You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Sure. But what percentage of people who take personality tests approach them with that in mind? If you're asked, "Do you prefer to spend time alone, or with others?" you answer "alone" whether it's because of the official Jungian preference or because of shyness.
Same thing if you're asked about being drained of energy when you have to mingle with others. If you're like me, you're more "on guard" around others, so your energy might seem to be higher; but it takes energy to keep it up, so you get fatigued after a while. And yet it might be that none of that has anything to do with Jungian introversion per se.
When I discuss the experience of Introversion with other Introverts, what most of them say seems like only a tiny, insignificant part of what it's like for me. I do have that Jungian introversion, but it pales in comparison to what Enneagram type Six does to me inside.
Introversion in jungian sense is simply a preference of first dealing with the self and therefore withdrawing from the objective to the subjective nature of the ego. It has nothing to do with social shyness, neuroticism or anxiety. It only means you're orriented on the ego more than on your enviroment and therefor you're more subjective, than objective.
Yikes. You couldn't be more wrong there, Ms. Mona. (Pssh. You'll always be Polly to me. )
As the old saying goes, everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You can agree or disagree about whether Jung was right or wrong about X, Y or Z aspects of personality, but on some issues at least, the issue of what Jung thought (rightly or wrongly) is more of a factual matter. And there's no question that Jung thought that what you might call social introversion (including shyness) and what you might call cognitive introversion went hand in hand — because he thought that, as described below, both had the same underlying cause.
Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.
Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:
There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by a monopoly.
And the result of those evolutionary machinations was that, in Jung's words, introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."
And for Jung, the psychodynamic mechanism behind introversion involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung explained) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."
So as Jung saw it, the cognitive turning-inward that "cognitive function" aficionados like to emphasize and the fearful/defensive attitude toward other people that Jung also viewed as part of introversion were both (and equally) second-order results of the introvert's projection of negative unconscious contents onto the people and things of the external world.
In the spoiler is a collection of quotes that should leave no doubt in anybody's mind that, as far as Jung was concerned, whether someone's an extravert or an introvert has quite a lot to do with whether they'll tend to be "shy" or "outgoing."
First quote (from the Introduction to Psychological Types):
[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.
Second quote (from Psychological Typology, a 1936 article):
[The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...
For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...
His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.
Third quote (from Ch. 6 of Psychological Types):
The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...
The [introvert's] sudden explosions [of emotion], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. Moreover the occasional outbursts of affect play havoc with their relations to others, and, because of their embarrassment and helplessness, they feel incapable of retrieving the situation. This awkwardness in adapting leads to all sorts of unfortunate experiences which inevitably produce a feeling of inferiority or bitterness, and even of hatred that is readily directed at those who were the actual or supposed authors of their misfortunes. ... They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them. This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.
Fourth quote (also from the above-mentioned 1936 article):
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...
The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...
The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.
Myers and Briggs, in turning Jung's theory into the MBTI typology, viewed E/I as multifaceted (as Jung had), including various elements normally associated with shyness and sociability. In Gifts Differing, Myers noted that introverts tend to be "subtle and inpenetrable, often taciturn and shy." She also said (again echoing Jung): "Intense and passionate, they bottle up their emotions and guard them carefully as high explosives." The MBTI Manual warns administrators of the test that "Introverts can be expected to be particularly concerned with privacy issues." In discussing counseling introverts, the MBTI Manual notes that "sessions with introverted clients often have long pauses ... while the introvert clarifies what has been said internally, or gains the courage to test another idea on the counselor."
The MBTI Manual is full of charts showing the results of various studies that have been done over the years that have found statistically significant correlations between the MBTI dimensions and other personality measurements. MBTI extraversion correlates positively with traits like "affiliation," "sociability," "social presence," "exhibition," "gregariousness," "expressed affection" and "talkativeness," while MBTI introversion correlates positively with traits like "controlled," "social introversion," "reserved," "shy," "defendance" and "infavoidance" (avoidance of embarrassment).
