Shyness versus Introversion

[phoenix13]

Originally Posted by Edahn

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.

Hmmmm, perhaps this is a semantics problem. Because we're on MBTI central, I took it for granted that we'd be referring to Jung's introverion. Like you said, "words... derive meaning from convention." Damn connotations and shades of lexium!!!

Originally Posted by Edahn

Okay, but I think this definition is pretty sloppy and unnecessarily confusing. (Not a criticism of you, of course.)

Nuh uh!!!! (meh, it's an opinion... but if you actually want to go there, I'll gladly join you.) Besides, putting people in boxes is fun! (kidding... I'm a P... so P that I don't like periods and use ellipses instead...)

It's been nice bumping heads with you Edahn!

[Edahn]

*Roars menacingly*

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Shyness is only one possible product of introversion. It's not a guarantee. My INTP friend is more outgoing than I am, and I'm extraverted.

The Shyness of an introvert is only the result of their favoritism toward developing their own subjective interpretations (doesn't matter if it's Thinking, Intuiting.. as long as it's an Xi function) of the world, rather than actually dealing in the world.

Like dissonance said, it's entirely dependent on whether your first preference, feeling, sensing, whatever it is, is introverted or extraverted.

The shyness you're talking about might come from an introvert who's not quite confident in his introverted ideal and wants as little interaction with the world as possible because it continually skews the internal model. That's why introverts often prefer to be alone, but if you've got an introvert who IS confident in their own impressions, then they'd have no problem acting, and might not be shy. But they still also might be, if they happen to just naturally not be a social person, and instead spend their extraversion time with objects or toys or... whatever else -- not people.

This is why I like the way FIRO breaks interaction down into the three areas of Inclusion (social skills) Control (leadership skills) and Affection (deep personali skills).
The confidence you mention can come in any of these three areas.
"Introversion" normally might indicate a low expressed Inclusion. But the person can have a high expressed Control, in which they will be more confident in taking on leadership and responsibilities, despite even a social lack of confidence, or "shyness". I am certainly this way.

Since "Pragmatism" (a common trait Keirsey identified in both the SP and NT groups) appears to compare to expressed Control, then your INTP friend would have a high expressed Control, making him more outgoing at times. If you are NeTi, that would be ENTP and have the same pragmatism (im addition to the "E"), but I guess for whatever reason, you do not express as much as he does.

Again, I really wish people understood and could discuss these FIRO concepts, because they seem to tie together and explain A LOT of the stuff people are asking about.

["?"]

I referenced to the topic of Extraversion/Introversion in another thread recently. It becomes more convaluted because it's easy to go to one extreme or the other. Jung stated that no one has a pure attitude preference. Instead the majority fall in the middle, as with the functions.

I agree with the author that:

The stereotyping comes when we imagine that the two functions are opposing extremes, whereas reality is that everybody needs some time by themselves, particularly if they are in a busy job with lots of social contact, and everybody needs some time with other people. There are also those who for various reasons find it hard to deal with change, and noise, and bright lights, and who may need time in a peaceful, darkened room to recharge, making them seem more introverted than they necessarily are. And there are those who seem well-balanced, able to socialise and also to enjoy their own company.

Even the ESTP says that:

I don’t have a whole lot of really deep friendships, but yet I like to think people would describe me as dedicated, determined, and loyal. I sometimes have difficulty concealing what I am thinking or feeling. I don’t like the pressure of having to say no. I can be somewhat cool but a genuine friend as a personal relationship evolves.

Other statements from that description can be deemed introverted qualities like

The most important thing in relationships is absolute autonomy and independence. I admit I like to be in control and yet I’m kind of easygoing in that I just want freedom. Freedom to me is leave me alone, let me do it. Anything that constrains me around that I don’t like and kind of rebel against. I don’t like to be told what to do or what to think.

and;

Sometimes I have to tone it down a little bit—people may read me the wrong way. I’m very comfortable working either together as a team or individually.

