“She’s a shy extravert.”
Is there really such a thing as a shy extravert (E)? What about a bold or assertive introvert (I)?
Most people agree with the notion that introverts (I) are generally more shy and timid than their extraverted (E) counterparts. Indeed, research done by Jerome Kagan suggests that infants and children who are inhibited and “highly reactive,” or what others might call anxious and sensitive, are far more likely to be introverted as adults. Temperament, according to Kagan’s research, appears to be largely hardwired, exhibiting surprising consistency across the lifespan.
In her work on “highly-sensitive persons” (HSPs), Elaine Aron has found that HSPs tend to be both introverted and intuitive. Other research has shown that introverts often score higher on the Big Five domain, Neuroticism, including being more prone to anxiety and depression.
Taken together, the above research paints the introvert as shy, anxious, and sensitive, while casting the extravert as bold, assertive, and resilient. It is not my intention to criticize these portraits insofar as they serve to highlight general or common features of these two personality groups. However, I do think it’s worth exploring potential exceptions to these trends, as well as how we might go about typing individuals who deviate from the typical presentation.
One variable that may contribute to E-I confusion is IQ. It is commonly known, for instance, that individuals with high IQs may struggle to relate to those in lower IQ ranges. And because high-IQ children may fail to socially resonate with their same-aged peers, many are compelled to either engage with adults or turn to the company of their own minds for stimulation. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find high-IQ extraverts operating more like introverts.
Jung’s View of the Introvert & Extravert
Carl Jung believed that an individual’s dominant function determined her status as an introvert or an extravert. Thus, if one’s dominant function is introverted in nature (Ni, Si, Ti, or Fi), she should be classified as an introvert. Likewise, if one’s dominant function is extraverted (Ne, Se, Te, or Fe), she should be considered an extravert. On this view, shyness or timidity, while providing possible clues about one’s type, would be considered less germane than knowing one’s dominant function.
This is not to say there is no relationship between traits like shyness and the use of an introverted dominant function. After all, the fact that a function is introverted suggests that one’s attention is directed inwardly, leading introverts to feel more at ease in their own company. However, for some people the variables typically used for type identification may seem less coherent or neatly aligned, necessitating a more nuanced approach to clarifying their type.
Confusing Introversion & Intuition
Myers-Briggs intuition (N) is commonly associated with a propensity for reflectiveness and abstract ideation. Unfortunately, the image of an individual immersed in reflection also conjures notions of introversion. Indeed, even Jung made the mistake of conflating introversion and intuition in his early conceptions of the types. Once he realized that introverts could be sensing (S) types and extraverts intuitives (N), he modified his original position. While Jung’s clarification furnishes a more honed and accurate description of the types, to apply it correctly, we must be careful to guard against potential conflations of introversion and intuition.
This issue often rears its head for types using the function Jung called Extraverted Intuition (Ne). Namely, because intuition is associated with reflectiveness and ideation, it can be tempting for Ne-dominant types (i.e., ENFP and ENTP) to consider themselves introverts. Moreover, because of the link between intuition and sensitivity, ENPs may exhibit more anxiety and/or self-consciousness than other extraverted types, further muddying the E-I waters.
Elaine Schallock has suggested that intuition can also be associated with a proclivity for language and, in turn, with talkativeness. And due to the fact that talkativeness is typically linked with extraversion, one can see how introverted N types (i.e., INFJ, INTJ, INTP, INFP) might mistype as extraverts (see my post Which Personality Types are Most Talkative? for more on this).
In short, a preference for intuition has the potential to confuse both introverts and extraverts regarding their true E-I nature.
