[MBTI General] Is it possible to be both extroverted and introverted?

[Thalassa]

No. It's not possible. It's a spectrum. You fall somewhere on that scale, naturally.
IME, introverts don't usually have a problem knowing that they're introverts. Depressed or troubled extroverts sometimes think they are introverts, wrongly. This is where the common misunderstanding that introverts are broken comes from, IMO. Because an extrovert acting like an introvert is broken. E/I is a function of brain chemistry which is a function of genes (innate disposition) + environmental influences.
Say you're a formula 1 car (extrovert); under optimum conditions, you perform like one. But put in the wrong fuel or forget maintenance and you'll start running like a Skoda Fabia (introvert - no offense ). A Skoda is never gonna run like an F1 though. But it's a bit more comfortable to make out in.

I don't think it's just depression or being "troubled." I think it's the majority of the population being ESxx and wondering why the hell everyone doesn't want to be with other people all of the time. Also, apparently ENxJs are also more inclined to be more obvious extroverts.

I think people with Ne/Fi and Ne/Ti do need to be alone more often because their creative auxillary function is a very introverted thing combined with having dominant iNtuition.

People thinking introverts are broken is just an expectation of ESxx or Fe/Te doms projecting their sense of normality on to others.

 

[Chloe]

^

This is totally true, and also very irritating. :steam:

 

[entropie]

No. It's not possible. It's a spectrum. You fall somewhere on that scale, naturally.
IME, introverts don't usually have a problem knowing that they're introverts. Depressed or troubled extroverts sometimes think they are introverts, wrongly. This is where the common misunderstanding that introverts are broken comes from, IMO. Because an extrovert acting like an introvert is broken. E/I is a function of brain chemistry which is a function of genes (innate disposition) + environmental influences.
Say you're a formula 1 car (extrovert); under optimum conditions, you perform like one. But put in the wrong fuel or forget maintenance and you'll start running like a Skoda Fabia (introvert - no offense ). A Skoda is never gonna run like an F1 though. But it's a bit more comfortable to make out in.

This post is a good example on the I / E difference. An entp would never say "It's impossible" nor would he claim that a superficial theory like mbti can be taken as definite enough to separate the complex individuum, which is a human in just two letters.

Plus that, if you outfit a Skoda with a Porsche engine, anything is possible

Tho I am personally convinced an intp would think so too

 

[slowriot]

You know this is good, because asking someone if they get energy from being alone or with people is so vague and confusing...I tend to think, um, people often drain me, especially if I don't like them, so I vote alone...but using specific examples like getting energy from debating or engaging in activities ...like how entropie was talking about seeking new information on the Internet and in movies...or how I get a charge from seeing new places or going on "adventures" and feel dead if I get stuck into a rut for too long...it's not necessarily about being with a bunch of people.

EDIT: It's like when I realized that a life of just writing would actually be very difficult for me. I think if I were a true introvert the idea of being alone with my own thoughts and creations would be exhilirating, rather than making me feel like if there were no regular feedback I'd feel...unmotivated...and isolated...hmmm strange thoughts for an introvert to have, huh? It really surprised me when I had that realization, because I thought I wanted to be a novelist.

Yes, I just wouldnt take it too far. I for one do enjoy going new places seeing new scenaries but it takes me longer and the frequencies are not the same as some more extroverted friends of mine. But as a general concept of was the differences are I think its the best I can come up with now.

Friends I consider extroverted dont neccesarily have a more engaging personality. It usually have to do with what your 1st and 2nd functions are more than anything. And when we talk specific people many scenarios can include people have thinking preferences first but having them so underdeveloped because they live in a 3rd world country or in an antiintullectual enviroment. And probably have had to work on the 2nd and 3rd function more to "survive" in his enviroment. Or you have the feeler child that has been bullied because they where too kind and therefore have a restrained relationship to his own functional preferences.

Lexicon and I had a little talk about Fe on ventrilo, because people thinks shes an extroverted tendancy. But really its just Fe that she exumes. I see this more expressed in my ISFJ mother. She is also seen as an extrovert, but really she is not. She just exumes what is generally accepted as extroverted behavior, extroverted feeling, really well. But does that make her an extrovert? No it only goes to show that what we expect in others - even as a society, hence the extroverted feeling being the social accepted way of being extroverted - might be very different from what they specifically are function wise and temperament wise.

