Introvert vs. Extrovert vs. Ambivert

I am both Ambiverted and Ambidextrous.

Ambiversion is simply the result of a very well developed secondary cognitive function. In the case of NFJs , that would be both Ni and Fe. In the case of NFPs that would be both Ne and Fi.

Also, many ambiverts also have well developed auxiliary and inferior functions. In the case of NFJs , that would be both Ti and Se. In the case of NFPs that would be both Te and Si.

The MBTI is simply short hand for someone's cognitive function order. In my case, I have a very well developed Fe, but I am still an INFJ because my function order is Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se. No matter how well developed any of my functions become, the order in which I use them dictates what type I am. The MBTI is an indicator of how we think, not how well we think.

Here is a thread with a few online quizzes to help determine the weight of your cognitive functions.
 
Last edited:
Von Hase said:
I am both Ambiverted and Ambidextrous.

Ambiversion is simply the result of a very well developed secondary cognitive function. In the case of NFJs , that would be both Ni and Fe. In the case of NFPs that would be both Ne and Fi.

Also, many ambiverts also have well developed auxiliary and inferior functions. In the case of NFJs , that would be both Ti and Se. In the case of NFPs that would be both Te and Si.

The MBTI is simply short hand for someone's cognitive function order. In my case, I have a very well developed Fe, but I am still an INFJ because my function order is Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se. No matter how well developed any of my functions become, the order in which I use them dictates what type I am. The MBTI is an indicator of how we think, not how well we think.
Click to expand...


Wow this is very interesting, and correct. Everything you proposed fits with a test I did before on 'cognitive functions' I think it was. :) Although I am rather confused at when you said you were both Ambiverted and Ambidextrous, because I had the impression that they implied the same thing - 'both of something' ?
 
Ambidextrous = Both-handed (as opposed to left-handed or right-handed)

And oddly enough I have the ability to be ambidextrous, but never tried to develop this. I don't have a dominant eye, and can switch primary focus from one to the other at will. My brain is already used to processing from either hemisphere because of that.
 
Oooh I would say I am rather ambidextrous too, I prefer right. But I am good at left as well if that counts. I have the ability too as both hand's penmanship is rather nice. However my right has a sligtly nicer style as that is the one I use mostly. Although i have the ability to be lefthanded - I will definetly develope it :)
THANKS FOR THE INSPIRATION.
 
There is a theory that suggests that people who are ambiverted, aka have balanced cognitive functions, are more likely to be ambidextrous. Seems to hold true, though I don't know of any research to back this up. The assumption is that each function is right or left hemisphere dominant, thus affecting handedness.
 
To be honest I think we have become slightly obssesed with 'proof' and rather stagnated our intuition. Being totally lashed out at, if not providing sufficient data to back any statement up. It's like a living liedetector, if you don't have a 'source' then you are lying... And since when can we trust the source in the first place? I thought most of us relied on intuition, maybe I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Silently Honest said:
You don't know me at all.

Grumpiness and snark are two different animals dear.
Click to expand...
You mean snarky? The word snark does not exist. The terms are indeed interchangable anyway. But define yourself. That was only my impression.
 
Pristinegirl said:
To be honest I think we have become slightly obssesed with 'proof' and rather stagnated our intuition. Being totally lashed out at, if not providing sufficient data to back any statement up. It's like a living liedetector, if you don't have a 'source' then you are lying... And since when can we trust the source in the first place? I thought most of us relied on intuition, maybe I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Data, researched data that is used to cite a statement is pretty invaluable, actually. Otherwise, how would we know anything for sure? No one said if a person makes a statement without a source that the person is a liar. Intuition is just something most of us here have in common as a preferred function.
Science has it's merits!
 
merrytrees said:
Data, researched data that is used to cite a statement is pretty invaluable, actually. Otherwise, how would we know anything for sure? No one said if a person makes a statement without a source that the person is a liar. Intuition is just something most of us here have in common as a preferred function.
Science has it's merits!
Click to expand...


