# Which types are the most outgoing and which types are the most reserved



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Which Personality Types are the Most Talkative? - Personality Junkie


----------



## Ummon (Jun 16, 2014)

From personal experience…

Talkative:
EXXJ, ENFP

Less talkative:
ISXJ, XSTP

You wouldn't expect them to be talkative, but then you bring up something they feel strongly about and it's like WHOA:
INFP, INFJ, INTJ, XNTP

Not sure about XSFPs since I don't know any


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

uncertain said:


> Which Personality Types are the Most Talkative? - Personality Junkie


Ha! You beat me to it! I'm glad I decided to read through the whole thread first. ;-)

But yea, if you are talking about talkativeness, I think this link is very accurate. If you are talking about being reserved, i.e. expressiveness, then I would personally put INTP at the bottom, and maybe with INTJ. But both can be quite expressive when on a roll. ISFPs can be quite expressive--just don't expect a lot of words or rational speech when it happens...


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

ENTJ are the least extroverted of all the extroverts so in terms of small talk etc... they are the least talkative.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

INTJ's don't talk, we read minds and body language and then vaporize others with our ''stare of death'' patent pending


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

Termus123 said:


> ENTJ are the least extroverted of all the extroverts so in terms of small talk etc... they are the least talkative.


Everyone is different, but I think ENTJs talk a lot. They easily monopolize conversations (it's their nature) especially if it's something they are passionate about or have vast knowledge. They seem to have great concentration and focus so when they are in the zone they can be quiet and don't appreciate being interrupted. They usually talk for a purpose, they will do idle chit chat if bored or have an audience.

I'll make another list, this is based on real life scenarios, not on a forum or by the people I have observed on here)

For NTs from most outgoing to least (IMHO)
-ENTP
-ENTJ
-INTP (social if pushed...very, sort of remind me of INFPs but are more logic based vs feelings)
-INTJ (Like royalty, I don't talk to them unless they talk to me first ha!)

NFs
-ENFP (on the forums I see lots of "shy" ENFPs, but the ones I know irl, have millions of friends and people who want to be their friends. Great charisma! Can usually fit in with any group just fine)
-ENFJ (this was hard because they can be quite the social butterflies, but I think they may be more selective in their circle of friends than ENFPs and yes they are talkative but are very talented listeners  Their charisma is off the charts as well )
-INFP (I can be surprisingly social and talk someone's ear off. I think some INFPs may get social anxiety or be a bit too self-conscious. Once they get over that, you may be surprised. INFPs are full of surprises , oh and *it heavily depends on the mood they are in*)
-INFJ (Varies, and I don't know many irl, my mother is either an INFJ or INTJ, I think they are pretty similar demeanor-wise. I think they are great listeners and don't babble from one topic to the next, their thoughts/words seem more linear than spacey compared to INFPs or ENFPs)

SPs
1. ESFP (they get the party started)
2. ESTP 
3. ISFP 
4. ISTP (heh, if they even talk to you for leisure consider it an honor)

SJs - 
1. ESFJs (masters of small talk and social graces)
2. ESTJ 
3. ISFJ 
4. ISTJ (These guys are tough to rank, because although they may be quiet, they usually have a large number of acquaintances and can party pretty hard . I think they are highly misunderstood and thrown into the boring accountant category. This is unfair because they have great senses of humor and make great friends, travel buddies, companions, etc. Just like INTJs they do not get a fair shake because they may put a wall up. Also, hands down the most LOYAL friend you will ever have, sure they may judge you, but once you are in...friends for life)

In certain circumstances INTPs and ENTJs can be switched, same goes for ISFJs and ISTJs. Also, enneagram types matter. Type 1s and 5s are not the biggest talkers. 9s can be serene and laid back, 4s are picky, 6s may be a bit mistrusting at first and fickle.

Most social of the enneagram generally speaking (varies with wing, instinctual subtypes, and MBTI type)
7s
3s
2s
6s
8s
9s
4s
1s
5s

Now I'm curious to know what the 514 tritype is like


----------



## TootsieBear267 (May 30, 2014)

@MelanieM and @Termus123 

I'm usually very outgoing and get energized by just being around people. But I can see where he's coming from. I'm more of doing things with my hands. Rather then chit-chatting with people. I can easily lose myself in my head. When socializing I'm upfront and quick to get to the point. This doesn't mean I don't like to talk with people. It's just I never understood how people can gossip about the same things for hours on end. You have to make it new and exciting.


