# How do I know if I am extroverted or introverted?



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

You can take this newish test I came across. Among like a dozen self-described and long-standing INTPs who took it, all came out INTP. These weren't false positives; other types reaffirmed their types. 

John's Personality Test


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

*How do you spend your free time? 
*
I don't think I ever have free time, I always have something or the other that I am required to do which I am not doing. In other words, I am a procrastinator (but who isn't?) Can I copy paste from my Enneagram/Socionics questionnaire?



> What are your interests and hobbies?
> 
> It took me few minutes to really think about this. Normally for such questions, I just list a few things that interest me, that are: personality typing, knowing how the human mind works, understanding the society, ambient music, aggressive music, political science, philosophy, technology, gaming, reading, sketching, thinking, analyzing, observing, introspecting, sleeping, learning new things, doing new things, going to the gym, conversing with friends about anything although I prefer deeper conversations. I would actually love meeting and talking to new people but I am too conscious, shy and nervous to talk to people I don’t know. I want to get over that. It’s not that I lack self-confidence but I don’t want to make a bad first impression.
> 
> I guess, I’ll leave it at just that.


*Do you have equally strong Ne and Ti?* 

I actually don't know. I use both quite a lot. I don't know if one has the upper hand.

*Do you feel like a perceiver or judger? 
*
I'd say perceiver afaik.

*Do you have good control over Si? *
Nope. It is pretty random, all the information I have stored in me if at all. Selective memory? I can't will my brain to produce information at will, instead, I can connect the dots and guess what the stored information could have been or just create new data. This analogy is really weird.
@unctuousbutler


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> You can take this newish test I came across. Among like a dozen self-described and long-standing INTPs who took it, all came out INTP. These weren't false positives; other types reaffirmed their types.
> 
> John's Personality Test


Will do! Thanks. I actually like tests for some reason even when I know most of them have HIGH rates of being false positive. I like that it is impersonal. I also hate that it's impersonal. 

I'll post my Socionics and Enneagram threads here just in case.

Socionics: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/160937-tpye-me-socionics-virgin.html
Enneagram: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...-i-dont-know-help-please-2-3-4-5-6-7-9-a.html


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> You can take this newish test I came across. Among like a dozen self-described and long-standing INTPs who took it, all came out INTP. These weren't false positives; other types reaffirmed their types.
> 
> John's Personality Test


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

> It took me few minutes to really think about this. Normally for such questions, I just list a few things that interest me, that are: *personality typing, knowing how the human mind works, understanding the society, ambient music, aggressive music, political science, philosophy, technology, gaming, reading, sketching, thinking, analyzing, observing, introspecting, sleeping, learning new things, doing new things, going to the gym, conversing with friends about anything although I prefer deeper conversations.* I would actually love meeting and talking to new people but I am too conscious, shy and nervous to talk to people I don’t know. I want to get over that. It’s not that I lack self-confidence but I don’t want to make a bad first impression.


I kinda get scattershot Ne from this. Maybe read up on inferior Si if you're still entertaining the ENTP idea.

The INTP profile on Personality Junkie is decent...


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


>


Dude, I would just call you an INTP at this point. :}


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> *Do you have good control over Si? *
> Nope. It is pretty random, all the information I have stored in me if at all. Selective memory? I can't will my brain to produce information at will, instead, I can connect the dots and guess what the stored information could have been or just create new data. This analogy is really weird.
> @_unctuousbutler_


What do you mean by create new data? Like from Si archetypes? Where does the newness come from?


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Dude, I would just call you an INTP at this point. :}


This test doesn't care about Jungian functions, does it? It's more about I vs E and T vs F. Right? Then, yeah, I am INTP.

This: http://goo.gl/DN3vuT fits me a tad better than http://goo.gl/9Q1Qnp

I still need to really understand a whole lot more before I make a decision. 

Thanks a lot btw. I didn't think about the whole thing so much before. A year back I thought I was INTP. Then ENTP and now I am unsure again. Not knowing is cool, in a way, because there is always room for thinking and analysing.

You're awesome!


