Think about it this way: you’ve had a long and stressful day at work and are feeling drained. Which do you choose as a way of recovering some of that mental energy: going home to be by yourself, or meeting up with friends or colleagues?
That’s the kind of energy we’re talking about, not magick crystal magnetic bracelet energy.
Does this actually happen? I mean, maybe Canada is really different in this regard from other parts of the English-speaking world or something, but I’ve roamed this earth for 43 years and have never in my life heard a person say “darn it, introverts are so hard to read.”
This is largely because it’s a fallacy of the excluded middle. The world isn’t divided into “introverts” and “extroverts,” whatever posts you’ve seen on Facebook like “37 Things Only Introverts Will Understand.” And no, it’s not a simple, one-dimensional scale, either. “Introversion” is not a single characteristic.
More or less this. The whole “I’m an extrovert, therefore I’m social” or “I’m an introvert, I’m not social” is a vast over-simplification of what they actually mean. It’s not surprising that when people suck at reading them, or perhaps test as one (ignoring the Facebook-type versions of the test as useless) and then wonder why they might display some traits of the other.
The point is, whether someone likes to be around people or not, is socially awkward or not, all have little to do with that. In fact, I’ve known many people who are definitely extroverts who are all kinds of socially awkward, and others who are introverts who love people.
As a general rule of thumb, yes, extroverts are charged by social interaction and introverts are drained, and vice versa for quiet time reflection, but that’s only if you take the generalized version of it. It’s more important to understand that these things relate to cognitive functions, and that they’re preferences, that is, they’re descriptive of how we prefer to interact, experience the world, think, feel, value, etc. they are not hard and fast rules.
So, using myself as an example, I am an introvert (INFJ), but sometimes people are surprised to learn that. The fact is, I do crave social interaction, as my secondary function would suggest, but I generally dislike superficial interaction and I loathe large groups, the former leaving me starving for depth and the latter quickly overwhelming me. But the reason I often come off as an extrovert is because of that secondary function; like all introverts, my secondary function is extroverted–conversely, the secondary function for extroverts is introverted–and because my primarily is introverted, it’s often hidden to the outside world, so many just see that extroverted part. But even though my secondary function is well developed, it’s still ultimately a means for me to inform my primary function introverted function, and that’s exactly why I really enjoy the deep conversations, and why I need the time to recharge, so I can have time to mull over everything I’ve gathered.
But that’s just why various extroverts or introverts will be hard to read or not, because it depends on what functions are extroverted or introverted. For types like me, I’m an “extroverted introvert” because my secondary function is what most people think of when they think of extroverts, similarly, there are the opposite “introverted extroverts” because their extroverted functions aren’t what people think of when they think of that. Either way, my point is, I think we’d be all better served to actually look at all of the functions and not just stick people into these two ill-conceived buckets.
When I hear people say stuff like this, frankly, it’s like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Some people are less introverted or extroverted, yes, but all it really means is that you don’t have as strong of a preference as others, which is fine. For me, I have a really strong preference for my primary function, though I still have a reasonably well developed secondary. For me, it’s strong enough that it’s almost like I have to consciously choose to change, though I’ve gotten better at it.
Again, using myself as an example, an ENFJ has the same functions as me, just a different preference (for that matter, so do ESTP and ISTP, but basically opposite ordering). I have an acquaintance who is an ENFJ, but her preference is much lighter, so she can easily change between Fe and Ni, whereas I have a much stronger preference for Ni than Fe. As such, she’s more of an ambivert than a true extrovert.
So, I’d strongly suggest to anyone who feels that way to actually get typed, figure out your functions and figure out why. If you get along well, you probably have similar functions and in a similar order, just particularly strong preferences. Or you have one of those types that displays some aspects of the common understanding of extrovert and introvert.
Either way, to the OPs point, again, I think people just have too general of an understanding of what introvert and extrovert mean. When people think introvert, they tend to think of of a types more like INTJ or INFP, or extroverts they think of a type like ESFJ, but there’s a lot more nuance than that.
I mean no personal offense, really, as I am sure you’re a nice and sociable person, but this self-description reads almost like a parody, like an Onion article making fun of people who put way, way too much trust in the Myers-Briggs test (which is largely hokum.) When you talk about how your “secondary function” hides your “primary function” it’s like you’re talking about the color of your aura.
I am not saying you don’t know yourself well - I don’t know you at all or how self-aware you are - but all of this reads like a living, breathing example of the Forer Effect. Indeed, “I enjoy interacting with other people but sometimes I need alone time to recharge” is one of the most popular statements used to demonstrate the Forer Effect. Almost EVERYONE is like that; it’s as distinguishing a feature as having two arms or opposable thumbs.