More on the Functions
According to both Jung and Myers-Briggs, all of the personality types can be described in terms of a specific hierarchy of functions. Namely, if a type’s dominant function is a thinking (T) function, its inferior function will be a feeling (F) function, since dominant T is associated with an under-development of F (and vice-versa). Likewise, if an intuition (N) function is dominant, sensing (S) will be inferior (and vice-versa). This leaves us with eight possible T, F, N, and S hierarchies, all of which are listed below according to their dominant-auxiliary-tertiary-inferior positions. These hierarchies can then be associated with an E and I personality type as follows:
T-Dominant / F-Inferior Types
T-S-N-F (ISTP or ESTJ)
T-N-S-F (INTP or ENTJ)
F-Dominant / T-Inferior Types
F-S-N-T (ISFP or ESFJ)
F-N-S-T (INFP or ENFJ)
N-Dominant / S-Inferior Types
N-T-F-S (INTJ or ENTP)
N-F-T-S (INFJ or ENFP)
S-Dominant / N-Inferior Types
S-T-F-N (ISTJ or ESTP)
S-F-T-N (ISFJ or ESFP)
The above hierarchies can prove handy for those seeking to identify or clarify their personality type, including their status as an introvert versus extravert. If you can identify your strongest (or weakest) preference (e.g., T, F, S, or N), you’ve already narrowed the field down to four possible types, two of which can probably be ruled out rather quickly. Moreover, because each personality type experiences a continuous tug-of-war between its dominant and inferior functions, it can be useful to consider whether your primary struggle is between T and F issues, or S and N ones. These strategies can help you zero-in on your dominant function as well as your true type.
Closing Remarks
Most people have at least one personality preference that seems less clear or obvious than the rest, which may include uncertainty about their E-I preference. In this post, we’ve touched on several variables that may contribute to this confusion.
If you’re hoping to clarify your personality type, you can cut through some of the confusion by working to identify your preferred functions. To aid this process, I’ve written a book, My True Type, which features in-depth explanations of all the personality preferences and functions. It also includes a Type Clarifier™ test designed to help you nail down your type:
My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions
Related Posts
Introverted vs. Extraverted Functions
Extraverted Intuition (Ne) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)
Introverts & Extraverts: A Closer Look (podcast)
Helena says
I would have liked to see you address the subject of judging or perceiving in relation to this factor. In my experience, judgers are perceived to be more assertive. Thus, an INFJ or INTJ can often present as both talkative and assertive, particularly in a professional setting.
I think it would also be beneficial to move away from the association of shyness with introversion. Shyness has to do with a lack of self-confidence, whereas introversion is more aptly described as needing alone time to recharge. There are plenty of self-confident introverts. The best description of extroversion vs. introversion I have heard is that extroverts gain energy from spending time with others whereas introverts expend energy in social situations and recharge from being alone.
David says
Hi Helena. Hoping AJ can way in on this, as it almost seems like your comment around the distinction between I/E is similar to a question I have in response to the blog post. AJ’s post references that Jung’s theory around I/E was based on its respective association with the orientation (I/E) of the dominant cognitive function — that the I/E dichotomy ISN’T a stand-alone preference/component of one’s personality. That an individual doesn’t have a preference for I/E apart from the cognitive functions — but that it is simply the orientation of one’s dominant function that then reflects their I/E preference.
I’m not necessarily questioning the validity of that perspective — as I know many in the typology community hold to that paradigm — but it is different than what I have originally understood to be Jung’s theory and differs from many other personality theories around the I/E preference. I had originally read Jung to be saying that there is a fundamental difference in the perspective/nature the Introversion and Extraversion orientations, and that regardless of what cognitive function a person may have as a dominant/accompanying preference, that the I/E preference itself is identifiable and contributes to one’s type pattern.
(And yes, for those who wonder if I’m familiar with the eight functions… I am MBTI certified, have been through a variety of related courses, have read all of AJ’s books, etc — which doesn’t make me correct/infallible… just wanting so provide context/reference as to my understanding)
The reason I’m responding to your post and hoping AJ may share his thoughts, is that your comment about the E/I description be related to where we gain/expend energy seems to be more aligned with a paradigm that sees the dichotomy as a stand-alone orientation preference — rather than simply a reflection of the orientation of the dominant function. Or at least that’s my interpretation of how you’ve referenced the descriptions.
Wondering if that’s your perspective as well — and if AJ has any comments/insights as to the distinction.
Helena says
“Shy extrovert” … since shyness is a lack of self-confidence, then yes, that is possible. In general, I think typology needs to be understood within the larger framework of personal psychology. In particular, any given individual of any given type can also have experienced throughout their life any number of formative traumas, etc. or even present, for instance, with a personality disorder. These other factors contribute enormously to actual presentation and functioning and are rarely considered. Take for instance an EP who has developed an extreme list-writing habit as a coping mechanism for their perceived lack of control and now in adulthood has crossed into OCD territory. I think typology is far too often viewed as existing in a vacuum unrelated to other psychological factors.
David says
Hi Helena. I appreciate your comment. Not sure if it’s the right analogy, but I’m wondering if there’s a macro/micro level distinction that validates (and values) both perspectives?