----------



## QuintessentiallyBritish (Jul 2, 2014)

ENFJ would probably be above ENTJ in nearly all social situations, except for when the ENTJ is leading something, in which case they would probably be the most outspoken of all the types other than maybe the ESFP


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

I'd speculate that introverted perceivers are among the least talkative due to dominant introverted functions and auxiliary perceiving functions. IxTP especially due to an inferior ability to judge, socially. I'd be inclined to place them both at the bottom. Likely tied with maybe with ISTP being very slightly above INTP due to having more socially accessible hobbies, more generally not being drawn to theory of the strictly abstract variety.

I'm tempted to recreate this list...


----------



## michaelthemessiah (Jun 28, 2014)

-Alpha- said:


> I'd speculate that introverted perceivers are among the least talkative due to dominant introverted functions and auxiliary perceiving functions. IxTP especially due to an inferior ability to judge, socially. I'd be inclined to place them both at the bottom. Likely tied with maybe with ISTP being very slightly above INTP due to having more socially accessible hobbies, more generally not being drawn to theory of the strictly abstract variety.
> 
> I'm tempted to recreate this list...


I'd agree but man when they do speak they sure pull you in lmao nothing is more tantalizing than those dang INT's hahah


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> I'd speculate that introverted perceivers are among the least talkative due to dominant introverted functions and auxiliary perceiving functions. IxTP especially due to an inferior ability to judge, socially. I'd be inclined to place them both at the bottom. Likely tied with maybe with ISTP being very slightly above INTP due to having more socially accessible hobbies, more generally not being drawn to theory of the strictly abstract variety.
> 
> I'm tempted to recreate this list...


Introverted thinking is more verbal than introverted feeling. Trust me... my wife is an INTP, and can be quite the chatterbox. I'm almost _never_ a chatterbox... And even when I talk, I tend to say it in fewer words, and frequently, with sound affects instead of words. ;-) In fact, my ISTP friend could also be quite talkative when he had a mind--and was quite crazy in coming up with ideas for things to do, and could be quite precise and capable in getting his point across--oh, and his brutal, cutting ways of insulting people... nasty if he wanted to be.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> *I'd speculate that introverted perceivers are among the least talkative* due to dominant introverted functions and auxiliary perceiving functions. IxTP especially due to an inferior ability to judge, socially. I'd be inclined to place them both at the bottom. Likely tied with maybe with ISTP being very slightly above INTP due to having more socially accessible hobbies, more generally not being drawn to theory of the strictly abstract variety.
> 
> I'm tempted to recreate this list...


It think it would be best to start with ranking the functions according to verbal acuity, and work out the types from there. So, that begs the question, which functions are more and less verbal? 

According to this post: Which Personality Types are the Most Talkative? - Personality Junkie

there are obvious differences between types--Ns more verbal than S types, Judgers more than perceivers (which goes with the bold above, but I think he's got some things wrong--I don't personally believe that Ni is a very verbal function, while Ne seems to be prone to... um, I'll be nice--verbosity. I think there's also something to be said for a function's place in the stack. For instance, ESFPs are very talkative, while ISFPs are the opposite. Why? I don't really know, maybe it's because their Te is higher in the stack, or maybe because Se in a dominant spot can be quite verbal--but I know for myself, I find Se to be a great hindrance to my expressing myself in words. 

So, based on my own experience, I would guess something along these lines, from most to least verbal:

Fe and Te
Ne and Se
Si and Ti
Ni and Fi

Part of my basis for putting Ni at the bottom with Fi is because of my INFJ daughter, and INTJ friend. What is weird is that both of them can wax eloquent, and talk your head off if they want, but they seldom want, and when they do, it is with their auxiliary function, of course, but it seems that both of them require time to work things through. I read somewhere that Ni is an ineffable function because it is from introverted intuition that words are thought up, i.e. words are the result of the process of Ni, not the vehicle or means. IMO, Fi is very similar. I don't "feel" in words. I have to dig deep to be able to express what I feel in words, and they never, ever ever match what I am actually feeling. It is always a grim imitation (or, to quote Bugs Bunny--unreasonable facsimile thereof) of what I feel or think. So, that's why I put these two at the bottom.

