Questions about introversion

[Giggly]

If you are in the I/E border would that mean that you like to spend just as much time alone as you do around other people?


Also, how might one tell the difference between an introvert who gets energized by doing things alone, and one who can't get along with people and thus withdraws from them?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

If you are in the I/E border would that mean that you like to spend just as much time alone as you do around other people?


Also, how might one tell the difference between an introvert who gets energized by doing things alone, and one who can't get along with people and thus withdraws from them?

Even if you aren't very familiar with cognitive functions yet in the theory you'd be saying that you use your extroverted functions almost as equally as you use your introverted functions, which in my opinion is a good thing to train, though preference is still key; however, if you're as balanced as one can get on all of your function uses I would think that you would work more efficiently when problem solving.

I don't know if you have read this somewhere or not, but to Jung Introverted and Extroverted functions are always in reference to an object (whatever that may be).

As such:

Extroverts place importance on the object i.e. the object is more important to them.
Introverts place importance upon themselves i.e. they're more important.

An example Jung gives is belief in religion. He presents one man who loses his religion, but is completely fine because it was merely a tool for himself that he no longer needed. This was the introvert. While the extrovert was crushed by the lack of religion (he was excommunicated) because he'd put his entire self into that religion and he was nothing without it, making it more important.

As for your second question. I think it would be shown by the willingness to interact with people. The introvert that wants time alone, still wants to at some point join (if they aren't completely hermit like). While even after being offered to go the other would strongly reject the idea of interacting with people at any point in time. How do you see this? Well, you'd just have to ask.

 

[Giggly]

Even if you aren't very familiar with cognitive functions yet in the theory you'd be saying that you use your extroverted functions almost as equally as you use your introverted functions, which in my opinion is a good thing to train, though preference is still key; however, if you're as balanced as one can get on all of your function uses I would think that you would work more efficiently when problem solving.

I don't know if you have read this somewhere or not, but to Jung Introverted and Extroverted functions are always in reference to an object (whatever that may be).

As such:

Extroverts place importance on the object i.e. the object is more important to them.
Introverts place importance upon themselves i.e. they're more important.

An example Jung gives is belief in religion. He presents one man who loses his religion, but is completely fine because it was merely a tool for himself that he no longer needed. This was the introvert. While the extrovert was crushed by the lack of religion (he was excommunicated) because he'd put his entire self into that religion and he was nothing without it, making it more important.

As for your second question. I think it would be shown by the willingness to interact with people. The introvert that wants time alone, still wants to at some point join (if they aren't completely hermit like). While even after being offered to go the other would strongly reject the idea of interacting with people at any point in time. How do you see this? Well, you'd just have to ask.

Hmm, okay. I'll have to think about the introvert and extrovert thing more then. Thanks for your insights.

 

[INTP]

this wanting to spend time with people is a result of I or E, not the definition, and because its a result of that and there are other factors to it too, some extraverts can end up not liking to be around people much and some introverts might need that ALOT more than many extraverts.

anyways, according to jung, extraverted functions place importance/meaning to object(let it be a car, person or a cat), this importance comes from inside, its moving from inside to outside. introverted functions withdraw from object by getting rid of unnecessary aspects of it, its moving from outside to inside. naturally introverts have introverted function as first function, so they try to withdraw from object more habitually. extraverted types place importance to object more habitually.

 

[lane777]

Also, how might one tell the difference between an introvert who gets energized by doing things alone, and one who can't get along with people and thus withdraws from them?

Introverts may not show they like you with enthusiasm, but if they like you, they will make an effort to see you. They may not reach out often, but they will reach out. In my experience, that is common among all introverts.

The following is probably more of an INFJ thing: There have been people in my life who I had no interest in befriending who incessantly reached out to me when there was no reciprocation on my end. I couldn't refuse their invitations because I had no other plans and I refused to lie. They couldn't pick up on my indifference towards them because I would meet them where we could connect - I will bend over backwards if I have to; everyone has value and something interesting to say. You just have to ask the right questions. It doesn't help that I'm a Humanitarian by nature - I suppose people sense that and confuse it with fondness. But I am very selective with whom I choose to hang out with even though I simply get along with everyone, but whether or not I like you enough to reach out to you is the question.

Extroverts place importance on the object i.e. the object is more important to them.
Introverts place importance upon themselves i.e. they're more important.

Is that the textbook definition? Can't say I agree with the man. Sounds like he's saying introverts seek the spotlight yet in my experience extroverts by default would fit that description better.

My understanding of E/I in it's most basic sense is extroverts have a preference for extroverting thoughts while introverts prefer introverting thoughts; extroverting/interacting for introverts is draining while extroverting/interacting for extroverts is energizing.

I also agree with Wikipedia's more indepth outline:

• Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.
• Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.
• Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.
• Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Introverts mayIs that the textbook definition? Can't say I agree with the man. Sounds like he's saying introverts seek the spotlight yet in my experience extroverts by default would fit that description better.

My understanding of E/I in it's most basic sense is extroverts have a preference for extroverting thoughts while introverts prefer introverting thoughts; extroverting/interacting for introverts is draining while extroverting/interacting for extroverts is energizing.

I also agree with Wikipedia's more indepth outline:

• Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.
• Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.
• Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.
• Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone

It's not really what's meant by it. Simply that an introvert takes what it needs from the object. Making it more subjective, because it isn't really about the object, but about themselves. When you're introspecting you're figuring out how the environment fits to you, as when you extrovert you're figuring out how you fit into your environment.

