Are you an extrovert/introvert/confused?

Adamantium

I was an pretty extreme extrovert in my primary school years, felt like an introvert in my secondary school years (I wanted to say a lot, but felt I hadn't a way to say it or the right people around that I would say it to), and then came back around full circle by September of 1st year in college.

You can be an extrovert and surrounded by arseholes, that you begin to doubt yourself your own personality, damn oppresive/manipulative in a sense.

Worse was when housemates meet people I knew from old secondary school at university and they were were say "he was quiet", to which my hosemate relies "HIM, no bloody way, you joking"

And the people from secondary school are sort of stunned.
They cop on and realise (and many never do):

"Wait he was quiet and not friendly, because I was an arsehole, but with everyone else at school he seemed to really like"

I'm a penguin

maguic24

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm a penguin

I'm concerned about the high number of penguins on boards. Didn't want to bring it up, glad someone did!

Spanish Eyes

This is A very interesting talk, and quite thought provoking.... For those, like me who are introverts. And for those who feel the need to understand us!

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts

Clandestine

Introspection is not introversion. A person who spends most of their time alone is not an introvert

Gongoozler

I'm an introvert and my housemate is an extreme extrovert. It does not make for a good match. I need to recharge by myself in my room, and she, when she sees me, talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks. Luckily she's not actually interested in what I have to say and so she just talks, without looking for a response, but even being around that is draining for me.

More people need to be aware of these personality types and differences between people, so some people can know when to SHUT THE FCUK UP.

Adamantium

Clandestine wrote: »

Introspection is not introversion. A person who spends most of their time alone is not an introvert

I'd imagine introspection and extroversion and intelligence are linked if anything. Understanding yourself means you're better able to communicate deeper.

Roquentin

Gongoozler wrote: »

I'm an introvert and my housemate is an extreme extrovert. It does not make for a good match. I need to recharge by myself in my room, and she, when she sees me, talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks. Luckily she's not actually interested in what I have to say and so she just talks, without looking for a response, but even being around that is draining for me.

More people need to be aware of these personality types and differences between people, so some people can know when to SHUT THE FCUK UP.

Are you sure shes not a narcissist?

I'm an introverted extrovert - I love being around people and having company, but me-time is equally as important.

bb1234567

Very introverted, I find holding conversation with people soo tiring :pac:

NilesCrane

Introvert even when I am half cut.

gugleguy

bb1234567 wrote: »

Very introverted, I find holding conversation with people soo tiring :pac:

I feel the pain dude especially 'chatting' with somebody who loves the sound of their own voice.

Frank Lee Midere

Most people are in the middle. Myers Briggs is incredibly binary.

The One Who Knocks

Clandestine wrote: »

Introspection is not introversion. A person who spends most of their time alone is not an introvert

When I say an introvert needs alone time to recharge I don't necessarily mean they have to be introspective and do self reflection. It could be anything from reading a book, watching tv or listening to music by themselves. The main difference is that being in social situations for too long tires them. Likewise an extrovert who finds themselves spending too much time alone will quickly become lonely and drained.

Legs.Eleven

Clandestine wrote: »

Introspection is not introversion. A person who spends most of their time alone is not an introvert

Would an introvert not be more inclined to spend time alone out of choice?

Frank Lee Midere

The One Who Knocks wrote: »

I think it's bit of a misconception that introverts are shy and extroverts are confident and talkative.

I think the best definition is that introverts get energised by spending time alone and social situations drain them of energy, and vice versa.
.
That's not to say that you can't have a super confident and outgoing introvert, when they want to be. Plenty of comedians and public speakers are in fact introverts. However they need to "recharge their batteries" by being alone by themselves. Likewise you could have an extrovert who loves spending time with people but may not necessarily be the centre of attention.

Another thing I've found is that introverts generally prefer deep meaningful conversations as opposed to just small talk, and also that they're great listeners.

Personally, I don't believe ambiverts exist. I think the concept of an ambivert stems from a misunderstanding of the definitions of introverts & extroverts. You're either energised or drained by being in social situations. However you can have different personality traits commonly associated with introversion/extroversion which makes you seem more "balanced" eg. confident introvert/shy extrovert.

