Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
being shy has to do with fear, being introverted has to do with preference
Here's what I don't get: if the only difference between being shy and being introverted is fear vs preference, then why would someone PREFER what they FEAR? It makes no rational sense. A "shy extrovert" will either overcome their shyness, or become an introvert, surely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Here's what I don't get: if the only difference between being shy and being introverted is fear vs preference, then why would someone PREFER what they FEAR? It makes no rational sense. A "shy extrovert" will either overcome their shyness, or become an introvert, surely.
Because extroversion and introversion in MBTI sense are not choises. They are static cognitive processes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
You know what I don't get? People thinking that introverts are automatically shy, and extroverts are automatically outgoing. Are introverts more likely to be shy than extroverts? Of course. But does that mean introvert = shy, period? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idklol

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Because extroversion and introversion in MBTI sense are not choises. They are static cognitive processes.
Is "shyness" a choice? If anything, I believe people have more of a choice in their MBTI type than traits like shyness (which are typically seen as being negative or even a disorder in extreme cases). I understand the distinction between the definitions, but I can't work out how they can be unrelated. To me, it just doesn't make sense for someone to be shy and extroverted; or introverted and not shy. I'll try and relate from a different angle:

You say you're a "shy extrovert". Well, I could be a "non-shy introvert". By that, I mean that I'm usually comfortable revealing things about myself or interacting with people I know. I don't feel this need to censor myself or think too hard about what's appropriate to say - I just "do it". I'm not "afraid" of talking to people or social situations (I was EXTREMELY shy when I was younger perhaps, not so much now). But I've always been an introvert. However, more recently, I've been longing for more social interaction but I don't talk to people much or make attempts to meet people even though I'd like to do that, simply because I don't know where to start or how to go about it. Maybe that's a lack of information, or maybe lack of confidence.

Bottom line: when I was younger, I was more shy AND more private, introverted etc. Now I'm still introverted but no longer shy, but I desire more social interaction (which extroverts prefer). So the two seem to correlate, at least for me :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Here you go ...
I don't think there's any question that Entropic is one of the most reliably unreliable sources on Jung that we have here at PerC, and I suspect it's more likely you're a "confused introvert" than a "shy extravert."

Entropic posted that video just a couple weeks ago, passing along the same misinformation about Jung's view of E/I that I've corrected him about on at least one past occasion.

As the old saying goes, everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You can agree or disagree about whether Jung was right or wrong about X, Y or Z aspects of personality, but on some issues at least, the issue of what Jung thought (rightly or wrongly) is more of a factual matter. And there's no question that Jung thought that what you might call social introversion (including shyness) and what you might call cognitive introversion went hand in hand — because he thought that, as described below, both had the same underlying cause.

Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:

Jung said:
There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by a monopoly.
And the result of those evolutionary machinations was that, in Jung's words, introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

And for Jung, the psychodynamic mechanism behind introversion involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung explained) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."

So as Jung saw it, the cognitive turning-inward that "cognitive function" aficionados like to emphasize and the fearful/defensive attitude toward other people that Jung also viewed as part of introversion were both (and equally) second-order results of the introvert's projection of negative unconscious contents onto the people and things of the external world.

In the spoiler is a collection of quotes that should leave no doubt in anybody's mind that, as far as Jung was concerned, whether someone's an extravert or an introvert has quite a lot to do with whether they'll tend to be "shy" or "outgoing."

 
Jung said:
[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.
Jung said:
[The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...

For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...

His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.
Jung said:
The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...

The [introvert's] sudden explosions [of emotion], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. Moreover the occasional outbursts of affect play havoc with their relations to others, and, because of their embarrassment and helplessness, they feel incapable of retrieving the situation. This awkwardness in adapting leads to all sorts of unfortunate experiences which inevitably produce a feeling of inferiority or bitterness, and even of hatred that is readily directed at those who were the actual or supposed authors of their misfortunes. ... They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them. This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.
Jung said:
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...

The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...

The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.
Myers and Briggs, in turning Jung's theory into the MBTI typology, viewed E/I as multifaceted (as Jung had), including various elements normally associated with shyness and sociability. In Gifts Differing, Myers noted that introverts tend to be "subtle and inpenetrable, often taciturn and shy." She also said (again echoing Jung): "Intense and passionate, they bottle up their emotions and guard them carefully as high explosives."

The MBTI Manual is full of charts showing the results of various studies that have been done over the years that have found statistically significant correlations between the MBTI dimensions and other personality measurements. MBTI extraversion correlates positively with traits like "affiliation," "sociability," "social presence," "exhibition," "gregariousness," "expressed affection" and "talkativeness," while MBTI introversion correlates positively with traits like "controlled," "social introversion," "reserved," "shy," "defendance" and "infavoidance" (avoidance of embarrassment).