I think we all agree that introverted types that have a good use of Fe can appear extraverted and extraverted thinking types that have the “In Charge” interaction style can have introverted tendencies. Contrast the ESTP with even the ISTP, and you find that there can be confusion along the E/I dichotomy. ISTPs say:

I have only a few close friends that I really see a lot. Yet people have seen me as someone very lively and talkative. That’s the part of me that likes life to be an adventure.

as well as;

In my work, I don’t want to be just doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. I like to accomplish things—make a contribution. That’s real important. I take a “do it” type of approach. It’s very practical. It’s very here and now. That does not mean I don’t take into consideration the big picture and what’s down the road and what’s best for the organization, but at the same time my big focus is “let’s get this show on the road and let’s do it.” I do it as well as I can. Then I think very well on my feet. I can be quick with the verbal comeback—I like the impact. I just get in there and do it, and whatever job I go into, I hit the ground running. And I’m very competitive, often with myself. I tie one hand behind my back and see if I can still do it.

These remarks could easily apply to the average extraverted type in addition to;

I rarely work on one thing at a time. I get an idea and chase it down. I’m always studying—not just books but looking at what interests me. I customize everything I touch; people tell me I can’t do something, and I say sure I can. And I like time to just sit down and enjoy. But when I have too much time I tend to just pick away at things.

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Eric B

This is why I like the way FIRO breaks interaction down intot he three areas of Inclusion (social skills) Control (leadership skills) and Affection (deep personali skills).
The confidence you mention can come in any of these thre areas.
"Introversion" normally might indicate a low expressed Inclusion. But the person can have a high expressed Control, in which they will be more confident in taking on leadershiip and responsibilities, despite even a social lack of confidence, or "shyness". I am certainly this way.

Since "Pragmatism" (a common trait Keirsey identified in both the SP and NT groups) appears to compare to expressed Control, then your INTP friend would have a high expressed Control, making him more outgoing at times. If you are NeTi, that would be ENTP and have the same pragmatism, but I guess for whatever reason, you do not express as much as he does.

I'd rather not use Kiersey's broad, and in many places, inappropriate rhetoric for diagnosing type. I'm going to look up that FIRO thing, because I'm guessing it's got a lot more to do with "Control" and "Inclusion" (it's capitalized because it's a scale in that thing right?) and it might be meant somehow different from what I'm used to.

Again, I really wish people understood and could discuss these FIRO concepts, because they seem to tie together and explain A LOT of the stuff people are asking about.

It's possible. I'll look it up.

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

I'd rather not use Kiersey's broad, and in many places, inappropriate rhetoric for diagnosing type. I'm going to look up that FIRO thing, because I'm guessing it's got a lot more to do with "Control" and "Inclusion" (it's capitalized because it's a scale in that thing right?) and it might be meant somehow different from what I'm used to.

It's possible. I'll look it up.

I only refer to Keirsey's system because it does seem to correspond to FIRO "Control". (Which is more than just a single "scale", but rather a full two-factor matrix with it's own "expressive" and "responsive" (wanted) dimension). In fact, the generic term for Keirsey's temperament area is "conation", meaning "action".
(I wonder what about Keirsey's concepts is "inappropriate"?)

Yet another evidence of this correlation, directly above:

Other statements from that description can be deemed introverted qualities like
Quote:
The most important thing in relationships is absolute autonomy and independence. I admit I like to be in control and yet I'm kind of easygoing in that I just want freedom. and;
Quote:
Sometimes I have to tone it down a little bit--people may read me the wrong way. I'm very comfortable working either together as a team or individually.

