Introversion, one idea- extroversion, several ideas

[Kristiina]

Introversion is taking one idea and poking and prodding at it in a hundred ways. Extraversion moves amongst several ideas.

I thought this could make a good discussion. I have never thought of it this way. I thought extroversion just relies more on frequent intake of external information and introversion ...ummm... I guess needs to gather new information less often because they process the information they already have. Do extroverts need more information?

PS! Just as a note, the gathered information in extroverted judging types has all been harshly re-evaluated by the judging function so it's not much better than taking one quality piece of information and doing wonders with it like introverts usually do.

[Exodus]

Yes, that sounds right. Like Ne hops around from idea to idea, and needs external input to sustain itself, whereas Ni sticks to one idea, so it doesn't need as much input (you could say it's more based on internal input).

[Kristiina]

aah. So it mens that extroverted FUNCTIONS need more ideas than the introverted ones, in stead of extroverted TYPES needing more ideas than introverted ones?

[Gilly]

Not just more ideas, but more input in general.

[Rocky]

Introversion is taking one idea and poking and prodding at it in a hundred ways. Extraversion moves amongst several ideas.

I thought this could make a good discussion. I have never thought of it this way. I thought extroversion just relies more on frequent intake of external information and introversion ...ummm... I guess needs to gather new information less often because they process the information they already have.

That's along the lines of what I said, sure.

aah. So it mens that extroverted FUNCTIONS need more ideas than the introverted ones, in stead of extroverted TYPES needing more ideas than introverted ones?

Yeah, Extraversion and Introversion are only attitudes.

...one submits to [p. 417] a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[anndelise]

another way of viewing that is "depth (I) vs breadth (E)"

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

It's a better concept in my opinion, than the original confusing terms that get way more misinterpreted by people. "Introversion is taking one idea and poking and prodding at it in a hundred ways. Extraversion moves amongst several ideas" or depth/breadth. It's exactly why I'm a Te type, and it fits spot on for Ni and Fi valuing too. This is what needs to be had, 'ere. Much more concise.

I also like to call introverted IMs as more internal, and extroverted IMs as more external. It helps remind me of various themes associated with the IMs.

[Azeroffs]

E = Haecceity

I = Quiddity.

It sounds good if I understand it correctly (which I'm not sure that I do), but I don't see how it adds anything worthwhile.

How I understood it:
Haecceity - qualities which are specific to the object.
Quiddity - qualities which classify the object.

So with a ball:
Haecceity - red, shiney, rubber
Quiddity - spherical object

I may need some clarification, but I think this actually makes a lot of sense in my mind (hard to explain). With introverted elements objects just serve as a reminder of all other objects, which have been taken and can now be considered part of the subject. Extroverted elements are more specific to the object.. Hmmm just thinking out loud.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Ok, I think I understand. The main idea is that quiddity is something that is shared among objects while haecceity is something that is not shared by anything.

This is an interesting replacement for object/fields. It is much more precise.

To understand the elements further I suggest starting with dynamic/static quiddity and dynamic/static haecceity. Internal/external make a relatively little difference.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Wynch]

Object/Field already describes these things, you're just giving them another name which isn't all that more specific than the originals. It's just a term that exists outside the realm of socionics.

Also, I think this describes a more Irrational view of Object/Field, which isn't all that surprising since you approach it from a the perspective of an Irrational. Perhaps it would be interesting to see a more Rational take on the same subject? How do Rationals understand the idea of introverted and extroverted elements?

EDIT: Re-reading this, it sounds very critical, which it wasn't supposed to be. I'm agreeing with you, to be clear

[Azeroffs]

First of all, I consider Externality of the same importance, why do you think it makes little difference? It's basically what differentiate Ni from Si, and so on. It must have a semiotics term, or something.

It makes relatively little difference. It actually makes a big difference, just not as much as the other two. In other words, Si and Ni are more similar than Si and any other element. They are similar enough, imo, to create meaningful descriptions of Pi,Pe,Je,Ji without T/F and S/N distinctions.

How do Rationals understand the idea of introverted and extroverted elements?

I personally dismissed "object/fields" because it wasn't very clear. I thought of intro/extro as subjective/objective.

[Wynch]

I personally dismissed "object/fields" because it wasn't very clear. I thought of intro/extro as subjective/objective.

I don't really mean in terminology, but in how it relates to "judging" T/F functions. The questions of "Who" and "What" are very perception-oriented. I was interested to see how a Rational would relate the concepts brought up by Pinocchio to "How" and "Why".

[Azeroffs]

I don't really mean in terminology, but in how it relates to "judging" T/F functions. The questions of "Who" and "What" are very perception-oriented. I was interested to see how a Rational would relate the concepts brought up by Pinocchio to "How" and "Why".

