You can be classified as either and yet are still discernible from those who behave very similarly but not of that same temperament. Two people can have the same designation of temperament and alignment to the four processes. And yet even then there are noticeable discrepancies. So why is temperament even solicited to the processes?
As real as the division is it's easy to be confused over them being characteristics or personas.
Post by peppergirl on Jun 10, 2013 18:41:22 GMT -5
amdetron That's something I was wondering about too. The more I get to know the cognitive type theory, the more I realize "introversion" or "extroversion" don't really apply in this system. I have seen very outgoing Pi or Ji lead (in their own style) and shy/introvert Pe Je Lead. The first function we use doesn't really tell if a person will look self-confident, outgoing or reclusive, shy etc. Basically extrovert cognitive function =/= being extroverted, far from it. I mean extroverted in the classic meaning as used in the popular culture.
The online medical dictionaries offer near useless definitions
: Introvert 1. a person whose interest is turned inward to the self. 2. to turn one's interest inward to the self. 3. a structure that can be turned or drawn inwards. 4. to turn a part or organ inward upon itself.
: Extrovert 1. a person whose interest is turned outward. 2. to turn one's interest outward to the external world.
Scientific communities can only accept so much equivocacy in theories. And when differentiation is quintessentially equivocal there is no longer a theory only a hypothesis.
Medical clarifications that have been empirically adulated need to first explain introversion and extroversion. If that can be integrated with jung's work though i am doubting it'd be considered the predecessor then yes. We will have a theory of sociodynamics between extroverts and introverts.
Though i think the purpose of CT is usurp big five theory as the premier personality theory to receive funding. And establish the position of jung's work for the process to sped up once the unaffiliated empirical breakthroughs have been made.
Here's what I think: The functions manifest differently in everyone and I think this especially applies to the introverted ones (since they're subjective/more "personal"). The fundamentals of the functions are still there, of course, but not every Ni dominant has the same worldview, for example. If there is a Fi dominant who is passionate about helping a certain group of people they may engage in that and dedicate their life to it. Because of this, they can seem more "extroverted" since they look more active compared to a Fi dominant (with the same functions) whose passion is writing. The first person's Fi put some sort of value into helping people while the other one's introverted feeling doesn't feel as strongly for that but prefers self expression in form of writing, since that has some sort of meaning to them. I'm not an expert on Fi, but I hope you understand the principles of what I'm trying to say.
It also depends on how "developed" your functions are. If there's a NeTi who is Ti-heavy due to having a TiSe parent, for instance, they can seem more introverted.
Being "outgoing" or "reserved" has directly nothing to do with introversion and extroversion, since they indicate behavior. If your dominant function is an introverted one, your primary focus will be directed towards yourself - how you feel or think about things etc. The opposite applies to the extroverted functions.
mh... from what i've understand, the biggest difference between extroversion and introversion is the brain activity in a person who is in a group or alone situation, for the introvert the brain activity should be higher in both cases. So, this isn't necessarely correlated with functions, if you have Pe or Je as a lead function you can be introverted anyway (like a large number of NeTis, TeNis and SeTis).
But in my personal opinion and from what i know, the differentiation between introverted and extroverted people is utterly superficial, for me is an idealized division that doesn't have any correlation with reality. Everyone needs his moments of introversion and extroversion in a personal measure, i think the point is another: how you're used to stay alone? Modern society forces the people to stay in group and socialize, in many cases demonizing the "introverts", the large majority of people is afraid to stay alone even for few moments, and this leads the introverts to isolation, and this is another bad thing. I think the better thing is to leave the terms "introversion" and "extroversion" in their figurative meaning without apply these too much to reality.
Edit: what Elly said is right however i was discussing the common meaning of "introversion" and "introversion"
I'm not an expert on Fi, but I hope you understand the principles of what I'm trying to say.
I am having quite a bit of difficulty finding the video on youtube but yea. I watched Susan Cain in an interview answer a question. Where she said that introverts will tolerate uncomfortable extroverted situations if their ideals are compelling enough. And right after she used president obama as an example.
Jun 11, 2013 4:39:09 GMT -7 Elly said:
It also depends on how "developed" your functions are. If there's a NeTi who is Ti-heavy due to having a TiSe parent, for instance, they can seem more introverted.