Whether you're looking at MBTI sources that focus primarily on the four dichotomies (and combinations thereof) or MBTI sources more focused on the "cognitive functions," the E/I descriptions generally include some elements of shyness and sociability in the mix (along with other characteristics). Four of the entries on Kroeger & Thuesen's summary 10-word list of extraverted characteristics are "sociability," "interaction," "multiple relationships" and "gregarious." Keirsey's type test includes E/I questions like, "Do you think of yourself as (a) an outgoing person or (b) a private person?", "At work do you tend to (a) be sociable with your colleagues or (b) keep more to yourself?", and "Are you inclined to be (a) easy to approach or (b) somewhat reserved?" And Lenore Thomson says extraverts are "outgoing, sometimes highly expressive," and "are influenced and gauge their worth by the expectations and attention of others," while introverts tend to be "reserved" and "private."
It's important to keep in mind, though, that when most people think of a "shy" person, I'd say they're substantially more likely to be thinking of somebody in a relatively small minority consisting of the shyest 20% (or 10% or something) of the population, whereas introverts, as measured by the MBTI, make up around half the population, and it's generally thought — consistent with both Jung's and Myers' perspectives — that they include a relatively wide range of preference strengths, from mild introverts to strong introverts. (Jung, for what it's worth, thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.)
So... depending on where somebody wants to draw the line in terms of who's a "shy" person, it could easily be the case that they wouldn't consider the majority of introverts "shy" — but that's not to say that most shy people probably aren't introverts, or that mild introverts aren't significantly more likely to be mildly shy/reserved/private than their mildly extraverted counterparts.
Another complicating factor when it comes to sociability is that both E/I and T/F have a significant impact, on average and all other things being equal, on somebody's propensity to engage in social activity, with EFs being the most social, ITs the least, and ETs and IFs in between. (And as long as I'm rambling, I'd say male/female and S/N can also, each in its own way, have some influence on someone's social propensities, with the result that I'd be inclined to peg female ESFs as the likeliest social butterflies and male INTs — like me — as the likeliest MBTI candidates for hermithood.)
As a final note (and repeating a point I already made earlier in this thread for the sake of making this post more self-contained), there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I consider myself Limbic, and I'd say the self-consciousness and anxiety-proneness that come with that make me more "shy" than I would be if I was the same degree of introverted but below-average in neuroticism.
Yikes. You couldn't be more wrong there, Ms. Mona. (Pssh. You'll always be Polly to me. )
As the old saying goes, everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You can agree or disagree about whether Jung was right or wrong about X, Y or Z aspects of personality, but on some issues at least, the issue of what Jung thought (rightly or wrongly) is more of a factual matter. And there's no question that Jung thought that what you might call social introversion (including shyness) and what you might call cognitive introversion went hand in hand — because he thought that, as described below, both had the same underlying cause.
Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.
Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:
There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by a monopoly.
And the result of those evolutionary machinations was that, in Jung's words, introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."
And for Jung, the psychodynamic mechanism behind introversion involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung explained) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."
So as Jung saw it, the cognitive turning-inward that "cognitive function" aficionados like to emphasize and the fearful/defensive attitude toward other people that Jung also viewed as part of introversion were both (and equally) second-order results of the introvert's projection of negative unconscious contents onto the people and things of the external world.
In the spoiler is a collection of quotes that should leave no doubt in anybody's mind that, as far as Jung was concerned, whether someone's an extravert or an introvert has quite a lot to do with whether they'll tend to be "shy" or "outgoing."
First quote (from the Introduction to Psychological Types):
[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.
Second quote (from Psychological Typology, a 1936 article):
[The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...
For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...
His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.
Third quote (from Ch. 6 of Psychological Types):
The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...
The [introvert's] sudden explosions [of emotion], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. Moreover the occasional outbursts of affect play havoc with their relations to others, and, because of their embarrassment and helplessness, they feel incapable of retrieving the situation. This awkwardness in adapting leads to all sorts of unfortunate experiences which inevitably produce a feeling of inferiority or bitterness, and even of hatred that is readily directed at those who were the actual or supposed authors of their misfortunes. ... They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them. This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.