Agreed. With all the intuition floating around here, it's sometimes nice to have 'proof' as a back up. Personally, I follow my intuition more than my reasoning, but I've found that it is much more gratifying to have the 'data' to validate my intuition, and prove I'm not a loony.

In my opinion, proof is icing.
 
merrytrees said:
You mean snark? The word snark does not exist. The terms are indeed interchangeable anyway. But define yourself. That was only my impression.
Click to expand...

A lot of things people say aren't words, we still know what they mean however. Snark is more interchangeable with the word sarcastic then grumpy. So snarky would be interchangeable with Sarcasm.
 
I see, although I'd like to think that because we are intuitives we trust it rather than doubt it. Although I agree that it can be nice to have data comfirming the intuition. Hence, I don't think we should put to much emphasis on data either because they are not flawless.
 
I'm with SH on the snark and grumpy definitions.

From personal experience snarkiness means I'm being sarcastic with a bit of a bite to it.

Grumpy means I am teetering on the edge of pissy. When I'm grumpy i'm generally in a sour mood and it won't take much to push me over into pissy and from there won't take much to engage me into some sort of arguement.

I'd definately group snarky with the same emotional family as sarcasm.
 
Ophelia said:
So how does everyone know, who knows, that they are an introvert or an extrovert or ambivert or what experiences have lead people to believe that they are who they are? When did ya'll first find out?
Click to expand...

I'm introverted. But you would be very very hardpressed to figure that out when first meeting me.

I engage strangers in conversation. I'm kind of loud. I am overly nice, saying Hi to everyone. And I enjoy talking and interacting with people alot on the job.

That said, I wear out very quickly. At the end of the day, I'm done. Days that involve extra meetings, or meeting friends after work, really deplete the rest of whatever energy I have left. And on the weekend, I need at least Saturday or Sunday to myself. I have also been known to cancel plans just because I don't feel like interacting with people. And left in a room with someone else who is quiet, I struggle to make conversation - unless I use lots of personal questions and start to open up the other person (a counselor trait, i know).

I consider myself an Introvert primarily because interacting with people wears me out. I know people who thrive on interaction, and can become in activity after activity after activity. I need alone time. And if I don't get that alone time, I will definitely avoid or cancel plans.
 
Snarky is easily irritable while grumpy is easily irritable as well. Snarky just has a sarcastic element to it. Since we're being pretty subjective with our definitions of these two words here I'm going to say.. and I'm not that impressed by your sarcasm, so I don't really factor it in. Har har.

*goes and hides*
 
Pristinegirl said:
I see, although I'd like to think that because we are intuitives we trust it rather than doubt it. Although I agree that it can be nice to have data comfirming the intuition. Hence, I don't think we should put to much emphasis on data either because they are not flawless.
Click to expand...

If intuition or data were flawless, there would be no need for the other. However, human experience and reason requires both functions to operate at its best potential, using both to 'proof' one another. When both agree, the likelihood of a correct assumption is much greater than if one disagrees.
 
Von Hase said:
If intuition or data were flawless, there would be no need for the other. However, human experience and reason requires both functions to operate at its best potential, using both to 'proof' one another. When both agree, the likelihood of a correct assumption is much greater than if one disagrees.
Click to expand...

I agree ^^
 
Intuition is useful when you can't use anything else to prove something; for instance when meeting a new person.
What would you say if someone said, "Hmm I know that the Holocost did not occur." My intuition tells me, I bet you'd cite some historical data.
 
merrytrees said:
Intuition is useful when you can't use anything else to prove something; for instance when meeting a new person.
What would you say if someone said, "Hmm I know that the Holocost did not occur." My intuition tells me, I bet you'd cite some historical data.
Click to expand...


Haha you are right, that would be so strange and akward on my behalf because I would have thought it was obvious. And you are right I would refer to some recorded data or the fact that 'everyone know it' therefore it is true (which is not substantial haha).
 
what's ambivet?
lol sorry i can't think today...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top