Although your first point is correct the second point about being drained by social situations or not is just one definition of extroversion or introversion and a weak one. Nobody would like a day of interviews for instance and everybody would be drained by that. And there are plenty of other examples where nobody is going to be anything other than drained by social situations and would probably prefer to be alone. And yet introverts also seek out company (we are told).

No. Most people are ambiverts , like most things in life. People are in the middle. Things change week by week, or day by day. These are just definitional terms anyway.

plmko

What's an ambivert?

MacBizzle

plmko wrote: »

What's an ambivert?

A mixture of both essentially.

Roquentin

There is a lot of new terminology been created. Introverted extrovert or vice versa.

Again. extroverts dont spend every second being around people and introverts dont spend every second alone. But the extrovert would spend the majority of his time in the company of people and the introvert alone. But they do need solitude/conversation every once in a while

Clandestine

Roquentin wrote: »

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Heres the myers briggs test for anyone who wants to see who they are. Again these are theoretical personality types. Another model might say you are different

That test is awful. This one isn't perfect either but its much more accurate:
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

Wibbs

I always get ENTP on those tests. BUt yep generally an extrovert. Does NOT mean I don't need alone time. I most certainly do.

If I was asked with a gun to my head to define the two states, I'd narrow it down to this; how does an individual act and react in the company of others. The more they engage with others, the more extroverted they are and vice versa. How they engage with others is another days work. For me those who are all about themselves, their internal needs and feelings are about the most wearing of all, whether that's defined as introverted/extroverted. The "oh I don't want to engage with others because of how it makes me feel" type. Sod off home then Ted. Ditto for the "I need to be the centre of attention so will ignore others to that end" types. They can sod off too. Both are self centered. Never a good vibe in someone if it's a constant in their personality.

The One Who Knocks

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Although your first point is correct the second point about being drained by social situations or not is just one definition of extroversion or introversion and a weak one. Nobody would like a day of interviews for instance and everybody would be drained by that. And there are plenty of other examples where nobody is going to be anything other than drained by social situations and would probably prefer to be alone. And yet introverts also seek out company (we are told).

No. Most people are ambiverts , like most things in life. People are in the middle. Things change week by week, or day by day. These are just definitional terms anyway.

When I say social situations I don't mean a day of stressful interviews. Of course that would drain anyone. I mean socialising with friends more so.

"Introverts tend to recharge by spending time alone. They lose energy from being around people for long periods of time, particularly large crowds.

Extroverts, on the other hand, gain energy from other people. Extroverts actually find their energy is sapped when they spend too much time alone. They recharge by being social."

That there is the true definition in my opinion. Most people display traits associated with introversion & extraversion leading them to believe that they're ambiverts. However, you can only have one inherently dominant function.

I think the below perfectly explains why some see themselves as ambiverts.

ESTJs and ENTJs may sometimes seem like ISTJ or INTJs if they are prone to contemplation and not especially gregarious, however they are far more likely to delegate than deliberate. The delegation will come in the form of attempting to control their environment and the people in it by putting people on tasks, creating plans for others, and comments like "We need to do this." "I want you to do that." Notice the lesser degree of focus on imperatives for themselves than for others or their groups. Even if the ESTJ or ENTJ is not in charge of the group, they will be more likely to attempt to delegate the actions of the other members of that group in support of the one who is leading the group.

INFJs and INTJs may sometimes seem like ENFJs or ENTJs if they are prone to conversation, however they are far more likely to deliberate and ponder than delegate or assert their values. The deliberation and pondering will come in the form of contemplation and planning. Even if it is in the form of lengthy conversation, there will be a clear sense of curiosity and developing solutions for themselves or others, and comments like "What do you think?" "What would you do if?" Notice the much lesser degree of setting imperatives for others and openness to everyone being an individual rather than part of a collective system of values or efficiency.