Well you could just think of haecceity/quiddity in terms of actions or emotions. I'm not sure why you need a rational to explain it. I think we all have the capacity to understand how this works in theory. Specific types are just needed for confirmation to make sure the theory stays within reality.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Wynch]

Well I relate the ideas of intrinsic vs extrinsic to internal and external, i.e.:
Internal/Intrinsic Static of Objects

Perhaps we can use apply your concept of Haecceity to reorganize the way in which we think about the information elements.

= Internal Static of Objects = Intrinsic Perception of Haecceity
= External Static of Fields = Extrinsic Judgment of Quiddity
= External Dynamic of Fields = Extrinsic Perception of Quiddity
= Internal Dynamic of Objects = Intrinsic Judgement of Haecceity
etc.

The only problem here is that we sort of lose the sense of Static and Dynamic, though perhaps that isn't a bad thing. Rather than thinking of Dynamic and Static states as being intrinsic to the information element (in other words, trying to define the IMs around those qualities) we can consider Dynamic and Static to be consequential to the IM's function. In other words, as a Static IM is a consequence of it sitting in the Ego of an individual with a Static temperament (EP or IJ). Another way of looking at it might be to say that as a Static IM is a consequence of it dealing with the Intrinsic Perception of Haecceity. Being static isn't what it essentially does, but it's perceptive mode is static because that is the only way to deal with the Intrinsic Perception of Haecceity.

[Krig the Viking]

I fu**ing found the fu**ing words denoting fu**ing exactly my fu**ing understanding on the Extroverted and Introverted type of information!

E = Haecceity

I = Quiddity.

Dude, awesome. The definitions of those words describe my understanding of the object/field dichotomy perfectly. It's almost like the object/field dichotomy is a real thing, independently discovered by different people throughout history, or something.

[Azeroffs]

= Internal Static of Objects = Intrinsic Perception of Haecceity
= External Static of Fields = Extrinsic Judgment of Quiddity
= External Dynamic of Objects = Extrinsic Perception of Quiddity
= Internal Dynamic of Fields = Intrinsic Judgement of Haecceity
etc.

The problem i have with this and external/dynamic/fields/etc in general is why or where does the judgement/perception come from? Why is external dynamic objects judgment while external static objects is perception?

With classic external/dynamic/fields/etc, my explanation is that generally an object's properties (static objects) and the affect that the environment has (dynamic fields) are not subject to interpretation. You can't decide at any given moment that an object has certain properties or that things will affect you or others in a way other than the way they do. Processes that take place which include actions (dynamic objects) and rational understandings (static fields), on the other hand, can and must be decided upon at will.

According to what you said that only difference between say Si and Ti is that one is rational and one irrational. This, to me, leaves a lot unexplained.

[Wynch]

The problem i have with this and external/dynamic/fields/etc in general is why or where does the judgement/perception come from? Why is external dynamic objects judgment while external static objects is perception?

With classic external/dynamic/fields/etc, my explanation is that generally an object's properties (static objects) and the affect that the environment has (dynamic fields) are not subject to interpretation. You can't decide at any given moment that an object has certain properties or that things will affect you or others in a way other than what they are. Processes that take place which include actions (dynamic objects) and rational understandings (static fields), on the other hand, can and must be decided upon at will.

You just made me notice an error in my post so I've corrected it. Si should be Fields and Fe should be Objects.

I do think you bring up an interesting point. I'm going to think a little more on it before I respond because I feel there's an answer and it's just not occurring to me immediately.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Further thoughts: The reason Objects/Haecceity is Extraverted and Fields/Quiddity is Introverted is that, while specific things actually exist outside of ourselves, the shared natures of things are concepts which technically exist only in our minds. The digital camera that I bought at the electronics store and which is sitting on my computer desk right now is a sort of shiny grey colour. It exists outside of myself. "Greyness" as a concept, however, exists only within my mind. It's a thought or understanding about things which exist in the exterior world, but the thought itself exists only within my mind. Therefore, to focus on Haecceity is to focus externally and be an Extravert, while to focus on Quiddity is to focus internally and be an Introvert.

[Azeroffs]

- hypothetical relational quiddity
- real relational quiddity
- hypothetical causal quiddity
- real causal quiddity
- hypothetical describing haecceity
- hypothetical acting haecceity
- real describing haecceity
- real acting haecceity

I think this is interesting, but I made a small change that I'm wondering if you will agree with. I dont think extroverted elements can be described by relations or causality. Rather, introverted elements focus on relations between properties or descriptors, and they focus on causal relations between actions. Maybe my substitutions weren't exactly the right terms, but I hope you understand what I mean.

