An essay composed of stray thoughts strung together, featuring a lazy and dishonest attempt at citation.

          There is one main difference between Jung’s concept of introversion/extraversion and that of the Big 5 model, which is considered the “Gold Standard” of modern personality psychology. In brief, Jung’s version is bipolar while the Big 5 uses a unipolar spectrum. This means that Jung juxtaposes introversion and extraversion as two different and opposed principles. Each one occupies a certain domain, namely that of the psychological “interior” and that of relation with the outside world. Neither one is exactly reducible to the other. Both have positive manifestations, meant not as a valuation, but technically: While from the outside, the extravert appears to be more engaging and the introvert more withdrawn, internally the introvert is also actively seeking something, but something different from external objects and object-relations. The introvert “seeks the subject”, or the meaning contained within—and native to—their own psyche [1].

          Meanwhile, Big 5 introversion is essentially a lack of extraversion. Extraversion is characterized by several facets: gregariousness, assertiveness, activity-seeking, enthusiasm, and more. Depending on the study and framework used, introversion—technically “low extraversion”—is mildly correlated with neuroticism, a separate scale measuring a propensity for negative emotions and moods like anxiety and depression. But overall, introversion is presented as a second-class trait, a lack rather than an active component of the personality. Other traits that are intuitively associated with introversion, like imaginativeness, are the domain of trait Openness in the Big 5. A handful of benefits are observed in introversion, such as a tendency to do better in academia, possibly because of a greater ability to focus on one or two topics for long stretches of time, and because introverts participate in fewer distractions [2]. But nowhere is introversion explicitly associated with interiority. That said, the statistics—based on a linguistic study of personality such as the Big 5—would have trouble showing this. It’s been argued that the Big 5’s lexical basis makes it prone to pro-social biases, since language itself is a pro-social tool [4]. Therefore, extraversion would make a bigger “splash” in the factor analysis than an asocial trait like introversion. Furthermore, to an observer, inwardness is often synonymous with opacity. Introverts are best defined by what they don’treveal about themselves. A scientific investigation of introversion as a first-order trait would have to progress in more creative directions.

          What does the non-psychometric research on introversion/extraversion say? Studies have found that the mesocortical dopamine reward circuit, dubbed the “seeking” or “approach” system, is more active in extraverts than in introverts [3]. The reward system is what gives us an inner incentive to pursue certain activities and acquire things we want. It plays a part in attention by ‘imbuing’ things with salience, making us expectant of a reward, drawing our energy and gaze towards them. It is also the basis of addiction, as all addictive drugs potentiate the circuit in various ways. According to Panksepp, the seeking system does not correspond to pleasure exactly, but to the emotion of enthusiasm [5]. Enthusiasm, as you might recall, is one of the major sub-facets of Big 5 trait extraversion.

          All this to say that according to this research, the extravert is more expectant of reward, more incentivized to pursue and explore things in the environment, more enthusiastic, and furthermore that this might be the mechanical basis of trait extraversion. Introverts would have less activity of this system. My question is this: Is the difference so linear? It’s known that all people exhibit a wide array of behaviours and emotions, but that the stable psychometric traits best describe the ‘average point’ of those behaviours [citation needed]. Jung also thought the two types of behaviour are highly context-dependant, so that an introvert in an easy and familiar environment would be indistinguishable from an extrovert, and an extrovert left to ponder their often-ignored complexes would be anxious and inhibited. Furthermore, he thought that it is not that the magnitude of a bout of enthusiasm that is different, but that introverts and extraverts get enthusiastic about different things.

          First, I will round out a relation between the seeking system and Jungian psychology. In psychoanalysis, the fact that meaning is never inherent in the object but synthesized by the subject manifests itself as “projection”. It is the individual nervous system that imbues things with salience, as if the same person were both chasing and holding up the carrot-on-a-fishing-pole. Jung calls the function that creates these projections the Anima, because in his analyses of dreams and fantasies as well as mythology and folklore, he often found it personified as a woman (or as a man in the case of a woman—the Animus). For example, the Hindu goddess Maya, who spins the web of illusions that draw people out into the play of life. And this is exactly what the seeking system does: it produces the feeling of expectancy that spurs us into activity, into exploration, work, love, and sex.

