Nobody is making any evaluation of whether the person is deep or shallow. We are discussing which aspects of perspective focus on depth and which ones focus on breadth.
Nobody is saying that you can't be a deep person because you're an extrovert. Calm down.
I'm chillin' so don't you worry bout me.
Yes it is; however, if extroverts did not have auxiliary introverted perspectives balancing us out, that is how we would be.
Hmm, my mother is all Fe with a marginal amount of Si.
Her mind is never still, she is constantly worried or thinking about something she needs to do, someone she needs to take care of, something she needs to take care of.
:sad:
My mother's genetic makeup and the way she was raised, well, she has no self, no identity, she can't be alone. She's never been alone, she can't even be "alone" with someone in the house, she needs to have company all the time, it's so sad. :sad:
But, if depth entails or encompasses having a focus, my uber-extroverted mom certainly has one, and it's called her family, I cannot tell you how many times she has told me that her daughters are her life, that that is all she cares about, us, and our well-being, and she ain't lyin', nope.
I suspect that they simply did not share many of their thoughts with you and thus you have no idea what they actually think or don't think
On the contrary, I don't think you know, a.) my deeply ingrained predilection for introverts, both male and female, I'm patient as fuck when it comes to someone I care about, even in the moment, (no, the irony does not escape me), and I have always had a knack to open even the most introverted people up, hell, some took me years, but they opened up, others, well, yes, they were introverted, but no, they at least for me, had absolutely nothing to bring to the table, and listen, I did not and would not come at them with this notion, I would be like, hmm, that person seems cool, wait it out, get in a convo, and, wow, major disappointment.
The quiet, mysterious, shy, introverted guy is sometimes only that.
Sim are you trying to imply that all introverts have depth?
Listen, I've got a pretty good intuition regarding introverts, as in, I seek the attention of those who usually end up being smart and lovely, but I have erred in the past, or not even erred, there have been many times in uni when an introvert felt comfortable enough to open up to me of their own volition and I was, well, unimpressed.
You need to also realize that I am truly an Idealist, and that I want to see the good in people, but some people are not worth, what I've come to relatively recently realize, waste your precious time.
You need to have at least one of the following qualities in order for me to willingly choose to expend energy on you.
1.) Be genuinely kind and sweet
2.) Be funny
3.) Be highly intelligent
If you don't meet any of the above criteria, sorry, but I got better things to do, like hang out on the interwebs with the likes of you people.
Regardless, Sim, I know you don't know me personally, but I have always preferred the company of introverts, and I can't ever recall one not opening up to me, irl, and I am telling the fucking truth.
We see a young guy or girl wearing glasses and we automatically assume that he or she is a nerd/bookworm/smart. :rolli:
I think the same thing happens with introverts, oh, he's quiet, he must be pensive and deep, not always the case m'dear.
Nobody is saying extroverts are shallow people. We are saying that the extroverted perspective favors breadth over depth and quantity over quality.
Only in THEORY do I understand and accept what you are saying, but for the most part, IRL, especially with Ns, our dom and aux functions are so integrally entwined that I just don't see how an extroverted NP, (ENJs don't hate me.
) could possibly be lacking in depth.
But, I am not a dumbtard, you are saying Ne left to its own devices would consume a vast breadth of knowledge/information. That is very true.
In practice, extroverted people also have introverted perspectives, which allow them to value depth sometimes as well.
Hahahaha, I wrote my previous point without reading this, and what I was going to add was this, all of my bookmarks, well, some are just odd, (I likey theoretical mathematics), have a flavor, a focus, an umbrella you can put them under, I just started bookmarking on this computer but I would say that 20 % are wiki articles about cool theoretical mathematics/abstract geometry and that the rest are about human beings,
I can't post an image of all of them so I will hyperlink a few on the list.
Complex number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)
SENG: Articles & Resources - Counseling Gifted Adults - A Case Study
Psychological mindedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ When I came across this article I was astounded that such a thing was labeled/categorized, let's just say my therapists in the past have often told me how great a therapist I would be.