Above them are both Si and Ni. I think Si can be quite capable of describing in words, but it feels weird to put it above Se, plus, like I said, it seems that Se in a dominant role can be quite facile. And Ti goes with it, because of how my wife tends to not be very talkative. However, when she is, she can be quite the chatterbox, also, Ti is a very precise function. It tends to try to say the most with the fewest words, so let it rule, and you have a non-talker--but add it to Ne, and Whoa Nelly! ;-)

I think the top four functions sort of explain themselves, eh? I would guess, though, that Ne is more verbal than Se, because it's the "thinking out loud" function. It likes to express itself verbally, just because, not to go anywhere, but to explore. Se tends to be less verbal, because it wants to explore things physically, not verbally. Also, I suspect that Fe is more verbal than Te, but that's just based on the few EXFJs I know. (sorry!) One difference I think, is that Te-doms seem to like to listen to themselves pontificate, so let them get going on a subject they love, and they'll blather without stopping--and ignoring interruptions, even. Fe is probably more-so, but it doesn't seem to need a specialty like Te seems to need. But again, these are just my impressions...


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

> On average, Intuitives tend to talk more than Sensing types because Ni and Ne are “verbal” functions. Intuitives have a penchant for language and communicating ideas. One can readily witness this difference in talkativeness, for instance, between ESPs and ENPs. ESPs, whose dominant function is Extraverted Sensing (Se), tend to be more interested in finding novel sensory stimulation or engaging in physical action. While ESPs can certainly be articulate, they are typically less chatty or verbally explorative than ENPs. ENPs explore ideas aloud and can have difficulty remaining quiet for very long.


What? Who says? It also contradicts itself later in saying that:



> The left brain is associated with language and verbal forms of communication. The right brain is more body-based and uses non-verbal types of communication.


Assuming we're using Lenore Thomson's material, which identifies Ni as a left brained function and Ne Se as right brained functions.



ferroequinologist said:


> It think it would be best to start with ranking the functions according to verbal acuity, and work out the types from there. So, that begs the question, which functions are more and less verbal?
> 
> 
> there are obvious differences between types--Ns more verbal than S types, Judgers more than perceivers (which goes with the bold above, but I think he's got some things wrong--I don't personally believe that Ni is a very verbal function, while Ne seems to be prone to... um, I'll be nice--verbosity. I think there's also something to be said for a function's place in the stack. For instance, ESFPs are very talkative, while ISFPs are the opposite. Why? I don't really know, maybe it's because their Te is higher in the stack, or maybe because Se in a dominant spot can be quite verbal--but I know for myself, I find Se to be a great hindrance to my expressing myself in words.
> ...


Why is Si above Fi? Perception above judgment? It like... Looks at things...



> Part of my basis for putting Ni at the bottom with Fi is because of my INFJ daughter, and INTJ friend. What is weird is that both of them can wax eloquent, and talk your head off if they want, but they seldom want, and when they do, it is with their auxiliary function, of course, but it seems that both of them require time to work things through. I read somewhere that Ni is an ineffable function because it is from introverted intuition that words are thought up, i.e. words are the result of the process of Ni, not the vehicle or means. IMO, Fi is very similar. I don't "feel" in words. I have to dig deep to be able to express what I feel in words, and they never, ever ever match what I am actually feeling. It is always a grim imitation (or, to quote Bugs Bunny--unreasonable facsimile thereof) of what I feel or think. So, that's why I put these two at the bottom.


There are two issues with this, to me. One is that your sample size is based on two people. The other is that it's comparison with Fi is basically arbitrary based on your own personal experience. At minimum mine was labeled as speculation based on knowledge of cognitive functions, not to set up an entire model to use as a basis for judgment of the "Talkativeness" of the functions.