          According to Jung—and this is where I think his ideas get the most complex, and as a result unlikely, but they are fascinating to share—the Anima is ‘more unconscious’ in the psyche of the extravert. Since they are more interested in things in the environment than the inner workings of their mind, the Anima—which is one of these ‘inner workings’—sits outside of the field of awareness. To perform its function, it accesses the consciousness of the extravert in a roundabout way. It projects all kinds of personal contents onto external objects, so that these objects accrue the meaning contained in the extrovert’s own soul. This contributes to the heightened salience of the outside world for the extravert. Meanwhile, since the introvert spends more of their waking life absorbed in their own psyche, they gain more direct access—not in explicit awareness, but in intimations—of the functioning of the Anima. Their attention is directed not at external projections, but at the Anima image itself and the meaning it carries internally. Salience is contained in ideas and feelings, and is extended to the outside world only insofar as things—be they books, artwork, activities, or people—correspond to and evoke this inner reality.

          If we put aside the more nebulous ideas about the location, function, and image of the Anima archetype, we can generate a simple hypothesis: Introverts and extraverts get enthusiastic about different things, based on a different principle. The relative difference in the quantity of seeking system activity might be accounted for by introverts encountering salient stimuli with a lower frequency rather than a lower amplitude—or, that the experimental stimuli are geared more towards the extroverted psychology. Jung expressed the context-dependency of this dynamic in a sort of allegory: An introvert and an extravert approach a castle in the countryside. The extravert expects to meet all sorts of positive things on the inside—gracious hosts, feasts, adventures—and gets excited about entering. The introvert, more anxious with respect to the environment, is worried about guard dogs and cantankerous keepers. However, they go inside. There they find it is filled with books and scrolls like an old library. The introvert’s eye is caught by this and that and scurries about in excitement. The extravert, meanwhile, is severely disappointed. This is not nearly as stimulating as they expected. They even start to become sour and cranky, more like the demeanour of a defensive introvert than their normal sanguine state. The extravert is drawn to the possibility of excitement and adventure; the introvert, to elaborations on ideas that are personal to them.

          In this essay I’ve made a small attempt to reconcile Jung’s older and more theoretical ideas about introversion with modern psychometric and neuropsychological research. My emphasis was on creating a unified conceptual interpretation of the facts and theories involved. Specifically, I think Jung’s ideas about introversion/extraversion as the direction of interest/flow of libido, as well as the projection-making Anima, have the potential to correspond well with studies of the mesocortical reward circuit or “seeking” system, provided we make a deeper study of the potential context-dependency of this system. If this turns out to be correct, it would open more questions about the “why” of this personality dimension, since the relative difference in seeking behaviour would be the manifestation of a deeper basis rather than the basis itself. Perhaps it is, as Jung suggested, something analogous to r/K selection theory [6]: the opposite survival tactics of “high defenses and low fertility” versus “low defenses and high fertility”. In any case, I think it is worth returning to the investigation of introversion/extroversion as a bipolar dimension, since the psychometric, linguistic Big 5 version doesn’t seem to do justice to the introverted type.

Works cited: Lazy but getting thereedition

[1] Jung, C. G., & Baynes, H. G. (1926). Psychological types: Or, The psychology of individuation.

[2] ENTWISTLE, N. J. and ENTWISTLE, D. (1970), THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONALITY, STUDY METHODS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40: 132–143. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1970.tb02113.x

[3] Depue, R., & Collins, P. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491-517.

[4] Trofimova, I. (2014). Observer Bias: An Interaction of Temperament Traits with Biases in the Semantic Perception of Lexical Material. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85677. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085677

[5] Satoshi Ikemoto, Jaak Panksepp, The role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in motivated behavior: a unifying interpretation with special reference to reward-seeking, In Brain Research Reviews, Volume 31, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 6-41, ISSN 0165-0173, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00023-5.

[6] Eric R. Pianka, “On r- and K-Selection,” The American Naturalist 104, no. 940 (Nov. - Dec., 1970): 592-597.

