoluted P vs J scale (which you are trying to do), that's already it's own thing, correlated with conscientiousness.

Also Jung thought most people were near the middle of the intro/extroversion dimension, this is also noticeable in the big five which forms a bell curve.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,363 Posts
I just read your sig, you have completely misinterpreted Jung into some incoherent jumble, what the heck are you talking about

People, this is the misinformation that will confuse you, extroverts simply participate in immediate external happenings more, they are influenced by and like to influence external circumstances in a give and take way.

Introverts are more observers of events until something strikes a particular personal interest, Jung describes introverts very clearly as taciturn and reserved, having a disinterested demeanor or being avoidant. You call introversion "invasive" which is so ridiculous that it seems like you're trolling here.

This is basic common sense, not turning the dimension into some convoluted P vs J scale (which you are trying to do), that's already it's own thing, correlated with conscientiousness.

Also Jung thought most people were near the middle of the intro/extroversion dimension, this is also noticeable in the big five which forms a bell curve.
Jung also mentions the need of the introvert to have control and dominate over the object which is a very reasonable outcome of a drive that is about feeling threatened & overwhelmed by the environment. Similarly, the extravert is open to being influenced, with less self-preservation drive and therefore lacking the need for control. What you're describing as simple is a surface level behavioristic approach that's not putting 2+2 together.
 

·
Premium Member
INFJ 4w3 sp/sx
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
I just read your sig, you have completely misinterpreted Jung into some incoherent jumble, what the heck are you talking about

People, this is the misinformation that will confuse you, extroverts simply participate in immediate external happenings more, they are influenced by and like to influence external circumstances in a give and take way.
You don’t have to worry; he has been preaching on this forum for years trying to make others swallow his fringe theory with no success. Most people on here are intelligent enough to figure it is just incoherent BS. lol
 

·
Registered
ISFP
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
. .some extroverts don't see themselves as extremely focused on social interaction (but focused on other aspects of the outer world).
You mean there’s a whole woorrld out there?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,388 Posts
The word you're looking for is: "Ambivert."
thanks anyway, but i don't think i was. i already knew that it's a word :p, and it certainly isn't a word that fits me.

the point i was trying to make is that i don't think the things i described make me non-introverted. it's a deviation from a definition of introvert that revolves around that energy-dichotomy notion. but i'm not convinced that 'energy' is the most useful differentiator, so that's why i threw in those two cents.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,889 Posts
thanks anyway, but i don't think i was. i already knew that it's a word :p, and it certainly isn't a word that fits me.

the point i was trying to make is that i don't think the things i described make me non-introverted. it's a deviation from a definition of introvert that revolves around that energy-dichotomy notion. but i'm not convinced that 'energy' is the most useful differentiator, so that's why i threw in those two cents.
My apologies. I did not mean to offend in any way. I agree it is difficult to explain and understand sometimes. I find myself being one of those people who feels a pull in both directions nearly equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilysocks

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Jung also mentions the need of the introvert to have control and dominate over the object which is a very reasonable outcome of a drive that is about feeling threatened & overwhelmed by the environment. Similarly, the extravert is open to being influenced, with less self-preservation drive and therefore lacking the need for control. What you're describing as simple is a surface level behavioristic approach that's not putting 2+2 together.
Except that's clearly wrong, have you read his extrovert thinking description, okay I'm going to quote psychological types directly:
By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

That's a real open uncontrolling person huh.

And yeah Jung said introverts are motivated by fear, he was talking about avoidant behavior(aversion) than externally controlling behaviour, which again makes no sense.

I think he was wrong about introverts being motivated by fear, he was mixing withdrawal, an aspect of neuroticism with introversion, they are not the same thing. He already admitted he erroneously mixed thinking with introversion and feeling with extroversion, I think if he was alive today he would probably agree with me and all of the personality research that's been done since 1961.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aiwass

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,363 Posts
Except that's clearly wrong, have you read his extrovert thinking description, okay I'm going to quote psychological types directly:
By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

That's a real open uncontrolling person huh

And yeah Jung said introverts are motivated by fear, he was talking about avoidant behavior(aversion) than externally controlling behaviour, which again makes no sense.
Exactly, he failed to follow his own premises which he describes both in chapter X and the rest of the book (i.e. when he mentions the introvert's need to be above the object and control it to avoid being overwhelmed, among other reasons). The abstraction of introversion is rooted in the need to keep a relative control of what influences the person.


I think he was wrong about introverts being motivated by fear, he was mixing withdrawal, an aspect of neuroticism with introversion, they are not the same thing. He already admitted he erroneously mixed thinking with introversion and feeling with extroversion, I think if he was alive today he would probably agree with me and all of the personality research that's been done since 1961.
His type descriptions also conflate E with S and I with N at times. Introverts are not always withdrawn, they can be socially active and engaging, but the way they interact with the object is in a way that will not allow it to influence them in the same manner the E type allows - hence they need to exercise a certain control over it, avoidance is only one strategy.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top