That typology models are predominantly MACRO in nature and define core people patterns, dichotomies, preferences, etc. — that help us understand ourselves, others, and what tends to make us similar to/different from others. But the reality of our individual experiences — as a particular type/pattern within the macro-level framework — is of the MICRO level, reflecting both the positive/negative formative elements of our upbringing and other coping mechanisms. And if we simply focus one and/or ignore the other, we miss out on a significant element of understanding what is influencing others and ourselves?
At times I feel like the typology community sees the micro-level elements of personality as being SO subjective and nuanced for every individual, that we deliberately avoid recognizing how profound and important those factors may be in a person’s life (and may even contribute to mis-typing). Likewise, I believe that many in the psychological community often see macro-level personality theories as being FAR too generalized and unsubstantiated (despite commonalities of Big Five and MBTI), and dismisses what can be significant, identifiable differences in the underlying patterns between people types (and what may contribute to many perceived psychological disorders).
It certainly makes it much more difficult to integrate both lenses and hold both frames in mind, but my sense is that it’s the only way to adequately assess and understand what is at the root of what we call personality — individually and collectively. Thoughts/reflections?
Rianna says
Responding to Helena’s last comment, I really appreciate and relate to your descriptions in that people are more than their cognitive functions in terms of learned behaviour, traumatic experiences, etc.
I’m beginning to think that Jung (mind you I haven’t gotten up to his collected works yet!) was right in his distinction that introverts are introspective, and extroverts tend to project their focus onto the world around them (or in other words whatever their dominant function is on the function stack, as Personality Junkie seems to reinforce).
I’m doubtful now that introverts and extroverts can be defined by how they “recharge” (hopefully that doesn’t read as sassy, I just think it’s funny referring to people like batteries), especially after one of A.J’s & Elaine’s articles / podcasts / whatever which discussed the switching of cognitive functions like tools each individual uses when needed; allowing people to behave like extroverts or introverts when called for. It certainly touches on what Jung wrote about Ghandi.
Anyway, then there’s also the question of where on the line they sit. I for the most part LOVE people and barely scrape by on the introvert side of things—yet Fe is definitely not my primary function, simply because Se is my greatest weakness / lure, and I also have introverted thinking.
I also know an ENTJ who has only a very close circle of friends and spends most of his down-time alone, when he’s not managing people or projects. I know another INFJ who I would have classed for sure as an extrovert, if it wasn’t for her cognitive functions (A.J was so right, we talk very much! D:). Then I know another INFJ who’s super shy and withdrawn, and an INFP with the same (both suffer from depression and social anxiety). But then… oh man there’s so many examples just with people I know alone!
Helena says
To David: I think your macro/micro description brings what I was getting at quite nicely to a point. I would never consider it either or, it’s both. But it’s the both that’s the important part and often not considered. And I think the E/I dichotomy (get back to that point later) is an easy area to discuss the relationship because it’s in many ways the most accessible preference pair. I have found in myself and others that getting type right (macro) is often confused by things that are viewed as being conflicting behavior. The key is to consider where the behavior is coming from. Not all behavior is by default proof of type. Some of it is learned (and healthy) coping mechanism. Some of it is learned and unhealthy (from trauma) and some may fall into the realm of personality disorder, etc. How many of us have a respected parental figure that we strive to please in some way, possibly learning ways to be more like their type than our own?
Essentially I think it is very difficult to type accurately if the interplay of macro and micro is ignored entirely.
As to the original issue of E/I. I view all the types as more of a sliding scale, much like Kinsian sexuality. One factor I don’t see often discussed is strength of preference. Back when I first encountered MBTI in the mid 1990s, we were given a point score for each preference. In some I scored high and in others I scored closer to the middle. I don’t see this format used very often now (but possibly I am misinformed? I’m not certified, just well versed). Which is too bad, because I think it goes a long way toward explaining the issue. I had a low J preference so although I’m not shy with my opinion, I’m pretty laid back compared to some Js I know, “playing with Ps” doesn’t take me too far outside of my comfort zone. And I think there are people all along the E/I scale as well. I found the energy/recharging analogy helpful in typing as a way to think about it. It gets rid of the idea that introverts hate people or are shy or that extroverts must be full of confidence and want to tell everyone their deepest darkest secrets.