> Above them are both Si and Ni. I think Si can be quite capable of describing in words, but it feels weird to put it above Se, plus, like I said, it seems that Se in a dominant role can be quite facile. And Ti goes with it, because of how my wife tends to not be very talkative. However, when she is, she can be quite the chatterbox, also, Ti is a very precise function. It tends to try to say the most with the fewest words, so let it rule, and you have a non-talker--but add it to Ne, and Whoa Nelly! ;-)


Why is Si above Ni? They're both introverted perception that operate similar. How is Si more talkative than Ni?



> I think the top four functions sort of explain themselves, eh? I would guess, though, that Ne is more verbal than Se, because it's the "thinking out loud" function. It likes to express itself verbally, just because, not to go anywhere, but to explore. Se tends to be less verbal, because it wants to explore things physically, not verbally. Also, I suspect that Fe is more verbal than Te, but that's just based on the few EXFJs I know. (sorry!) One difference I think, is that Te-doms seem to like to listen to themselves pontificate, so let them get going on a subject they love, and they'll blather without stopping--and ignoring interruptions, even. Fe is probably more-so, but it doesn't seem to need a specialty like Te seems to need. But again, these are just my impressions...


I agree with some points, though I'm not prepared to use this as a basis for my understanding of the amount of talkativeness of each function. Too raw with too many unrefined points and too much subjective experience.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Shamy said:


> *Context, people, context. *
> As much as I love me a good "match a cognitive function with a salad topping" thread, in this case you have to take into account the kind of situation you're referring to. Is it small talk with strangers? Or general argumentativeness?
> 
> ESFPs and ESFJs certainly rule the small talk hierarchy but then you have ENTPs rambling for hours about their latest ideas, trying to get you on board and Sheldon-like ISTJs who will interrogate a waiter for 10 minutes about the contents of their dishes while giving highly specific directions (speaking from personal experience here). ESTXs generally prefer to socialize through actions over chatter so I'd place IXFJs higher than them if it all boils down to social courtesies and chit-chatting with new people.
> ...


People don't read. This thread should have ended here. All types are talkative/laconic, depending on context.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> Assuming we're using Lenore Thomson's material, which identifies Ni as a left brained function and Ne Se as right brained functions.


I wouldn't assume that. I haven't read her book, so I don't really know what it says...

Why is Si above Fi? Perception above judgment? It like... Looks at things...
[/quote]

I put Si above Fi simply because Si is concrete. It deals in a subjective look, but at a concrete world. It's already taken in concrete details, so it would be less verbal than Se, but more than Fi and Ni. Si is concrete--more easily expressed in words. Ni is abstract--less easily expressed in words. 



> There are two issues with this, to me. One is that your sample size is based on two people. The other is that it's comparison with Fi is basically arbitrary based on your own personal experience. At minimum mine was labeled as speculation based on knowledge of cognitive functions, not to set up an entire model to use as a basis for judgment of the "Talkativeness" of the functions.


Sample size? You talk about sample size? I'm just sharing anecdotal experience--I'd never dignify it with a term like sample size.  Don't read too much into what I say... I'm not that scientific. I'm just going by my gut here... ;-) But since you want to be precise, you will notice I said "part" of my thinking was those two people....  



> Why is Si above Ni? They're both introverted perception that operate similar. How is Si more talkative than Ni?


I sort of covered this, but Si is concrete, Ni is abstract. While both are introverted, Ni being the less concrete of the two would naturally be less capable or expressing itself in words. Like I think I said, Ni seems more ineffable. I forget where I read that, but the idea was that Ni distrusts symbols, Ni isn't about thinking outside the box, but deconstructing it. It is, in a manner of speaking, the source of language or words, so its processes must of necessity exist outside of language, hence, be much less verbal as a function. Its results are words, but those would be expressed with an extroverted judging function. And that's when I mentioned my two INXJs as my example. For me, Ni is the sort of function that is my mystery function. I have to let it operate in the background, and let it do its magic without concentrating on it. If I concentrate on it, weird and terrible things happen. I need to let it serve me in the background... So my understanding of how it functions is of necessity a bit shrouded in mystery. ;-)



> I agree with some points, though I'm not prepared to use this as a basis for my understanding of the amount of talkativeness of each function. Too raw with too many unrefined points and too much subjective experience.