[Azeroffs]

Further thoughts: The reason Objects/Haecceity is Extraverted and Fields/Quiddity is Introverted is that, while specific things actually exist outside of ourselves, the shared natures of things are concepts which technically exist only in our minds. The digital camera that I bought at the electronics store and which is sitting on my computer desk right now is a sort of shiny grey colour. It exists outside of myself. "Greyness" as a concept, however, exists only within my mind. It's a thought or understanding about things which exist in the exterior world, but the thought itself exists only within my mind. Therefore, to focus on Haecceity is to focus externally and be an Extravert, while to focus on Quiddity is to focus internally and be an Introvert.

I agree with this on the static end, but on the dynamic end I think it is the introverted element that exists and the extroverted one that only exists in the mind. Dynamics are essentially the flow of events. The haecceity here, is a particular action. The dynamic quiddity elements see this flow as a constant flow which is not specified into particulars.

Thoughts on this?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

I agree with this on the static end, but on the dynamic end I think it is the introverted element that exists and the extroverted one that only exists in the mind. Dynamics are essentially the flow of events. The haecceity here, is a particular action. The dynamic quiddity elements see this flow as a constant flow which is not specified into particulars.

Thoughts on this?

Hmm. I think your point that what's been discussed so far applies mostly to statics is valid. Haecceity and Quiddity do seem generally static-oriented in the way they're described, at least in the blurbs there on Wikipedia. However, upon thinking about what you said, I do think the extraverted dynamic elements are still the haecceitic ones. Swinging a bat and hitting a baseball can be looked at from the perspective of both Te and Si. Te describes the exterior aspects of the event -- the mph of the ball, the mph of the bat, the angle of deflection, the efficiency of the swing, etc. Si, on the other hand, will focus more on how swinging the bat and hitting the ball feels, physically -- in a sense categorizing the sensation as pleasant/unpleasant, hard/soft, fast/slow, etc., and comparing it with other similar (or dissimilar) sensations. The latter is internal to the observer, in the mind, while the former is external to the observer, out in the world.

My own preferred formulations of the elements:
explicit/implicit statics/dynamics of quiddity/haecceity.

Although I admit, I'll probably keep using the terms object/field unless there's a particular need for greater specificity.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

To me it's really terribly simple:

Extroversion: You get energy from objects outside of your own self. (Other people or other objects depending on the type and function) Brooding in your own thoughts and feelings is uncomfortable and unnatural for you.

Introversion: You get energy from your own thoughts and feelings. (Thoughts, internal impressions and/or feelings depending on the type and function) Everything inside of yourself. Focusing on others and interacting with them is uncomfortable and unnatural for you. Need to derive extra meaning from focusing outward on objects and idealize them in a structure.

I am a pure introvert.

The way to handle introverts is of course, handle them emotionally - find out what is meaningful to them, and the way to handle extroverts is to just let them be around people. You also need to allow introverts to be idealistic, to an extent - or we will go insane.

If anything your thesis is the opposite. Introverts can handle and synstheize many ideas better than an extrovert, extroverts need more objective criteria to make a move. An extrovert alone , having to rely only on itself- would go crazy, whereas an introvert would be energized by such circumstances. Try it, if you're an introvert don't be around anybody else. You will feel really charged up the more you stay away from other people. An introvert only becomes less alone if somebody likes them for them, likes them internally and their 'true self.' It is impossible for an introvert to truly love an 'other' it is sort of a static narcissism. (But I don't think it's inferior or a disease! It's just like being left-handed or being gay really.)

Most people are straight and extroverted, but a few people are the opposite. Like meeee!!! =D

You're overthinking things again, really, all of you. Introversion and extroversion is more simple than all of that stuff.

[Wynch]

@Ephemeros: I think your idea of Rationality as Extroverted and Dynamic is false, given that it entirely neglects the IJs who are Introverted and Static. To be clear, I don't use the terms rational and irrational in the dictionary sense, I'm using them to essentially say "Judging" and "Perceiving".

I'm not a fan of the term "assumed", so I'm trying to think of something better and I agree that relation/effect needs a more precise meaning.

I'm actually reconsidering whether you can use haecceity/quiddity to relate more to the Internal/External element. I feel like the term "Relation" is more applicable to Field functions than it is to the axis of judging/perceiving or static/dynamic.

Also, I had considered that haecceity/quiddity seemed awfully static, but I thought they could be reoriented to understanding dynamicism fairly easily so I didn't bring it up. In reference to "Whatness" and "thisness" as static vs "Howness" and "this wayness" as dynamic, I don't really agree. Perhaps we need to get away from the question/answer way of looking at this simply because these words are proving to apply to too many categories. Unless we consider these things as blends? For instance Ne/Se are pure "what/what kind" elements. Ni/Si are a blend of "what and how". Ti/Fi are a blend of "how and what". Te/Fe are purely "How and what way".

