# Is it important for extroverts(E) to develop there introverted(I) side?



## Briguy (Nov 20, 2011)

As a college sophomore I was pondering this question today as I an ENTJ was feeling dull and tired after spending so much time alone. I live in a single room, mostly because my university puts honors students in single dorm rooms. I feel drained constantly because I have no one to talk to, spend time with, go out and play sports with etc... My freshman year I lived in the same complex and I was constantly hanging out with people. I spent some nights staying awake til 4 a.m talking to girls. In typical ENTJ fashion I obviously pissed off the F and S users in the dorm because most of these people do not seem open to me being around anymore, which is fine, it's their prerogative. My RA freshman year was a confirmed ESTJ, we got along all right, RA this year is an confirmed ISFP, not so much. So should extroverts develop their introverted side? How would one go about that? 
I know many proponents of the MBTI say you should develop your lower functions, but what about learning to use functions you may not have such as introverted thinking.
Any advice would be appreciated, I fell asleep at 5 p.m on Saturday because I had zero contact with anyone.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Well, if I were on your shoes, I would act. Make things happen your way.

You can't force yourself to become introverted. First of all, for extroverts, reaching the point of being fine when alone OR preferring being alone, means they reached a point where they appreciate and like themselves very much or/and in fact, they'd rather spent more time with themselves than with random idiots. Usually takes an older age than yours to reach the point of balancing the craving for social interaction with solitude quality time.
For me, default introverts are merely, either egotistic (I won't talk so I won't risk rejection, I may say something stupid or wrong or right but will be mocked....) or scared (I rather not say my opinion, it may cause controversy). Do you really want to be this?

You want social life? *Create it.* Improvise and re-create yourself (ofc just the parts needed to attract followers/buddies).
- Ignore the ones who are gone. Focus to future. Make new acquaintances.
- Join groups. Start from ones that will look cool in your resume too.
- Use the internet. Socialize by means of games & facebook.
- Join a cause. Something that makes you look "nice". (Also good for the resume.)
- Initiate contact. This should go without saying but apparently must be said. Smile and say "hi" to people at corridors. Blink to someone as greeting. Keep it short. Greet, then move away. This way you give time to the 'other' to consider your move without feeling obliged to hang out with you and without feeling pestered.
Next time, they will smile back too. Proceed with small steps and keep doing it.
- Make your room, "the place to be" if it is allowed and possible. CLEAN and with stuff to do (games, pc). Even if nobody comes, it makes you look better.
- Pretend you need someone's help in a class or project. Their egos is the fastest way to their hearts.
- Keep your social opinions for the web. Very few care for any opinion that contradicts theirs. Use fora for that.

Is hard work but effective. Once you get started, the rest follow easily.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

TheBoss said:


> For me, default introverts are merely, either egotistic (I won't talk so I won't risk rejection, I may say something stupid or wrong or right but will be mocked....) or scared (I rather not say my opinion, it may cause controversy). Do you really want to be this?


Not true. I will talk without fear with someone if I have something to say. Oftentimes there is very little I wish to say to a particular person. I do have social anxiety in interviews as I know they are expecting a more extroverted personality. Someone who really sells themselves. I know I can't provide that honestly. (I try anyway!) But not in a casual setting or a setting where I can talk about something that I am passionate about.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Elyasis said:


> Oftentimes there is very little I wish to say to a particular person.


Why?

Without reasoning actions are void. (<- this is just for those pesty 10 chars)


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

TheBoss said:


> Why?
> 
> Without reasoning actions are void. (<- this is just for those pesty 10 chars)


Because there isn't anything to say to that person. If there were, I would have no trouble saying it. Mostly it's lacking common ground or a similar interest. If I don't have anything in common with the person I don't talk to them unless it's required. Even then, it's short and to the point.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> Why?
> 
> Without reasoning actions are void. (<- this is just for those pesty 10 chars)


It may be impossible to justify anything.

See Agrippa's Trilemma, the Munchhausen Trilemma, extreme skepticism, Phyrronian skepticism.

See also, Existentialism, Nihilism, Pragmaticism/Pragmatism.

Also, there are problems with metaphysical objectivity versus subjectivity, as well as issues within epistemology with a posteriori versus a priori truth.

Also, David Hume's 'Is-Ought Gap'. Not to mention the entire Western history of doubt surrounding Descarte's Daemon, Hume's Fork, Kant's concept of 'the thing in itself'...

