Sheep

[Muad'Dib]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/sheepflockLTRD.jpg

It's a large flock of sheep. Where one goes, they all go. The center of the group is the most desired position. The edges are dangerous. The edges are where the wolves live. Yet, it is the edges that determine where the group goes. The edges define the limits of what is safe. Alone, the sheep dies. The group provides safety, even for those that want to be alone.

Extroverts are like sheep. They look to their neighbor for approval and security. They are happiest when surrounded by others that share their desire for approval and friends. They prefer to go over the cliff as a group to risking being on the outside.

Introverts reject the group-think mentality and, instead, prefer to base their decisions on a pragmatic review of the facts. They see it as an unfortunate fact that there is safety in numbers; so, attendance with the group is prudent. Even so, the edges provide untrampled grass, fresh air, and the ability to explore new terrain while staying close to the group, if the wolves come too close. And, every once in a while, that exploration will result in a new direction for the entire flock.

Extroverts (E's) like introverts (I's). They don't understand them, but they respect them. E's are attracted to the honesty of the I's. Some E's constantly try to draw the I's into the group, simultaneously providing them with that security that is so essential to E's. But, the security blanket for E's is a smothering blanket for I's. The harder the E's try, the faster the I's run. The I's like the approval of the E's, but they find that acceptance to be highly suspicious. There seems to be a combination of desire and repulsion. The I wants the group to understand and accept the analyses of the I; but as soon as the group provides the acceptance the I wants, the I flees. This behavior totally mystifies the E, since the E cannot comprehend the I's logic.

E's believe I's simply haven't been exposed to the true joys of E-dom. An intensive submersion in the joys of being the center of attention will no doubt cure the selfish sickness of being an I. Thankfully for I's, E's tend to give up on the treatment before they kill their patient.

As soon as the I is released from the torture chamber, they flee to their places of solitude. The experience reaffirms their distrust of other sheep. The more intense the cure session, the further and longer the I flees from the group. The wolves find these escapees to be the easiest prey because the tortured I simply finds the wolf to be preferrable to the suffocation of too many E's.

Such a tragic fate confirms the attitudes of each type. The E's are convinced that it was the rejection of their philosophy that led to the demise of the poor little I's. This leads them to believe that they should simply try harder to assimilate more I's. And I's look at the experience as confirmation of their preception of the world. It was the overbearing crush of the E's that pushed the I beyond the edge of safety. Yet, it is totally understandable. A small memorial should be built to the I that was pushed too far, as a warning to anyone that will listen. Unfortunately, the language on the shrine is in a language that E's cannot understand, due to the different polarization of the perceptions between E's and I's.



addendums welcome

[coffeezombie]

Extroverts are like sheep. They look to their neighbor for approval and security. They are happiest when surrounded by others that share their desire for approval and friends. They prefer to go over the cliff as a group to risking being on the outside.

There seems to be a lot of "group-oriented behaviors" even among the introverts on here. I think this kind of thing is a little bit more complicated than just introvert vs. extrovert.

[meshou]

I don't think humans are actually a herd animal. We're hunters. That makes us more akin to lions or wolves.

Is are not all practical. INFPs, for example, are about as pracctical as a bullet proof jacket made of doilies. ISFJs are definately not inclined to explore new ground in any sense, and INTPs are not inclined to explore new physical ground.

INTPs do explore new mental ground, but despite romantic beliefs otherwise, thinking rarely holds much danger.

Es do not generally like Is. They find them stuck up or damaged as often as they like them. Again, ISFJs are all into that security blanket. They easily find a place within a "herd." They just take a little more time to themselves.

We're the wolves. It is possible for a wolf to be less social, as long as he is polite, and has the muscle to assert his place. If he is weak or rude, he'll be pushed into an omega position, and will eat last.

That said, I'm not really into pity parties.

[coffeezombie]

I don't think humans are actually a herd animal. We're hunters. That makes us more akin to lions or wolves.

A pack animal is only one step below a herd animal. But sure, most humans do seek individuality. We aren't hunters like tigers and jaguars are, though.

[Blue]

The above said, there were good points he made. The labels were a little inaccurate but I think he described the E perception of I as a weakness pretty well. Although I am a little confused as well as to what the wolves are. (Existentialist angst?) He even illustrated. Good post.

+Blue

[Ella]

There seems to be a lot of "group-oriented behaviors" even among the introverts on here.

I is a preference, not an absolute. Is can do and seek out group behaviours and activities. The I/E preference is about where you go to recharge, not about what you absolutely will or will not do. Es want to recharge in a group after a group activity, Is want to be alone after a group activity - but both can happily participate in a group.

[MasterMerk]

This is where being a perfectly balanced ambivert makes me the greatest living being on the planet.

I don't think all extraverts are inherently social animals at all. Go to the ENTP.org forum and try to pitch that idea. You'll probably be cut off before you can finish your sentence. The truth is that most of them are misfits too.