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> This test doesn't care about Jungian functions, does it? It's more about I vs E and T vs F. Right? Then, yeah, I am INTP.
> 
> This: ENTP | Forum | Personality Nation fits me a tad better than INTP | Forum | Personality Nation
> 
> ...


I mean, not knowing can feel cool: that's Ne and leaving the door open. Even when I outwardly vacillated with my type I knew I was INTP. Like years ago I came across this and said OMG this guy's following me. 

An INTP Profile

But look at this self-described ENTP. More outwardly talkative (Ne-dom) and emotionally expressive (tert-Fe) than most INTPs. 






By way of comparison, notice how much more awkward and slowly processing (Ti-dom) this INTP is.


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> What do you mean by create new data? Like from Si archetypes? Where does the newness come from?


I think it's a mix of Si and Ne. I think of the best possible versions of what I have. The newness comes from doing what I did the last time to acquire data or what I always do to acquire data. Ti is involved. I just get ideas, I can't really explain from where or how always. My Ti and Ne complement each other. I think I should read the Wikisocion page before getting much into this.


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> I mean, not knowing can feel cool: that's Ne and leaving the door open. Even when I outwardly vacillated with my type I knew I was INTP. Like years ago I came across this and said OMG this guy's following me.
> 
> An INTP Profile


LOL, I actually have that entire page printed out. It was one of the first pages I came across when I discovered MBTI. I almost died.

And from the videos, I obviously relate with the INTP more. In fact, I am more awkward than she is.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> I think it's a mix of Si and Ne. I think of the best possible versions of what I have. The newness comes from doing what I did the last time to acquire data or what I always do to acquire data. Ti is involved. I just get ideas, I can't really explain from where or how always. My Ti and Ne complement each other. I think I should read the Wikisocion page before getting much into this.


Those are really qualitative, long-winded descriptions. Use this for now. 

The Eight Functions (Typology 201) - Personality Junkie


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> LOL, I actually have that entire page printed out. It was one of the first pages I came across when I discovered MBTI. I almost died.
> 
> And from the videos, I obviously relate with the INTP more. In fact, I am more awkward than she is.


The fact that you refused to post a video, as I would have as an introvert, says a lot. Also, Ne is really noticeable as a lead function, as much for repressed-inferior Si as Ne. These people are cheerful/bouncy and appear to actually care about life. I would convince myself not to make a video, lol.


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

@unctuousbutler


> *Introverted Thinking (Ti)*
> 
> TP types use Introverted Thinking (Ti) as their dominant or auxiliary function. Since Ti is introverted, TPs are reluctant to express their rational judgments outwardly. Ti is used to bring structure and order to TPs’ inner world. This inner structuring grants them a strong sense of inner control. Inwardly, TPs are highly self-disciplined, working to independently manage their thoughts in a way that allows them to better cope with life. TPs (especially NTPs) are less interested in working with facts than with ideas. Jung writes of the ITP: “His ideas have their origin not in objective data but in his subjective foundation.” ITPs are constantly digging into the background of their own thoughts in order to better understand their origins and to ensure their thinking is founded on clear and logical ideas. They see it pointless to try to build a system of thought on a dubious conceptual platform, making them slower than Te types to rush into experiments in order to discover more “facts.” This is especially true of NTPs, who find it easier to identify inconsistencies or logical shortcomings—to assert what is _not_ true—than to identify and confidently assert what is true. While their skepticism is often broad and liberal, their positivism is minimal and conservative.
> 
> ...



From this, I choose Ti over Ne.

But from the INTP profile, the very first paragraph:


> The INTP personality type makes up about 3-4% of the general population. INTPs’ dominant function is Introverted Thinking (Ti), which can be associated with_* high levels of focus, self-discipline, intentionality,*_ independence, and intensity of thought. Such are the INTP’s signature strengths.


Nop nop nop: I am not focused with work, at least the one I am not interested in, which, unfortunately is 90% of the work I am required to do. 

Self-discipline: *no.*


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> The fact that you refused to post a video, as I would have as an introvert, says a lot. Also, Ne is really noticeable as a lead function, as much for repressed-inferior Si as Ne. These people are cheerful/bouncy and appear to actually care about life. I would convince myself not to make a video, lol.


