New Titles For Extrovert and Introvert

[Savage Idealist]

It's well known that cognitive function are vastly different from social abilities. That is a cognitive extrovert differs from a social extrovert, in that the former is aware of the external world around them while the latter actively participates in social contact with many other people. In fact most people in general hold the pre-concieved notion that introverts are 'the quiet/shy one' and that extroverts are the 'party people'. However extroverts and introverts under the cognitive functions are much different; they are subtle in thier differences and precise in their classifications. Therefore anyone who sees thier friend, a friend whom is associated with JCF yet shy and hesitant in nature, and is told by thier friend that they are extroverted will be mocked as mistaken. Thus I suggest that new title replace extroversion and introversion, ones that will provide a better name that fits with the JCF.

So any ideas for such names?

 

[Thalassa]

Well I believe that extroverted and introverted literally mean "external focus" and "internal focus"...which is what the cognitive functions do.

It's just that the popular connotation for extrovert and introvert is very social person versus person who spends more time alone, or maybe doesn't like to go to parties, etc.

I have noticed, although I am quieter and spend more time alone than some would think an extrovert would do, I've still had IxFJs tell me that I'm MUCH more expressive and open than they are, and that I initiate conversation more. I've also had an INFP question me on why I cared so much about collecting opinions from others. I've had more than one introvert tell me that they couldn't live in hostels as long as I did (several months), or with a bunch of roommates in a big house like I do now.

So, still, there are elements of social extroversion there...it's just that I really, really like my solitude. So I can think, read, write, etc. But apparently this is common in Ne doms, hence the "introverted extrovert" thing.

I think an ISFJ could easily spend more time with their acquaintences or friends than I do, although I'm the ENFP.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Wait . . . external . . . internal . . . why didn't I think of those before!? Both are different enought from extroversion and introversion, both describe a particular type, both even begin with E and I! Thanks for the unintentional solution Marm!

 

[Thalassa]

I unintentionally help whenever I can.

 

[Elfboy]

Wait . . . external . . . internal . . . why didn't I think of those before!? Both are different enought from extroversion and introversion, both describe a particular type, both even begin with E and I! Thanks for the unintentional solution Marm!

those seem kind of misleading to me. most EN types would be like "I'm definitely internal" I think what needs to change is the publics ridiculous notions of what they think introversion and extroversion are

 

[INTP]

introversion stands for inward-turning of libido and extraversion for outward-turning of libido. our personality psychology professor said this of the two: extraversion - direct psychic energy towards the things in external world, introversion - direct psychic energy more inwardly focused. it should be noted that jung used word extraversion, not extroversion and its preferred to talk about extraversion about his work, instead of extroversion(even tho its not totally wrong to use word extroversion, but extroversion is more of a term for general speech for it).

even tho people use these words introvert and extrovert in quite different ways in general speech. those terms used in general speech came from jungs work(someone mentioned them bit earlier, but jung popularized them using his definitions), so how people use them as general terms is actually bit wrong way(or not actually wrong, but differs from what the terms were created for) to use them as the definitions for them has changed.

in conclusion, it would be stupid to change those terms, just because people use them in different way in general speech

 

[Viridian]

Don't some authors intentionally use the terms intraversion and extraversion to differentiate from common parlance?

 

[Eric B]

Basically, the "social" definition of introversion and extroversion, would be what in my discussions is called "expressed Inclusion". That determines how much you approach others for interaction on a social level.

If a person is an "introvert or extravert" (only extravert has the "a") in the Jungian sense, of dominant function orientation, then as has been said, that's about where their energies are focused. Yet, it just so happens, that where their energies are focused will correspond to the other version of e/i, in how much they approach others socially. It makes sense that someone whose energies are directed outward will tend to approach others, and someone whose energies are focused inward will tend to approach others less.

There are other factors that can help shape interaction. Such as wanted Inclusion, which is basically people vs task focus, and basically integrated into the type system as "directing/informing" (which is actually one aspect of the dimension). In contrast to "expressing", this has been described as "responding as an introvert or extrovert". It's how much a person wants to be approached by others, socially. So that may explain why some who are quick to approach others might be slow to respond, and vice versa.