ESFJs and ENFJs may sometimes seem like ISFJs or INFJs if they are prone to contemplation and not especially gregarious, however they are far more likely to assert how they feel things should be than deliberate. This assertion will become apparent as soon as someone diverges from their values model, as this individual will quickly express a need for correction, and will commonly speak about various ways in which their values model should be, and make comments like "It (or they) shouldn't be like that." "Wouldn't it be great if it (or we) were like this?" Notice the emphasis on "us" and "them" and especially their values systems applying to others.

ISFJs and ISTJs may sometimes seem like ESFJs or ESTJs if they are prone to conversation, however they are far more likely to focus on traditions established norms than assert how they feel things should be. Focusing on traditions will come in the form of confirming correct procedures and values. Even if it is in the form of lengthy conversation, there will be a clear sense of need for traditional approaches, and comments like "Is this the right thing to do?" "The correct way to do that is like this." Notice the much lesser degree of setting asserting how they feel things should be and lesser degree of attempting to delegate other's actions.

ESTPs and ESFPs may sometimes seem like ISTPs or ESFPs if they are not especially talkative or 'social'. The distinction in these types is their inherent and reflexive need to engage the world around them in the present moment. While they may be quite adept at understanding how things work (ESTPs) or expressions of excellent inner feelings (ESFPs) their primary mode of living will always be that need to live in the now. The other parts of themselves can be put on hold, but to suppress the basic need for engaging the world around them would be entirely counter to their natures.

ISTPs and INTPs may sometimes seem like ESTPs or ENTPs if they are especially talkative and 'social'. The distinction in these types is their inherent focus on understanding how things work and their need for clarity. This drive for 'correctness' will always be more important to them than their need for engaging the world around them (ISTPs) or their need to ponder possibilities (INTPs). These types may truly enjoy being social, engaging the world around them, or expressing the possibilities they've generated, but doing so will be simply a vessel to engage their need for correct understanding and then to express it.

ENFPs and ENTPs may sometimes seem like INFPs or INTPs if they are not especially talkative or 'social'. This usually only happens if they do not feel as if they would be penalized in some way by such expression or are in an emotionally unhealthy state, because these types live in a constant state of generating possibilities and then sharing them. While they may develop those deep overwhelming emotions (ENFP) or deep states of pondering (ENTP), these are temporary states and it will become apparent again quickly that the true focus of these individuals is those possibilities that they see and express.

ISFPs and INFPs may sometimes seem like ESFPs or ENFPs if they are especially talkative or expressive. The distinction in these types is their inherent focus on how they feel and expressing those feelings in ways that make them feel as if they have expressed them fully, be they through conversation, body language, art, music, storytelling, cooking, or any other means. How these types feel about it, whatever it is, will be the focal point of their thought process both in understanding their own feelings, feeling those feelings, and expressing those feelings. While they might also have a strong need to engage the world around them (ISFPs) or express the possibilities they generate (INFPs) doing so will always be a secondary means of expressing and interacting with their feelings first.

I don't believe people can change from being an introvert to an extrovert but they can develop traits that people associate with introversion/extraversion, and these traits can change over time.

I myself am inherently introverted, an INTJ to be exact.
In a more relaxed situation I may come across as reserved but I'm just a good listener. I enjoy/need solitude more than anything, hate small talk & choose my words carefully before speaking. At the same time, I have a few very close friends with whom I love nothing more than to go out and socialise with at the weekend. My work also involves public speaking and meeting clients, and I could be easily mistaken for an extrovert if you met me while working. In reality, none of it comes naturally to me and I do a lot of preparation beforehand, but at the same time I love it ( I just happen to fall into a coma afterward)

Now I can see how you'd consider me an ambivert, because I display both introverted & extroverted tendencies. However, the main difference is that I don't get bored my spending time alone, and that while I enjoy socialising, it tires me and I need to do it in moderation. Extroverts on the other hand love big crowds and become stir crazy by spending too much time alone.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but out of interest, how would you define an introvert/extrovert and which would you class yourself as?

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Most people are in the middle. Myers Briggs is incredibly binary.

And arbitrary. For example, "I would rather read a book than go to a party."

Well, which book, and who will be at the party?