I think we all agree that introverted types that have a good use of Fe can appear extraverted and extraverted thinking types that have the "In Charge" interaction style can have introverted tendencies. Contrast the ESTP with even the ISTP, and you find that there can be confusion along the E/I dichotomy. ISTPs say:
Quote:
I have only a few close friends that I really see a lot. Yet people have seen me as someone very lively and talkative. That’s the part of me that likes life to be an adventure.

as well as;
Quote:
In my work, I don’t want to be just doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. I like to accomplish things--make a contribution. That’s real important. I take a "do it" type of approach. It’s very practical. It’s very here and now. That does not mean I don't take into consideration the big picture and what’s down the road and what’s best for the organization, but at the same time my big focus is "let's get this show on the road and let's do it." I do it as well as I can. Then I think very well on my feet. I can be quick with the verbal comeback—I like the impact. I just get in there and do it, and whatever job I go into, I hit the ground running. And I’m very competitive, often with myself. I tie one hand behind my back and see if I can still do it.

These remarks could easily apply to the average extraverted type in addition to;
Quote:
I rarely work on one thing at a time. I get an idea and chase it down. I’m always studying—not just books but looking at what interests me. I customize everything I touch; people tell me I can’t do something, and I say sure I can. And I like time to just sit down and enjoy. But when I have too much time I tend to just pick away at things.

The SP's "pragmatism" corresponds to a high expressed Control. So there will be this "expressive" aspect of the person, which will look like a kind of "extraversion" even if an "I" type. Yet, notice how a lot of that involves, basically, leadership and responsibilities skills (as opposed to basic social skills).

Some info on FIRO, which is concise and will give you the basics:
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Hotherym]

Well before I knew anything about personality theory -- or much of anything at all -- I noticed there were two basic types of personality people would portray; reserved and quiet, and energetic and outspoken. Fellow students and teachers would either be one or the other for more extended periods of time. I even noticed my dogs exhibiting an extremely similar, and very obvious, version of this personality difference.

I was sold on the idea of introversion vs. extraversion. I have never been able to extravert for very long without somatisizing it into a headache or stomach trouble. However, I've only very rarely been shy, and even more rarely been considered anything other than a loudmouth. Well, I am, I guess, but my extraversion is simply a tool and a ruse.

The reality is that, for every four or so hours of intense extraversion, I need about five to eight hours of supplemental sound sleep and a couple hours of extra 'alone time' to recover. Yes, I've actually figured that out. :D Though I love an interesting conversation, people suck the life force out of me, and until a few years ago, I never understood exactly why.

The introverts I've been close to in my life haven't been terribly shy, except one or two. However, I've known shy extraverts, and they were the type of person that, once accustomed to the fact you weren't going to humiliate them in some way, would be non-stop boisterous.

This may not be scientific, but it's what I've personally experienced. Whether or not the idea/hypothesis of introversion and extraversion holds any water scientifically, I don't know, but I thought I'd read several studies had been done.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Eric B

There's an updated version of MBTI called the Type Differentiation Indicator which adds a Comfort-Discomfort scale, which roughly corresponds to Neuroticism. Also, Step II, or the Expanded Analysis Report (MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) breaks the original four scales down into subscales. So in Extraversion/Introversion, you can be Initiating-Receiving, Expressive-Contained, Gregarious-Intimate, Active-Reflective, Enthusiastic-Quiet. Some of these would cover what we would call "shyness".

Occasionally, these necessarily secondhand references to original-source, Jung-derived systems bother me. Here we are, discussing MBTI on an eponymous forum, and due to testing costs beyond those of casual purchases, very few of us have taken anything other than online knockoffs. Imagine talking stemware on CHAMPAGNECentral when all anybody's ever drunk is sparkling grape juice.

As for the discussion, system-triangulation may help. Yet I continue to wonder if extraversion and introversion must be thought of as corollary and not determinant -- as, say, dimorphism is a manifestation of chromosomal arrangement, "E" and "I" are figurations of temperamental characteristics that are highly dependent on irreducible types. So preferences do run along a continuum but aren't, were you to try to deduce, terms distributed across the category.