In this article, we won’t be exploring the introverted and extroverted types so much as the specific mechanisms of introversion and extroversion. In order to isolate these concepts, any time I mention the respective types, imagine them as hypothetical puretypes. A normal type has a conscious mix of both introverted and extroverted factors. Also remember that whatever an individual is consciously, his unconscious compensates him by containing the opposite. So, an introvert is an extrovert in his unconscious, and vice versa.

Jung calls introversion and extroversion the “inward-turning of libido” and “outward-turning of libido” respectively. What he means by libidoorpsychic energy is not the same as Freud’s still-popular concept of sex drive – instead, it is an abstract concept designating the weight of value and interest given to any particular mental content or external object. For example, a psychological function with a large sum of libido is going to be at the forefront of consciousness, highly active and producing thoughts, feelings, hunches, or sense-impressions that are intrinsically interesting and valuable. The unconscious, too, has a dormant sum of libido – dormant, that is, until it activates a content like a complex or a strong emotion, which then bursts into consciousness uninvited. Conscious libido is essentially willpower; unconscious libido is akin to instinctual impulses.

Therefore, the two mechanisms designate the general flow of energy, whether it activates and confers value to external objects, or does the same to inner contents. Extroversion is an interest in the external world, in the multiplicity of objects and people, focussing on their specificity and differences. The Ego is constantly seeking to relate to the object in some way, to affect it or be affected by it, and it finds its identity in its relation to the ever-changing environment. Introversion is an interest in the inner world, on emotion-toned complexes and inner archetypes. It focuses on the similarities between things, so that it can organise them internally under the header of general ideas, which are derived in essence from the archetypes. It seeks to detach itself from the outside world, to keep the inner world in perfect stasis and harmony, and finds its identity in the changelessness of the Ego.

The two mechanisms play an important role in the emotionalityof a personality. Extroversion, as the mechanism that bridges the individual and the outside world, is associated with how the individual reacts emotionally to external stimuli. Extroversion is characterised by a quick, open, and emotion-laden reactivity. We can call this the affectiveoremotionalattitude. Introversion, on the other hand, we can call the detachedattitude, as it seeks to sever ties with the outside world as much as possible. However, while calling the extroverted and introverted types “affective” and “detached” might work at a glance (extroverts appearing active and expressive, introverts appearing passive and inscrutable), it doesn’t hold up to deeper investigation. Introverts often experience the most intense emotions, while extroverts, having a conscious and well-adapted affectivity, dispense with them quickly and easily. This is because the introvert’s conscious detached-ness is compensated by a large unconscious affectivity (extroverted attitude), which finds little expression and, worse still, is empowered by the unstable, primal libido of the unconscious. The extrovert, on the other hand, is unconscious of his detached inner thoughts and feelings (introverted attitude), which have their own morbid character, but not the emotional one of the introvert’s.

This dynamic of the unconscious attitude has a reinforcing effect on the individual’s conscious personality. This is due to the projectionof unconscious contents. When an extrovert projects his unconscious onto external objects, he sees in them the image of his own unconscious personality – that is, passive, detached, inert. Because of the outside world’s apparent harmlessness, he is even more inclined to go out and interact with it freely, and in the process he reclaims his own unconscious inner world. The introvert unfortunately sees the object as having his own unconscious affectivity. The outside world is active and animated, full of things that are dangerous and fearful, reflecting the primal, daemonic nature of the unconscious. This validates the introvert’s impulse to withdraw and defend himself against the outer onslaught, which again represents his own unconscious life. (Remember, these are pure types – the normal individual, while still not seeing objectively, projects a middle-of-the-road mixture of characteristics onto objects.)

Finally, Jung posits that the introvert is characterised by a great psychic tension or inhibition as compared to the extrovert. This is because he is always worried, consciously or unconsciously, that an external stimulus will trigger or disrupt an inner complex, or even worse, one of those volatile, primal affects. An extrovert, who acts in direct relationship to the external world, does not share this fear, and as a result is the more relaxed and disinhibited type. However, each type can act like the other in certain circumstances. An introvert in a safe and familiar environment will be allowed to forget his complexes and relax, while an extrovert left alone to contemplate his own complexes – which are as dangerous and daemonic as the introvert’s affectivity – will jump at the smallest noise.