(I realise this is typical INTJ, and so I geekly beg your pardon for the pedantry )

Frank Lee Midere

Roquentin wrote: »

There is a lot of new terminology been created. Introverted extrovert or vice versa.

Again. extroverts dont spend every second being around people and introverts dont spend every second alone. But the extrovert would spend the majority of his time in the company of people and the introvert alone. But they do need solitude/conversation every once in a while

Again that's meaningless. An introvert with a family is surrounded by people all the time. I know nobody with a family who doesn't value whatever few hours of privacy they get a week.

Of course most people are in the middle. Myers Briggs is charlatan nonsense.

Frank Lee Midere

Muise... wrote: »

And arbitrary. For example, "I would rather read a book than go to a party."

Well, which book, and who will be at the party?

(I realise this is typical INTJ, and so I geekly beg your pardon for the pedantry )

And if you answer enough if those arbitrary questions you get marks out of 10 ( or what ever). If 5 is introvert, 6 is extrovert. Nothing in the middle.

Humans do like binary explanations though.

P_1

Definitely introverted. I tend to find meeting new people to be a bit of a challenge.

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

And if you answer enough if those arbitrary questions you get marks out of 10 ( or what ever). If 5 is introvert, 6 is extrovert. Nothing in the middle.

Humans do like binary explanations though.

In fairness to Briggs Myers, it is a system of 4 binaries, producing 16 permutations, and a seemingly endless output of theories on the interconnections between each. It began as a Jungian exercise, but since most introverts and extroverts are introspective, it's become its own cult and is as useful as the Tarot.

Fukuyama

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

And if you answer enough if those arbitrary questions you get marks out of 10 ( or what ever). If 5 is introvert, 6 is extrovert. Nothing in the middle.

Humans do like binary explanations though.

I took the test on 16personalities.com and tested as an INTJ - however they give a scale at the end which determines to what extent you're introverted, judgmental etc...

Like the other poster I did find myself a bit unsure of some of the questions. Using the book/party one as an example, I generally dread parties. However, if there's a party that's mainly close friends that I've known for years then I don't even consider it a party because I can go along and not really have to make much effort speaking because we all know one another so well. So I kind of just took the definition of a party as the typical extrovert night club scene, drunk people etc... because the book is so obviously the stereotypical introvert activity, even though reading isn't exactly an "introverted" activity.

So when I take these tests I end up simultaneously testing myself on how well I can interpret MCQ tests. :eek:

Clandestine

P_1 wrote: »

Definitely introverted. I tend to find meeting new people to be a bit of a challenge.

Do you mean as in "I am not interested in meeting new people so I have trouble feigning interest"?
or
"I am nervous meeting new people" (social anxiety) ?

Frank Lee Midere

The One Who Knocks wrote: »

When I say social situations I don't mean a day of stressful interviews. Of course that would drain anyone. I mean socialising with friends more so.

"Introverts tend to recharge by spending time alone. They lose energy from being around people for long periods of time, particularly large crowds.

Extroverts, on the other hand, gain energy from other people. Extroverts actually find their energy is sapped when they spend too much time alone. They recharge by being social."

That there is the true definition in my opinion. Most people display traits associated with introversion & extraversion leading them to believe that they're ambiverts. However, you can only have one inherently dominant function.

I think the below perfectly explains why some see themselves as ambiverts.



I don't believe people can change from being an introvert to an extrovert but they can develop traits that people associate with introversion/extraversion, and these traits can change over time.

I myself am inherently introverted, an INTJ to be exact.
In a more relaxed situation I may come across as reserved but I'm just a good listener. I enjoy/need solitude more than anything, hate small talk & choose my words carefully before speaking. At the same time, I have a few very close friends with whom I love nothing more than to go out and socialise with at the weekend. My work also involves public speaking and meeting clients, and I could be easily mistaken for an extrovert if you met me while working. In reality, none of it comes naturally to me and I do a lot of preparation beforehand, but at the same time I love it ( I just happen to fall into a coma afterward)

Now I can see how you'd consider me an ambivert, because I display both introverted & extroverted tendencies. However, the main difference is that I don't get bored my spending time alone, and that while I enjoy socialising, it tires me and I need to do it in moderation. Extroverts on the other hand love big crowds and become stir crazy by spending too much time alone.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but out of interest, how would you define an introvert/extrovert and which would you class yourself as?