I'm probably going to think a little more on this today.

@BnD: We're actually talking about the Information Elements specifically, not temperament. If socionics was chemistry you would be talking about chemical reactions and we would be talking about sub-atomic particles. They're related, but focusing on the macro-level of extroversion/introversion isn't what we're trying to do.

[Cyrano]

I thought this could make a good discussion. I have never thought of it this way. I thought extroversion just relies more on frequent intake of external information and introversion ...ummm... I guess needs to gather new information less often because they process the information they already have. Do extroverts need more information?

PS! Just as a note, the gathered information in extroverted judging types has all been harshly re-evaluated by the judging function so it's not much better than taking one quality piece of information and doing wonders with it like introverts usually do.

I've always thought the difference was filtering. Introverts screen outgoing information. Extroverts lack that filtering mechanism. They say what comes to mind, freely, while Introverts block/control much of what goes out. It's why Introverts are slower to respond and have less to say. Like anything, too much or too little screening is harmful.

There is also a feedback mechanism that is turned on in Introverts, turned off in Extroverts. Extroverts, as the saying goes, "don't know when to shut up." They just don't recognize a need to regulate output and miss queues from the listener. Introverts often err in the other direction. They are too controlled and miss opportunities.

Neither is right or wrong, just different switches at work.

[Gilly]

Yes...I agree...think before you act, or reflect before you act in some cases is true to introverts; while extraverts will do or say something to only ponder and regret over...that's why in a relationship two E's is not good, it creates a cycle of doing and doing and saying one wrong thing after another. While, if you substitute one I, you will get one who will understand or at least strive to understand while the other acts or says something that may seem rather spontaneously provokes. I have noticed that if you bring in an I friend in an all E relationship the formula balances out.

Your understanding of these concepts is so laughably elementary that I'm almost tempted to reconsider the motion of banning you so as to not have to watch the more suggestible forum members become intellectually crippled under your influence. Please stop talking, go study this shit for a while, and come back when you aren't talking about hyper-basic shit.

[Gilly]

I've always thought the difference was filtering. Introverts screen outgoing information. Extroverts lack that filtering mechanism. They say what comes to mind, freely, while Introverts block/control much of what goes out. It's why Introverts are slower to respond and have less to say. Like anything, too much or too little screening is harmful.

There is also a feedback mechanism that is turned on in Introverts, turned off in Extroverts. Extroverts, as the saying goes, "don't know when to shut up." They just don't recognize a need to regulate output and miss queues from the listener. Introverts often err in the other direction. They are too controlled and miss opportunities.

Neither is right or wrong, just different switches at work.

This is far too simplistic. Fe dominant types probably calculate what they say more than any other type, and yet they are extroverts.

[717495]

I'm not in favor of banning anyone atm, but I'd at least put it to a poll before deciding to do it. You got to be a better politician (say you'll only ban for two weeks, so more people vote yes ) Sorry, this is nothing against you, Marista. Just general politics.

And I also agree, I like keeping the subject concise and more related to human concepts.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This is far too simplistic. Fe dominant types probably calculate what they say more than any other type, and yet they are extroverts.

How'd you mean? I find ESFj's offer their help and assistance - organising my desk for some bizarre reason, getting involved, talking about stuff when it's not the right time to do it, they seem to have a poor ability to judge when it's right time or not, it's like they take control not realising it can be an issue.

I can sort of understand where you say it is too simplistic, however, my experience, when typing people irl, it's often the simpler approach that works, dunno about you, but when i'm speaking to someone trying to type them, tripping over in depth analysis doesn't tally up, sometimes ... when it becomes too theoretical, it's then too removed from the actual practical, like turning the cheese into chalk, but maybe that's just me.

[717495]

I would generally agree, that is right. Extroverts are more like that, on average. But how closely lined with extroversion is it, in causality? That is another topic's question.

[717495]

Yeah, that certainly makes sense from my experience. Es are more reactive, Is are more digestive. Something I wrote in my notes: "reactors will play off of others words/ideas and come up with new feedback on the spot, where as digesters will adapt to what they're shown and absorb its meaning for use later."

[717495]

I'm definitely a whole lot more of a digester. Since I can never think of what to say or do in most circumstances, I don't have feedback ready, and I don't try to prepare for feeback either. When I do prepare, a lot of the times I can't get a chance to say something, because it takes too much thought. I am also low-energy.

Something else I've been constantly reading is that introverts have a longer channel for their thoughts, so it takes them longer but they cover more areas. That is why this idea in the OP works.

Introverts - one idea, a longer thought that covers more area
Extroverts - idea hopping, break in thoughts, more thoughts in less time

But what do you mean, up there, "if you ask an I to test himself?"