Edit: About my friends being engaging: I have friends that are probably estj and some estp friends. If I should put them up against each other, Id have to say that I find my ESTP friends more socially engaging than my estj friends because Se is an extremely good enabler for social interactions. But if I look at my ENTP friend and compare him to the ESTPs he would look introverted because Ne dont have the same social value that Se does. But if I look at my esfp vs esfj friends my esfj friends seem much more socially engaging than the esfp! Its weird but in reality there is a socially accepted rule of engagement in all societies and they are usually the same.

Extroverted feeling is the top function for social behavior, with Extroverted sensing second, thats how the world works. I havent given too much thought into the third highest function and so on. But thats my perspective on this.

So to answer the OP question again: Look at the functions aswell, do you find that you fit the extroverted intuition more than introverted thinking? Because that is a strong indicator for if you are an introvert or extrovert

 

[slowriot]

No. It's not possible. It's a spectrum. You fall somewhere on that scale, naturally.
IME, introverts don't usually have a problem knowing that they're introverts. Depressed or troubled extroverts sometimes think they are introverts, wrongly. This is where the common misunderstanding that introverts are broken comes from, IMO. Because an extrovert acting like an introvert is broken. E/I is a function of brain chemistry which is a function of genes (innate disposition) + environmental influences.
Say you're a formula 1 car (extrovert); under optimum conditions, you perform like one. But put in the wrong fuel or forget maintenance and you'll start running like a Skoda Fabia (introvert - no offense ). A Skoda is never gonna run like an F1 though. But it's a bit more comfortable to make out in.

I think this is very true. Basically I take the view that people use their inferior functions more than they think they do. Like as I sketched up in the earlier post in this thread that the extroverted sensing thinking type might go from being socially engaging and energetic when talking practical objectively to depressed and lacking in energy when talking about his personal feelings, in a matter of a second.

 

[Salomé]

People thinking introverts are broken is just an expectation of ESxx or Fe/Te doms projecting their sense of normality on to others.

I disagree. If that were the case, INs would feel the same way about ESs (and we don't). The "broken" perception comes from observing introverted behaviour and projecting a mental state (of one's own) that one associates with that behaviour. An ES would have to feel pretty crappy to be as withdrawn as an IN is naturally. Therefore, they assume that INs feel crappy. How could they do otherwise?

This post is a good example on the I / E difference. An entp would never say "It's impossible" nor would he claim that a superficial theory like mbti can be taken as definite enough to separate the complex individuum, which is a human in just two letters.

Wrong. I wasn't talking about MBTI. E/I is a scientifically valid concept (unlike MBTI which is mostly speculative). This is a good example of an entp jumping to conclusions rather than thinking something through properly.

Plus that, if you outfit a Skoda with a Porsche engine, anything is possible

You are still restricted by aerodynamics, so no, it's not. Besides which that would be analogous to a brain transplant, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Totenkindly]

Interesting conversation.

It reminds me of my dad, who is so clearly ESTP, and yet I remember him sincerely trying to tell me years ago he was an introvert. (Which is just so clearly not the case by the ways in which he prefers to interact.)

But the alcohol addiction and/or complete disappointment in life has often led him to lead an isolated life, removing himself from human culture. And he assumed he must be introverted because he was lost in that morass, where his natural extroversion was very clear to those around him and he did appear "broken" to people and not his natural self in that withdraw and isolated state.

In regards to personal IN perspectives on ES: I remember feeling more bad about myself when younger because I could sense the ES's judgment of me as "broken" because I wasn't like them. But I was always aware that, despite any of that image I struggled with, I was "okay as-is" and it was just that they didn't really understand me at all (which was a completely different kind of hurt)... and I don't remember feeling that something was wrong with them because they were ES. I could value them for that; I just wanted them off my case because their view of me was unfair and was causing me grief.

 

[wolfy]

If you are in a situation that makes more use of your extroverted function you'd tend to feel more extroverted. And vice versa. Your focus would change.

 

[entropie]

Wrong. I wasn't talking about MBTI. E/I is a scientifically valid concept (unlike MBTI which is mostly speculative). This is a good example of an entp jumping to conclusions rather than thinking something through properly.