There's also even Keirsey's pragmatic/cooperative, which I believe is a factor known as expressed Control. Like i/e, it ultimately tells you how much a person approaches others, but this time, in leadership and responsibilities, instead of social interaction. A person who "does what works" will be faster to take action than one who must "do what's right". And then structure/motive, like directing/informing, is another level of responsiveness.

So if EN's, or ENP's are said to be "introverted extraverts"; while expressive on a surface level, they might be cooperative (ENF), directive (ENJ), structure focused (ENT), and thus not as 'connecting' with people on either the expressive or responsive dimensions as you might expect for an "extravert". They would them seem more "internal" in some way, or see themselves that way.
Also, personal experience can affect a person, and make them less expressive. In such case, it is just a typical aspect of their type they are deviating from. For whatever EN's/ENP's that might seem more reserved; there are plenty that fit the common model of "outgoing, bright, gregarious", etc. So "introverted extravert" is not really any hardwired type trait.

 

[Thalassa]

Basically, the "social" definition of introversion and extroversion, would be what in my discussions is called "expressed Inclusion". That determines how much you approach others for interaction on a social level.

If a person is an "introvert or extravert" (only extravert has the "a") in the Jungian sense, of dominant function orientation, then as has been said, that's about where their energies are focused. Yet, it just so happens, that where their energies are focused will correspond to the other version of e/i, in how much they approach others socially. It makes sense that someone whose energies are directed outward will tend to approach others, and someone whose energies are focused inward will tend to approach others less.

There are other factors that can help shape interaction. Such as wanted Inclusion, which is basically people vs task focus, and basically integrated into the type system as "directing/informing" (which is actually one aspect of the dimension). In contrast to "expressing", this has been described as "responding as an introvert or extrovert". It's how much a person wants to be approached by others, socially. So that may explain why some who are quick to approach others might be slow to respond, and vice versa.

There's also even Keirsey's pragmatic/cooperative, which I believe is a factor known as expressed Control. Like i/e, it ultimately tells you how much a person approaches others, but this time, in leadership and responsibilities, instead of social interaction. A person who "does what works" will be faster to take action than one who must "do what's right". And then structure/motive, like directing/informing, is another level of responsiveness.

So if EN's, or ENP's are said to be "introverted extraverts"; while expressive on a surface level, they might be cooperative (ENF), directive (ENJ), structure focused (ENT), and thus not as 'connecting' with people on either the expressive or responsive dimensions as you might expect for an "extravert". They would them seem more "internal" in some way, or see themselves that way.
Also, personal experience can affect a person, and make them less expressive. In such case, it is just a typical aspect of their type they are deviating from. For whatever EN's/ENP's that might seem more reserved; there are plenty that fit the common model of "outgoing, bright, gregarious", etc. So "introverted extravert" is not really any hardwired type trait.

Yes, I wonder how much conditioning has to do with it. I am/was

1) from WV, which is a culture of more reserved people in the first place, at least in comparison into places with more population density that doesn't have a vast history of being locked in by mountains

2) raised in a semi-rural area, in a very very quiet place, without a lot of the hustle, bustle, noise, and population of the 21st century...like, I literally lived on acres of land, with a small patch of forest next to us...we did have neighbors, we weren't completely isolated, but I did not grow up in a suburb, and we were not in walking distance of a store of any kind (I mean seriously for miles and miles, I'm a person who walks, and I can walk far)

3) my most consistent parent/guardian growing up was an extremely taciturn ISTJ

4) I spent a large portion of my childhood reading or playing by myself as a result of not growing up in a suburb or city, or otherwise densely populated area

We did not live in a more populated, "open" culture until I was around 12, when we moved to the Raleigh area of NC.

However, I did show traits from a very young age of wanting to perform, and I remember being told I had charisma as early as age 9 or 10.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, that's the the of thing that happens. I see a lot of extraverts claim they were "introverts when young" (And then "learned to be more confident", or something like that), but it is really circumstances like those that made them seem that way. When they get older and more independent, or circumstances change, their "true selves" come out. That's why it's often said you can't look just at behavior, because behaviors can be learned and shaped by circumstances and thus change. True type or temperament is about the inner needs of the person, whether fulfilled or not.