Shyness versus Introversion

[dissonance]

Originally Posted by nozflubber

Do you like to eat alone? Do you prefer to enjoy music alone? Do you prefer to be alone or have people around you when you do physical training? That's the kind of thing to ask to determine the difference

i don't think that's a great indicator. many introverts do not have those qualities.

if we're talking about introversion with regards to MBTI, it's just defined by your dominant function.

people seem to confuse the dictionary definition with this one.

[alcea rosea]

Originally Posted by GZA

Shyness is a matter of confidence.

Originally Posted by TheBeatGoesOn

Shyness deals with confidence (or lack thereof) in social situations.

Originally Posted by nozflubber

Shyness is a particular trait in a particular situation(s).

I agree with these. Shyness is a matter of confidence and also related to a situations so people can be shy in certain situations with certain people but be less shy (or not shy at all) in company of other people.

Originally Posted by Edahn

With that said, I try to separate the two by thinking of introverts as people who are comfortable with solitude, while shy people as being uncomfortable and resisting solitude, but forced to be there for whatever reason.

I agree with what Edahn said here about introverts being comfortable with solitude.

I do think people confuse many times that introverts are shy because they might not be willing to participate at once. Many reserved people want to check the situation first before participating and they can be mistaken of being shy.

[Eric B]

I think the FIRO system captures the distinction the best.
There are two scales, expressed behavior, and wanted behavior (also called expressiveness and responsiveness). You can see this illustrated in the Avatar!
What we normally think of when we think of extraversion is "expressiveness". How much and how fast a person expresses to others. But the other factor tells us how much others actually want from or "respond" to others (that is, wanting interaction, such as to be included). You would normally think a person who expresses a lot to others wants from them as well, and someone who doesn't express doesn't want. Many are like this, but there are also some who express to others a lot, but don't really want from them. The reason they express is for some personal goal, or they just like to gain attention. But they don't care much about the interaction itself.

Where many of these "introversion/shyness" questions are coming up apparently is with people who do not express, but do want from others. Their low expression is the "shyness" often called "introversion", yet they are in fact energized by people and being included, (though usually only for a while).
This actually has been considered a fifth temperament by a lesser known theory based on FIRO. That's why it seems so unusual and out of place.
Responsiveness in the MBTI system is matched closest by the Informing/Directing scale of the Interaction Styles Model. However, the low E/high R temperament is even more shy and at the same time more responsive than the introverted/informing "Behind the Scenes" style. This, in my case (I fall into this category), is sometimes picked up in tests or the cognitive dynamics as "extraversion". In fact, we call it "responding as an extravert"; despite the fact of not expressing as one.
This would also probably explain the dom. Ne E-NP types, which are often said to be like introverts at times.

[Edahn]

Originally Posted by phoenix13

EDIT: I disagree with Edahn. Dissonance has the right potatoes.

First off, this is a conversation that could easily get lost in a debate about semantics. There is no accepted definition of introversion or shyness, and the point of this conversation is to question and investigate any definition we might already hold. What you call introversion and what I call introversion doesn't really matter because it really has no significance. For me to say I'm right and you're wrong in meaningless and stupid, because there it's just a matter of definition. It makes more sense to think about whether we have two character traits that look similar but in fact are different.

Second, trying to squeeze a personality pattern (for lack of better term) like shyness into an MBTI framework is a bad idea. Why? Because MBTI isn't equipped to handle things like shyness, first off. It's equipped to break people up along 4 dimension, none of which include shyness. Second, MBTI is not an investigative tool or a theory of mind. It's a descriptive tool, and it's power to create deductions is zero. It's a machine: you feed it some input, it adds it up and generate a composite sketch using that input. It adds nothing that you haven't already told it. (I didn't read your first post, but I read part of Dissonance's, and you agreed with him.)

Third, I'd like to know why you disagree with me. If you can do that without just arguing semantics, I'd like to know. If it's just semantics, then that's fine, but I don't think you should be DISAGREEING, exactly, because I didn't really make an argument, just proposed a definition. But lets see what you got.

[placebo]

I think you might be able to see if someone is shy by measuring neuroticism. This is something MBTI doesn't measure, while a test like Big-5 does. I think in terms of talking about people and what the amount of self-consciousness they seem to exhibit would be an indicator of shyness in extroverts. Are they worried about what people will think about them, even if they want to really get to know them? An introvert who isn't shy wouldn't really worry too much in comparison. I think. ... In anycase, MBTI really isn't something that measures shyness, but I think something like the Big-5 might help more, just because of the neuroticism factor. Most people are probably shy in some situations and to some extent, so unless they are obviously shy or obviously simply introverted, it's kinda hard to tell?