Sonce says
This post is very timely for me personally. For two years I’ve been typing as INTP, but it never fully rang true. The one thing I took as given is that I’m introverted. But the other day, one of my sisters accused me of showing off (I totally was, and it was far from the first time), and I thought, “could I possibly be extroverted?” The next day I read the ENTP profile and the light dawned. That’s 100% me. I believe I was confused about this because (1) I was shy when I was young, not so much anymore; (2) as an intuitive and thtinker, I do need daily time alone. But I failed to recognize that I also need to go out and about in the world each day. Anyway, thanks for a great post and website!
David says
Hi Sonce. So glad you commented. I almost always test at INTP on assessments — but also generally show a more CLEAR preference for Intuition as a cognitive function. And my overall vibe/being doesn’t really seem to “fit” what I would consider to be the “typical” profile of the INTP personality pattern. Both of which have made me wonder about possibly being an ENTP that simply over-identifies with the attributes of an introvert (in how I answer questions on assessments).
I’m definitely inclined to reflection and contemplation, and would say that’s where I spend the majority of my (mental) time and resources. It also takes a ton of my energy to be overly socially involved (e.g. a party/event where I need to interact with multiple people) and I re-energize by being alone — but I also LOVE to do facilitate trainings, interact with others in educational settings, and find that too much time alone/isolated leads me to become myopic and restless. And while I’m not argumentative by nature (most ENTP descriptions?), I do tend to play devil’s advocate in discussions for purposes of exploring/evaluating alternatives and not accepting things at face value (that might lead to group-think and/or missed opportunities).
So, like you, I’m wondering if the reflective and ideation nature of the intuitive function may have me conflating the I/E preference of my personality. ;-)
Nick says
I really identified with the text regarding variations in E/I specifically for ENTP. Ive been identifying as an introvert for many years judging by my social habits. But at the same time I have been active in political activities and love speaking in front of people, even though my heart starts rushing just as fast everytime I am about to speak up. The fact that I often miss the social stimuli from talking to intelligent people has made an impact on my will to interact with people.
A couple of years back I started doing business with an old friend (ESTP) who is 30 years older than me and we get along great (as long as I dont have to depend on him). And I got really inspired which turned my life around. This made me feel like a pure extravert which completely changed my view on my own psychology. This also made me question my P, because of my persistant work and moral.
Now 3 years later i moved to another town and started studying. The people around me in school shocked me. It was nothing like I had expected. Mostly SF and ESF types made me question my field and I got disappointed. Which led to me feeling incredibly introverted. I started sighing at every ”typical feeler that would never make it in a tough world” and got bitter.
Now I am at the crossroads of determining my type again. I change my mind every day about I/E and P/J. Though, keeping in mind not to isolate myself in identifying, especially in MBTI.
Any feedback on this? Not sure if its a medium for a personal discussion but I have to say the text spoke to me.
Faith says
I appreciate A.J. raising this discussion on the variations of Introvert and Extravert.
ENxPs are often said by type experts (particularly those aware of the cognitive function model) to be the most “introverted extraverts” due to Fi’s and Ti’s subjective-focus on judgment and the fact that Ne, while extraverted, is not people-oriented in nature (at its root, it is interested in the world of theoretical information/ideas/possibilities; I’ve heard ENxPs say they can find some extraverted connection through reading or listening to podcasts, just engaging with others’ thoughts and ideas and being given “mental fodder”). On the other hand, IxFJs are often said to be the most “extraverted introverts” due to Fe’s need to connect externally with other people, to tap into the values/needs of the group or the “whole,” and to tap into the affective environment surrounding them. As an INFJ, I constantly wrestle with the tension of my need to connect (Fe) and my need to withdraw (Ni and Ti).
Linda Berens brings another interesting and helpful perspective in her CORE approach (a living-systems approach to personality), and I’d strongly recommend taking a look at her work; her approach is rooted in Jung’s theory, she was a colleague of Isabel Meyers and a student of David Kiersey, also pulling from his ideas. In her Interaction Styles model, she reveals that certain types have a predominantly Directing communication style, while certain types have a predominantly Informing communication style (of course everyone can use both styles, and many people would say they have somewhat of a blend, but the point as always is to determine one’s most natural and dominant preference). There are four introverts and four extraverts with a Directing style, and the same for the Informing style. This further reveals some variation in how certain introverts and extraverts may “come across,” as there are Extraverts who prefer to inform others (a more passive communication style) rather than direct them, and introverts who prefer to direct others over informing them. As an introvert and Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) with a Directing communication style, I can confirm that to be Introverted is not *necessarily* to lack assertiveness (though, admittedly, I’m not generally going to bring as bold or forceful a presence as my Extraverted Directing counterparts; but Extraverted Informing types likely won’t either).