I know, I can't imagine being that... that person in the video. Gah.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> From this, I choose Ti over Ne.
> 
> But from the INTP profile, the very first paragraph:
> 
> ...


I only have those qualities when I'm really interested in something. Most INTPs are slackers at heart apropos nine to fives.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> I know, I can't imagine being that... that person in the video. Gah.


I really hit it off with ENFJs though. Maybe that's the next big function (Fe) to scratch off for me; gaining more by exposure and all that. I feel like I have a pretty developed Si at this point. An ENFP would probably drive me up a wall; I have enough Ne to go around, thanks, I don't need your sprightly ENFP ass dancing to the Disney channel and eating Cocoa Puffs.


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> I really hit it off with ENFJs though. Maybe that's the next big function (Fe) to scratch off for me; gaining more by exposure and all that. I feel like I have a pretty developed Si at this point. An ENFP would probably drive me up a wall; I have enough Ne to go around, thanks, I don't need your sprightly ENFP ass dancing to the Disney channel and eating Cocoa Puffs.


I guess I can just end this thread by saying that I am INTP with high Ne. I actually need to rush for class in a bit. College, sigh. Need more night hours! Thanks, man, you've been a great source of entertainment and speculation. This and the never ending cosmological debate on the other section.

I'll get back and check out the tert/inferior functions and how they play out. Maybe that should give a better clue than just looking at dom/aux.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Angst said:


> I am shy and awkward but that hardly means I am introverted. Right?


Jung might have thought so...




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.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Low energy = introverted imo. Ne-leads can be prone to be "introverts" but so can Te-leads, Fe-leads etc.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_reckful_: I quoted a small part, and I believe I also included the information which you bolded. 




> *But whether introverted thinking is concerned with concrete or with abstract objects, always at the decisive points it is oriented by subjective data.
> *


Only serves to highlight my point further? That concrete or abstract objects may be the concern, _subjectivity _​is decisive for the introvert, as I noted.



bearotter said:


> He may have said introverts are anything in the world in any number of books, but _all over the place in his description of cognitive types, he distinguishes the introverted version from the extraverted one by subjectivity vs objectivity decisively from the very get-go._


_

In response to _what you bolded subsequently




> *It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. *


I remind you I wrote:



bearotter said:


> . However, what is certain is the introvert in his sense leaves the realm of _facts in the sense of objective facts as the most significant factor._


When I say leaves, I mean, they are exiting that realm. 




As I wrote in the beginning of my post:



> (I know Jung portrayed introverts often as concerned with the abstract idea, not the facts)




so clearly my point is quite independent of this.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

A question from your oft-linked test asks 
*Which word in each pair appeals to you more? Think about what the words mean, not about how they look or how they sound.*




One choice: concrete or abstract. Is it inconceivable to you that someone who spends life extracting or considering strongly what Jung calls subjective data from or in relation to an object of concern that is concrete would not possibly answer the former? They would not subscribe to concretism necessarily, sure, but that is not the question I'm asking.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm going to even add a follow-up.....which is the question as to whether said "someone" might not only possibly, but _quite/rather_ possibly claim an interest in the concrete and thus answer "concrete" on aforementioned question.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> A question from your oft-linked test asks
> Which word in each pair appeals to you more? Think about what the words mean, not about how they look or how they sound.
> 
> One choice: concrete or abstract. Is it inconceivable to you that someone who spends life extracting what Jung calls subjective ideas from an object of concern that is concrete would not possibly answer the former? They would not subscribe to concretism necessarily, sure, but that is not the question I'm asking.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I'd first note that that concrete/abstract word pair from the MBTI is an S/N item (rather than an E/I item).

As a general matter, it's hardly "inconceivable" to me that someone of any type could end up answering an MBTI test item in a way that's inconsistent with the type preference that that item is intended to tap into. In fact, it's quite "conceivable," for any number of reasons, for someone to end up mistyped on one or more dimensions when they take the MBTI, and that's especially true if one or more of their preferences is borderline or relatively mild.