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Edahn

Second, trying to squeeze a personality pattern (for lack of better term) like shyness into an MBTI framework is a bad idea. Why? Because MBTI isn't equipped to handle things like shyness, first off. It's equipped to break people up along 4 dimension, none of which include shyness. Second, MBTI is not an investigative tool or a theory of mind. It's a descriptive tool, and it's power to create deductions is zero. It's a machine: you feed it some input, it adds it up and generate a composite sketch using that input. It adds nothing that you haven't already told it.

Originally Posted by placebo

I think you might be able to see if someone is shy by measuring neuroticism. This is something MBTI doesn't measure, while a test like Big-5 does. I think in terms of talking about people and what the amount of self-consciousness they seem to exhibit would be an indicator of shyness in extroverts. Are they worried about what people will think about them, even if they want to really get to know them? An introvert who isn't shy wouldn't really worry too much in comparison. I think. ... In anycase, MBTI really isn't something that measures shyness, but I think something like the Big-5 might help more, just because of the neuroticism factor. Most people are probably shy in some situations and to some extent, so unless they are obviously shy or obviously simply introverted, it's kinda hard to tell?

Good points.
Introversion will often lead to shyness, but not always. This is probably why FIRO (co-owned with MBTI by CPP, Inc) is often used together with MBTI.
I would also say that Neuroticism would correspond to any low expressed or wanted score. Low E/W scores both indicate some sort of movement "away" from people. (As in Horney's Coping Strategy scales). Either from fear or distrust. And that would be associated with Neurotic behavior. In FIRO, people with low expressive scores fear rejection. People with low wanted scores distrust others, and in a way "do not like" people (hence, the task-focus).

There's an updated version of MBTI called the Type Differentiation Indicator which adds a Comfort-Discomfort scale, which roughly corresponds to Neuroticism. Also, Step II, or the Expanded Analysis Report (MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) breaks the original four scales down into subscales. So in Extraversion/Introversion, you can be Initiating-Receiving, Expressive-Contained, Gregarious-Intimate, Active-Reflective, Enthusiastic-Quiet. Some of these would cover what we would call "shyness".

[Leysing]

I read a rather simple definition in my psychology book (I'm in high school). According to the text, introverts have such a sensitive nervous system that too much sensory (I mean the five biological senses) stimulation makes them fatigued and may overwhelm them. Extroverts' nerves are more "numb" so they need and seek stimulation to feel good.

Shyness, I think, is more like social anxiety.

(I have been very shy and am definitely not shy anymore, but my introversion certainly hasn't disappeared anywhere )

[phoenix13]

Originally Posted by Edahn

Third, I'd like to know why you disagree with me. If you can do that without just arguing semantics, I'd like to know. If it's just semantics, then that's fine, but I don't think you should be DISAGREEING, exactly, because I didn't really make an argument, just proposed a definition. But lets see what you got.

Well...
Central Thesis: I disagree with your definition of introversion, but agree that it's unreasonable to argue the definition of shyness. IOW, I'm disagreeing that you can't define introversion such that it be right or wrong.

There IS a difinitive definition of introversion. The entire basis of MBTI is based on definite concepts with regards to cognitive functions. Introversion (as I understand it... which doesn't make it so. see what Carl Jung says) refers to the direction of focus of the function. Introverts have a dominant function that is inward-focused (Si, Ni, Fi, Ti). Extroverts have a dominant function that is outward-focused (Se, Ne, Fe, Te). That is what I was agreeing with Dissonance about:
"it's impossible to tell unless you analyze their cognitive functions and try to figure out if their dominant is introverted or extroverted."

I do not believe there is a definitive definition of shyness. It isn't a scientific term, so much as a description of a certain set of behaviors. Thus I agree completely with your second point.

I'm kind of that you didn't read my response before responding. As punishment, I shall write a longer description of what I was saying with regards to introversion. I belive that introversion/extroversion is commonly defined by a set of behaviors/ phenotypes/ symptoms/ appearances in the same way that shyness is (probably because it's easier to understand). This is the 'introverts like to be alone, extroverts are social' definition. I believe this description is incorrect, and probably the reason you believe it's a hazy best-fit definition. As an ENFP (considered by most the most introverted appearing of the extroverts), the definition strikes me as absurd. Extroverts can be awfully nonsocial, love solitude, don't NEED human contact, etc. They are extroverts because their dominant function is directed outwards.