To recap: Introversion and extroversion designate the movement of libido (= interest) in the psyche. Extroversion is always related to objects; it is the more affective (emotional) and relaxed mechanism. It projects the image of a passive, inert object. Introversion is related to inner contents; it is the more detached and tense mechanism. It projects the image of an active, dangerous object. An introverted attitude is compensated by an extroverted attitude in the unconscious, and vice versa. In a normal type, both the conscious and unconscious personalities will have a mix of both mechanisms.

The cornerstone of Jung’s psychology is the theory of the collective unconscious. A rough understanding of it – if not more! – is very important for understanding introversion. In my opinion, the fact that people have apparently forgotten it, that no one discusses it on internet typology communities, has caused a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. So, strap in for this one.

Jung’s predecessor and mentor, Freud, first viewed the unconscious as a receptacle (read: trash can) of thoughts, feelings, memories, and above all sexual and aggressive impulses, that people repressed in order to function in civilised society and keep up their peace of mind (or the illusion of it). Jung thought that was just one part of the picture. He thought up a deeper, older, and more fundamental part of the mind; he called it the collective unconscious, and said it was made up of archetypes.

You can picture it something like this: Just as everyone has a body that’s basically the same as every other human body (four limbs, one head, a liver, a heart), so does the mind have a basic substructure common to all of us. Our bodies and psyches are only different on a surface level. That’s why Jung called this part of the unconscious “collective”, in that it’s shared by everyone – not as a single, amorphous “psychic” blob that everyone can access, but as a structure that is born again in every individual. Some parts of it might be as old as the psyche itself, in the same way that parts of our bodies are so old that we share them with other mammals, and even reptiles.

The collective unconscious houses the archetypes. These are typical patterns of thought or cognition, the logical result of all of us having the same nervous system. Some of these structures seem to show up in our imaginations in the same way, time and time again, in specific symbols or archetypal images. Jung called them the “self-portraits of the instincts”. And, in fact, there is a lot of overlap between the concepts of instinctandarchetype: Just as we think of instincts as fixed, automatic, and inborn patterns of behaviour, an archetype is a fixed, inborn pattern of mental activity. Archetypes are tied up with a myriad of facts of human existence, since they’ve developed over millions of years of human and pre-human life. We find the corresponding archetypal images in every culture, in all mythologies and religions, and also in our own spontaneous dreams and fantasies.

For any of our psychological functions, the influence of the outside world is the same as the influence of the collective unconscious, the “inner world”. Extroversion and introversion are where our energy goes, where we direct our interest: Whether we’re trying to grasp, shape, and benefit from something in the outer world, or if we’re trying to do the same with an inner archetype. Introverts do this through their favoured function – Thinking builds theories with the help of the archetypal substructure; Feeling finds powerful, universal values in them. Sensation understands that the things it sees have meaning, pattern, and form; Intuition gets impressions straight from the unconscious imagination. 

Remember that while introverted functions are influenced by the archetypes, we don’t experience them directly. The archetypes themselves are just pattern and form; they’re tendency, not content. They still have to be “filled up” by our personal experiences. Once we’ve “brought one to life” with carefully (but organically!) organised facts, thoughts, and feelings, we can see the archetypal form beneath it all.

We can find an example of this in modern physics’ quest to find a unifying theory of the universe – a “Theory of Everything”. This is a perfect example of Thinking basing itself on an archetype (which would make it IntrovertedThinking). Namely, it’s the archetype of wholeness or unity – what Jung calls the self–  which is often drawn as a mandala: Everything is contained within a circle. Nothing is left out. The physicists build a theory around the archetype, in a way that clearly shows just how compelling it is to them. On the other hand, an Extroverted Thinker might think that kind of project is pointless or even boring, unless he finds himself in an environment where it’s really needed (like a physics academy dominated by Introverts).

To recap: The collective unconscious is an ancient, inherited part of our minds. It’s made up of archetypes, which are fixed patterns of thought and imagination, the mental counterpart to instincts. Archetypes have evolved over millions of years, so they represent many facts of life in abstract forms. Introversion focuses interest and energy on these archetypes, so that any function, when it’s introverted, is drawn to their universal forms.