But, to more directly answer your specific question, I'd say your reference to "someone who spends life extracting what Jung call subjective ideas from an object" sounds like a description of someone who, if asked, "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses (S), or courses involving theory (N)?" or "Which word appeals to you most: facts (S) or ideas (N)?" (to quote two other MBTI S/N items), would choose "theory" and "ideas." So, although it's certainly "conceivable" to me that that person might choose "concrete" over "abstract" on the MBTI concrete/abstract item, I'd say that person would be answering that particular item in a way that the MBTI would call "out of preference," and I'd say it's not unlikely that it would turn out that they were an MBTI N who happened to interpret that particular item (concrete/abstract) in a way that was somewhat different than intended.

As I've already mentioned, it's statistically well-established today (from both MBTI and Big Five studies) that E/I (as conceptualized by Myers, which included a number of Jung's E/I characteristics) doesn't significantly correlate with S/N (as conceptualized by Myers, and also including characteristics that Jung included in E/I) — and that means that, as McCrae & Costa (among others) have noted, Jung's conception of E/I was an overinclusive mix of things, some of which don't belong together in the same type category.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@reckful You understood my question correctly this time around yes --




> or "Which word appeals to you most: facts (S) or ideas (N)?" (to quote two other MBTI S/N items), would choose "theory" and "ideas."




Yes, that is quite possibly correct that the person I described would choose this. 


My point is simply that an interest in the concrete is not the same as determining one's judgment by the facts. It's probably really strange an idea, but Jung was pretty interested in the strange.

It is not to say that an introvert in Jung's sense is not likelier to answer more "N" than "S", although there are several places where I think there's not much relation between Jung's introvert and N, for instance I would not say his introvert is more apt to be attracted to _possibilities_ than _certainties_.
There, I think Jung's intuition would favor the possible. 


MBTI's E/I does probably share many traits Jung ascribed to introverts, but it's missing the very decisive trait used in defining the cognitive types, as far as I know (correct me if wrong), which is to say nowhere does MBTI seem to suggest "I" relates to a subjective focus, _except_ if one believes in type dynamics, which you probably don't.


So while an E in MBTI may indeed not suggest anything about how much someone judges based on the facts, this is almost certainly related to the fact that objectivity is not a feature of MBTI E's in the slightest, going by dichotomies not functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

A case in point that I think needs to be done here also is that one can identify or think one is something on a self-test, as is always the case, but just because one think one is something does not mean one actually _is_ that something or even actually naturally prefers that thing. We often have a distorted view of ourselves. The MBTI test items are also weak and poorly constructed as bearotter noted. How does one answer the question, Am I a concrete or abstract thinker? Based on what criteria? It doesn't even fit Jung's ideas of how the functions operate. 

So no, I don't get why you defend Myers so much reckful, because it's clear to me Myers is full of bullshit and clearly didn't know what Jung was trying to infer to. She got stuck, just like you do, on the _concrete ideas_ pertaining things, rather than seeing the depth Jung was trying to capture. In this case when it comes to I/E, for instance, the fact that introverts prefer to deal within the realms of subjectivity and extroverts with the realms of objectivity. This also means that extroverts are in fact in general, likely to be considered concrete because they deal with concrete reality, that which exists outside oneself.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> A case in point that I think needs to be done here also is that one can identify or think one is something on a self-test, as is always the case, but just because one think one is something does not mean one actually _is_ that something or even actually naturally prefers that thing. We often have a distorted view of ourselves. The MBTI test items are also weak and poorly constructed as bearotter noted. How does one answer the question, Am I a concrete or abstract thinker? Based on what criteria? It doesn't even fit Jung's ideas of how the functions operate.
> 
> So no, I don't get why you defend Myers so much reckful, because it's clear to me Myers is full of bullshit and clearly didn't know what Jung was trying to infer to. She got stuck, just like you do, on the _concrete ideas_ pertaining things, rather than seeing the depth Jung was trying to capture. In this case when it comes to I/E, for instance, the fact that introverts prefer to deal within the realms of subjectivity and extroverts with the realms of objectivity. This also means that extroverts are in fact in general, likely to be considered concrete because they deal with concrete reality, that which exists outside oneself.