About being sheep: I don't equate social with secure, I just enjoy good company. If I disagree with a group, I immediately force myself out of the picture.

[Ella]

I think the N and the P make us more "misfitty" than the I does, by a long shot!

[the_stumpycat]

I think the N and the P make us more "misfitty" than the I does, by a long shot!

Even before I had ever done MBTI I had to manage my P'ness to be able to fit in a work environment with other people who were not P. Without doing that I was in my opinion better at what I did - I was just impossible to work with

[ApeTheDog]

This is a great post, that I enjoyed reading. Unfortunately I have nothing to add.

[Neppy]

Hmm. I don't necessarily agree. Just because someone is more extroverted does not make them a sheep. You can't just look at it in black & white terms like that. It is a good post, definitely spurs debate, so kudos to you for starting it.

I have a few extroverted friends who are most certainly not conformists. Also, it should be mentioned that you are not 100% introverted or 100% extroverted. You can easily be an ambivert, like MasterMerk mentioned. It's simply preference. Extroverts will appreciate the company of other people and get their energy from interacting with them, but that doesn't instantly mean they're going to conform. I have one ENTJ friend who looks down on conformism, but being an extrovert, she will simply prefer to rise above and know that she is intellectually and aesthetically superior.

I won't disagree with one thing: conformists are probably more likely to be Es. But being an E doesn't automatically make you a conformist. Basically, if Bs are As, that doesn't mean all As will be Bs.

But introverts can be just as capable of conforming. Many introverts, especially those who aren't aware of the MBTI or the fact that being introverted is perfectly normal (just a bit less common), beat themselves up because they just aren't capable of the same (excessive socializing, etc) as most extroverts. They feel different, and it scares them. So they'll try to conform. I remember when I was like that, back when I was younger. I battled relentlessly with everything that made me odd, trying to become as ordinary as I could. Mostly to avoid unwanted attention, or people picking on me for being strange. Which is the difference. An introvert may want to conform so that they can blend in and become even less noticeable.

Let them pity us! Let them think "oh, poor lonely introverts" if they want! ;) Doesn't bother me. As long as they remember to leave me alone.

[Muad'Dib]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/sheepflockPJa.jpg

[Nighthawk]

There seems to be a lot of "group-oriented behaviors" even among the introverts on here. I think this kind of thing is a little bit more complicated than just introvert vs. extrovert.

Depends on the group for me. Groups of N's actually tend to energize me a bit. Groups of SPs can be fun too, from time to time ... although I need to recover afterwards. Groups of SJs tend to burn me out the most and the fastest. I rarely bother arguing with them anymore, so I put on a cooperative S facade and just endure it. Too much of that absolutely fries my persona.

[Nighthawk]

But introverts can be just as capable of conforming. Many introverts, especially those who aren't aware of the MBTI or the fact that being introverted is perfectly normal (just a bit less common), beat themselves up because they just aren't capable of the same (excessive socializing, etc) as most extroverts. They feel different, and it scares them. So they'll try to conform. I remember when I was like that, back when I was younger.

Yes ... I was very much like that for about 20 years.

[Nighthawk]

I think the N and the P make us more "misfitty" than the I does, by a long shot!

I agree that the N is the biggest "oddball" discriminator ... especially in the eyes of the S's. I usually find that I have more in common with an extraverted N, than I do with an introverted S.

[Ka.avik]

I agree that the N is the biggest "oddball" discriminator ... especially in the eyes of the S's. I usually find that I have more in common with an extraverted N, than I do with an introverted S.
Where I work, there is a new gal, who is an ESFP. We get along great, don't get me wrong, but when I give her directions, or answers, or try to explain the historical way of approaching a problem, I usually need the ISTP coworker to act as an intepreter.

The fact that I keep giving her printouts with size-8 font, and have to be reminded that she recently went to verilux lenses and can't read what I can read, doesn't help any, actually. :shock:

[Ella]

Where I work, there is a new gal, who is an ESFP. We get along great, don't get me wrong, but when I give her directions, or answers, or try to explain the historical way of approaching a problem, I usually need the ISTP coworker to act as an intepreter.

Does that count against you at work, needing the interpreter? Do others see it as a problem, or her as the problem, or you as the problem?

[Ka.avik]

Does that count against you at work, needing the interpreter? Do others see it as a problem, or her as the problem, or you as the problem?
It's just something we laugh at. It's well known that she and I are polar opposites, so communicational difficulties are not suprising.

In a way, it's why she's in the IT department -- so she can act as intepreter to the even less savvy end-users.

[pangolin]

To any who have not looked at it, I would recommend Kiersey's "Please Understand Me II" which uses the same I-E,N-S,T-F,P-J scheme, but associates groups differently than Myers-Briggs, and expands on the features of the 16 types. Apologies if this is way redundant.

