an introverted SP is supposed to find having a pure SP attitude a little more taxing than the extroverted SP.
According to who?
If you were going by functions you'd ignore sociability because Se isn't really about being skilled socially, it isn't about connecting and relating to people at all. Se might not be talkative and making heaps of friends all the time but it is definitely "out there" in the external world all the time. You seem to take a kind of pride in not approaching/considering things internally or what might be hidden (especially in regards to N stuff), i'd say that points more towards Se dom than Fi dom.
I consider things internally all the time. Not hidden stuff, you're right, but considering my actions, my priorities, my values. And when I take those "cognitive processes" tests, "Fi" almost always comes in with the highest score, with "Se" second.
Here are some ideas on why you seem to come across as extroverted on the forum... I remember when I posted a thread " How many variables do you take in at the super market aisle?" you said " You didn't make an option for zero". It is those sort of comments (and there have been a few) that make you come across as using Se. Also, your dislike of Ni is similar to an ISFP's dislike of Te. It seems you really take pride in not using any sort of intuition.
So, you're saying Fi considers "variables" in a supermarket? I'm not following this example, sorry.
Jeffster, with regard to being around crowds of people, socializing, etc.
(A) Are you energized by the experience?
OR
(B) Does it "drain" you, requiring to "re-charge" afterward?
Isn't that the penultimate distinction between E/I?
The answer is both.
But - I am more energized by a small audience of people than a large one. And in an online environment, where physically I am simply sitting in front of my computer and can log off of something anytime, I enjoy a "crowd" in the sense of several people that can be entertained by me at the same time, such as Ventrilo chats where I would stay up til 4am feeding off the energy of the responses I got from other people in chat. I would likely never do that at an in-person gathering, as I tend to do a lot more listening than talking in person and grow tired of the same environment much quicker.
That's why I think all the communication that is now possible with the internet complicates the traditional I/E view, as you kind of have people that would fit the traditional views of introvert in person, but seem to "come alive" in the right environment, which online communication makes possible much more often.
could be an Ambivert, and hence XSFP, like short'n'sweet.
See, shortnsweet tells many tales of social exploits I would never get involved in, I don't have much doubt that she's extroverted.
Internet extravert.
Yeah, kinda what I was saying above. We almost need new categories for today's age.
Well, I was just wondering if it's social anxiety vs. preoccupation with your inner self. Extroverts can be shy, which means they may still need/desire that interaction more than an introvert, but they struggle in social interaction because of fears. Conversely, there are introverts with great social skills who are not shy, but they still prefer their own inner world to interaction.
Hmmm. I think as a child and young adult, I would definitely say I had a "preoccupation with my inner self." But I think I matured and through life experience realized that was largely a waste of time. Not that it's a waste of time to evaluate your own principles or your actions to try to improve things, but not to be so occupied by it that you lose touch with the real world.
Cut the rope, Jeffster. Be a mighty pachyderm!
umpyouup:
I feel like that sometimes, but then my laziness takes over.
I myself identify as an IXFX? Why? Because I feel that neither S nor N, nor J nor P, accounts for the way I process information fully. IXFX does. I understand that a lot of people like to stick with the four letters but I personally find it limiting. If you want to stay with one of the main types, go ahead, but you shouldn't feel that it's necessary to choose a preference if both are equally characteristic of you.
I agree with you about limiting. That's one of the reasons I prefer David Keirsey's temperament theory, because he talks about us all being capable of thinking, feeling, etc, but more naturally suited to certain "intelligent roles" and all possessing second, third, fourth, etc suits that we can still call on, just with more effort required.
re unsure, this may also help:
Extroversion and introversion - Wikisocion
Do you feel like you have more of a focus on objective characteristics and behaviors or on qualities generated by the interactions between those elements?
The second one, definitely. And about 85-90 percent of the differences outlined in that link, I fit with the introvert side for sure.
My perception is that you like attention way too much:
Most I's (all?) I know don't particularly like a lot of sustained attention.
But you'd be Se primary, so you'd have to really notice everything.
I also personally feel like anyone that frequents Vent on a regular basis, might be an extravert. Just sayin.......
Heh. You mean the ones that actually talk or the people that log on and just sit there not saying anything?
I've been pretty much telling you that that was my perception of you from the first week i joined the forum all those many moons ago.
Uhhh..who are you?
id, its teh intrehnets. If you insist you're ISFP, I believe you. People's often express themselves differently (to various degrees) offline than they do online.
Online though, you come off as a flaming ESFP, brah.
Also, consider your Ni-thread where it took you a bit of time to grasp what it was and the fact that you're in a Te-heavy profession (I remember you mentioning something in your blog regarding a management position in a fast-food franchise and the your JD sounded like a Te-dom's wet dream.
). Keeps pointing to Se>Fi>Te>Ni rather than Fi>Se>Ni>Te...
I don't think jobs are as linked to functions as you apparently do. And as always I hate the idea that people are assumed to have one set function order by type. Enough evidence to debunk that theory exists just from the people on this forum, much less all the billions of people in the world.