Yes, well, if it's your _deeper understandings_ that have led you to assert (as you did earlier) that, as between an ISTJ and an ENTP, it's the ENTP who'll be more inclined to "align their views and understanding of reality" with "everyone else" (and the "objective world" and "consensus" and "commonalities"), while the ISTJ will tend to be the more independent thinker whose take on the world centers more around his "subjective views," then all I can say is, good luck to you in those murky depths of yours. :tongue:


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

It's worth noting that "ISTJ" is for some just a shorthand for Si-dominant with auxiliary thinking, and not necessarily someone who tests ISTJ by the dichotomies. Which changes the meaning, because I think a lot of people would say Jung's dominant perceiving type portraits seem more like MBTI P's description-wise.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> It's worth noting that "ISTJ" is for some just a shorthand for Si-dominant with auxiliary thinking, and not necessarily someone who tests ISTJ by the dichotomies. Which changes the meaning, because I think a lot of people would say Jung's dominant perceiving type portraits seem more like MBTI P's description-wise.


But... it's also worth noting that, in that case (if I'm understanding you correctly), you'd label Myers' ISTJs "ISTPs" — and you'd still be referring to a group of _introverts_, so my replies to ephemereality would apply to the same extent.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> This also means that extroverts are in fact in general, likely to be considered concrete because they deal with concrete reality, that which exists outside oneself.


That's certainly the case with Se and Te in that both are very attuned to facts and (naive?) realism but you might run into problems with calling Fe or Ne more objective than their introverted counterparts as calling a feeling function objective is kinda iffy. In the sense that Fe is outer or group ethics then, sure, that's more objective than Fi which is personal values.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> A case in point that I think needs to be done here also is that one can identify or think one is something on a self-test, as is always the case, but just because one think one is something does not mean one actually _is_ that something or even actually naturally prefers that thing.


That's kinda why I wanted to dissect the actual information-processing strategy piece by piece rather than this self-concept gestalt that someone carries around.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Angst said:


> I don't really notice any loss of energy whether I am alone or with others, I just generally have low levels of energy. Not tired -- just low levels of energy unless something really awesome or captivating comes up.
> 
> Are there any other indicators to tell whether I am extroverted/introverted. I am shy and awkward but that hardly means I am introverted. Right?


This is simplistic but I would argue if anxiety/worrying isn't a "thing" for you then you're A) not a six or B) a healthy six.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

reckful said:


> But... it's also worth noting that, in that case (if I'm understanding you correctly), you'd label Myers' ISTJs "ISTPs" — and you'd still be referring to a group of _introverts, so my replies to ephemereality would apply to the same extent._


_*_I* would at times label Si-doms with aux thinking ISTJ's, by my own bad habit picked up from existing on the forums. It's just notation. Heck, even if I'm talking socionics, when I think IEI, I'm tempted to think of "INFJ" when they are in fact correctly labeled "INFp". 

To make my position clear, I do _NOT_ believe an Si type in Jung is (strictly, in the sense of actual meaning) the same as any kind of "ISTP". However, I do think a dichotomies ISTP with a strong P preference might by related by some to an Si-dom by Jung.


edit: actually one of the biggest selling points of dichotomy-based MBTI to me, contrary to popular view, I take to be the J/P as a dichotomy dimension. The translation of this dimension to a cognitive type, however, seems to be largely invalid....which is where much of the complaint lies. I just tailor my appreciation for that dimension independent of the conclusion that I believe is invalid, made by some, which is that a dichotomy ISTJ "has to be" an Si-dom. 

As to your remarks, my comment was intended to say, if one indeed is just meaning Jung's Si-dom with aux thinking by ISTJ, then that is a pretty entirely different thing from an ISTJ by dichotomy typing, and it seemed like your remarks were aimed from the standpoint of contrasting the dichotomy ENTP with the dichotomy ISTJ, whereas this uses not the same version of introversion as was at least used in prescribing the Si-dominant type in Jung, because the MBTI E/I seems _not _to distinguish a subjective vs objective focus, without which Jungian cognitive introversion, as leading to the 8 function-attitudes, does not seem to even exist.

