Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix13
Well...
Central Thesis: I disagree with your definition of introversion, but agree that it's unreasonable to argue the definition of shyness. IOW, I'm disagreeing that you can't define introversion such that it be right or wrong. There IS a difinitive definition of introversion. The entire basis of MBTI is based on definite concepts with regards to cognitive functions.
...
I do not believe there is a definitive definition of shyness. It isn't a scientific term, so much as a description of a certain set of behaviors. Thus I agree completely with your second point.
|
I'll start off by saying that no one has authority to define a word. Words are sounds or symbols for sounds that derive meaning by convention. No one has to accept Carl Jung's definition of introversion and extroversion, nor do they have to accept his dominant/ancillary scheme to further explain what he's talking about. The same goes for shyness. Whether or not it's a scientific term doesn't matter. With that said, I'll join you in your definition so we can discuss the issue more.
Quote:
Introversion (as I understand it... which doesn't make it so. see what Carl Jung says) refers to the direction of focus of the function. Introverts have a dominant function that is inward-focused (Si, Ni, Fi, Ti). Extroverts have a dominant function that is outward-focused (Se, Ne, Fe, Te). That is what I was agreeing with Dissonance about:
"it's impossible to tell unless you analyze their cognitive functions and try to figure out if their dominant is introverted or extroverted."
|
Okay, but I think this definition is pretty sloppy and unnecessarily confusing. (Not a criticism of you, of course.)
Quote:
I'm kind of  that you didn't read my response before responding. As punishment, I shall write a longer description of what I was saying with regards to introversion.
|
...
Quote:
|
I belive that introversion/extroversion is commonly defined by a set of behaviors/ phenotypes/ symptoms/ appearances in the same way that shyness is (probably because it's easier to understand). This is the 'introverts like to be alone, extroverts are social' definition. I believe this description is incorrect, and probably the reason you believe it's a hazy best-fit definition. As an ENFP (considered by most the most introverted appearing of the extroverts), the definition strikes me as absurd. Extroverts can be awfully nonsocial, love solitude, don't NEED human contact, etc. They are extroverts because their dominant function is directed outwards.
|
Yeah I agree that the "introverts like to be alone and extroverts, social" is really sloppy and doesn't pay any attention to internal motivations. I don't think NEED is the right word, either. Extroverts don't NEED lots of human contact, but they naturally enjoy it more. The word need makes it sound pathological, and I don't think it is unless its being used to fix something else (loneliness, for example, or to distract a person from depression). I think it's consistent with Jung's ideas to say introverts have a higher tolerance (or preference, depending on how you look at it) for solitude. They are alone by choice. Shy people are alone by circumstance. They are afraid of social rejection and keep quiet.
The whole extroverts love solitude is only a problem if you think that being extrovert is a totally 100% stable trait. It isn't. People perform all these mental gymnastics to try to preserve their trait (introvert/extrovert, whatever) and still maintain conflicting behavior (it's my this function or that function, or that's not really what Introversion is, etc.). It's a waste of time. The better solution is that type is constantly in flux and different behaviors/phenotypes are summoned by different environmental cues.