Introverted Extrotims

I was thinking about something and I more fully realized last night the implications of the real difference between Myers-Briggs extroverts/introverts and Socionics extrotims/introtims, Rick Delong's blog entry helped confirm it. One deals with energy and the other deals with initiative. In the first, one is a socialite/wallflower. In the second, one is a leader/follower (of initiative; of will). Big difference.

So you can be an extrotim and an extrovert, exerting your initiative on others, or an introvert, resistant to others' initiative and asserting yours selectively to conserve social energy. And you can be an introtim and an extrovert, exerting your energy to add to others' initiative, or an introvert, being passively moved by others' initiative.



Rick's blog helped outline the difference between interactions between two extrotims and between extrotims and introtims. If I am right about Gwen Stefani being an introverted extrotim, then I think she illustrates well the interaction between two extrotims when on is introverted and one is extroverted, in the above interview.

Rick Delong described the situation well in this blog entry. Extrotims tend to go directly into inquiring or talking about their general characteristics, differences and similarities. Which inadvertently broadens the context of conversation and make way for the formation of a personal relationship, based on the understanding of each of their unique similarities or dissimilarities.

The thing he doesn't address is what happens when one introtim is more introverted, one more extroverted, as in this case. The introverted extrotim does not share the initiative of energy but only of will, so she waits to answer the others questions, willingly letting the other's extroverted energy take the lead. But if the extrovert engages her in a topic which her initiative (drive, opinions) is oriented on, that is the point where she selectively exerts initative. Around 2:20 Gwen starts talking about herself and general characteristics. And since this is an exertion of initiative, she tends to rearrange the energy or the direction when she responds, causing others to go with her flow rather than going with the one that is already there (the inverse of which would be an introtim prerogative). In her response her energy is of a different nature and direction than that of the interviewer, and it holds its own weight and course. This character I find indicative of those who have their own internal initiative to follow, extrotims.



Two extrotims can clash in exerted initiative in this way, continually talking to eachother from their own perogatives rather than going with the flow of the other's. This is what makes extrotims, even introverted ones, so-called "resistant" to other's initiative. They always have their own "internal drum" that they follow, and use to take hold on activity, if they want it. And others can either follow or clash with it. In this aspect, if only this aspect, they are not a follower. They lead.

Introverted extrotims may simply be more willing to not actively conform the space and activity around them to their sense of initiative if it does not flow with them, since it takes more energy to do so. They might be more likely to withdraw, not respond, work on their own. While extroverted extrotims would be more typical of extrotims and exert their initiative energetically on the environment.

I also think being an introverted rational extrotim might mean that they put just as much importance on rational activities, in the ideal sense (i.e. completing tasks, not allowing unforseen moods and circumstances to change the direction of things), but since they conserve energy, they are more selective in fulfilling such agendas. In effect, are more likely to let such things go than an extroverted rational extrotim, since attending to them requires so much exertion of energy, but not because they don't "think that's the way things should be."



Speaking of which, another good example of an introverted extrotim might be Scarlett Johanson, whose introverted nature is more clear. Her voice and movements are kind of lackadaisical. Her exertion of initiative, like Gwen, involves launching into a monologue about general characteristics of herself or of other aspects, kind of ignoring whatever flow was already established and inadvertently replacing it with her own.

Such an action can serve to redirect the flow of communication, as well as what Rick said, broaden the context. To me, this is a leadership capability: a sense of direction, that naturally flows out of the person.



I like this interview because I think they are both acting like extrotims, both serving to direct the flow of energy back to their focus of conversation. Rather than adding their own experiences and thoughts to the context of the other's conversation, or 'flow,' refining it, they continually add new descriptions of characteristics, broadening and broadening, but not really building. They both seem like they are cutting off one another's flow, a bit jilted by the unnatural change.

P.S. Honestly...Portman is probably more of an extroverted extrotim, as far as how she easily exerts social energy in conversation and carries the conversation with her own sense of direction, story-telling about her own self, etc. She is not necessarily abrasive, which probably means that she is pulling it off well. This interview is a good example of what I am basing this extroversion off of:



(Compare to the interview of the introtim Johnny Depp with the same host. Also compare with Alicia Keyes, [extroverted] introtim, who as also acted alongside Johanson, with whom there is less of a competition for redefining a focus.)

---

So here's what I was thinking...

Basically, if introverted-looking personalities are also extrotims, like Kristiina, Scarlett Johansson, and Gwen Stefani, who come off alot like IP temperament but aren't, who go more by their own "flow" than conform to others', then I could be one. Namely, I could be an introverted EIE.

Because I probably go by my own initiative more than others. I am not a follower, when it comes down to it. In my life, I've tended to be the center of initiative for a little group of two or more, directing the flow of activity. It's not like I make it that way; it just happens.

Irl, when someone is wrapped up in their own flow of what they are saying, but hit a point of interest, I without thinking interrupt theirs and establish mine, and kinda feel bad for it later. Kinda blurtatious.

And when I get to know people, irl, I get straight to their characteristics, who they are, who I am, how we are similar/different, because I want to establish a personal bond. Of course I add in personal experiences and thoughts too, but not like, say Johnny Depp does in the Rosie O'Donnel interview.

Basically, if all IP temperaments are that passive in conversation, I'm not one of them. I can relate much more to the selective sharing of the introverted Extrotim, like Rick Delong was describing.

Also, I would have to assume that alot of things said about the EIE are just wrong, if they are to apply to me. Or atleast, wrong for the introverted type.

• Like I am not forceful and I don't need to be in charge, kind of happy not to. But I can take charge of a project or a small group when no one else seems to be, and if someone is in charge and not doing it well I will try to.
  
  
• And I don't need an emotional appeal in order to be involved, I just need an interesting puzzle. Like math. ^-^
  
  
• And I like chilling out and having a good time; I don't always have to be doing something. I am known for being entertained by my own thought process, my own "inner world" rather than just by doing something visceral and interesting, although I do consider my imagination to be pretty visceral. ^^
  
  
• I am certainly not all about my friends.
  
  
• I don't stir up conflict, but I do stir up debate. That's very different than thinking it valuable to engage in ridicule or heated atmospheres just for the sake of it.
  
  
• I love exploring the inner personality, my inner personality, yours!
  
  
• etc., etc.