Now you might say, well, Jung conflated many things, including MBTI I/E AND a whole host of other junk, under "introversion/extroversion", which I think is quite likely true, but it doesn't take away from the fact that MBTI I/E does not contain a time and again mentioned characteristic of Jungian introversion/extroversion. 

The precise level of relevance to another's comment, I will not say, for not wishing to put words in anyone's mouth.


----------



## Ember (Feb 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> This is simplistic but I would argue if anxiety/worrying isn't a "thing" for you then you're A) not a six or B) a healthy six.


From the enneagram questionnaire, what do I come across as? 
It isn't a 'thing' for me, but I often think of everything. For example, imagining a life of complacency gets me anxious. I would wonder why something is not wrong. There has to be something wrong for things to be right. I don't know if I am making things sound more complicated than they should be. I don't know if this means anything but, my legs, are sort of always shaking. I have an existent nervous energy but people don't really see that in me. I appear to be one of the calmest person. People ask me how I am so ...chill. 

^ what does this sound like? I actually think I said something that sums up my life/existence well. ...sort of.


----------



## kadda1212 (Sep 21, 2012)

Angst said:


> I don't really notice any loss of energy whether I am alone or with others, I just generally have low levels of energy. Not tired -- just low levels of energy unless something really awesome or captivating comes up.
> 
> Are there any other indicators to tell whether I am extroverted/introverted. I am shy and awkward but that hardly means I am introverted. Right?


Since you posted this in the Cognitive Functions forum and not in the Myers-Briggs one, I can say this here. It's now a common opinion that people are not either introverted or extroverted. They may have slight tendency toward extroversion or introversion and that's what the I and E in your Myers-Briggs type stand for. But it's actually just an implicator for whether your primary function is extroverted or introverted. People are in the end all ambiverts. There are certain functions they extrovert, and others are introverted. Find out which function you identify the most with and then you can tell whether your Myers-Briggs type starts with an E or an I.
I think, this whole energy thing is way too unclear. Even the people I receive as very extroverted get stressed after a while and need time for them alone. And I can get energized around people I like, although I consider myself being a person who spend a lot of time inside her own little world and I'm also shy around people I don't know that well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> But... it's also worth noting that, in that case (if I'm understanding you correctly), you'd label Myers' ISTJs "ISTPs" — and you'd still be referring to a group of _introverts_, so my replies to ephemereality would apply to the same extent.


And why would he do that when ISTP = Ti dom and ISTJ = Si dom? He was clearly making a remark solely that Jung's portraits of the irrational types overlaps better with Myers' conception of P types, which just again goes to show how she fucked up Jung's ideas. 

I don't feel I need to repeat myself as I don't inherently disagree with what bearotter wrote in his previous post. At least socionics rectified the J/P that is overall, a far superior system. 

I don't even think of INTJ as a label itself, but what it infers is Ni-T. But go ahead, stick to your simplistic dichotomies. I don't see the point why you even read Jung when most of his ideas went past you. 



unctuousbutler said:


> That's certainly the case with Se and Te in that both are very attuned to facts and (naive?) realism but you might run into problems with calling Fe or Ne more objective than their introverted counterparts as calling a feeling function objective is kinda iffy. In the sense that Fe is outer or group ethics then, sure, that's more objective than Fi which is personal values.


Fe is also attuned to facts - emotional ones. Ne are attuned to possibilities that are facts within themselves because they exist objectively. That's why Ne is considered a static element in socionics.

The problem is that people have a more narrow understanding than what Jung meant with objective and concrete when he wrote about the extroverted type. It's not just the material reality he was referring to, but psychological perspectives or mentalities. If one is strictly speaking of the material world, then that would just be sensation.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Angst said:


> LOL, I actually have that entire page printed out. It was one of the first pages I came across when I discovered MBTI. I almost died.


That Paul James profile is actually a good example of how cognitive functions analysis can go off the rails when it tries to make four of the "functions" cover the waterfront and loses sight of the fact that there are lots of things that introverts have in common, and N's have in common, and NT's have in common, and so on.