I share Helena’s frustration with the use of the word “shy” to describe introverts; overall, it seems to perpetuate a lot of misunderstanding. It doesn’t help that the word seems to mean a lot of different things; “shy” is synonymous with both “reserved” (which is a more accurate term, as introverts are by nature more reserved, generally speaking) AND “unconfident” (something both introverted and extraverted individuals can be—or NOT be). An extravert can have extreme social anxiety, and an introvert can be self-confident and comfortable in their own skin.
I also wanted to chime in on David’s question/thoughts:
I agree with you, David, that holding both the “macro” and “micro” lenses in mind is key, but this is difficult to balance. While understanding the complexity and nuance and variation is so essential for accuracy and true understanding, this information is challenging to communicate to others in a way that can be grasped, understood, and retained (specifically if you’re someone who does group facilitation sessions). This is where a clean, simple, elegant model shines, but the pitfall of too much simplicity can be losing substance, particularly when you’re describing something as complex as the human personality. I’m not posing any answers here, just acknowledging the challenge along with you. However, I do believe Linda Berens’ model moves closer toward integration of both lenses, so again, I’d recommend looking into her work.
To touch on your other question/thought about the I/E preference and the cognitive functions, I do think that the introverted or extraverted orientation of your dominant function is enough to contribute to a strongly identifiable preference for Introversion or Extraversion overall. Your dominant function is really the world you predominantly live in, and it represents your strongest psychological need (within this typology/model, at least); everything else tends to serve that function and that world. So, being such a powerful need in your psyche, it would seem that it would bring an overall identifiable preference for either Introversion or Extraversion. Regarding the “energy” component of things, a note Linda Berens made that I found very enlightening and helpful is that the lower a function is in your stack, the less capable you are of *sustaining* energy to it. It’s not so much about how we gain energy (though it seems that activities requiring use of our dominant function are more likely to be self-fulfilling), and it’s not about what we can extend energy toward either (we can technically extend energy to any function), it’s about to what extent we can sustain that energy. As an example, I can go “all in” on Extraverted Sensing (my inferior function) and be quite present and in-the-moment, and I can enjoy the spontaneity of responding to what comes up in my physical environment. In this state, I can appear to others very extraverted and very high-energy. But in reality, the energy I have to sustain to this state is very limited, so I can suddenly run out of juice and have nothing left to extend – this can burn me out (it can also confuse people, understandably). While I can engage in Extraverted Sensing (Se) and enjoy it and can even get a rush of energy from being in this state, I don’t have the ability to sustain it for long (when engaging directly in it) and I don’t have as much control in that state either. So generally, I should probably avoid too much direct engagement and instead focus on using my Se in service of my more dominant functions – an idea I’ve seen A.J. talk about in other posts.
Before I ramble too much or write an entire novel, I’ll end here for now. Thanks to everyone for the thought-provoking comments/discussion!
Timothy INTP says
It would be really nice if you guys included a question and answer section on the website. Or some other method of allowing users to submit questions. Your expertise is invaluable. Thanks!
Helena says
To Faith:
Two things you said have really “lightbulbed” for me!
For one, the idea that your primary function is your strongest psychological need. That just resolved a long-standing conflict I’ve had in how to view my type/preferencee (INFJ as well, btw. Anyone else ever noticed that despite our so-called rarity, if you want to find one, MBTI forums are the best place to look?). I have often read aspects of INTJ and found the analytic nature of it quite accurate for me and have often been described in the workplace as analytical. But, I am NOT an engineer and 90% of my analysis is directed at people. Thus, I have always said INFJ, and this analytical component felt hard to fit. I think Ni as “strong psychological need” explains it. It is the drive to find one solution, to pair down alternatives until you have the right answer. I think that drive is what makes the analysis component, for me at least, so strong, leveraging Se+Ti to get there. Though personally I feel many descriptions of INFJ emphasize the Fe too heavily, but perhaps that’s just me.
The other thing was the idea of “sustain energy”. Very aply put! I think that is a very helpful way to look at it and something I definitely notice when using Se or Ti, especially in combination. Or when asked to give the Ti answer of something I knew through Ni.