# I don't know if I'm an introvert or an extrovert. Language problems.



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

You might be an ambivert, like me. I am an ENTP _and_ a 5w6. We have that need to think and read, but also find external knowledge interesting. 

Some days I am completely happy by myself, and other days, I yearn to be in the center of a crowd. I read, write, and usually pick up languages pretty well. I don't have the speaking problem so much as I have ADHD, and if I don't watch it: _Ispeaksofastallmywordsruntogether_ and nobody can understand me. 

Check into the Big 5 Personality test. Sometimes it can help resolve extraversion/introversion issues.


----------



## A Clockwork Alice (Jun 21, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Check into the Big 5 Personality test. Sometimes it can help resolve extraversion/introversion issues.


Thanks for the answer. I did the test and got RLUEI as an answer. I might be an ambivert, I think that I'm just used to be an introvert all my life, but if I tried, I'd be able to develop my extroversion. roud:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

dodartt said:


> Thanks for the answer. I did the test and got RLUEI as an answer. I might be an ambivert, I think that I'm just used to be an introvert all my life, but if I tried, I'd be able to develop my extroversion. roud:


RLUEI? 

I got this:

Extroversion |||||||||||||||||||| 84%
Orderliness |||||| 26%
Emotional Stability |||||||||||||||||| 74%
Accommodation |||||||||| 32%
Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||||||| 90%

Extroversion results were very high which suggests you are overly talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting at the expense too often of developing your own individual interests and internally based identity. 

Orderliness results were low which suggests you are overly flexible, random, scattered, and fun seeking at the expense too often of structure, reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment. 

Emotional Stability results were high which suggests you are very relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic. 

Accommodation results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly selfish, uncooperative, and difficult at the expense of the well being of others. 

Inquisitiveness results were very high which suggests you are extremely intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

dodartt said:


> Thanks for the answer. I did the test and got RLUEI as an answer. I might be an ambivert, I think that I'm just used to be an introvert all my life, but if I tried, I'd be able to develop my extroversion. roud:


Hm, in the social sense, I'm basically an ambivert but I glean energy from introverted enterprises like reading and writing. 

In other words, people don't really tire me out but they don't always fill me up either. I prefer one on one contact and parties get boring. :tongue:

I have a small beef with tests, however, because they focus too much on self-perception...that's their bias too. Look at your true self and how that fits into the test's constructs. Good luck!


----------



## A Clockwork Alice (Jun 21, 2011)

My results:

Extroversion |||||| 29%
Orderliness |||||| 26%
Emotional Stability |||||||||| 34%
Accommodation |||||||||| 31%
Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||||||| 87%


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Are you more deeply contemplative or quick witted ? I think that's a good way to tell the difference.


----------



## A Clockwork Alice (Jun 21, 2011)

chaoticbrain said:


> Are you more deeply contemplative or quick witted ? I think that's a good way to tell the difference.


About 51% deeply contemplative and 49% quick witted, because it depends if I'm alone or with people.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

dodartt said:


> About 51% deeply contemplative and 49% quick witted, because it depends if I'm alone or with people.


Well alright, I think most INTP's aren't particularly quick witted at all. I can be clever and sarcastic, but i'm not generally "quick" with my thinking at all. INTP's get tongue tied and need time to think where as ENTP's usually know what to say. 

It was said in another thread if your playing a strategy game for instance INTP's will sit there for awhile deciding what to do, ENTP's will just go for it.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

RLUEI are usually INTP

Global 5/Big 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey correlations


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> RLUEI are usually INTP
> 
> Global 5/Big 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey correlations


I'm really skeptical of cross referencing these things. :dry:

The fourth dimension probably isn't that predictive...some thinkers are very accommodating and some feelers are selfish. I'd imagine that accommodating dimension goes better with high Fe than F per se.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I'm really skeptical of cross referencing these things. :dry:
> 
> The fourth dimension probably isn't that predictive...some thinkers are very accommodating and some feelers are selfish. I'd imagine that accommodating dimension goes better with high Fe than F per se.


Well, this is what it says about the correlation:

Global 5Global 5 Sloan NotationJung/MBTI/KierseyStrength of correlationExtroversion*S*ocial/*R*eserved*I*ntrovert/*E*xtrovertHighEmotional Stability*L*imbic/*C*alm*F*eeling/*T*hinkingVery LowOrderliness*O*rganized/*U*nstructured*J*udging/*P*ercievingHighAccommodation*A*ccommodating/*E*cocentric*F*eeling/*T*hinkingMediumIntellect*N*on-curious/*I*nquisitive*S*ensing/I*n*tuitionMedium-High
Personally I am RLOAI and INFJ. RLOAI has the highest correlation with INFJ, so some correlation exists.
It seems to be best at determining the I/E, P/J dichotomies and after that S/N, but not so certain about F/T.
It is not "you are this big 5 type, so you are this MBTI type", but it might help you along the way and give you more evidence to support.

I am for example RLOAI which has the highest correlation with INFJ in MBTI.
I am also INFp in socionics, which has the highest correlation with INFJ in MBTI.