Everything You Need To Know

“This work sprang originally from my need to define the ways in which my outlook differed from Freud’s and Adler’s. In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one’s psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person’s judgement. My book, therefore, was an effort to deal with the relationship of the individual to the world, to people and things. It discussed the various aspects of consciousness, the various attitudes the conscious mind might take toward the world, and thus constitutes a psychology of consciousness regarded from what might be called a clinical angle.”

- C.G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

Not everybody approaches the world in the same way. In fact, most people seem to differ from each other greatly – sometimes it seems like a miracle that we can even get along at all! In attempting to explore this problem, Jung devised a system of types that – although not as scientifically rigorous as modern personality inventories like the Big 5 or the MMPI – was simple, elegant, and deep. This should be repeated: Jung’s typology, although rooted in practical experience, is intuitive and symbolic in nature. It is meant firstly as a therapeutic tool and not as a strictly scientific theory.

Jung’s typology is made up of six elements. The first are two attitudes: IntroversionandExtroversion. These represent the direction of interest of the psyche and the movement of its energy, whether inwards or outwards. The others are four functions: Thinking,Feeling,SensationandIntuition. These are modes of operation that, between the four of them, roughly encompass your conscious experience. The shorthand goes like this: Sensation tells us that something is there; Thinking tells us what it is; Feeling tells us if it is agreeable or not; Intuition tells us from where it came and to where it might go.

Introversion is an inwards-turning of energy. It’s an orientation that expresses the supremacy of subjective part of life; one’s inner thoughts, feelings, personal experiences, and the deep unconscious*. This does not mean that introverts are always introspective – instead, their relation to the outside world is coloured by their subjective view in such a way that their perceptions and judgements hinge more on their private inner reality than on the shared reality of the objective world. Because their energy moves away from the object (and towards the subject), they tend to be relatively reserved, inscrutable, and shy.

*Footnote to Introversion: The “deep unconscious” here refers to the Collective Unconscious, which is covered in another article. To summarise, the subject isn’t only made up of personal experiences or memories. Just as we all have an inherited body that is only superficially different between individuals, so do we have an inherited psyche that has evolved over millions of years. Introversion relies particularly heavily on inherited, instinctual images and patterns of thought. Pushed to the extreme, these manifest as a mythological or religious quality of thought, since myths are just the collective expression of these inner archetypes through stories.

Extroversion is an outwards-turning of energy. Here the objective part of life is the most important. Extroverts think and act in a way that corresponds more directly to external conditions. They aren’t necessarily perfectly adjusted – extroversion is no guarantee of good social skills, and furthermore, neglecting their inner life often results in grief for the extrovert. However, they are constantly impelled to relate to the outer world in some way, and in turn to be affected by it, whether that means they’re on good terms with everybody, or that they pick fights with everybody. In general they are relatively open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable.

The four functions are made up of two pairs of opposites. Sensation and Intuition make up the first pair. These are the “irrational” orperceiving functions. Sensation takes in impressions of the material world via the five senses, which often results in a pragmatic, grounded, or aesthetically-minded personality. Intuition is a subconscious or subliminal perception that, roughly speaking, presents the user with a whole where only a part is objectively visible. This often results in a speculative, flighty, or imaginative personality. Thinking and Feeling are the “rational” or judgingfunctions. Thinking takes a detached, mechanistic view of problems, and seeks to put the world in conceptual or at least logical terms. Feeling recognises and imparts subjective value onto things, deciding whether or not they are agreeable and good.

However, these functions are never developed and used in an individual to the same extent. As a rule, one becomes the person’s primary approach to life – thedominantfunction. Its incompatible opposite is partially repressed as a result. This becomes theinferiorfunction. The two other functions are in a middle-state of differentiation, and therefore are less harshly polarised. One is usually theauxiliaryfunction, which supports and counterbalances the dominant – a functional sidekick. This is not a hard rule, though: both could be auxiliaries, or both could be undifferentiated inferior functions. However, the most common arrangement consists of two conscious functions, the dominant and main auxiliary, and two unconscious inferior functions.

==============================================================

Fig. 1 - A Thinking dominant, Feeling inferior arrangement. The two middle functions, Sensation and Intuition, are halfway between consciousness and unconsciousness. They can be developed auxiliaries or underdeveloped inferiors.