Fourth quote (also from the above-mentioned 1936 article):
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...
The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...
The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.
Myers and Briggs, in turning Jung's theory into the MBTI typology, viewed E/I as multifaceted (as Jung had), including various elements normally associated with shyness and sociability. In Gifts Differing, Myers noted that introverts tend to be "subtle and inpenetrable, often taciturn and shy." She also said (again echoing Jung): "Intense and passionate, they bottle up their emotions and guard them carefully as high explosives." The MBTI Manual warns administrators of the test that "Introverts can be expected to be particularly concerned with privacy issues." In discussing counseling introverts, the MBTI Manual notes that "sessions with introverted clients often have long pauses ... while the introvert clarifies what has been said internally, or gains the courage to test another idea on the counselor."
The MBTI Manual is full of charts showing the results of various studies that have been done over the years that have found statistically significant correlations between the MBTI dimensions and other personality measurements. MBTI extraversion correlates positively with traits like "affiliation," "sociability," "social presence," "exhibition," "gregariousness," "expressed affection" and "talkativeness," while MBTI introversion correlates positively with traits like "controlled," "social introversion," "reserved," "shy," "defendance" and "infavoidance" (avoidance of embarrassment).
Whether you're looking at MBTI sources that focus primarily on the four dichotomies (and combinations thereof) or MBTI sources more focused on the "cognitive functions," the E/I descriptions generally include some elements of shyness and sociability in the mix (along with other characteristics). Four of the entries on Kroeger & Thuesen's summary 10-word list of extraverted characteristics are "sociability," "interaction," "multiple relationships" and "gregarious." Keirsey's type test includes E/I questions like, "Do you think of yourself as (a) an outgoing person or (b) a private person?", "At work do you tend to (a) be sociable with your colleagues or (b) keep more to yourself?", and "Are you inclined to be (a) easy to approach or (b) somewhat reserved?" And Lenore Thomson says extraverts are "outgoing, sometimes highly expressive," and "are influenced and gauge their worth by the expectations and attention of others," while introverts tend to be "reserved" and "private."
It's important to keep in mind, though, that when most people think of a "shy" person, I'd say they're substantially more likely to be thinking of somebody in a relatively small minority consisting of the shyest 20% (or 10% or something) of the population, whereas introverts, as measured by the MBTI, make up around half the population, and it's generally thought — consistent with both Jung's and Myers' perspectives — that they include a relatively wide range of preference strengths, from mild introverts to strong introverts. (Jung, for what it's worth, thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.)
So... depending on where somebody wants to draw the line in terms of who's a "shy" person, it could easily be the case that they wouldn't consider the majority of introverts "shy" — but that's not to say that most shy people probably aren't introverts, or that mild introverts aren't significantly more likely to be mildly shy/reserved/private than their mildly extraverted counterparts.
Another complicating factor when it comes to sociability is that both E/I and T/F have a significant impact, on average and all other things being equal, on somebody's propensity to engage in social activity, with EFs being the most social, ITs the least, and ETs and IFs in between. (And as long as I'm rambling, I'd say male/female and S/N can also, each in its own way, have some influence on someone's social propensities, with the result that I'd be inclined to peg female ESFs as the likeliest social butterflies and male INTs — like me — as the likeliest MBTI candidates for hermithood.)
As a final note (and repeating a point I already made earlier in this thread for the sake of making this post more self-contained), there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I consider myself Limbic, and I'd say the self-consciousness and anxiety-proneness that come with that make me more "shy" than I would be if I was the same degree of introverted but below-average in neuroticism.
You know, I think what you're describing is the result. Introversion can lead to social shyness, anxiety or neuroticism as the person is orriented towards the self, he is unaware of the dynamics of the sitation or social norms, which might make him social awkward and therefor shy while being aware of his weakness. The whole process of external unawarness and interal hyperawarness might also lead to the neuroticism or anxiety and I can see quite easily resulting into such feelings and behaviors. But what I think you're missing here is that, introversion can lead to shyness and anxitey, while shyness and anxitey don't necessary lead to introversion.