*TL;DR* It's complicated. If you don't simply accept the values of society, and you actually research these things from a purely intellectual perspective, you will find that 'reasons' are not really needed as justifications for behavior unless some human being has required you to invent one, and you care enough to do so.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> *TL;DR* It's complicated. If you don't simply accept the values of society, and you actually research these things from a purely intellectual perspective, *you will find that 'reasons' are not really needed as justifications for behavior unless some human being has required you to invent one, and you care enough to do so.*


Aren't actions reasons themselves? We produce reason for what is already there, justifications, lies and meaning.


X happened because of reason X. X=X, what is a factor of X, is X. Therefore, the whole world is X.
The reason X happened is because of X!

We, X. Exist!

Infinite butterfly effect fueled by a source of energy.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sly said:


> Aren't actions reasons themselves? We produce reason for what is already there, justifications, lies and meaning.
> 
> 
> X happened because of reason X. X=X, what is a factor of X, is X. Therefore, the whole world is X.
> ...


I have no idea what you just said.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> I have no idea what you just said.


 Spilled the guts of my thoughts. While reading your sentence, I was wondering what the relationship is between cause and effect, and how various external sources of energy are able to maintain a consistent effect on the cause, with an effort to relate it to the reason we exist. Instead of interpreting what you said on a 'social' level, I decided to give it a try on its very fundamentals.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sly said:


> Spilled the guts of my thoughts. While reading your sentence, I was wondering what the relationship is between cause and effect, and how various external sources of energy are able to maintain a consistent effect on the cause, with an effort to relate it to the reason we exist. Instead of interpreting what you said on a 'social' level, I decided to give it a try on its very fundamentals.


Ah. A difference of language then, we just use a different vocabulary but think in similar ways.

What I have come to understand (that is to say, what makes the most sense to me out of all the information I have been exposed to and recall in my life), is that there are basically two kinds of fundamental properties to reality. Metaphysical objectivity, and metaphysical subjectivity. Things that are said to be metaphysically objective are things (things can also mean ideas in this context) that would continue to exist without observation. Things like math, logic, light, the sun, heat, gravity, the fact that we live in three-dimensions, death, and taxes. Things that are metaphysically subjective are said to exist only when observed and _cannot exist when not observed_. Things like the flavor of ice cream, concepts such as better and worse, good and evil, value, worth, practicality, purpose, meaning, intentionality, goals, success, and failure.

Basically, objective versus subjective. And these correspond directly with the introverted/extroverted Jungian dichotomy. So when Jung discusses sense versus nonsense as the 'real' dichotomy at work behind other dichotomies such as truth and accuracy versus lies and deception - or good and right versus bad and wrong - I get what he is saying. People will believe what makes sense to them, after they process information through whatever filters they are biased towards. There are eight, and we all favor two, one introverted (subjective), one extroverted (objective). Introverts favor the subjective, so they agree with what makes sense to them personally. Extroverts favor the objective, so they agree with what makes sense to other people. It really is that simple.

So an extroverted sensor is going to agree (most of the time) with whatever makes sense to everyone's physical senses. They are keen on how everyone around them reacts to the objective sense properties of everything around them at all times. An introverted sensor is going to agree (most of the time) with whatever makes sense to their own physical senses, which depends upon how much exposure they have had to different things in life, and how old they are, since their wisdom is sense based and thus based on the length and breadth of their experience.

So an ENTJ, someone who is Te dominant, is going to come into every thread (most of the time) and spout whatever makes sense to the most people. Everyone will admire them because they said the thing that is the most true to the largest demographic. See how this works? Since an INTP, or an INTJ for that matter, both favor a subjective world view, there will be times when their personal point of view is going to clash with the mainstream point of view. It is then thrust upon the introvert to provide sufficient evidence to prove their argument by meeting standards defined by extroverts. If they fail at this, then extroverts will reject their input, and sadly even if it was valuable, it ends up wasted.

So the introvert is faced with the burden of having to 'measure up', constantly. This is the source of the apathy from INTPs, and the condescension from INTJs that you will see quite often. The irony here, is that ENTJs and ENTPs often are the ones pegged as the most arrogant, when in fact, being extroverts, their views and opinions are most often in alignment with the tried and true wisdoms of the extroverted world. So, in a way, their rigidity and ruthless standards are in fact reflecting upon generations of accumulated extroverted knowledge and power. It is rightly then the responsibility of the introvert to meet those standards if they wish to be taken seriously.