==============================================================

These dominant-auxiliary combinations begin to paint familiar pictures – the practical problem-solver with Thinking and Sensation, the esoteric creative artist with Feeling and Intuition, etc. The inferior function also tends to be recognisable. We all know people who have terrible difficulties with Feeling, or for whom material reality is always a stumbling block thanks to inferior Sensation.

Finally, in any given function type, a certain attitude will also dominate. This attitude does not exist on its own, but applies to the dominant function, so that the Thinking of a Thinking type might actually be Introverted or Extroverted. The opposite attitude, however, is repressed and combines with the inferior function. The middle functions are again in a more mercurial middle state; they often have the capacity to shift either way. This results in a distinct set of types, which are described in my Jung Abridged series.

To recap: Two attitudes, Introversion and Extroversion. Four functions: two perceiving, that is Sensation and Intuition, and two judging, that is Thinking and Feeling. One is dominant and conscious; its opposite is inferior and unconscious. The other two functions can be either conscious auxiliaries or unconscious inferiors. The dominant function has a characteristic attitude; the inferior takes the opposite attitude. Those are the basics – from here you can check out any of my other articles, which deal with many aspects of this schematic in greater depth. Enjoy!

Me, the introvert at the beach

Walks to the left away from the crowd

My friend, the extrovert

Walks to the right straight towards the crowd

What are each MBTI Type’s favourite conversation topics?

INTJ: Nietzche, the future

INTP: Science, what will they create

ENTJ: Their dreams, their idols, politics

ENTP: memes, penny-for-your-thoughts conversations

INFJ: morals, what they want to achieve

INFP: music, their wishes

ENFJ: politics, friendship, their dreams

ENFP: you will not get far before they change the topic to somet- OOH, A BUTTERFLY!!

ISTJ: politics, community, career

ISFJ: service, community

ESTJ: politics, career, bashing lefties

ESFJ: gossip, their kids, wine, cookies

ISTP: any tool or vehicle that they have

ISFP: art, music

ESTP: what they do for fun, parties, music

ESFP: dancing, relationships, parties, music

Which Color Personality Are You: Red, Blue, Green or Yellow?

YELLOW

The yellow personality is generally regarded as the sunniest personality. Often you will find them the life of the party. They are most of the time the loudest and most vocal of the four types of color personality. Some would regard them as the happy-go-lucky type who seems unable to take anything seriously. The yellow personality treats life as if it’s one big, continuous party. If faced with a stressful situation, the yellow person would seek out friends and drink it out. Most yellow personalities fear rejection most.

More interesting facts about the yellow personality include they can be very loyal and great team players, and are personable and friendly. They can be family oriented and animal lovers, plus environmentally conscious and love the outdoors. Yellow personalities do not like conflict and are more adept at being the peace maker. A yellow personality is creative, expressive, intuitive, and makes great volunteers. They dislike phony people.  

Yellow Personality Tendencies

Optimism

Enthusiasm

Makes good impressions

Verbally articulate

Likes to help others

Creates entertaining climate

Yellow Personality Ideal situation

Friendly warm environment

Freedom from control

Public recognition of ability

Opportunity to talk

Positive reinforcement

Enthusiastic response to ideas

Yellow Personality Weaknesses

Following through

Overestimating results

Misjudging capabilities

Talks too much

Acts impulsively

Jumps to conclusions

Over commits

Acts first, thinks second

Yellow Personality Needs others to provide

Follow through on details

Focus on tasks

Logical approach

Yellow Personality Personal growth area

Time awareness

Objectivity in decision making

RED

The red personality is generally considered the “dominating personality”. These are the types of person who demands that things be done their way and right now. They sometimes have low tolerance for undisciplined and devil-may-care attitude which oftentimes put them at odds with the yellow personality. If faced with a stressful situation the red personality would generally seek out strenuous activities like running or boxing to vent out his or her frustrations. Most reds fear failure.

More interesting fact about the red personality includes their desire to win, competitive, and a confident personality. Even though the red personality is competitive, they can also be insecure which gives a need for approval from others and drives their need to win. They can be selfish, and not a good team player, because they would rather be in the spotlight which makes them sometimes selfish.