I dont like the intp resoluteness with things. Rather than keeping an open-mind, things which are marked "scientific theory" are used for a resolute expression to describe things. Even if intps aint resolute in their thinking, the form you talk about it sucks and drives people away.

For example you talk about E/I being the spectrum of things and I rather ask myself, why abide by that rule at all ? I am me an alone human being and E/I is a mere human definition to things by people I dont even like. So what am I trieing to accomplish here ? To find out more about me myself or to find out how I fit better into norms by a society I havent liked from the start.

It's troubling for me to express and to taqlk correctly about those things, it's just those intp resoluteness in posts that brought me multiple infractions so far.

You say depressed extroverts thing they are introverts some times. I rather think that people who would freely call themselves introvert or extroverts have a problem. Cause the longer you call yourself something the more you gonna believe in it for yourself. Isnt it just enough to be depressed at the moment, do we really need to justify that for us: it is because we are introvert, meaning god wanted us to be different and thats why I am depressed.

I think of this kind of thinking to be very very dangerous and it results in people ignoring the real issues they are facing and rather justifieing it with hey i am introvert, i must be depressed.

Well you didnt say all that, I just dont like intp resoluteness. Your pride in thinking things through so well, always has the cost that other people are left with no room for their ideas in immediate discussion.

You are still restricted by aerodynamics, so no, it's not. Besides which that would be analogous to a brain transplant, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Not true if you use a gas turbine

 

[slowriot]

I rather think that people who would freely call themselves introvert or extroverts have a problem. Cause the longer you call yourself something the more you gonna believe in it for yourself. Isnt it just enough to be depressed at the moment, do we really need to justify that for us: it is because we are introvert, meaning god wanted us to be different and thats why I am depressed.

I find it freeing to acknowledge that Im something specific, it makes me appreciate the times when Im not introverting. But if one says "Im introverted accept me as that" then yes I would say they have a problem. Typology should not be a comfort blanket but recognition of your faults and developement of those sides that you lack.

 

[Totenkindly]

I dunno, entropie -- I found it a relief to realize I wasn't supposed to be an extrovert, and so I could just set aside their judgments of me for being different than them. In fact, that was the role MBTI in general played in my life: For many years I felt different and an "anomaly" in my world, then I found out that I was just normal but different and that who I was was "okay."

Some people will use that an excuse for something, but it can also be a great encouragement.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

If you are in a situation that makes more use of your extroverted function you'd tend to feel more extroverted. And vice versa. Your focus would change.

I'm leaning towards this in some ways. It's situational. It's about objects moving through a focal point. I think that the wider the gaze, the more objects you are extraverted towards and vice versa. As I came across the fact that extraversion and introversion, in one sense, is based mainly on the value you place in an object, and sinse our perception is that not all objects are equal to each other, and at some points in time you are more focused on yourself and less on the outer world you switch in between Extraversion and Introversion accordingly, but never at the same time. To be both an I and E at the same time in the view of functions would mean that you would be able to think about an idea and have already thought about it at the same time, which isn't possible. So, yes, but not at the same time and depending on the focal points range not in the same quantity.

 

[entropie]

I find it freeing to acknowledge that Im something specific, it makes me appreciate the times when Im not introverting. But if one says "Im introverted accept me as that" then yes I would say they have a problem. Typology should not be a comfort blanket but recognition of your faults and developement of those sides that you lack.

I dunno, entropie -- I found it a relief to realize I wasn't supposed to be an extrovert, and so I could just set aside their judgments of me for being different than them. In fact, that was the role MBTI in general played in my life: For many years I felt different and an "anomaly" in my world, then I found out that I was just normal but different and that who I was was "okay."

Some people will use that an excuse for something, but it can also be a great encouragement.

Ok I hear ya. I havent thought that one through .

Sorry Morgan for being picky the moment I read your post someone asked me something real stupid at work, so the anger transfer done by me wasnt necessary.