Think of it as brain food--something to start chewing with... I'm pretty sure in my own mind about this stack, but I'm not set on it. I'd be very happy to see a good explanation that works, and if it does, I'd happily toss my thoughts into the bin.


----------



## CrystalHaji (Jul 6, 2014)

I feel like INTJ are talkactive if you were having a debate or interesting discussion


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I wouldn't assume that. I haven't read her book, so I don't really know what it says...


But you're using material that refers to it. I'm questioning the material as it contradicts itself in claiming Ne and Se as 'loud' functions, then associating the opposite side of the brain with verbal communication. This is less a questioning of you, personally and more a questioning of the article.




> I put Si above Fi simply because Si is concrete. It deals in a subjective look, but at a concrete world. It's already taken in concrete details, so it would be less verbal than Se, but more than Fi and Ni. Si is concrete--more easily expressed in words. Ni is abstract--less easily expressed in words.


We identify Fi as rational function. It's the basis for which we form our decisions. If something conflicts with our feelings, we shy away from it. It's a judgment function and, I would say since we can definitely see its influence in behavior, it's most definitely 'louder'. Were I to hurt your feelings, I'd likely hear it in the content of your voice. I'd hear it and see definite evidence of its existence.





> Sample size? You talk about sample size? I'm just sharing anecdotal experience--I'd never dignify it with a term like sample size.  Don't read too much into what I say... I'm not that scientific. I'm just going by my gut here... ;-) But since you want to be precise, you will notice I said "part" of my thinking was those two people....


Cool. I'm expressing, in response my questioning of said experience for scientific validity so that we might form a basis to judge the 'talkativeness' of each of the cognitive functions and apply them across the types.





> I sort of covered this, but Si is concrete, Ni is abstract. While both are introverted, Ni being the less concrete of the two would naturally be less capable or expressing itself in words. Like I think I said, Ni seems more ineffable. I forget where I read that, but the idea was that Ni distrusts symbols, Ni isn't about thinking outside the box, but deconstructing it. It is, in a manner of speaking, the source of language or words, so its processes must of necessity exist outside of language, hence, be much less verbal as a function. Its results are words, but those would be expressed with an extroverted judging function. And that's when I mentioned my two INXJs as my example. For me, Ni is the sort of function that is my mystery function. I have to let it operate in the background, and let it do its magic without concentrating on it. If I concentrate on it, weird and terrible things happen. I need to let it serve me in the background... So my understanding of how it functions is of necessity a bit shrouded in mystery. ;-)


It's only really 'concrete' in the sense that it gathers physical information in order to form an abstract impression on the individual. I would also speculate that most Si users in the world wouldn't be able to explain their Si experience outside of "well, I just do it, I guess". Also, I think that, being introverted perception, everything you've said in the above can be attributed to Si equally. I would agree that it's about deconstructing the box, however, on a personal note.




> Think of it as brain food--something to start chewing with... I'm pretty sure in my own mind about this stack, but I'm not set on it. I'd be very happy to see a good explanation that works, and if it does, I'd happily toss my thoughts into the bin.


That's sort of my basis for questioning it in the first place. It seems as though you're sort of onto something, kinda, but the idea is extremely rough and needs refinement. I like the idea of organizing the functions in a cohesive system, but there's still too much 'rawness'.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