Therefore, the most mature ones you will see here on these forums and in life, are the ones who welcome input from extroverts and then give it the proper analysis without being selective or taking it personally. It's uncommon, but you do see it. And the same of course applies to extroverts, who have to try to keep an open mind despite what others think. Extroverts can all too often dismiss input from an introvert simply because it goes against the grain of what seems like common sense. That would be an unfortunate waste as well, in the case of a meaningful and useful contribution from an introvert that simply gets ignored because it was so radical or daring and simply required a better explanation or further refinement, but would truly make a significant improvement to an already existing system or solve an outstanding problem in a new and objectively better way.


----------



## VitaminDeficient (Dec 24, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> For me, default introverts are merely, either egotistic (I won't talk so I won't risk rejection, I may say something stupid or wrong or right but will be mocked....) or scared (I rather not say my opinion, it may cause controversy). Do you really want to be this?


All this suggests is that you've misunderstand introversion. Is that why you're ''Constantly scoring as INTJ'' but not willing to associate with that? Introverts with Te can _dominate_ conversations once they're interested in the topic. Say something that an INTJ disagrees with and they can verbal spar to the death.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Lughna said:


> 1. All this suggests is that you've misunderstand introversion.
> 
> 2. Is that why you're ''Constantly scoring as INTJ'' but not willing to associate with that? Introverts with Te can _dominate_ conversations once they're interested in the topic. Say something that an INTJ disagrees with and they can verbal spar to the death.


Perhaps. I see it as ego when someone is "bored" to dispute and also when "pfff doesn't worth talking to X". Pretty snobby.

Is that why you are intj? You accept test results without any skepticism? I am so blatantly E, it would be foolish for anyone to think of me as I and worse: it would be childish of me, to not understand which of the two functions I possess and express. 
From my 8 RL friends that took the test, every single one scored INTJ. (Oh jee we're ALL a bunch of intj's, what were the odds?!....) If this strikes you as normal, it is not. The kind of questions offered, lands too many thinkers with some pc knowledge into intj category...So, further investigation is required.
You are wrong about my unwillingness. In general, real intj's are intelligent (and generally considered as -often- high IQs) and more so they possess a smart humor I thoroughly enjoy. It would look good claiming I am one. But I am not.

ENTJs have distinct features, in spite the resemblance to intj's. Extrovertion being one of them. Drive and forcefulness too. As much as enjoyable the intj forum is, any entj that reads the threads in entj forum, will be impacted by the exactness of expression.

Only idiots accept an online test's results without evaluating their truth. Either gullible idiots (oh if it says so I must be...), or egotistic idiots (ohh this looks so cool => I am so cool).


----------



## VitaminDeficient (Dec 24, 2011)

@TheBoss, I asked if that was why you didn't think you were an INTJ because I was genuinely curious, not as an attack - some people do have a general bias against introverts (perhaps because they interpret it as you do - related to ego or fear). I completely agree that test results are often wrong and that it's up to an individual (presuming they are sufficiently self-aware) to recognize that they have been mistyped. 

I'm well-aware that INTJs are often mistyped. I would love if that were the case for me; as @bethdeth recently pointed out, no-one would want to be an INTJ if they could see themself from the perspective of an outsider. Excluding those who hear the word 'mastermind' and prepare to worship you instead. But I'm reasonably confident Isabel Briggs Myers herself would stick me in the cold room with the rest of the INTJ pack.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> ENTJs have distinct features, in spite the resemblance to intj's. Extrovertion being one of them. Drive and forcefulness too.


Drive and force does not distinguish ENTJs above all other types. Those characteristics are also found heavily amongst other types as well.

I just picked this part of your post as an example, but there are other instances in which you are exaggerating your case. The post made by @_Lughna_ does not indicate to me a person who does not understand that online tests results can be unreliable. I am not sure how you read that from it.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Lughna said:


> @TheBoss, I asked if that was why you didn't think you were an INTJ because I was genuinely curious, not as an attack - some people do have a general bias against introverts (perhaps because they interpret it as you do - related to ego or fear). I completely agree that test results are often wrong and that it's up to an individual (presuming they are sufficiently self-aware) to recognize that they have been mistyped.
> 
> I'm well-aware that INTJs are often mistyped. I would love if that were the case for me; as @bethdeth recently pointed out, no-one would want to be an INTJ if they could see themself from the perspective of an outsider. Excluding those who hear the word 'mastermind' and prepare to worship you instead. But I'm reasonably confident Isabel Briggs Myers herself would stick me in the cold room with the rest of the INTJ pack.