It's remarkable how people want to be classified. Why not accept that if you show extrovert tendencies in certain circumstances and introvert in others you are neither. Just as there are genuinely selfish people and genuinely selfless people and most people are in a continuum between the two.

Myers Briggs were two housewives, their pseudo science is based on Jung who was himself a charlatan.

You can define people how you like. Binary or not. If you exclude average or normal size you can describe everybody as tall or short, making people within a millimetre one or the other.

There are three types of people in the world, those who accept binary systems and those who don't.

P_1

Clandestine wrote: »

Do you mean as in "I am not interested in meeting new people so I have trouble feigning interest"?
or
"I am nervous meeting new people" (social anxiety) ?

Probably the latter but generally I do tend to prefer to be in my own company

Clandestine

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

their pseudo science is based on Jung who was himself a charlatan.

Huh?

Id imagine 99% of people sitting inside on boards.ie when its 20C out and not a cloud in the sky would be introverts....no offence...i freely admit to being one

Frank Lee Midere

The problem isn't that aren't extroverts and introverts but that most people are neither.

Fukuyama

Clandestine wrote: »

Do you mean as in "I am not interested in meeting new people so I have trouble feigning interest"?
or
"I am nervous meeting new people" (social anxiety) ?

I think for most introverts it's a case of "depends on the person".

I've been in situations meeting new people and had to feign interest, but then one person is interesting and any social anxiety, shyness or lack of interest vanishes because I want to talk to them - as in that person specifically.

Small talk is like having rusty screws turned into my ears.

Wibbs

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's remarkable how people want to be classified.

True dat. I call it the horoscope effect. People do tend to like an external label applied to them, mostly a self idealised one that backs up what they already believed. Which is cool and the gang. It's a human thing. I just baulk at it when it's dressed up in thinly veiled bro science.

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's remarkable how people want to be classified. Why not accept that if you show extrovert tendencies in certain circumstances and introvert in others you are neither. Just as there are genuinely selfish people and genuinely selfless people and most people are in a continuum between the two.

Myers Briggs were two housewives, their pseudo science is based on Jung who was himself a charlatan.

You can define people how you like. Binary or not. If you exclude average or normal size you can describe everybody as tall or short, making people within a millimetre one or the other.

There are three types of people in the world, those who accept binary systems and those who don't.

It is quite possible to debunk the system without sneering at the women who wrote it. Like it or not, they did put in a fair amount of work. When they weren't housewifing like good little women.

Frank Lee Midere

Clandestine wrote: »

Huh?

What's the huh? That Myers Briggs based their tests on Jung or that he was a charlatan? Surely nobody takes Jung or even Freud seriously?

Frank Lee Midere

Muise... wrote: »

It is quite possible to debunk the system without sneering at the women who wrote it. Like it or not, they did put in a fair amount of work. When they weren't housewifing like good little women.

True. I was going to add that "credentialism shouldn't matter and isn't a defence of a bad system or a confirmation of a good one" but I decided not to because most of my argument was not that argument ( well done the PC brigade getting outraged though) and because lack of credentialism is a (admittedly weak) argument. Not my only one.

Tardful Slakerly II

The Myers Briggs system seems to correlate with the most current system, the big 5.

Frank, you're ignoring the basic definition being given. Whether a person requires alone time to recharge or whether a person is inclined toward company and wouldn't feel right without it. You're bucking against being typed in any kind of fashion, that's fine, but people are more often than not genuinely surprised at the accuracy of the descriptions given about them when they do these tests. I certainly was, and it wasn't horoscope type nonsense.

There are different kinds of people in the world, and they work in different ways. The human race is not some clone army where we're all the same. Each person isn't some radically different creature to the next, there are traits in people that can be identified and applied, and there are inferences in these that go some way to informing pictures of different personalities, and that's what these things do.
There not any be all and end all but there's certainly something to them. Denying that would be as broad a thing as denying we're alive in the first place. We're not randomized amorphous blobs.