This is how I think I might organize the scale of talkativeness, not that I have extensive experience with clearly typed people of all 16 types. I've added comments about my general and limited observations.
*Most Talkative*
*ESFJ* (takes interest in people, facilitates social activities, checks in on everyone, may go into teacher mode)
*ENFJ* (insightful, versatile, warm conversationalists and social orchestrators, but can sometimes be overbearing or dramatic)
*ESFP* (thrives off interaction, but may get bored of long focused/structured/'in depth' conversation and go seek more exciting activity)
*ENTP* (loves bouncing ideas & witty comments around with people, can go on indefinitely when 'debating', but avoids mundane topics)
*ENFP* (like ENTP, enjoys bouncing ideas or jokes around between people, but may avoid mundane topics, or space out sometimes)
*ESTJ* (enjoys conversation, but it has a time and place, they aren't into wasting time on pointless rambles that aren't going anywhere)
*ISFJ* (more of a listener and facilitator, but still similar to ESFJs in taking interest in sharing conversation)
*ENTJ* (don't beat around the bush or waste time on inane chatter, but will engage in topics of importance)
*ESTP* (let's stop standing around chatting and _Do_ something already!)
*INFJ* (can do teacher or 'gushing' mode, but mostly listens/asks & analyzes, then sums up conversation with a poignant point)
*INTP* (loves theoretical rambling, but doesn't bother because most people aren't interested)
*INFP* (enjoys sharing ideas and empathizing with others, might talk more if they didn't tend to just not be noticed when they try, or if they were less worried about interrupting)
*ISTJ* (doesn't let conversation get in the way of what needs to get done, but can enjoy talking while doing something)
*INTJ* (likes _worthwhile/interesting_ to them lengthy discussions, unfortunately most people do not engage in such, otherwise they might talk more)
*ISTP* (can look like INTP in conversation, but may not take time for it, gets bored of irrelevant conversations quickly)
*ISFP* (more interested in shared experience than just talking about stuff, you don't need words when you're right there, speaks through art)
*Least Talkative*

Generally Es would probably be more outgoing/talkative because they're more focused on engaging the outside world, however I'm sure there are some Es who like the external stimulation, just not so much in the form of people/socializing. Introverts may not engage everyone in conversation, or may engage in fewer conversations overall, but their love of depth may cause them to have more lengthy conversations about topics of interest resulting in actually spending more time in conversation than an Extrovert who engages in many brief conversations. Thus there can certainly be some exceptions where a particular Extrovert may be less talkative than a particular Introvert. I think to some degree _perception_ of how much people talk depends on the context and what kind of conversations we're talking about. For example, introverts may not be outgoing in the sense of greeting everyone they pass, but when you get a couple of Is together they may very well talk A LOT if they can find a subject of mutual interest.

one theory I have regarding this topic is that Se tends to make people more action oriented than conversation oriented, thus particularly Se auxiliary users may not talk much at all being inwardly focused to begin with, while Se dominants may give the impression of being talkative but if you pay attention it may be more a case of facilitating activities with others but not actually a lot of substantial conversation. In addition the flipside of Se is Ni, and I've often heard Ni dom people say they have difficulty getting their thoughts into words in order to communicate, it's too abstract or complex and thus difficult to find truly accurate and clear wording. This would lead to the conclusion that Se/Ni folks may be slightly less talkative than the Si/Ne crowd. Of course this theory is based on a small sampling along with theoretical speculation. 

more of my mini-theories are that TJs tend to save their words a bit, are more concise and may blab less, while TPs tend to ramble (also seen in how they write). EFs tend to be more chatty and focused on the aspect of connection, while Ts tend to be more to purposeful in conversation and focused more on the _subject matter_. And Fs in general may engage in conversation for longer periods of time because they don't want to seem rude by ending it, so they will listen and keep responding positively past the point where they'd prefer to end the conversation, whereas a T is more likely to be blunt about it or take action to end it and leave. IFs tend to have a less assertive presence and tend to find it more difficult to insert themselves into a conversation even when they do want to say something or be sociable, though those with Fe find it a little easier. ITs seem to care least about being sociable. 

A related topic is regardless of how much someone talks, how open or self-revealing are they vs. how closed or reserved are they? 
NJs strike me as less revealing (more secret/mysterious) even if they talk a lot, NPs strike me as paying less conscious attention to filtering themselves, SPs seem like they are likely to give the impression of being open and 'simple' while in fact their inner-self remains independent and largely unseen by others. SJs seem pretty straightforward, but still aware of appropriate boundaries.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Aelthwyn said:


> And Fs in general may engage in conversation for longer periods of time because they don't want to seem rude by ending it, so they will listen and keep responding positively past the point where they'd prefer to end the conversation
> 
> SPs seem like they are likely to give the impression of being open and 'simple' while in fact their inner-self remains independent and largely unseen by others. SJs seem pretty straightforward, but still aware of appropriate boundaries.