If we are on the subject of classifications and their ductileness another issue arises. And it pertains to the typing methods.
Where is the line drawn between nurture and nature?
If we classify based on physical gestures then what breaks do we have against aberrant gestures. For example an TiNe practicing his snarl next to a mirror every day. So he can do a long term acting role very well.
Or an NiTe who's professional career is puppeteering.
If muscles grow based on usage then what happens when they are used premeditatively and not instinctively. How does the identification system adapt to those situation. And more importantly what does it suggest? can a type learn a unnatural function or is the chemical barrier stronger? At least for the level of conditioning we would discuss.
Last Edit: Jun 11, 2013 16:04:14 GMT -5 by amdetron
If muscles grow based on usage then what happens when they are used premeditatively and not instinctively. How does the identification system adapt to those situation. And more importantly what does it suggest? can a type learn a unnatural function or is the chemical barrier stronger? At least for the level of conditioning we would discuss.
Well, not every pianists play the piano in the same way, most importantly they don't use their hands in the same way away from it.
Well, not every pianists play the piano in the same way, most importantly they don't use their hands in the same way away from it.
It would still be meticulous movements and still be done profusely. Would there be nuances with-in the movements that could discern a [Te] from [Ti]? Even so how would the [Te] who engaged in meticulous finger movements everyday differ from the one who didn't?
Last Edit: Jun 11, 2013 16:26:09 GMT -5 by amdetron
I entirely agree with (you) elly. I think you put it pretty well. I've shared some of this before, and some of it has been implied, but it does help to say it all in one place, I think. What is typically understood as being "Extroverted" or "Introverted" can be confusing. Per example..
"Extroverts"
An Ne-lead child staying in her room all day reading fantasy books or playing videos games is, in fact, proactively exploring and engaging with an element of the outside world. Ne is a process that requires stimuli, but the text in a page can be sufficient to trigger flow of imagination and begin the process of cross-contextualizing. Hence, a lot of Ne-leads are antisocial and don't often leave home. This is generally the contemporary definition of "introvert" but if you interact with them face to face, they'll display the same buoyant undercurrent of energy and fluid thought surfing.
Fe-leads, due to the very nature of Fe are quite hyper-aware of the social dynamics around them. But they're human like the rest of us and may or may not have enough energy to deal with others. The nature of Fe itself is a process that cannot help but affect/push and be affected by the collective ethics -- since its sense of self/ego extends to the rest and is not separate from them. Therefore even Fe-leads can be heavily taxed by the emotional energy of people, depending on the people or their level of confidence or how they view their place among others. A loud party can overwhelm them. Hence when asked those questions of E vs I, they'll answer saying they prefer a coffee with one close friend rather than a crowded event, etc.
Te-leads. Te is not a social process, nor is Fi. It is a logistical, executive process. As confirmed by this forum and a lot of celebrity TeNi in particular, they may truly dislike interacting with humans -- perhaps due to the non-linear/irrational nature of emotions. I believe people like Isaac Newton were TeNi, whose considered to be a reclusive physicist. But being Te lead has to do with desiring to make sense of the external order of the world, and align it to it when understood, and that's it.
Se-leads are perhaps the only ones that resemble the typical "Extrovert" definition. And this is because like Ne, they require stimulation except unlike Ne they cannot extract their stimulation as easily by abstracting it off something intangible. They require the tactile exploration of reality, and explore with an excited energy and thirst for novel sensations. This does often lead to your typical partying/etc, but of course not by necessity. Having strong Ni, or even a strong Ji process can alter that entirely --- as is the case with SeTi like DJArendee.
What it really means to be extroverted is to be innately proactive - despite wherever and to whatever that action is direction. It is to have a natural draw/thirst toward an element of the objective world, and either exploring or arranging that element is as native as breathing. What it means to be an introvert is to be innately inactive/reactive. It is to have a draw away from actions, and directing efforts and energies toward perfecting subjective views/principles.