I have this long talks with my infj in which I try to really understand at least something. She's totally anti any labeling system. So the first time I for example started to present her the mbti system she laied out all the psychologial diseases from which people could suffer who label themselves in some unusual way. The thing but is, she on the other hand is totally into astrology and on the same issue always justifies things she did bad at, with being diagnosed to have ADS. So I think too there's a fine line between a real quest for the self or an excuse for ones own problems. I came here due to no other reason than a self quest and knowing today that I am quite assertive and only hear what I want to hear, I can safely say now at least in the understanding of where my mind gathers its information from, I am mbti extroverted.

The real problem is and maybe thats a thing many entps face: you never belong. Today this has become different but back then, I wasnt accepted in the nerds club, cause I am only half nerd and I wasnt accepted in the cool boys club cause I was half nerd. Everyone wants to belong and an E-type maybe moreso, so I always took my own way and was though I am a pussy accepted partly in the tough boys club and got invited to some tabletop game evenings to the nerds tho I couldnt take their stuff serious all the time. On top of all that tho, the whole world would type me to be very socially introvert. I cant really talk the usual talk with people and I am always behaving dumb in public or different what at least makes people laugh but doesnt really make them take me serious.

Then mbti came along and typed me extraverted. Ok obviously there's a difference in the meaning of the words dependant on the context but I think somewhere on the way I lost my belief in words and just said I am what I am now and no definition anywhere on the world I will ever listen to and let me brainwash again. I'll only decide for myself now whats right and wrong and not take so much regard on what others likie me to be. Somewhere then I threw definitions like E/I for myself over board.

But without them, I'ld have probably not gotten there, so it wouldnt be clever to now dismiss them totally.

The thing is, tho its very different today, I still do not belong. I've excelled in hobbies involving things and communities of people of machine builders and hobby spacepilots, but in realitry I am still only wearing my mask and doing my job. The mask I own totally sucks, it leaks at a billion points and since I am the worst liar who ever existed on the world, people see just right through me. So I cant hide from constantly doing nerdy things in public and stepping in one blamage after the other. The only thing that keeps me save is competence and my knowledge and a positive attitude towards life that seems to look to others, he's happy his own way.

Nevertheless I'ld wish for much much more closeness with people. I wish I would have a best friend that is a thing I never had. People were always more of just friends but really close friends I never had. Most probably because I never let them that close aswell, cause I thought they will not understand how I see the world either way. And that's why I still until today cant safely and with a free conciencse tell you if I am now I or E. Socially introverted 100% for sure, Assertive and stubborn dependant on external stimuli for sure too. I lived for 2 years in my parents houses basement and only had the computer to entertain me at age 16 so thats no real E aswell.


Well that's my load. Maybe it gives other people new ideas on their quests.

 

[Amethyst]

You mean ambiverted?
Yes.

 

[slowriot]

You mean ambiverted?
Yes.

TAWANDA!! :steam:

 

[Salomé]

I dont like the intp resoluteness with things. Rather than keeping an open-mind, things which are marked "scientific theory" are used for a resolute expression to describe things. Even if intps aint resolute in their thinking, the form you talk about it sucks and drives people away.

Quite possible.

For example you talk about E/I being the spectrum of things and I rather ask myself, why abide by that rule at all ? I am me an alone human being and E/I is a mere human definition to things by people I dont even like. So what am I trieing to accomplish here ? To find out more about me myself or to find out how I fit better into norms by a society I havent liked from the start.

You mistake the clarity with which I try to express myself, for certainty. (A lot of people make that mistake).
But you seem confused to me. Since this thread asks "Can one be both an introvert and an extrovert?" I have to work from the premise that such terms mean something and I have to work with my understanding of what those terms mean. That doesn't mean that I am 100% convinced that they have real life correlates - I'm open to discussion about that, but that's another thread - it just means that the premise is implicit in any answer I give. I have a model of what the concepts of extroversion and introversion are and how it works and I consult that model to see how to answer the question. Always I ask: is it consistent? As such, it's very simple to sound certain, because I am certain, about the model, I am certain that introversion and extroversion are not quantum states. They are either / or states. But if new data changes the model (for example, once we have complete understanding of the neuroscience behind the phenomenon, rather than the current partial understanding) then that will change the answer to questions contingent on that model.
See?

I'm sorry if that disturbs you. You are free to make an alternate case.