 Red personality Tendencies

Getting immediate results

Making quick decisions

Persistence

Solving problems

Taking charge

Looking self reliant

Accepting challenges

Red Personality Ideal situation

New varied activities

Opportunity to really get things done

Continual challenges, multi-tasker

Difficult assignments

Freedom to act from their instinct

Control over the situations

Direct answers from others, no innuendoes

Red Personality Weaknesses

Insensitivity towards others

Impatient

Overlook risks

Inflexibility, demanding of others

Talks too much

Inattentive to details at times

Resenting of restrictions

Red Personality Needs others to provide

Attention to routine tasks

Caution

Focus on details and facts

Red Personality Personal growth area

Greater patience

Sensitivity to others’ needs

Flexibility

GREEN

The green personality is generally referred to as the calm personality. They don’t easily get frazzled and are the epitome of calmness even in most stressful situations. To them also falls the role of mediator when faced with sticky situations. When stressed, the green’s approach is to sleep it off. The green personality tries his/her best to maintain harmony in all types of situation. Because of the green’s inability to say no, people oftentimes take advantage of them.

The green personality also has the following traits. They are known to be very calculating and logical in their thinking which also means they do not make snap decisions and think everything through because of their love of analyzing every question and every situation. They are more scientific in their thinking, preferring facts over intuition of faith based answers. This can make the green personality rather skeptical of people and those with ulterior motives. They need a precise plan to follow, and they are not spontaneous, and do not like surprises. They can also be perfectionist and sometimes end up being emotionally detached.

Green Personality Tendencies

Supportive

Agreeable

Loyal

Self control

Consistent

Good listener

Opportunity to develop personal relationships

Green Personality Ideal situation

Sincere appreciation by others

Minimal conflict between people

Security

Acknowledgement of work by others

Limited territory

Traditional procedures

Opportunity to develop personal relationships

Green Personality Weaknesses

Resist change

Trouble making deadlines

Overly lenient with people

Procrastinates

Indecisive

Holds grudges

Overly possessive

Lacks initiative

Green Personality Needs others to provide

Push to try new challenges

Help in solving difficult problems

Initiative and accepting change

Green Personality Personal growth area

Facing confrontation and dealing with it

Moving at a faster pace and initiating

BLUE

The blue personality type is seen as the perfectionists. They are the ones who would generally examine the smallest details of every situation and fret about each one of them. The blue personality oftentimes appears unemotional and doesn’t want to be touched. The greatest fear of a blue person is to be criticized.

Interestingly, other studies show that the blue personalities can be aloof, forgetful and fun loving. They live for the moment and are the exact opposite of the green personality.

Blue PersonalityTendencies

Orderliness

Conscientious

Disciplined

Precise

Thorough

Diplomatic with people

Analytical

Blue Personality Ideal situation

Being able to concentrate on detail

Opportunities to critique

Stable surroundings and procedures

Exact job description, expectations

Opportunities for “careful” planning

Sufficient time to do things right

Opportunities for reassurance from authority

Blue Personality Weaknesses

Indecisive (looking at all data)

Get bogged down in details

Rigid on the how-to’s

Avoids controversy

Low self esteem

Hesitant to try new things

Sensitive to criticism

Can be pessimistic

Blue Personality Needs others to provide

Quick decision making

Optimism

Help in persuading others

Blue Personality Personal growth area

Be more open with their feelings

Be more optimistic

Color Personality Conclusion

This is not an exact science and many people can be different than what their color personality describes. Though some people are really described well with their color personalities, other people do not resemble their color personalities. Check out the following sources for more information, because this type of personality test can be very interesting. If you find you are someone that identifies with a certain color, these tests can be very helpful.

It’s funny, I have read so may articles about what it’s like to live abroad. And almost all of them mention making friends with other foreigners. But what if you are the ONLY foreigner? And you can only speak the same language as a handful of people. And everything you see is in a language you don’t understand. I doubt many people will ever be in this situation but it happens to be the situation I’m in.

For those that don’t know me, I am an only child and an extreme extrovert. I remember times when I was little and I would call all of my friends to hang out and no one could play and I would have a mild panic attack thinking about how I had to be alone for the day. And my mom would be like, Lucy chill!!!……It’s funny, you would think as an only child I would be good at being alone but actually I was just good at finding people to be friends with. It really wasn’t until college that I could really be at peace with being alone for a day or more. So, China was a huge step, and I knew it would be.