___
Both types of processes exist together, so the relative dominance can only be truly measured, I suspect, by brain activity. I-lead brains will display this energy-directed-inward by having more activity at rest or without stimuli. Or by seeing if a person's energy continually seems to recede. But E/I definitely cannot be gauged accurately by any behaviors or habits alone. Ironically, Jung himself coined the terms Introvert and Extrovert, but the definitions he gave, outlined in the first pages of Psychological Types are vastly different from the simplicity to which they have been reduced in modern vocabulary.
An Ne-lead child staying in her room all day reading fantasy books or playing videos games is, in fact, proactively exploring and engaging with an element of the outside world. Ne is a process that requires stimuli, but the text in a page can be sufficient to trigger flow of imagination and begin the process of cross-contextualizing. Hence, a lot of Ne-leads are antisocial and don't often leave home. This is generally the contemporary definition of "introvert" but if you interact with them face to face, they'll display the same buoyant undercurrent of energy and fluid thought surfing.
Yaaayy, things make sense and are (seemingly) accurate!
People generally interpret my behavior is being introverted (because it is) and thus don't think I'm actively engaged in anything (at all. Ever). It probably doesn't help that people usually try and talk about boring things when I do speak to them. If only people wanted to talk about Blue Whales or something. No one ever comes up to me and says "How weird is it that lady hyenas have penises?" (They do, essentially. Also my ISTP* friend DID once talk about this with me, but he's one of very few people that are interesting to talk to). Usually conversation doesn't actively provide anything interesting for me.
But yeah, (social) introversion and the dominant function's 'direction' I would say aren't necessarily linked, as the MBTI system seems to think.
I have noticed a lot of videos and articles about the misconceptions about the introverts and it has become a sometimes unbearably popular topic to talk about when it's obvious for me from the comments or the article itself that there are also a lot of misconceptions about the extroverts that other questionnable introverts do not seem to understand. Almost like the misconceptions about SJs (traditional, sheepishly loyal, boring/tedious, uptight, ridiculously nostalgic/sentimental, paranoid, reluctant to change, unable to come up with ideas, averse to novelty...). And they even dare to say it's the most common type (extroverts and SJs, that probably is but not with those small-box definitions; for me it's rare if conceived stereotypically like this). It's also like the cliche overused message of being oneself that it's so wrongly directed because it's directed to a mass that's already being oneself. Sorry for being so carried away.
I am an extrovert according to Jung, but I have always considered myself ambiverted because, even if I enjoy my solitude and I feel drained out soon, I still need social interaction, some small talk, sharing ideas even if unpractical and goofing around (acting loud, obnoxious, dancing, singing in the shower...) and that's because I put more relevance in exploring the world around me than assessing if what I absorb is consistent to my ethos and externally logically consistent. This proactive nature made me question my "introversion" in the very first place.
An Ne-lead child staying in her room all day reading fantasy books or playing videos games is, in fact, proactively exploring and engaging with an element of the outside world. Ne is a process that requires stimuli, but the text in a page can be sufficient to trigger flow of imagination and begin the process of cross-contextualizing. Hence, a lot of Ne-leads are antisocial and don't often leave home. This is generally the contemporary definition of "introvert" but if you interact with them face to face, they'll display the same buoyant undercurrent of energy and fluid thought surfing.
This is exactly what I was looking for when it came to the introvert/extrovert question. I'm still trying to wrap my head around being an extrovert after labeling myself an introvert all these years. This description makes sense. This is me. I never realized how animated I was until I made a video of myself. No wonder people looked at me funny when I claimed I was an introvert. lol.
I grew up in a family where spending time alone was normal. We did spend time together doing this or that, but then everybody went their own way and worked on their own projects. Privacy was respected. I married into a family that was quite different. I had to live with my in-laws out of necessity for a couple of months and they would take offense if I wanted to spend time in my room reading or if I wanted to take a walk by myself. The stress of it just about drove me mad. I am a very private person, but perhaps that is simply because I was allowed to have privacy and freedom to do my own thing growing up. I never thought of myself as a rebellious person, but living in what felt like a glass house (complete with strong opinions on what was the right and wrong way to do this or that) was enough to bring out the worst in me. Leaving the house was one of my favorite things to do. lol.
I agree that it might be helpful to leave out the part about labeling people as introverted or extroverted when it comes to type. Labeling a function (as E or I) makes sense.