You say depressed extroverts thing they are introverts some times. I rather think that people who would freely call themselves introvert or extroverts have a problem. Cause the longer you call yourself something the more you gonna believe in it for yourself. Isnt it just enough to be depressed at the moment, do we really need to justify that for us: it is because we are introvert, meaning god wanted us to be different and thats why I am depressed.

Yeah. No. That's not what I said, and not what I meant. At all.
Individuals are calibrated differently. What is normal for one, is not normal for another. Maybe your body temperature is a couple of degrees higher than mine, for (extreme) example. So that if I were to have the same temperature I'd be running a fever, whereas it's just normal for you. That's similar to how I think about extroversion and introversion. If a person who is normally very extroverted becomes withdrawn and quiet and anti-social, I'd be worried that something was up. But for someone like me, that would be completely normal and nothing to worry about.

I have this long talks with my infj in which I try to really understand at least something. She's totally anti any labeling system. So the first time I for example started to present her the mbti system she laied out all the psychologial diseases from which people could suffer who label themselves in some unusual way.

I do not understand this kind of phobic thinking. Labels and models are benign. They are a way of explaining natural phenomena, naturally recurring patterns. A way of increasing knowledge. They are kept as long as they are useful and tossed as soon as they are invalidated or refined. No big deal.

The real problem is and maybe thats a thing many entps face: you never belong.

I do think ENTPs have some unique challenges. They seem to have a high need for external stimulation but are also often anti-social or socially challenged in some way. Maybe that deserves its own thread?

 

[simulatedworld]

You mean ambiverted?
Yes.

No, ambiversion is a myth. It's made up by people who:

A) Can't figure out if they're more fundamentally introverted or extroverted, and
B) Like the idea of being "miscellaneous" because it makes them feel special/unique/defiant of categorization.

About introversion vs extroversion its basically about where you get your energy from, is it from interaction and involvement in activities, other people, engaging debates you might be extroverted. If you get energy from alone time where you can reflect on the activities, even solitude activities, reflect on people and ideas and knowledge, it might suggest introversion. I know this is a lacking model of introversion vs extroversion. But it is generally where you get your energy from. Is it the outer world or your own inner world. We all get energy from both but what do you prefer as your main recharger of energy.

This is actually one of the most common misconceptions among typology communities.

There are very social introverts who like to be around others a lot and very antisocial extroverts who spend most of their time alone.

We all need to get over the idea that extroversion/introversion is directly related to being social or not social. That is one commonly occurring consequence of I/E, but it is not the defining characteristic.

The real meaning of I/E has to do with how one derives one's conception of truth, which forms the basis of one's worldview.

Introverts draw their most dominant perspective from subjective internal sources, seeking to live up to an internalized ideal that is unrelated to any external standard.

Extroverts draw their most dominant perspective from objective external sources, seeking to live up to an externalized ideal that is unrelated to any internal standard.

As we grow and develop our auxiliary functions, we learn to balance and place value on both, but will still always fundamentally identify more closely with one or the other.

It is true that extroverts are more likely to be social than introverts, but social interaction with others is simply one common consequence and not actually the crux of I/E. Extroversion simply means more inclined to be stimulated by external sources than by internal ones; however, there are many possible sources of external stimulation which do not include other people!

For example my INFP roommate almost never wants to be completely alone. He is almost always up for hanging out with one or two close friends because part of his subjective, internalized ideal involves placing a high value on spending a lot of time with those that are close to him.

He doesn't feel "drained by spending time with others" at all, and yet he is quite clearly introverted because his dominant perspective is very rooted in Fi.

I do not understand this kind of phobic thinking. Labels and models are benign. They are a way of explaining natural phenomena, naturally recurring patterns. A way of increasing knowledge. They are kept as long as they are useful and tossed as soon as they are invalidated or refined. No big deal.

No way dude, labels and models are evil conspiracies designed intentionally to strangle individuality and personal creativity/take over the world/fund terrorism/wtfever. Don't you read Victor's posts????

 

[slowriot]

No, ambiversion is a myth. It's made up by people who:

A) Can't figure out if they're more fundamentally introverted or extroverted, and
B) Like the idea of being "miscellaneous" because it makes them feel special/unique/defiant of categorization.




This is actually one of the most common misconceptions among typology communities.