Kinda hard to ignore evidence as they start to stack up 

And yes, I'd say that the 4th one isn't especially reliable, or maybe it just isn't something we accept in our selves?
Who would call themselves cold for example? After all, if you truly believe that you are cold, you are most likely a warm and humble person. Reversed if you truly believe that you are kind.
Most people just believe something in-between.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Well, this is what it says about the correlation:
> 
> Global 5Global 5 Sloan NotationJung/MBTI/KierseyStrength of correlationExtroversion*S*ocial/*R*eserved*I*ntrovert/*E*xtrovertHighEmotional Stability*L*imbic/*C*alm*F*eeling/*T*hinkingVery LowOrderliness*O*rganized/*U*nstructured*J*udging/*P*ercievingHighAccommodation*A*ccommodating/*E*cocentric*F*eeling/*T*hinkingMediumIntellect*N*on-curious/*I*nquisitive*S*ensing/I*n*tuitionMedium-High
> Personally I am RLOAI and INFJ. RLOAI has the highest correlation with INFJ, so some correlation exists.
> ...


Not really. I had seen that evidence prior to the claim. It doesn't "stack up" to posit that all thinkers are assholes, which is effectively what flunking the accommodation dimension does; it's also unfair to characterize all feelers as accommodating; this cross referencing thing, again, is perilous. Correlation does not imply causality and you shouldn't believe every finding.

Edit: I mean, suppose a limited sample size or all Fe feelers in the sample...seems dumb to extrapolate that out by saying that all feelers will score accommodating or the other way around. The two are different constructs.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Not really. I had seen that evidence prior to the claim. It doesn't "stack up" to posit that all thinkers are assholes, which is effectively what flunking the accommodation dimension does; it's also unfair to characterize all feelers as accommodating; this cross referencing thing, again, is perilous. Correlation does not imply causality and you shouldn't believe every finding.


Doesn't have to do with thinkers being assholes. I know enough of thinkers and feelers to know that that isn't the case.
People who fall into the "accomodating" category simply try to make people feel better, whereas the egocentric aren't that concerned with making people feel good. But it's more of a Fe vs Fi thing rather than F vs T.

Extroversion - Social and Reserved type
--Social types feel at ease interacting with to others
--Reserved types are uncomfortable and/or disinterested with social interaction


Emotional Stability - Limbic and Calm type
--Limbic types are prone to moodiness
--Calm types maintain level emotions


Orderliness - Organized and Unstructured type
--Organized types are focused
--Unstructured types are scattered


Accommodation - Accommodating and Egocentric type
--Accommodating types live for others
--Egocentric types live for themselves


Intellect - Non-curious and Inquisitive type
--Non-curious types are less intellectually driven
--Inquisitive types are insatiable in their quest to know more

Big 5/Global 5 is a really undependable asshole vs dependable angel system tho if you look at it.
After all, who'd you like to talk to? the SCOAI or the RLUEN?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> People who fall into the "accomodating" category simply try to make people feel better, whereas the egocentric aren't that concerned with making people feel good. *But it's more of a Fe vs Fi thing rather than F vs T.*


Agreed. That's what I've been saying, which is why the correlation is bullocks.

I have seen so many INFP and ISFP (Fi) come out low accommodating on the Big 5. They aren't really, though. It's just a different focus...because accommodating and feeling, again, are different constructs.

With a more sophisticated instrument, I could show the differences. I guarantee Fi and Fe folk would show differences. Perhaps more specific OCEAN tests, with subsections, could show more revealing correlations.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Agreed. That's what I've been saying, which is why the correlation is bullocks.
> 
> I have seen so many INFP and ISFP (Fi) come out low accommodating on the Big 5. They aren't really, though. It's just a different focus...because accommodating and feeling, again, are different constructs.
> 
> With a more sophisticated instrument, I could show the differences. I guarantee Fi and Fe folk would show differences. Perhaps more specific OCEAN tests, with subsections, could show more revealing correlations.


The correlation is there, it's simply not 100% accurate. As I've already stated.
This is however not the thread for this discussion.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

dodartt said:


> Hello everyone!
> So I have this problem in determining whether I'm an ENTP or INTP. I don't know if I can be considered an introverted person. I have always been very shy, but it's not because I'm afraid to talk to people, it's because I feel like I don't have anything to say to them. I have always had trouble in having a small-talk. I've always valued quality more then quantity, that's why I'm used to talk only when I have something important to say.


OMG I want to hug you , sorry NF moment. For having the understanding that shy does not = Introvert


----------



## A Clockwork Alice (Jun 21, 2011)

myjazz said:


> OMG I want to hug you , sorry NF moment. For having the understanding that shy does not = Introvert


I'm glad you can relate to that. *hugs*


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

dream land fantasy said:


> thx! i'm a starter in personality cafe so........ don't really know much! sorry! & thx!


Since you are a starter as you put it , don't confuse cognitive functions with personality. Personality is an ever changing ordeal


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> The correlation is there, it's simply not 100% accurate. As I've already stated.
> This is however not the thread for this discussion.


I agree. As I said before, the data didn't prove any revelation to me. It's equivocal because of the shaky correlation_ and_ other things. Look, coffee and cancer were correlated a few decades back. Then the researchers saw that they had only surveyed coffee drinkers who happened to be cigarette smokers (more in vogue at the time) - ergo, cigarettes were causing cancer...not coffee. Numbers, in isolation, don't mean that much. :wink:


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

unctuousbutler said:


> I agree. As I said before, the data didn't prove any revelation to me. It's equivocal because of the shaky correlation_ and_ other things. Look, coffee and cancer were correlated a few decades back. Then the researchers saw that they had only surveyed coffee drinkers who happened to be cigarette smokers (more in vogue at the time) - ergo, cigarettes were causing cancer...not coffee. Numbers, in isolation, don't mean that much. :wink:


What !!!!!! I stopped drinking coffee for no reason...stupid over rated and over done studies. MMMMMM coffee and now worry free


----------