You have so nailed me on both of these counts. I will stay in a conversation, simply because I feel the other person wants to keep talking. It's been awkward for me in the past, because I hated to say I had to go, and, in the end, I am sure I exhausted the other person who also couldn't tell me or ask me to leave... I learned eventually how to extract myself from such situations, but it's never easy... As to the second point, I have "layers" that I reveal to people--layers that allow even near strangers to feel comfortable with me, like I'm being open and transparent, but that is only something I want them to see... Nothing I ever reveal is not true, but it's only an outer layer that allows people to think what they want to think about me--simple, etc.


----------



## TwistedMuses (May 20, 2013)

Fynest One said:


> _*ESFP's and ESFJ's are definitely the most outgoing. ENTPs should be up there too. INTJ's are more outgoing that INTPs. INFPS and INTPS seem to be the least outgoing from my experience with them. *_


We require a certain amount of stimulation. You should see me doing/talking most stupid stuff with ENTP SO. 
We're just really selective for whom to show our true colours, m8.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Aelthwyn

Some ENFPs are kind of like introverts.

^^ I read Divergent, Insurgent and Allegiant by Veronica Roth in about 3 days, where I Started reading on Friday after I got home from work, nonstop through Saturday and finished on Sunday afternoon (or was that before dusk? lost track of time) T_T reading the last chapters as the thunderstorm was rolling in...the mood was awesome...almost cried for about 40 minutes straight.

Reading is like being subjected to magic lol.

I was kinda devastated by the end but full of energy and pumped. I laughed that day and felt deep sadness for imaginary people.....so much better then getting bored at a party.


----------



## Fynest One (Jun 26, 2013)

TwistedMuses said:


> We require a certain amount of stimulation. You should see me doing/talking most stupid stuff with ENTP SO.
> We're just really selective for whom to show our true colours, m8.


_*
I completely agree with you. My mom is an INFP and I know her better than anyone else. We can talk for hours about everything from life to silly pointless stuff and even funny immature jokes. She is extremely quiet when talking to people she is not familiar with however. *_


----------



## yumchesspie (Jun 30, 2014)

Lol, TJs can ramble a lot of the topic is important to them. Usually when a criminal, for instance, writes a manifesto I guess that they're a TJ. 

I think extroverts in general are going to talk more for the sake of being social, but introverts and/or action oriented people can talk just as much if their goal calls for it.


----------



## Jerdle (Dec 30, 2015)

If you're saying talkative, then

ENTP
ESFJ
ENFP
ENFJ
ESFP
ESTJ
ESTP
ISFJ
ENTJ
INTP
INFJ
ISTP
ISFP
INFP
ISTJ
INTJ


For sociability:

ESFJ
ENFJ
ESFP
ESTP
ENFP
ENTP
ESTJ
ENTJ
ISFJ
INFJ
ISTP
INTP
ISFP
INFP
ISTJ
INTJ


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Why is ISTJ so high on the list? Almost every ISTJ I know is very private due to their nature, we like quiet and don't open up well.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

ENFJ
ESFJ
ESTJ
ESFP
ENFP
ENTP
ESTP
ENTJ
INFJ
ISFJ
INFP
INTJ
ISTP
INTP
ISTJ
ISFP

In my experience ENFJs talk ALOT usually. 
ISFPs are often very quiet from my experience.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Which types are the most outgoing


Extroverted types.



> which types are the most reserved


Introverted types.

If you want to know precisely which type it is then you will have to collect information of, let's say, 100 people from each type and rate them on a "outgoing/reserved" scale and then average out your results,
by the looks of the lists created so far it seems to be coming from past interactions with said type however may only show one side of said type i.e. the people who are said type could be giving you a misleading representation of the scale, so a more wider objective perspective would wield you more realistic results.


----------



## heymoon (Nov 26, 2016)

The funny thing is, I know some ISxJs that are outgoing and seem sociable, but others that are very reserved. It really just depends on the person themselves, and how they place on the "Introvert-Extrovert scale" imo, but otherwise, my experience is:

ENxJ
ESxP
ESxJ
ENxP
ISxJ
ISxP
INxJ
INxP

Talkative is a little different than sociable. I'm an ISFP and I can talk to someone forever if I know them well enough. I have an ISFP friend that's like that, too. We're capable of talking to each other for hours if we have the time.


----------



## security (Feb 22, 2017)

intj at the bottom of both. yup that's about right -_-


----------