You know, I think what you're describing is the result. Introversion can lead to social shyness, anxiety or neuroticism as the person is orriented towards the self, he is unaware of the dynamics of the sitation or social norms, which might make him social awkward and therefor shy while being aware of his weakness. The whole process of external unawarness and interal hyperawarness might also lead to the neuroticism or anxiety and I can see quite easily resulting into such feelings and behaviors. But what I think you're missing here is that, introversion can lead to shyness and anxitey, while shyness and anxitey don't necessary lead to introversion.
Just to clarify in case there was any misunderstanding, your previous post had purported to describe "introversion in the Jungian sense," and my correction to that involved what Jung thought about introversion — and Jung clearly thought not only that introverts tend to be shy and socially anxious, but that those characteristics are no less directly linked to the core psychodynamics of introversion than what some people call "cognitive introversion."
The extent to which Jung was right or not is a separate question — and as I've explained in other posts, Jung definitely erred in overloading his extaversion and introversion concepts with too many separate personality characterstics, some of which don't really correlate at all, and others of which correlate less than Jung thought they did. And one of the latter characteristics is anxiety-proneness, which Jung strongly associated with introversion, but which we today understand is really more a product of somebody's level of neuroticism — although it appears there's a mild correlation between being introverted and being above-average in neuroticism.
As I said in my last post, I agree with you that many introverts (especially mild introverts) are not what many people would consider "shy" people (although I think most shy people are introverts), and I also agree that introverts and extraverts can both be either above-average or below-average when it comes to anxiety-proneness.
Social: Social introversion is the closest to the commonly held understanding of introversion, in that it's a preference for socializing with small groups instead of large ones. Or sometimes, it's a preference for no group at all — solitude is often preferable for those who score high in social introversion. "They prefer to stay home with a book or a computer, or to stick to small gatherings with close friends, as opposed to attending large parties with many strangers," Cheek said. But it's different from shyness, in that there's no anxiety driving the preference for solitude or small groups.
Restrained: Another word for this one is reserved. Restrained introverts sometimes seem to operate at a slightly slower pace, preferring to think before they speak or act. They also might take a while to get going — they can't, for instance, wake up and immediately spring into action. Haruki Murakami's What I Talk About When I Talk About Running contains a passage that I think neatly illustrates the restrained introverts, when he discusses how it takes his muscles a while to warm up when he starts to run. "When I put on my jogging shoes in the morning and set out, my feet are so heavy it feels like I'll never get them moving," he writes. He says it's the way his mind works, too: slow to get going. Murakami, I would bet, is a restrained introvert.
She sometimes tells me, "You're not a true introvert; you're just an extravert who got hurt in childhood and withdrew." My response is, "Yeah, but I withdrew; that's the key. If I'd been a true extrovert, I'd have sprung back somehow--I'd have had to." My natural inclination was to turn inward, and being prompted by external pressure just fed into that.
The fifth temperament Supine was once suspected, as being a "wounded Sanguine" (the Sanguine being the most extroverted).
Those questions were good, in that they reflected a difference in what you express vs what you want (and Supine expresses low, like a true introvert, yet wants the same as an extrovert). Though the "anxious" category, which this likely figures the most in, doesn't really say anything about wanting acceptance, but fearing rejection, but that might be implicit in the "self-consciousness".
Wow--thanks. Now I'll have to go back and take the test again. I just guessed at the numbers based on where the dots appeared to be.
Also noteworthy:
The fifth temperament Supine was once suspected, as being a "wounded Sanguine" (the Sanguine being the most extroverted).
Those questions were good, in that they reflected a difference in what you express vs what you want (and Supine expresses low, like a true introvert, yet wants the same as an extrovert). Though the "anxious" category, which this likely figures the most in, doesn't really say anything about wanting acceptance, but fearing rejection, but that might be implicit in the "self-consciousness".
First, I need to credit you, Eric, with most of the content of what you quoted from my post. (For the record, my thoughts there were inspired by comments Eric made in another discussion group.)