Whether you're looking at MBTI sources that focus primarily on the four dichotomies (and combinations thereof) or MBTI sources more focused on the "cognitive functions," the E/I descriptions generally include some elements of shyness and sociability in the mix (along with other characteristics). Keirsey's type test includes questions like, "Do you think of yourself as (a) an outgoing person or (b) a private person?", "At work do you tend to (a) be sociable with your colleagues or (b) keep more to yourself?", and "Are you inclined to be (a) easy to approach or (b) somewhat reserved?" And Lenore Thomson characterizes extraverts as "outgoing," and introverts as "reserved" and "private."

It's important to keep in mind, though, that when most people think of a "shy" person, I'd say they're substantially more likely to be thinking of somebody in a relatively small minority consisting of the shyest 20% (or 10% or something) of the population, whereas introverts, as measured by the MBTI, make up around half the population, and it's generally thought — consistent with both Jung's and Myers' perspectives — that they include a relatively wide range of preference strengths, from mild introverts to strong introverts. (Jung, for what it's worth, thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.)

So... depending on where somebody wants to draw the line in terms of who's a "shy" person, it could easily be the case that they wouldn't consider the majority of introverts "shy" — but that's not to say that most shy people probably aren't introverts, or that mild introverts aren't significantly more likely to be mildly shy/reserved/private than their mildly extraverted counterparts.

Another complicating factor when it comes to sociability is that both E/I and T/F have a significant impact, on average and all other things being equal, on somebody's propensity to engage in social activity, with EFs being the most social, ITs the least, and ETs and IFs in between. (And as long as I'm rambling, I'd say male/female and S/N can also, each in its own way, have some influence on someone's social propensities, with the result that I'd be inclined to peg female ESFs as the likeliest social butterflies and male INTs — like me — as the likeliest MBTI candidates for hermithood.)

As a final note, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I consider myself Limbic, and I'd say the self-consciousness and anxiety-proneness that come with that make me more "shy" than I would be if I was the same degree of introverted but below-average in neuroticism.
 

·
Sunset Stripper
Joined
·
9,836 Posts
Here's what I don't get: if the only difference between being shy and being introverted is fear vs preference, then why would someone PREFER what they FEAR? It makes no rational sense. A "shy extrovert" will either overcome their shyness, or become an introvert, surely.
For me, if I am a shy extrovert, not sure but how I think of it is, perhaps wanting to be apart of a big group or be the center of attention but being to afraid of seeming like an idiot. The shyness holds you back from achieving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Is "shyness" a choice? If anything, I believe people have more of a choice in their MBTI type than traits like shyness (which are typically seen as being negative or even a disorder in extreme cases). I understand the distinction between the definitions, but I can't work out how they can be unrelated. To me, it just doesn't make sense for someone to be shy and extroverted; or introverted and not shy. I'll try and relate from a different angle:

You say you're a "shy extrovert". Well, I could be a "non-shy introvert". By that, I mean that I'm usually comfortable revealing things about myself or interacting with people I know. I don't feel this need to censor myself or think too hard about what's appropriate to say - I just "do it". I'm not "afraid" of talking to people or social situations (I was EXTREMELY shy when I was younger perhaps, not so much now). But I've always been an introvert. However, more recently, I've been longing for more social interaction but I don't talk to people much or make attempts to meet people even though I'd like to do that, simply because I don't know where to start or how to go about it. Maybe that's a lack of information, or maybe lack of confidence.

Bottom line: when I was younger, I was more shy AND more private, introverted etc. Now I'm still introverted but no longer shy, but I desire more social interaction (which extroverts prefer). So the two seem to correlate, at least for me :)
i think you have a point here, but i think the whole shy extrovert thing is more of a feelery thing because it's mostly caused from underlying insecurity. not saying thinkers can't be insecure because that would be typist of me, but i'm saying it's natural that a feeler would be more likely to take criticism personally or have a fear of rejection, which would cause them to shut themselves out from actually being their normal self, sometimes without even realizing it but just chilling in their own private hell. an introvert probably wouldn't mind that as much, from what i'd assume (not to be typist.)
 

·
Queen of Hearts
Joined
·
17,939 Posts
Shy extrovert here :)
It makes a lot of sense. My whole life I've spent looking at groups of people going, "I really really want to talk to those people" but I was always terrified they wouldn't like me, they didn't want me talking to them, they'd humiliate me . . . I don't seem 'shy' with my friends but there's always a niggling fear in the back of my mind that these people don't want me around, that they're all secretly wondering when I'll go away, that the whole world is a giant Truman project and everyone is conspiring to pretend to accept me despite my true annoying awfulness))
Ok, I exaggerate)) But that's the thing that makes me shy) That, and the fear of saying the wrong thing. And honestly, it's probably caused by my extroverted feeling function. I am very sensitive to criticism and rejection, and the moments when I felt like I was being pushed away from people stayed with me for a long time. That, and I'm observant, I see other people make fools out of themselves, I think I must do whatever it takes to stop that from happening to me, naturally I end up receding. I'm super-attuned to the social tensions, etc. in a room and that sorta paralyses me.
Another problem is not knowing where I stand with someone. Like, ok, my friends are obviously my peers and I can talk casually to them, my parent's friends are obviously my elders and I should speak respectfully, with more distance, to them . . . what about people five, ten years older than me? And so on. I'm fine when I know where I stand, but if not I become shy and awkward.
I'm probably atypical but I still think like an extrovert and behave like an extrovert in situations where I'm comfortable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,554 Posts
Introversion picks a single element while extroversion is aware of the whole. Introversion has a narrower focus while extroversion a broader focus.