 

[lane777]

It's not really what's meant by it. Simply that an introvert takes what it needs from the object. Making it more subjective, because it isn't really about the object, but about themselves. When you're introspecting you're figuring out how the environment fits to you, as when you extrovert you're figuring out how you fit into your environment.

So the introvert is self absorbed in their interactions?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

So the introvert is self absorbed in their interactions?

They've just extracted what they've needed from the object. I should also note the fact that we all have introverted functions. So selfishness shouldn't be limited to the introvert, just an introverted function.

 

[lane777]

They've just extracted what they've needed from the object. I should also note the fact that we all have introverted functions. So selfishness shouldn't be limited to the introvert, just an introverted function.

I don't relate I'm self absorbed yes, but selfishness isn't one of my vices - I also don't see it in introverts as a rule. Perhaps, I'm missing something here because I'm not looking at the full context of this idea. I'll have to look into Jung further I guess.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I don't relate I'm self absorbed yes, but selfishness isn't one of my vices - I also don't see it in introverts as a rule. Perhaps, I'm missing something here because I'm not looking at the full context of this idea. I'll have to look into Jung further I guess.

They're the same thing? I'm pretty sure they are and no one is saying it's wrong to be selfish, it's just a fact of life. At some point or another we've been selfish. That's why I said an introverted function, not an introvert.

 

[Seymour]

They're the same thing? I'm pretty sure they are and no one is saying it's wrong to be selfish, it's just a fact of life. At some point or another we've been selfish. That's why I said an introverted function, not an introvert.

The connotations of self absorbed and selfish are entirely different. Someone who is self absorbed focuses their attention on their own thoughts, interests, perspective, etc. Someone who is selfish puts their own needs ahead of those of others, regardless of the cost.

While being self absorbed can lead to objectively selfish behavior (in the "being thoughtless" sense), one doesn't always translate to the other. It's equally possible to be thoughtlessly, shallowly selfish while being perfectly tuned into the world around oneself.

 

[lane777]

They're the same thing?

What Seymour said.

I'm pretty sure they are and no one is saying it's wrong to be selfish, it's just a fact of life. At some point or another we've been selfish.

I didn't think selfishness was admirable to anyone. I imagine this means that you're neutral towards the act of selfishness? So you don't mind if you're on the receiving end of it. Fair enough.

I agree though, that everyone has selfish moments, but whether or not it's a vice in someone depends on the temperament and/or how unhealthy one is.

That's why I said an introverted function, not an introvert.

But you said...

So selfishness shouldn't be limited to the introvert, just an introverted function.

You've clarified yourself now though, so nevermind.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

What Seymour said.I didn't think selfishness was admirable to anyone. I imagine this means that you're neutral towards the act of selfishness? So you don't mind if you're on the receiving end of it. Fair enough.

I agree though, that everyone has selfish moments, but whether or not it's a vice in someone depends on the temperament and/or how unhealthy one is.

But you said...

You've clarified yourself now though, so nevermind.

It was clarified in the beginning, you just didn't read thoroughly enough.

If it's inevitable why should anyone see it as a fault? Focusing on yourself is why you live today and why you still live today. That's my opinion.

I won't quibble over definitions.

 

[lane777]

It was clarified in the beginning, you just didn't read thoroughly enough.

I'm sorry if this is tiresome for you, but could you cut and paste it? I'd like to know what I missed.

If it's inevitable why should anyone see it as a fault? Focusing on yourself is why you live today and why you still live today. That's my opinion.

Because that's like saying, since feelings of anger, irritation, laziness, pride etc. are all inevitable - we never have to apologize for them. Imagine hurting a friend/SO and telling them, "It was inevitable," as though that should be good enough for them. If you can't admit to someone that losing your temper with them was wrong, you're basically saying to them that their hurt feelings aren't justified. That won't fly in any healthy relationship.

I won't quibble over definitions.

It wasn't my intention to quibble over them. It needed to be clarified, or we would have been talking about two different things.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'm sorry if this is tiresome for you, but could you cut and paste it? I'd like to know what I missed.



Because that's like saying, since feelings of anger, irritation, laziness, pride etc. are all inevitable - we never have to apologize for them. Imagine hurting a friend/SO and telling them, "It was inevitable," as though that should be good enough for them. If you can't admit to someone that losing your temper with them was wrong, you're basically saying to them that their hurt feelings aren't justified. That won't fly in any healthy relationship.



It wasn't my intention to quibble over them. It needed to be clarified, or we would have been talking about two different things.

Sorry for my antagonizing tone. It just seemed that you were accusing me of something that I never said. You quoted it yourself a page back when I first mentioned that it should not be contained towards introversion, only introverted functions. That's all.

As to the second paragraph. You're right.

I'm not being very logical, I apologize.

 

[lane777]

Sorry for my antagonizing tone. It just seemed that you were accusing me of something that I never said. You quoted it yourself a page back when I first mentioned that it should not be contained towards introversion, only introverted functions. That's all.

"That's why I said an introverted function, not an introvert." That was the sentence that clarified things for me But prior to that, you said "So selfishness shouldn't be limited to the introvert, just an introverted function." I think your use of the word "limited" is where our misunderstanding stems from.

I didn't mean to come off accusatory I was only pointing out how those two sentences of yours slightly contradicted one another, to show you why I misunderstood you.

As to the second paragraph. You're right.

I'm not being very logical, I apologize.

It happens to all of us no need to apologize.