If you made it through this post, . I think I brought the meats, and hope it's been spiced to your liking (metaphorically speaking... I think about 50% of my metaphors make sense). K, bye!

[Nocapszy]

Shyness is only one possible product of introversion. It's not a guarantee. My INTP friend is more outgoing than I am, and I'm extraverted.

The Shyness of an introvert is only the result of their favoritism toward developing their own subjective interpretations (doesn't matter if it's Thinking, Intuiting.. as long as it's an Xi function) of the world, rather than actually dealing in the world.

Like dissonance said, it's entirely dependent on whether your first preference, feeling, sensing, whatever it is, is introverted or extraverted.

The shyness you're talking about might come from an introvert who's not quite confident in his introverted ideal and wants as little interaction with the world as possible because it continually skews the internal model. That's why introverts often prefer to be alone, but if you've got an introvert who IS confident in their own impressions, then they'd have no problem acting, and might not be shy. But they still also might be, if they happen to just naturally not be a social person, and instead spend their extraversion time with objects or toys or... whatever else -- not people.

[Edahn]

Originally Posted by phoenix13

Well...
Central Thesis: I disagree with your definition of introversion, but agree that it's unreasonable to argue the definition of shyness. IOW, I'm disagreeing that you can't define introversion such that it be right or wrong. There IS a difinitive definition of introversion. The entire basis of MBTI is based on definite concepts with regards to cognitive functions.

...

I do not believe there is a definitive definition of shyness. It isn't a scientific term, so much as a description of a certain set of behaviors. Thus I agree completely with your second point.

I'll start off by saying that no one has authority to define a word. Words are sounds or symbols for sounds that derive meaning by convention. No one has to accept Carl Jung's definition of introversion and extroversion, nor do they have to accept his dominant/ancillary scheme to further explain what he's talking about. The same goes for shyness. Whether or not it's a scientific term doesn't matter. With that said, I'll join you in your definition so we can discuss the issue more.

Introversion (as I understand it... which doesn't make it so. see what Carl Jung says) refers to the direction of focus of the function. Introverts have a dominant function that is inward-focused (Si, Ni, Fi, Ti). Extroverts have a dominant function that is outward-focused (Se, Ne, Fe, Te). That is what I was agreeing with Dissonance about:
"it's impossible to tell unless you analyze their cognitive functions and try to figure out if their dominant is introverted or extroverted."

Okay, but I think this definition is pretty sloppy and unnecessarily confusing. (Not a criticism of you, of course.)

I'm kind of that you didn't read my response before responding. As punishment, I shall write a longer description of what I was saying with regards to introversion.

...

I belive that introversion/extroversion is commonly defined by a set of behaviors/ phenotypes/ symptoms/ appearances in the same way that shyness is (probably because it's easier to understand). This is the 'introverts like to be alone, extroverts are social' definition. I believe this description is incorrect, and probably the reason you believe it's a hazy best-fit definition. As an ENFP (considered by most the most introverted appearing of the extroverts), the definition strikes me as absurd. Extroverts can be awfully nonsocial, love solitude, don't NEED human contact, etc. They are extroverts because their dominant function is directed outwards.

Yeah I agree that the "introverts like to be alone and extroverts, social" is really sloppy and doesn't pay any attention to internal motivations. I don't think NEED is the right word, either. Extroverts don't NEED lots of human contact, but they naturally enjoy it more. The word need makes it sound pathological, and I don't think it is unless its being used to fix something else (loneliness, for example, or to distract a person from depression). I think it's consistent with Jung's ideas to say introverts have a higher tolerance (or preference, depending on how you look at it) for solitude. They are alone by choice. Shy people are alone by circumstance. They are afraid of social rejection and keep quiet.

The whole extroverts love solitude is only a problem if you think that being extrovert is a totally 100% stable trait. It isn't. People perform all these mental gymnastics to try to preserve their trait (introvert/extrovert, whatever) and still maintain conflicting behavior (it's my this function or that function, or that's not really what Introversion is, etc.). It's a waste of time. The better solution is that type is constantly in flux and different behaviors/phenotypes are summoned by different environmental cues.