Is ok, my reply was meant and stands. I am too much E, kinda excessively so.
Masterminds and quite intelligent (most of the time) and yet still easy going. INTJs have a lot of attributes to be a desired typing. As an outsider myself, I somehow can't see an undesired attribute (but maybe I would if I wasn't NTJ? Is possible). 

Why would you "love if that were the case"? (This is actually a thread worthy question "how intjs believe other types in general, perceive them as".) 



Abraxas said:


> Drive and force does not distinguish ENTJs above all other types. Those characteristics are also found heavily amongst other types as well.
> 
> exaggerating your case.


Is a "drive and force" unlike any other. I am sure you have your own words and terms to express your opinion on what distinguish-ments are there. You are entitled to.
So am I.

You misunderstand the struggle to make sure one used a non native language correctly, accurately and covering all points as exaggeration. <- Merely one of the reasons
Common mistake but carries a truth beyond what you allowed yourself to notice; I am indeed enthusiastic even in discussions, some get annoyed by it (I couldn't care less though). What you actually observed is a well mentioned entj attribute. We often come out too strong in discussions. I will decline using the exact word used to describe how some people see this which I have read in actual articles (starts with obn...).


----------



## VitaminDeficient (Dec 24, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> Is ok, my reply was meant and stands. I am too much E, kinda excessively so.
> Masterminds and quite intelligent (most of the time) and yet still easy going. INTJs have a lot of attributes to be a desired typing.* As an outsider myself, I somehow can't see an undesired attribute* (but maybe I would if I wasn't NTJ? Is possible).
> 
> *Why would you "love if that were the case"?* (This is actually a thread worthy question "how intjs believe other types in general, perceive them as".)


I'm not going to go into all the negative traits, but it would nice not to be perceived as an ''ice queen'' - closed, distant, uncaring, simply because I don't show my feelings. It takes me a long time to open up to people, so often they will dismiss me as dull. I get tired of having to defend my dry humour from those who can't recognize a joke unless it is accompanied by physical markers. Sometimes I'm accused of ''always having to be right'', when all I want is to share information that I can see lacking - an NT will likely appreciate this, but plenty of people do not.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Lughna said:


> ''ice queen'' - closed, distant, uncaring, simply because I don't show my feelings. It takes me a long time to open up to people, so often they will dismiss me as dull. I get tired of having to defend my dry humour from those who can't recognize a joke unless it is accompanied by physical markers. Sometimes I'm accused of ''always having to be right'', when all I want is to share information that I can see lacking - an NT will likely appreciate this, but plenty of people do not.


I think I didn't make myself clear enough.

I was asking about any negative traits. ^^


----------



## Briguy (Nov 20, 2011)

We really got off topic


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Briguy said:


> We really got off topic


Or really on-topic, if you follow me.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Briguy said:


> As a college sophomore I was pondering this question today as I an ENTJ was feeling dull and tired after spending so much time alone. I live in a single room, mostly because my university puts honors students in single dorm rooms. I feel drained constantly because I have no one to talk to, spend time with, go out and play sports with etc... My freshman year I lived in the same complex and I was constantly hanging out with people. I spent some nights staying awake til 4 a.m talking to girls. In typical ENTJ fashion I obviously pissed off the F and S users in the dorm because most of these people do not seem open to me being around anymore, which is fine, it's their prerogative. My RA freshman year was a confirmed ESTJ, we got along all right, RA this year is an confirmed ISFP, not so much. So should extroverts develop their introverted side? How would one go about that?
> I know many proponents of the MBTI say you should develop your lower functions, but what about learning to use functions you may not have such as introverted thinking.
> Any advice would be appreciated, I fell asleep at 5 p.m on Saturday because I had zero contact with anyone.


I suggest you to try to optimizing your time when you are with other people, like having lunch (and maybe dinner) together with friends and talk about personal stuff, have a study group with your classmates, join some clubs, shopping together, or doing sports. Contact your old college friends to hangout together on your spare time, or something like that.

It's not all about the quantity of time you spend with other people, but it can also be the quality. You don't have to force yourself to be introvert.


----------

