Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Basic differences between introversion and extroversion

  1. #1
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Basic differences between introversion and extroversion

    I've been considering what the basic difference between introversion and extroversion in a given trait are. One telling characteristic is the amount of delay before changes become apparent, and how hard they are to get to change direction. So as an alternative to Augusta's description of a field/body dichotomy, and Jung's subjective/objective one, I'm thinking the difference could be described as an analogy to high-mass/low-mass inertia in physics.

    Someone with Fi tends to give time for emotional tension to build up before making a statement, and will try to make sure it is percieved as important. This seems to correspond to high mass. In a like manner, Ti will try to create many mutually supporting logical correlations before voicing an opinion. Ni will attempt to locate several different coherent sources of prediction, and Si will try to find similarities in many different sensation sources. Another way to put it is that the introverted trait processes in parallel, searching out and using many similar and related pieces of information.

    Extroverted traits are more of a low-mass sort of thing. They have advantages in being able to operate with speed and agility, with greater maneuverability. But they are also easily blocked and side-tracked. Fe will try and make an immediate emotional impression, but easily be affected as well. Te will argue an opinion in a manner intended to immediately convince, but will be easily dissuaded as well if the particular argument produces an invalid result. Se will try and immediately accomplish a physical task or get a specific person to do so, but may report it as a complete failure when it doesn't happen right away. Ne tries to find a path to create a temporal prediction, but if a given prediction doesn't "pan out" in a short amount of time, it is soon dismissed as probably being simply invalid/valueless speculation. Extroverted traits are more like sequential processing, which is able to happen rapidly and on many unrelated information sources.

    To relate it back to the fields/bodies, sequential data processing has the flexibility to switch to many distinctly different information objects. The distinct difference and ability to be seen as completely unrelated to each other is what makes them bodies rather than fields. The parallel form of processing has to use more related sorts of information because the difference in timing is not there, so distinguishing aspects as widely different objects is not as easy in the short term. Large amounts of highly interrelated information tends to not have clear-cut distinctions, so fields is a more appropriate description than bodies here.

    This presents a picture of human consciousness as a sort of computer which processes data both in parallel and in sequence. When one form of processing is more active, it generally causes the person to behave in an introverted or extroverted fashion. I doubt they exist in isolation at any time -- more likely they all come into play subconsciously whenever one is consciously dominant.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it seems the consensus builders are taking type constancy seriously, at least.

  3. #3
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Differences in i/e

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    This presents a picture of human consciousness as a sort of computer which processes data both in parallel and in sequence. When one form of processing is more active, it generally causes the person to behave in an introverted or extroverted fashion. I doubt they exist in isolation at any time -- more likely they all come into play subconsciously whenever one is consciously dominant.
    Luke I like the way you termed this.

    But perhaps we can also look at it this way, introverted functions are a product of inhibitive chemicals and neuron constructs and extroverted functions are a product of catalytic chemicals and neural constructs. If a thought is a electro-chemical reaction thru the body, then the speed by which the thought is processed is modulate by chemical reactions. Perhaps thought is just a signal modulated by chemical reaction and neuron mass. Certain chemicals, neuron mass can accelerate thought and other chemicals and neuron masses can inhibit thought.

    Just as our voice is a wave of sound, the voice in our head is a wave of thought.
    Hmm. You think perhaps actual neuron mass is coming into play? That's an interesting thought. I had sort of assumed it would be emulated based on an evolutionary need to simulate real systems, but an analog solution might be ideal to begin with.

    Perhaps if we combine a biological understanding of thought versus a functional understanding of it. Introverted functions and extroverted functions can be defined as the neural and chemical phenomenas that modulate the electro-chemical reactions in one's mind.

    EDIT: Althrough I want to maintain the content of the original post, it's debatable how you would divide extroversion and introversion biologically. Because there might be hardwired filters in place in the human brain where a introverted function inhibit the filter thus allow thought to move more smoothly. I want to write more, but I need to get some work done... haha
    I have heard references to differences in seratonin and other neurotransmitters (one was sort of the opposite of seratonin, I forget the name) between introverts and extroverts. I think it was that introverts have a greater sensitivity to seratonin so they seek mental activity that will reduce levels of it, whereas extroverts have a lower sensitivity so they spend more time in mental activity that stimulates more of it.

    Of course, whether what they were measuring was the same as extrotim and introtim in the Socionics sense is another question, but it seems very possible.

    EDIT: As a side note, are the quadras named after the brainwave notation?
    I'm pretty sure they're not. Although any brainwave correlations would be interesting. You can get binaural beat generating software (such as SBAGen) and supposedly entrain different frequencies which result in different effects on your thinking. Perhaps slower beats encourage introverted traits to come into play more as it would permit more simultaneous neural mass manipulation.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm. You think perhaps actual neuron mass is coming into play? That's an interesting thought. I had sort of assumed it would be emulated based on an evolutionary need to simulate real systems, but an analog solution might be ideal to begin with.
    Hmm... that's interesting. What do you think, labcoat? A challenge to evolution as the primary anthropologic justification....

    Or are the two simply complementary...?

    Would the empiricist view = digital then, if the consensus-builder view is analog?

    Fascinating parallels between these discussion lines and those of Einstein and his contemporaries a some eighty years ago. It's informative.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The way to make a clear determination, in my view, is first to create an accurate classification system for introverts and extroverts, then seperate them by age. Gauge the chemistry differences between introverts of age, 18/19 and those of age 28/29. Do the same for extroverts. The chemistry changes that are distinct across the entire pool are those directly related to introversion/extroversion. Work from there.

    So as an alternative to Augusta's description of a field/body dichotomy, and Jung's subjective/objective one, I'm thinking the difference could be described as an analogy to high-mass/low-mass inertia in physics.
    I wouldn't just consider your analogy a simple "alternative". If high-mass/low-mass enertia equals field/body (let alone subjective/objective!), then that has immediate philosophical consequences that must be considered. No shortcuts, I'm afraid. You can't just "propose an alternative" without first disproving the others outright, or suggesting that your view elaborates on the constructs observed beyond what current theories can. Even then, all the theories you elaborate on must fit very neatly into your larger model, because the previous theories were supported by facts that must be accounted for by your own. Otherwise you're going backwards, not forwards.

    Einstein dismissed the potential of his theory to create an atom bomb as early as 1923, but once set in motion logic grinds to its conclusion....

    Another thing, the logical rationale for a person to look for many sources of information is in anticipation of doubts by the external world; e.g., there exists a need to "fend off" external skepticism. Are you suggesting this is correspondent phemenologically to high-mass/low-mass inertia?

    Finally, how does one distinguish between high and low mass? What is the cutoff point? A continuum system is obviously rediculous. , in particular, says structure is shaped by victorious forces.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •