Showing posts with label extraversion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extraversion. Show all posts

Mar 14, 2008

Introverted Extratims and Extraverted Introtims

One of the challenges of socionics is figuring out how to associate levels of social extraversion with socionic extraversion and introversion. Myers-Briggs Typology has essentially incorporated social extraversion as one of its four dichotomies, but in socionics it is not so simple. While there may be some correlation between social extraversion and socionics extraversion, it is too weak to be a consistently useful typing instrument. Also, equating the two closely can lead to potentially harmful stereotypes that suggest that people "should" be behaving more or less extravertedly than they actually are.

Social extraversion itself can be a bit hard to diagnose, but is generally more apparent than socionics extraversion and introversion. A person's current mood, state of health, interest level, and feelings towards the people around him may strongly influence his level of initiative and gregariousness, so it may take some time to get an accurate impression of a person. Some people may be easily diagnosable as typical extraverts, others as typical introverts, but a large percentage of people are somewhere in the middle.

If you meet a pronounced social extravert who is always in the center of attention, always getting people together, and always making lots of noise and monopolizing situations, chances are he or she is also a socionics extravert ("extratim"). The same goes for pronounced social introverts who don't like meeting new people, prefer listening to speaking, and are wary of everything new and unfamiliar. But these are not the only types of people.

The extraverted introtim

These people tend to be socially involved and feel comfortable expressing themselves publicly without feelings of self-consciousness. They tend not to think a lot or hesitate before speaking out loud and are highly verbal. In social situations they often appear to be using an extraverted function (often their creative function, but not always), but their values and perspective come from their leading function. The difference between an extraverted introtim and an extratim is that when they are being "active" and "extraverted," introtims are not really keeping track of the world around them, but are focused on themselves, whereas extratims are following and studying their environment at the same time. Also, their attitude towards the extraverted function they are applying (especially their creative function) is more careless, as if they don't attach much importance to it and are just engaging in it for fun. When an extratim uses his or her leading function, there is a greater sense of purpose, awareness, and urgency. The extratim has the intention of actually affecting others with his leading function, whereas an introtim using his or her creative function seems to be just playing around for personal needs or enjoyment.

The introverted extratim

Many, if not most extratims do not use their leading function for social expansion in every situation they find themselves in. Some actually do, but many others are quite deliberate, observant, and socially detached. Even people with leading extraverted ethics or extraverted sensing can be like this. These extratims generally speak and act deliberately, often with a bit of hesitation and reservation. They seem less open about their intentions and always seem to be considering something in their minds. They don't have the need to air their thoughts to practically everyone they meet like more gregarious extratims, but are more selective about when to express themselves. In social situations they often appear to be using their creative function (or another introverted function), but their values and decisions come from their leading function. What makes these extratims different from introtims is that they barely respond to other people's initiative, whereas even extraverted introtims are usually receptive and supportive of others' initiative. When an introverted extratim uses his creative function (and other introverted functions), he does so "carelessly" or "for fun" -- more just to get a kick out of it (suggestive function) or because he is in the mood at the moment (creative function). When an introtim uses his leading function, there is a sense of seriousness and greater concern and carefulness about what he is saying and doing.

Compare, for instance, the playful theorizing of ILEs and SLEs with the weighty thoughts of LIIs and LSIs. Or the haphazard and situational emotionality of SEIs and IEIs with the deliberate and focused emotions of ESEs and EIEs. The situational technical solutions of SLIs and ILIs and the productivity and efficiency-based life philosophy of LIEs and LSEs. Or the playful and changeable friendliness of SEEs and IEEs with the long-term alliances and moral awareness of ESIs and EIIs.

Each function can be used to observe and think/feel as well as to act and speak, regardless of whether the function is introverted or extraverted. "Introverted" people observe and think more, while "extraverted" people act and speak more readily. Hopefully, the above descriptions will help realize how to tell apart some of the less obvious extratims and introtims without assuming that such people are acting "out of type."

Dec 22, 2007

Comments on Modern Myers-Briggs Typology

This topic has been written about numerous times before, but I will add a few more comments of my own.

Myers-Briggs Typology has thoroughly sided with the current psychological terms "extraversion and introversion" -- which are based not on Jung's work but on Eysenck's -- rather than their original Jungian meanings. Basically, what took place between Jung and Eysenck is that Jung's terms were qualitative, while Eysenck's were quantitative. In the process of quantifying Jung's original concepts, Eysenck "slid" from the original intention to what was most readily measurable, causing a drift in meaning. Here is a brief summary of the terms from Wikipedia:


The trait of Extraversion-Introversion is a central dimension of human personality. Extraverts (sometimes called "extroverts") are gregarious, assertive, and generally seek out excitement. Introverts, in contrast, are reserved, deep in thought, and self-reliant. They are not necessarily asocial, but they tend to have few true friends, and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts.

Psychological introversion correlates highly with IQ and moderately with socionics introversion, logic, and intuition. For instance, many highly intelligent people behave like the following:


An introverted person is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people (although they may enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends). They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate.

-- because the dominant culture of most groups is foreign to them, and so they have difficulty getting involved and obtaining recognition in the group. However, if you put them in a group that is a better match for them mentally or where mental powers are perceived positively, many or most of them will behave more extravertedly.

Now this aspect of psychological extraversion and introversion seems most like the introverted intuiter types in socionics:


An introvert is energized when alone. Introverts tend to "fade" when with people and can easily become overstimulated with too many others around. Introverts tend to think before speaking. When given the chance, an introvert will sit alone and think rather than talk with someone else.

It is no accident that 75% of Americans are extraverts according to the MBTI. From my socionics perspective, they have taken most reasonably sociable socionic introverts and put them in the 'extravert' category and have taken many or most highly intelligent extraverts and put them in the 'introvert' category. Basically, all high-IQ people who are not in the entertainment industry are Myers-Briggs introverts. By my observations, approximately 50% of Americans are socionic introverts.

Example: the Myers-Briggs INTJ
(See INTJ page at Wikipedia)

Forming just 1% of the population, the MBTI INTJs are a very special lot. What makes them different from the population at large is their independence of thought, creativity, and ability to go against the grain. They are strongly motivated to express themselves creatively and to elaborate complex concepts and intellectual designs. They are "acutely aware of their knowledge and abilities," which leads to great confidence, making them natural leaders.

As you can see, all these traits are highly correlated to high IQ.

The list of "distinguished INTJs" includes great philosophers, statesmen, scientists, and generals. Of the people in the list I know something about or know how socionists usually type them, here are the probable socionic types:


Friedrich Nietzsche -- possibly EIE
Stephen Hawking -- ILE
Niels Bohr -- ILE or ILI
Peter the Great -- SLE or ILE
Ayn Rand -- probably ILE
Isaac Newton -- ILI
Osama bin Laden -- ILE or EIE
Donald Rumsfeld -- LSI or LSE
General Colin Powell -- SLE
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- LSE
Thomas Jefferson -- LII
Ulysses S. Grant -- probably SLI

(Interestingly, most of these people are probably socionic extraverts!)

Based on the INTJ description shown above, it makes sense why each of these might be considered an INTJ. Each of them "did things very differently." What the MBTI has done in the INTJ's case is make high intelligence the essential characteristic of the type rather than functional operation. From a socionics perspective we can see that the direct, action-oriented Schwarzenegger has a completely different functional makeup than the theoretically-minded Isaac Newton. Schwarzenegger , for instance, had no need to conceptualize and lay out all his ideas, and Newton had no need to keep his body in continual motion. For socionics, intelligence and uniqueness are secondary traits whose effects are to be studied within the framework of their functional makeup.

Jan 13, 2007

Getting to Know Introtims and Extratims

The process of getting to know an introtim is quite different from the process of getting to know an extratim. Introtims are designed to respond to efforts made by others, while extratims are designed to make efforts themselves. These orientations are usually most apparent during the process of making acquaintances and getting to know each other better. Sexual programs (i.e. male initiative) can add another dimension to these patterns that I will not discuss here.

Introtims:
Introtims live with the sensation that there are always people who want to talk to them, get to know them, or do something with them. Their life philosophy is very often built around how to respond to these people.

Extratims:
Extratims live with the sensation that it is their job in life to put forth an effort to establish contact and interaction with people.Their life philosophy is very often built around how best to do this.

By no means are we equating socionic extraversion to "talkativeness." Introtims can be very talkative and extratims very reserved (though extreme cases convey a sense of tension and dissatisfaction, whereas by comparison very talkative extratims and very reserved introtims seem more natural).

The difference is that introtims do not tend to talk about themselves, but rather share their experiences, sentiments, thoughts, etc. that apply to the situation or discussion at hand. This kind of talkativeness serves to support communication and refine the situation, and not to get to know people better.

Extratims, on the other hand, tend to talk about themselves even when it isn't required by the situation at hand. In doing so, they inadvertently broaden the context of discussion and open up new topics. Some extratims can be silent for a long time, but then suddenly say or do something that significantly extends the context of the situation.

In general, introverted behavior serves to refine situations and bring them closer to satisfying participants' internal needs, while extraverted behavior serves to expand situations and bring them closer to the demands of external reality.

Let's look at the three possible combinations below:

Two introtims
Introtims, as a rule, establish personal contact with each other and build relationships as a result of being in the same location and circumstances for an extended period of time. In this case, no one has to make an effort to get to know the other - it just happens naturally within the context of their shared activities and experiences.

Two introtims can live together for years and never really know what the other person is like because they haven't ever discussed their personal qualities (similarities and differences) in depth. Instead, they know very well the other person's behavior, thoughts, and sentiments in the context of their shared experiences. Exasperated by the deficit of information circulating between them, they may make strange demands on the other's behavior without ever realizing the objective nature of the problem (i.e. that they have objective differences or similarities). Most often, relationships between two introtims have an aura of eccentricity, as if people are living in their own little bizarre world.

Two extratims
Extratims, as a rule, establish personal contact with other people by making an effort and saying more than needs to be said or asking more than needs to be asked in the given situation. When they are interested in a person, they try to find out about them directly by asking questions or by talking about themselves and expecting that the other person will follow suit. This ensures that people begin talking about their own general characteristics, which is necessary in order to establish a personal relationship.

Most often extratims react to other extratims' attempts to open them up and get to know them better with indifference or hostility concealed under a layer of tactfulness - especially if they sense the other person is treating them like an introvert. Hence, to have a stable relationship two extratims need to make a habit of talking about external things and avoid trying to "build a relationship" with the other by getting too personal. A possible exception is relations of activation, where partners are often able to help resolve each other's problems through direct intervention (without asking permission). Most often, relationships between two extratims lack "glue" and seem to have little that keeps them together.

An introtim and an extratim
Usually it is the extratim that makes the initial effort to establish a connection with the other person. The extratim has usually noticed certain qualities in the other person before the introtim is even aware. Based on his or her observations, the extratim decides to make an effort to open the other person up (each type in his own way). At this point the introtim knows very little about the extratim, but - more often than not - decides to humor the other person and respond to his efforts. At the very least, the introtim acknowledges the extratim's efforts to initiate communication (which is more than many extratims will do).

Video sample:
Johnny Depp and Rosie O'Donnell
If a stable relationship forms, the extratim and introtim complement each other by both expanding and refining situations, topics of discussion, and spheres of shared activity. Their interaction focuses on serving both internal and external needs. The introtim is satisfied that someone is around to periodically stir up the waters and generate convenient opportunities for change, and the extratim is content that someone is around to manage the inner life of the relationship and provide a sense of internal stability.

On a cultural level
In extraverted cultures like the United States, the prevailing habit is to talk about yourself, asking others about themselves, and go beyond (and ignore) the context of the situation when establishing a connection with people. In introverted cultures like Russia or Ukraine, people have a habit of establishing contact by talking about their responses to the shared situation they are in, without making others uncomfortable by expanding the situation or directing attention towards people's characteristics.