(Family and close friends are always going to be exceptions when it comes to social activity, when I'm visiting my close family it's certainly not a social event, it's just visiting home, that's a weak point to make.)

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

True. I was going to add that "credentialism shouldn't matter and isn't a defence of a bad system or a confirmation of a good one" but I decided not to because most of my argument was not that argument ( well done the PC brigade getting outraged though) and because lack of credentialism is a (admittedly weak) argument. Not my only one.

I'm neither outraged nor PC. I do think it is unfortunate that I began by agreeing with you broadly, and now take a step back because you seem to be stabbing a balloon at a children's party; most people use this and other systems for a bit of fun and frivolity.

Roquentin

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Again that's meaningless. An introvert with a family is surrounded by people all the time. I know nobody with a family who doesn't value whatever few hours of privacy they get a week.

Of course most people are in the middle. Myers Briggs is charlatan nonsense.

Those who dismiss psychology are the very ones manipulated by it

Roquentin

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's remarkable how people want to be classified. Why not accept that if you show extrovert tendencies in certain circumstances and introvert in others you are neither. Just as there are genuinely selfish people and genuinely selfless people and most people are in a continuum between the two.

Myers Briggs were two housewives, their pseudo science is based on Jung who was himself a charlatan.

Maybe he didnt write what you agree with, but that doesnt make him a spoofer. If Jung is a charlatan, we all are

Muise...

Roquentin wrote: »

Those who dismiss psychology are the very ones manipulated by it

Ach ja, tell me about the mother of inception... :pac:

tomwaterford

ISTJ
Introvert(89%) Sensing(12%) Thinking(62%) Judging(56%)

• You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
• You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (12%)
• You have distinct preference of Thinking over Feeling (62%)
• You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (56%)

(got same result for both tests)
might explain a bit of my oddness/awkwardness!!!!:(

Tar.Aldarion

Bit of both. I barely said a word when young and become more extroverted as I get older but am still quite introverted in a lot of cases.

ewinslet

This poll might as well be asking "Do you use the internet" or "Do you post on message boards?". A bit skewed, perhaps?

Message boards tend to be full of introverts because it lets them discuss issues without actually interacting with a person. Extroverts are more likely to be out socialising.

maguic24

ewinslet wrote: »

This poll might as well be asking "Do you use the internet" or "Do you post on message boards?".

Message boards tend to be full of introverts because it lets them discuss issues without actually interacting with a person. Extroverts are more likely to be out socialising.

It's After Hours, it's only meant to be light hearted thread with a bit of discussion. I'm not writting a thesis on it or anything like that.

These stats are not going to be published. I have come to the conclusion that I am a penguin. :cool:

Spanish Eyes

I'm an introvert. And Im happy with that. I don't like parties, or being the centre of attention at anything. Eg a big birthday bash for me with loads of kind of acquaintances! Have to make small talk, it's exhausting.

I will go to gatherings and can enjoy them. But it's an effort sometimes. especially when surrounded by extroverts.

Anyway, there are those who enjoy their own company, like me, don't need to be surrounded by people and happenings, and then there are the opposite, the extroverts.

Each group has to perform in different circumstances, and most probably do..but each to their own.

At the end of the day, I struggle with big gatherings, but I often enjoy them. I like being on my own, but I do enjoy the company of close family and friends, not strangers. That takes a lot of effort.

I'm beginning to see who, and what I am. Happy out!

But the BIG thing is, extroverts seem to be MUCH more accepted as "normal" than us intros.

Would anyone agree?

--LOS--

I think some people are thinking too much of the stereotypes. Being introverted does not equal being shy/reserved/little to say/socially awkward. You would be surprised by some people who are introverts and some people who are extroverts. I'm surprised by some people on this thread even!

"Quiet:The power of introverts....." is a really good book if anyone's interested. Some interesting case studies in there about cultural ideals and the wall street crash.