[mattj]

The wolves find these escapees to be the easiest prey because the tortured I simply finds the wolf to be preferrable to the suffocation of too many E's.


Hah. I was laughing hysterically at this one, Muad'Dib.
That's so true.. I'd rather be alone than around people that don't appreciate me. I think the wolves represent all the Bad Things in life that people try to protect themselves from: bad habits, self-destructive habits, depression, and other things with smelly breath and sharp teeth.

In my experience INFJs function as extroverts. The ones I know tend to have wide circles of friends, tend to be friendly and open, because as an INFJ that's what you have to do. I feel most sad for INFPs because I've known a couple who are very lonely. They have the curse of being an introvert combined with the curse of having all these strong feelings about things. As an INFP you know exactly how special you are, and you know that no one else notices, and it's depressing as anything. That's what I've seen in my (female) INFP friends anyway.

I'm an INTP. I have the same problems making new friends, but if I'm alone I know I could go to a bar but I'd be less happy at the bar than I'd be alone in my room. INFPs (I think) don't feel that. They just feel alone and vulnerable. Some of my INFP friends are into things like writing, poetry or art that they can do alone as an emotional release.

ESFPs are special. They're the only type of extrovert that I was ever comfortable with. I didn't know I was picking out ESFPs, I just knew that these were people I was always the happiest around. If you look at the description, every single other kind of extrovert wants to lead or persuade or argue or control, and I am not someone who is going to follow a person like that. For anyone who's read "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, what he calls a "Connector" is an ESFP.

Here's some food for thought. If there were no ESFPs the world would crumble. Every introvert would mostly fend for him/herself and there would be one big glob of extroverts and then a million small clusters of introverts with no strong ties to the rest of society. As a gross overgeneralization, introverts tend to be good at generating new ideas and extroverts tend to be good at marshalling people to implement them. A society with just one or just the other would never be able to compete with a different society that had both.

So here's my evil hypothetical scenario. Imagine a world with no SJ's. I don't have any good friends that are SJ's because I find it too uncomfortable to be around them for any length of time. But imagine what life would be like with no one to uphold the status quo. *shudder*.

[TPol]

I'm reading "The Tipping Point" right now. Quite an interesting book. Just got done with the chapter on Sesame Street and Blue's Clues. The "Connectors" are good ambassadors between people who wouldn't normally interact much nor blend well when they did interact. Maybe they are the sheep between the inner sheep and the outer sheep. :)

[mattj]

As I understand "The Tipping Point," it's not that Connectors are embassadors per se, it's that they stick people in a room together who would ordinarily never meet each other. Without Connectors, everyone would just have their own small circle of friends, and there would be a lot of groups of 5 or 6 people where the 6 people in that group all knew each other but had little or no interaction with people outside the group.

Connectors don't just throw parties (which they do), they throw parties with lots of different kinds of people who would never ordinarily be in the room together and make sure that everyone has a good time. When people come to the parties they meet people they would never meet otherwise. I picture it like a bee pollinating flowers; without bees, flowers could only reproduce with their immediate neighbors, if at all. Bees let flowers sow their wild oats over a very wide area. But people are not dependent on the Connectors to maintain the relationship; as soon as they meet someone interesting they (hopefully) keep in touch with that person on their own, without needing the Connector's help.

All I'm saying in all of this is that all Connectors are ESFPs and all ESFPs are Connectors. (Is that true? Seems true to me.) Malcolm Gladwell, the author, doesn't make any attempt to say whether Connector-ness is genetic, how these people got to be that way, or whether anyone can do it. He just points this out as a phenomenon worthy of note.

Matt

[TPol]

As I understand "The Tipping Point," it's not that Connectors are embassadors per se, it's that they stick people in a room together who would ordinarily never meet each other. Without Connectors, everyone would just have their own small circle of friends, and there would be a lot of groups of 5 or 6 people where the 6 people in that group all knew each other but had little or no interaction with people outside the group.

True, but they also have a wide network of people who may never get together in the same room. Connectors remember little things about people on that network. So, if our Connector knows Jiggs (a soft-hearted baseball player in Atlanta) and Agatha (currently organizing a celebrity baseball game in Tampa as a benefit for Kids with Cancer), our Connector will give Agatha the contact info for Jiggs. The Connector is, therefore, the connecting point between the people on his network, and he is always adding to his network.

The pollinating bee analogy is interesting.


All I'm saying in all of this is that all Connectors are ESFPs and all ESFPs are Connectors. (Is that true? Seems true to me.) Malcolm Gladwell, the author, doesn't make any attempt to say whether Connector-ness is genetic, how these people got to be that way, or whether anyone can do it. He just points this out as a phenomenon worthy of note.

I do wonder what personality most Connectors are. Not sure about it being genetic. I suppose that's possible.

For anyone who wants to know more, here's the author's website:
http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/tp_excerpt2.html