It sounds like you think people are attacking your depth as a person and are thus responding with a lot of hostility because you missed the point that we are talking about isolated perspectives, not complete people.
Oy vey, what is it with Ti and analysis, i.e. dissection, I'm all about synthesis, I tend to see things in large nebulous chunks, and regarding typology, and granted this is my Fi talking, why wouldn't we be discussing things regarding complete people, I think we analyze aspects of behavior and pieces of ourselves with the intent to understand the whole, amiwrong?
Again you probably don't know what they're thinking because they probably don't feel like sharing it with you. Introverts have a tendency to do that.
Sweetheart, do you realize you are projecting your own experiences with introverts onto me.
Do you?
IRL I have had nothing but success with introverts, my best friend in high school, an INTJ, A HARDCORE INTROVERT, though she would spend her free time with me, and listen to me, and chime in once in a while, it wasn't until senior year and we were on MDMA that she expressed how she felt about me.
Honestly, thinking back on that moment is gonna make me cry, she, to this day was the hardest introvert to "crack", I was constantly insecure that she thought I was some idiot, but she liked me, no, loved me and admired me, who knew, I didn't. :blushing:
No, this is pretty clearly wrong. Fe and Te choose objective standards that can be applied universally to as many different external contexts as possible. They eschew the depth of their introverted counterparts because they value external applicability/ability to accomplish external goals over absolute correctness from a Feeling or Thinking perspective.
I agree with you on the Te, mayhaps, but with your description of Fe, this horse emphatically says NAY?!!?!?
Fe chooses objective standards that can be applied universally to as many different external contexts as possible.
The bolded part is where I REALLY disagree with you.
Fe dom users do whatever they can at the moment, i.e. modify their behavior, make some sacrifice for the sake of harmony, to make you happy for the moment, period. When an Fe user is in the company of people, s/he will do whatever it takes to bring harmony to the people. The end.
Example: Fi wants to know exactly what feels right to the user. Fe wants to build a collective standard of morality that can be applied universally to everybody, which necessitates that we give up the depth of individuality that Fi values so highly.
Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.
Your first statement is true, your second statement is partially true.
Many dom/aux Fe users ime have been religious, so you are right in that they will adopt a code that their community seems to adopt to too, but how is this showing breadth?
Also, um, pffft, once you get an Fe user alone, or in a small group, all religious bets are off, they will do what feels good/right right now instead of having to deal with temporary negative emotions, they want harmony first and foremost, period. (Once again how does this display breadth?)
This is a good point, as it illustrates why real people need a balance between introverted and extroverted perspectives.
As I said before, all breadth and no depth and we never stick with any one idea long enough to grasp its significance.
All depth and no breadth and we never learn to apply our ideas to anything real outside the self and thus are never really able to experience life.
Like yin and yang, the two perspectives are equally important. The key is that extroverts will tend to understand the breadth perspective more naturally, while introverts will tend to understand the depth perspective more naturally.
Errrrrr you had me till the last sentence.
Though you did use the qualifier "tend" I dunno, if by expertise on one subject qualifies as depth, then maybe, maybe I get what you are saying but no.
I am an extrovert, both by MBTI standards and real life standards, but my extroversion is like I dunno, just a facet of my personality, my extroversion IN NO WAY IS A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO I AM.
Like, I'd put it on the same level as...
This took me a while, I'm extroverted, I also am pretty easy going.
There.
My being extroverted and easy-going do reveal something about me but in no way do these two traits even scratch the surface of describing who I am.
I have probably, off the top of my head, four to seven main interests in life and my acquiring knowledge in these interests helps me gain a deeper understanding of what I care about, the human condition, Life.
MAJOR EDIT:
This does not mean that extroverts can't be deep people. Those with well-developed auxiliary functions ARE deep people because they have strong command of their introverted faculties.
^LULZ, I totally didn't see this part of your post, and, I agree wholeheartedly.