The profile is written as if —

INTP = Ti + Ne + Si + Fe

— when, for all the reasonably well-known cognitive functions theorists I'm aware of that subscribe to that functions model (Thomson, Berens, etc.), the full picture looks more like this:

INTP = Ti + Ne + Si + Fe + I + N + T + P + IN + NT + ...

According to the standard cognitive functions model, Ti is an INTP's dominant function but is one of an INTJ's "shadow" functions. So you'd expect an INTP to read a Ti description and have a strong "that's me" reaction, and you'd expect an INTJ to read a Ti description and have a pretty strong "not me" reaction. (It's sometimes said that the functions a person has the _most_ difficulty relating to are the person's dominant and auxiliary functions switched to the opposite _attitudes_ — _i.e._, Ne and Ti for an INTJ.)

But instead, a typical INTJ is likely to identify with much of the stuff in the "Ti" section of the Paul James profile. And that's because many of the things James describes about himself under the Ti label is stuff that _all INTs_ — not to mention, to a lesser extent, INFs — tend to have in common.

So, without speaking to how good a job James does in capturing a typical INTP (ignoring the mislabeling of the sections), it would definitely be a mistake for any INT to read the "Ti" stuff in that profile and conclude, based on the fact that he relates to most of it, that that must mean he's an INTP _rather than an INTJ_.



Angst said:


> From the enneagram questionnaire, what do I come across as?
> It isn't a 'thing' for me, but I often think of everything. For example, imagining a life of complacency gets me anxious. I would wonder why something is not wrong. There has to be something wrong for things to be right. I don't know if I am making things sound more complicated than they should be. I don't know if this means anything but, my legs, are sort of always shaking. I have an existent nervous energy but people don't really see that in me. I appear to be one of the calmest person. People ask me how I am so ...chill.
> 
> ^ what does this sound like? I actually think I said something that sums up my life/existence well. ...sort of.


The anxiety-proneness you've described makes me suspect that you may be Limbic (rather than Calm) on the Big Five dimension (sometimes called "emotional stability," and sometimes called "neuroticism") that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension. Being Limbic tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs.

If you're interested, the similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test I link to in this post will purport to type you as Limbic or Calm, as well as giving you a decent "second opinion" on your MBTI preferences.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> It's not just the material reality he was referring to, but psychological perspectives or mentalities.


There's not a huge difference between inner and outer with lead extraverted functions. What I mean is that the Te-dom thinks in terms of facts and notices/disseminates facts in the outside world; alternatively, the Fe-dom relates to people using Fe yet Fe is her interior filter as well. Jung wrote about one Fe user who stated that she could not think what she didn't feel (Fe>Ti) - that's an interior filter. It's the means and ends, alpha and omega, process and end result. I think Socionics more aptly conveys how overarching the lead function or information element is to the psyche's integrity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> There's not a huge difference between inner and outer with lead extraverted functions.


The extrovert is an extrovert precisely because more emphasis is placed on the outer world over the inner. 



> What I mean is that the Te-dom thinks in terms of facts and notices/disseminates facts in the outside world; alternatively, the Fe-dom relates to people using Fe yet Fe is her interior filter as well.


Interior filter? Please explain what you mean by this. 



> Jung wrote about one Fe user that she could not think what she didn't feel first - that's an interior filter.


I still fail to see what you mean. 



> It's the means and ends, alpha and omega, process and end result. I think Socionics more aptly conveys how overarching the lead function or information element is to the psyche's integrity.


Compared to what? MBTI?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> The extrovert is an extrovert precisely because more emphasis is placed on the outer world over the inner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, compared to MBTI, IMHO. But with respect to the first part about precedence, the outer environment is given the priority in decision making for the extravert yet the lead function is clearly influencing the user in a user-centric way in so far as, say, Te becomes the ENTJ's ontological snorkel to the world.* The Te-dom notices and disseminates "objective" facts and this becomes his reality; this is what I mean by interior and exterior dimensions not being wildly different.

*Jung stresses this with the qualitative description of Te especially, namely how the 20th century was the century of Te and "progress" and outer innovation but the inner man is not satisfied with Te methods.


----------