Second, I'm now wondering about "wanting acceptance" versus "fearing rejection." To my mind they're just two sides of the same coin. I don't think I'd be able to say which is stronger in me. Anytime one of them gives ground, the other takes it.
However, I've noticed something curious about myself that I haven't mentioned anywhere yet (or if I have, I don't remember): when I manage to get very close to someone I like, and my fear of rejection regarding that person is all behind me, and I feel accepted, sometimes I then find myself cooling off emotionally. It hasn't happened often, so I'm still not sure what's going on there. But it feels like the anticlimactic end of an intense, important struggle. I really needed reassurance to help me get past fear of rejection; and then I really needed affection to get me into the relationship I wanted; but after that the chase is over, all is well, and I'm happy to just kick back and chill. Exchanges of affection are still welcome, but in the midst of a prolonged one I find I've had enough for now. (Sounds like the emotional counterpart of erectile dysfunction, doesn't it? Maybe that's what it is. I don't know.)
Anyhow, FWIW, fear of rejection--which I think is tied in strongly with the general fear and anxiety of enneagram type Six--is no doubt a big part of what accounts for my introverted behavior. I worry that everybody in the room is a potential enemy, usually out to ridicule me rather than harm me, so I seek reassurance from one person at a time. If I can find just one friend, that's an ally I can rely on to support me in the face of all the threats that still remain. And while that's going on, I also have the mostly subconscious sense that if I can establish a permanent, positive bond with someone (i.e., fall in love and get married), I'll be both safe and happy forevermore. As long as I've got that one special someone, the rest of the world doesn't matter.
Indeed, when I got married (28 years ago), my self-confidence rose from the pits and became reasonably strong. But my desire to make friends with people dropped off significantly. I still enjoy the warm-and-fuzzy feelings I get from interacting with people I like, but I don't feel I need those people or those relationships. Marriage is a sufficient semblance of a social life for me.
There's an ongoing "fearing rejection and wanting acceptance" thing going on with every stranger or acquaintance I meet. But to me it's just like avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Naturally I want to get rid of fear and enjoy love instead.
I saw your scores and wondered where you got them from, and was thinking of asking, but didn't want to wait until I got an answer when I had the results up right then; and then I thought of estimating them also, but just kept looking and found it.
An APS (the five temperament system) literature, "fear of rejection" is associated with both low expressed and high wanted. So you will see it mentioned for the Melancholy, Supine and Sanguine. (The moderate Phlegmatic and high E/low W Choleric don't really have that problem). Regarding expressiveness, it is the main drive for "low" behavior (reserved, or classic "social" introversion), and thus shared in common by both the Melancholy and Supine. But where the Melancholy ultimately rejects people first before they can reject him (and this leads to the characteristic "directive" and "task focused" stance), the Supine ultimately wants people, and is thus all the more sensitive to the prospect of rejection. The Sanguine, being expressive, has the boldness to approach people, meeting his high want, and thus taking care of the fear. (And thus ended up as "stable" rather than "neurotic" under Eysenck's system).
So yes, you are again just like me in opening up when feeling secure with a person, and the fear of rejection subsides. (This, and the "need of assurance" is what the more detailed Supine descriptions will highlight; the single page reports I've been linking to probably don't get that far, IIRC). Marriage helped me out as well, and so did internet interaction.
Another complicating factor when it comes to sociability is that both E/I and T/F have a significant impact, on average and all other things being equal, on somebody's propensity to engage in social activity, with EFs being the most social, ITs the least, and ETs and IFs in between.
Yes, Those are good groups, which actually correspond to the Interaction Styles, for S's only, but are not otherwise discussed much. (They are briefly described in the MBTI Manual. For N's, it's EP, IP, EJ and IJ which were outlined as "Sociability temperaments"; with J/P filling the same role as T/F). While E/I is what I've been calling "expressiveness", both T/F and J/P are "responsiveness" or "people vs task" focus, with F (and P) being more "responsive" to people (where E is expressive to them), which is why EF's are the most social, IT's the least and ET and IF in between as you mention.
)