There are very social introverts who like to be around others a lot and very antisocial extroverts who spend most of their time alone.

We all need to get over the idea that extroversion/introversion is directly related to being social or not social. That is one commonly occurring consequence of I/E, but it is not the defining characteristic.

The real meaning of I/E has to do with how one derives one's conception of truth, which forms the basis of one's worldview.

Introverts draw their most dominant perspective from subjective internal sources, seeking to live up to an internalized ideal that is unrelated to any external standard.

Extroverts draw their most dominant perspective from objective external sources, seeking to live up to an externalized ideal that is unrelated to any internal standard.

As we grow and develop our auxiliary functions, we learn to balance and place value on both, but will still always fundamentally identify more closely with one or the other.

It is true that extroverts are more likely to be social than introverts, but social interaction with others is simply one common consequence and not actually the crux of I/E. Extroversion simply means more inclined to be stimulated by external sources than by internal ones; however, there are many possible sources of external stimulation which do not include other people!

For example my INFP roommate almost never wants to be completely alone. He is almost always up for hanging out with one or two close friends because part of his subjective, internalized ideal involves placing a high value on spending a lot of time with those that are close to him.

He doesn't feel "drained by spending time with others" at all, and yet he is quite clearly introverted because his dominant perspective is very rooted in Fi.

Agreed

 

[Totenkindly]

Hey, can we see some examples?
I think it helps to actually tie this to actual manifestations rather than continuously abstracting it -- it's easy for it to become divorced from practical understanding.

Sim, for example: what "externalized ideal that is unrelated to any internal standard" is driving you?

 

[entropie]

Quite possible.
You mistake the clarity with which I try to express myself, for certainty. (A lot of people make that mistake).

Well if thats fine for you

But you seem confused to me. Since this thread asks "Can one be both an introvert and an extrovert?" I have to work from the premise that such terms mean something and I have to work with my understanding of what those terms mean.

I have to do nothing but to die in life. To me human psychology isnt math, therefore I wont talk about peoples issues like in a research paper.

That doesn't mean that I am 100% convinced that they have real life correlates - I'm open to discussion about that, but that's another thread - it just means that the premise is implicit in any answer I give.

I compute.

I have a model of what the concepts of extroversion and introversion are and how it works and I consult that model to see how to answer the question. Always I ask: is it consistent? As such, it's very simple to sound certain, because I am certain, about the model, I am certain that introversion and extroversion are not quantum states. They are either / or states. But if new data changes the model (for example, once we have complete understanding of the neuroscience behind the phenomenon, rather than the current partial understanding) then that will change the answer to questions contingent on that model.
See?

Yes.

I'm sorry if that disturbs you. You are free to make an alternate case.
Yeah. No. That's not what I said, and not what I meant. At all.
Individuals are calibrated differently. What is normal for one, is not normal for another. Maybe your body temperature is a couple of degrees higher than mine, for (extreme) example. So that if I were to have the same temperature I'd be running a fever, whereas it's just normal for you. That's similar to how I think about extroversion and introversion. If a person who is normally very extroverted becomes withdrawn and quiet and anti-social, I'd be worried that something was up. But for someone like me, that would be completely normal and nothing to worry about.

Yes I revised my former words about it in the thread above. And I am in fact always a bit higher on the body temperature. Doctor says I've a faaaaaaaaaaaast metabolism

I do not understand this kind of phobic thinking. Labels and models are benign. They are a way of explaining natural phenomena, naturally recurring patterns. A way of increasing knowledge. They are kept as long as they are useful and tossed as soon as they are invalidated or refined. No big deal.

Yes, you just sometimes have to sell this stuff in different words to people, otherwise they think you are strange and hunt you with forks and fire at night. That's actually no thing that bothers me, I am just a big fan of metaphorical speech and any plain factual approach I find boring. Not your problem tho.

I do think ENTPs have some unique challenges. They seem to have a high need for external stimulation but are also often anti-social or socially challenged in some way. Maybe that deserves its own thread?

Yes, yes... it's like that movie with Jack Nicholson, one flew over the cuckoo's nest. You only talk shit 24/7 and pick on all people, but in the end they stand behind you and form a team with you and thats either because they calculated the factual data wrong or because they are human