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Hotherym

Well before I knew anything about personality theory -- or much of anything at all -- I noticed there were two basic types of personality people would portray; reserved and quiet, and energetic and outspoken. Fellow students and teachers would either be one or the other for more extended periods of time. I even noticed my dogs exhibiting an extremely similar, and very obvious, version of this personality difference.

I was sold on the idea of introversion vs. extraversion. I have never been able to extravert for very long without somatisizing it into a headache or stomach trouble. However, I've only very rarely been shy, and even more rarely been considered anything other than a loudmouth. Well, I am, I guess, but my extraversion is simply a tool and a ruse.

The reality is that, for every four or so hours of intense extraversion, I need about five to eight hours of supplemental sound sleep and a couple hours of extra 'alone time' to recover. Yes, I've actually figured that out. Though I love an interesting conversation, people suck the life force out of me, and until a few years ago, I never understood exactly why.

The introverts I've been close to in my life haven't been terribly shy, except one or two. However, I've known shy extraverts, and they were the type of person that, once accustomed to the fact you weren't going to humiliate them in some way, would be non-stop boisterous.

This may not be scientific, but it's what I've personally experienced. Whether or not the idea/hypothesis of introversion and extraversion holds any water scientifically, I don't know, but I thought I'd read several studies had been done.

I too had only heard of and thought in terms of introversion and extraversion, yet I found that the other scale, of people vs. task-orientation, was more important; especially for a shy person looking for acceptance from people. I had assumed all loud popular people were unaccepting (after all, they had their pick of friends), while other "quiet" types were more accepting, since they had this apparent "shyness" in common. It was learning about the original Galenic four "humor" temperaments, and the other scale besides I/E, that showed that was not the case. Some loud popular people accepted anyone, and many quiet types basically rejected everyone, and did not want to be bothered.
It is said that the "expressive" behavior (I/E) is "what we SAY we want", and the other dimension (responsiveness) is "what we REALLY want".

If you're INFJ, then your Interaction Style (INJ) is Chart the Course (or Melancholic), which is the introvert who basically "rejects" people. This is depicted in the Keirsey/Berens system in terms of a "directing communication". So one result of this is people tiring you out.
NF is one of the more "responsive" conative groups, so you do have some amount of wanting of interaction from other people. Yet again, because of the interaction style, they will more quickly drain you.

The other kind of "shy extravert" you refer to, who becomes more open when he feels secure with you, is someone with low expressiveness, yet very high responsiveness. I actually fall into this category, and in some respects I do come out as an extravert (apparently favoring Ne as dom. over the introverted judging function), even though I'm not usually outgoing in person.

Originally Posted by htb

As for the discussion, system-triangulation may help. Yet I continue to wonder if extraversion and introversion must be thought of as corollary and not determinant -- as, say, dimorphism is a manifestation of chromosomal arrangement, "E" and "I" are figurations of temperamental characteristics that are highly dependent on irreducible types. So preferences do run along a continuum but aren't, were you to try to deduce, terms distributed across the category.

I believe both introversion and extraversion, along with people vs. task focus, stem from internal drivers that usually take the form of some "fear" or "need". Introverts fear rejection, while extraverts need attention, and have the confidence to approach others. We can say they fear insignificance. Task-oriented or "directive" people distrust others or fear being controlled in some way. So they tend to reject people and focus on tasks, in which people are simply to be "directed". People-oriented or "informative" people need acceptance, or fear worthlessness, so they are more friendly and accepting to people (and thus less directive).
Sometimes, this "people-orientation" is called "responding as an extravert", while task-orientation is "responding as an introvert". So responsiveness can influence introverted or extraverted behavior, despite the normal I/E ("expressivess") designation.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Eric B

I believe both introversion and extraversion, along with people vs. task focus, stem from internal drivers that usually take the form of some "fear" or "need". Intoverts fear rejection, while extraverts need attention, and have the confidence to approach others. We can say they fear insignificance.

Can those fears be introduced by experience? Is it possible to fear both insignificance and rejection? Or are you saying that one always fears both, but to characteristically unequal degrees?