People that don't know about MBTI laugh at me when I tell them I'm an introvert. I'm a smooth talker, self assured, resilient. I see social dealings as purely utilitarian for the most part though, the emphasis isn't the same as an extroverted feeler. It is like a role play, a game, and I wouldn't mind "loosing", because my core is at a safe distance, hidden from sight.
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
@reckful
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...
How does being like this prevent shyness?Some parts of it could actually cause it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
Oxymoron much?
I might be stupid, but I don't see the oxymoron. Shy extroverts exist, as I have bothered earlier and extroverts can be sensitive and withdrawn as children. What's more, a lot of people argue that extroversion in MBTI is merely meant to reveal the direction of the first function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful

How does being like this prevent shyness?Some parts of it could actually cause it.
If you say so. Jung, as you know if you read all those quotes, certainly associated shyness with introverts, and I wouldn't say the passage you've quoted has much of what I'd consider a "shy" flavor.

The extravert in that passage is all about quantity over quality in the "cultivation of friends and acquaintances" department, and has "a strong tendency to make a show of himself."
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
If you say so. Jung, as you know if you read all those quotes, certainly associated shyness with introverts, and I wouldn't say the passage you've quoted has much of what I'd consider a "shy" flavor.

The extravert in that passage is all about quantity over quality in the "cultivation of friends and acquaintances" department, and has "a strong tendency to make a show of himself."
What I think is that Jung spoke of EXTREME introverts and extraverts to prove a point,his extravert has no introverted functions and his introvert no extraverted which is not possible in reality.

And I don't think you get shyness at all,at least not shyness everyone else is talking about here.Yes,that passage does not have a "shy" flavor but that does not mean a person that passage describes can't also be shy.The fact someone cares about image,wants attention and wants many friends does not mean they are not shy at the same time.For me,a shy person is someone who wants those things but has something blocking them from getting as much as they wish to have and they suffer because of it.If they don't suffer because of it and don't try to get it in some way then that person isn't the kind of shy we are talking about here.
 

·
Charge'n Thru The Night
Joined
·
14,882 Posts
INTROVERTS DOESN'T NOT MEAN YOU ARE SHY. WE ARE ALL SHY ABOUT SOMETHINGS, REGARDLESS OF BEING INTROVERTED OR NOT. :D!

Extroverts can ignore their Introvert functions for sometime, where as Introvert has no choice of to express their extravated functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
Shy extrovert here :)
It makes a lot of sense. My whole life I've spent looking at groups of people going, "I really really want to talk to those people" but I was always terrified they wouldn't like me, they didn't want me talking to them, they'd humiliate me . . . I don't seem 'shy' with my friends but there's always a niggling fear in the back of my mind that these people don't want me around, that they're all secretly wondering when I'll go away, that the whole world is a giant Truman project and everyone is conspiring to pretend to accept me despite my true annoying awfulness))
Ok, I exaggerate)) But that's the thing that makes me shy) That, and the fear of saying the wrong thing. And honestly, it's probably caused by my extroverted feeling function. I am very sensitive to criticism and rejection, and the moments when I felt like I was being pushed away from people stayed with me for a long time. That, and I'm observant, I see other people make fools out of themselves, I think I must do whatever it takes to stop that from happening to me, naturally I end up receding. I'm super-attuned to the social tensions, etc. in a room and that sorta paralyses me.
Another problem is not knowing where I stand with someone. Like, ok, my friends are obviously my peers and I can talk casually to them, my parent's friends are obviously my elders and I should speak respectfully, with more distance, to them . . . what about people five, ten years older than me? And so on. I'm fine when I know where I stand, but if not I become shy and awkward.
I'm probably atypical but I still think like an extrovert and behave like an extrovert in situations where I'm comfortable.
Finally some peer support!

I can relate, especially the last sentence you wrote is so true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dangerose

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
I suspect it's more likely you're a "confused introvert" than a "shy extravert."
Ok let's say this is true. It would make me a Ni dom since I use functions Fe, Ni, Se, Ti and I'm a feeler. However, I don't abstract enough to be an INFJ. Also, I'm way too emotional to be one. How does this work with your logic? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
OH
SNAP

You have just earned my respect for life.
I've learned at a very young age that the only way to survive an argument with ENTJ is to counter with well-refined sass. My older brother is one of you guys so I've had a lot of practice ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: lackofmops
21 - 40 of 67 Posts
Top