Now, Im not trying to have anyone feel bad for me, I have made friends. I play volleyball with a group of people twice a week, I have lunch with a group of teachers 4 days a week but about 95% of my dinners are alone. Dinners were always important to my family. We always ate together, and we always talked about our day… So that’s why at dinner… I feel the most alone.

But being alone to the extreme… has really given me the opportunity to grow, more than I think anything else could. I have now found out how to be content alone. Notice I didn’t say happy, I am and will always be an extrovert and being around others brings me the most joy but as the extrovert I am, I have now found a way to be content alone…. Which is HUGE for me.

So for you extreme extroverts out there, it is possible to wake up in the morning with a smile on your face while feeling alone. Interactions with people are what bring me the most joy. So when that was lacking I just had to find new things to bring me happiness, like exercising, listening to music, and just enjoying the sunshine. Hegang has been a great challenge and I feel very lucky that I was given the opportunity to face it and learn how to make myself happy in different ways that don’t involve other people.

:

I love going to the mall with my esfj friend because she does all the work, she talks to sales assistants and asks things and i just have to smile and nod i love her

Ps. She actually got entp in the test but I’m pretty sure she’s a esxj

Gotta get myself an extrovertedfriend

Feel free to be your true self today.

Whether that true self is part of a minority, or part of the majority.

There is no shame in being part of small community, but there is no shame in being part of a big one either.

Be whoever you are, wheter that is an excentric, outgoing person or a shy and introverted loner.

Be whoever you are, wheter that is someone you worked hard to become, or someone you always were.

If you ever find yourself wondering if I’m flirting with you… I don’t. I am just polite and outgoing.

If you think I’m awkward and you get second hand embarrassment everytime you’re around me there you have it. I am trying and failing to flirt with you.

wiley-treehouse-gardens:

Humans. For the first time; “Introvert” = “Social energy recharges when alone” and “Extrovert” = “Social energy recharges when with others.” 

Both introverts and extroverts can get wild and excited and have an amazing time with other people or alone. 

Introversion doesn’t mean you’re automatically quiet, or hate people, or don’t want to be social, or are bad at being social. 

Extroversion doesn’t mean you’re unable to spend time alone or hate being by yourself.

Sick and tired of people using introversion as a joke or treating it as a trend smh Where were y’all pre-pandemic, when one was shunned for preferring to be alone rather than going to a party?? 

I’ve been seeing a lot about these elusive beings called “Ambiverts” on the internet recently. “What the hell is an Ambivert?” you ask - well, Ambiverts are the alleged middle ground between Introverts and Extroverts. Ambiverts refuse to conform to the labels of “introvert” or “extrovert”, so they’ve created a rebellious third party. It’s the social equivalent of being Ambidextrous. 

A common misconception about Myers Briggs and amateur psychology in general is that one must fit into all the stereotypes of one label. Much like sexualities, for every personality trait there is a spectrum. By Ambivert logic, we should all be ambiverts - because extroverts sure as hell don’t always feel like partying 24/7 and Introverts don’t always want to be in their houses reading books and snuggling kittens. Not everyone is 100% an Introvert or 100% an Extrovert. 

Introversion and Extroversion have little to do with the activities you partake in, and a lot to do with how you gain your energy. For example, you’ll find many Introverts that are into the performing arts - an extremely social endeavor… But you’ll also find them in the break room after, cooling off. You may find an Extrovert in a similar situation, but instead of breaking they’ll go out and chat with the audience members until the gig ends. In this situation an “Ambivert” would be open to doing either of those things depending on their MOOD. You may find extroverts in the break room, and you may find Introverts blowing kisses into the crowd - it always goes both ways. 

So in conclusion, Ambiverts are, for the most part a myth. This is not to say that one cannot identify as an Ambivert – but I think this concept of Ambiverts offends the notion that there in fact, is a spectrum of Introversion and Extroversion. However, If you score 50% extroversion and 50% Introversion, okay, congratulations! You’re one of the few, the proud… the ambiverts.