Theory on Information Metabolism

[Hitta]

Contrary to popular belief, most people are introverts(well if you want to be technical about it 99.9% of people are introverts). This idea works off of the basis of information metabolism. Internal thoughts are introverted and expression is extroverted. Some people though, are more extroverted than others. Over the course of evolution, man evolved into a being that is composed mostly on the basis of their own thoughts. If people were naturally extroverted, ESTps would either kill everyone in an attempt to take over every situation, or ESTps would be exterminated, either way, the world would be a lot different. Over the course of evolution, man because more of the mind. The extroverted functions that existed may have been directly responsible for the evolution of introverted functions. -Te evolved into +Ti; +Te evolved into -Ti,etc. -Te and +Ti will be always linked together, because they have the same origin, in theory, they are parts of the same function.


Introverted data must always have an extroverted mode of expression. Initial perception is always extroverted, perception as a whole though is a combination of extroverted and introverted functions working. All functions in model A must have an introverted and extroverted function of the same function type in each functional sub-block. These two functions(which are theoretically the same thing) communicate with each other extroverted<---->introverted to relate information to and from the external and internal world. Also, the conscious and unconscious functions communicate with each other. Contrary to some theory, I believe that a conscious and unconscious function work at the same time in metabolizing data. One data enters one function, the data has to be simultaneously processed by a functions shadow function.

[FDG]

Contrary to popular belief, most people are introverts(well if you want to be technical about it 99.9% of people are introverts).

Introversion is a normalized variable and thus it is meaningless to say that 99.9 percent of people are introverted, it is only possible to say that 99.9 percent of people are more introverted than the remaining 0.1 percent of people.

[Hitta]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

[FDG]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

[Hitta]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

[FDG]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

Non sequitor! Introversion is defined as being relative to other human beings, so it's normally distributed by definition.

[Hitta]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

Non sequitor! Introversion is defined as being relative to other human beings, so it's normally distributed by definition.

Not when you consider the idea of functions and information metabolism. Introverted is internal, so if a person thinks more than they react, they are introverted.

[FDG]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

Non sequitor! Introversion is defined as being relative to other human beings, so it's normally distributed by definition.

Not when you consider the idea of functions and information metabolism. Introverted is internal, so if a person thinks more than they react, they are introverted.

Oh christ, are you really so dumb? Yes, I agree with you, but you can't say she's 99 precent introverted BECAUSE INTROVERSION IS DEFINED IN RELATION TO HOW INTROVERTED A PERSON IS IN RELATION TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Hitta]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

Non sequitor! Introversion is defined as being relative to other human beings, so it's normally distributed by definition.

Not when you consider the idea of functions and information metabolism. Introverted is internal, so if a person thinks more than they react, they are introverted.

Oh christ, are you really so dumb? Yes, I agree with you, but you can't say she's 99 precent introverted BECAUSE INTROVERSION IS DEFINED IN RELATION TO HOW INTROVERTED A PERSON IS IN RELATION TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I never said that a person is 99% introverted. I said that "99% of people are introverts" "99% of people are introverts " "99% of people are introverts" "99% of people are introverts". I am defining introversion as using an introverted function more than an extroverted function. A for the last time I said "99% of people are introverts"

[FDG]

Not when used from the idea that introversion means that an introverted function is used more than extroverted functions.

Yes, it is, because you can only measure what is visible. Given that introverted functions are not visible, you can only measure the usage of extraverted function (assuming your hypothesis to be true); this means in turn that you can only say X is more (or less) introverted than Y.

Now introversion is defined as being below 50 percent of extraversion, and extraversion is defined as being 50 above introversion. You measure the level of introversion (or extraversion), and place a person in the distribution. If everybody were to use 99 precent of the time introverted functions, there would still be a 1-100 range of E-I depending on the differential residual time dedicated to I-E functions.

Yes, and what I am saying is that the vast majority of humans use introverted functions more than extroverted function... which would make them introverted.

Non sequitor! Introversion is defined as being relative to other human beings, so it's normally distributed by definition.

Not when you consider the idea of functions and information metabolism. Introverted is internal, so if a person thinks more than they react, they are introverted.

Oh christ, are you really so dumb? Yes, I agree with you, but you can't say she's 99 precent introverted BECAUSE INTROVERSION IS DEFINED IN RELATION TO HOW INTROVERTED A PERSON IS IN RELATION TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I never said that a person is 99% introverted. I said that "99% of people are introverts" "99% of people are introverts " "99% of people are introverts" "99% of people are introverts". I am defining introversion as using an introverted function more than an extroverted function. A for the last time I said "99% of people are introverts"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO

INTROVERSION IS RELATIVE TO OTHER PEOPLE

IF 99 PERCENT OF PEOPLE ARE INTROVERTED THEN YOU JUST RENORMALIZE THE DISTRIBUTION AND GET A BELL CURVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEE

[Hitta]

You're really slow aren't you.

[FDG]

You're really slow aren't you.

I'm only trying to show you that your view of introversion is incorrect, because it cannot be empirically tested.

[Hitta]

you don't seem to understand what i mean by defining introversion by the idea of using introverted functions more than extroverted functions, if x is the use of extroverted function, and y is the use of introverted function, and y is used more, I am considering the person a introvert. I'm not using introversion in terms of concept, I'm using a system. Now if you want to argue that an introverted function isn't really introverted or an extroverted function isn't really extroverted in terms of the definition of introverted and extroverted in the dictionary(not according to jung and socionics) your not in the right thread. Introverted=internal/thought extroverted=reaction/initial perception. I'm saying that human beings are internal more than external. In which you could debate the meaning of external and internal, but im attributing external to reaction and internal to thought. You could debate the idea of thought and reaction, but I'm going by the jungian definition of what it means to think and react, which would be extroverted and introverted jungian definitions, which could be debate, hell which anything could be debated but I'm basing my definition of introverted on the theory of numbers. 1>0 which theoretically could be disproven, but on most practical plans 1>0. Then again, you could debate the definitions of jungian extrovertedness and introvertedness, and which i agree you could. Theoretically internal and external are the same thing. Hell, everything is the same thing if you look at things from a relative standpoint. A lamp could be a quark or a graviton thats leaking into the 5th or 9th dimension, which theoretically could be considered a microdimensional assertion, meaning that if all dimensions were look at theoretically, meaning you could make time a three dimensional by product, a graviton could look like a particle going through a wall into a three dimensional 5th dimension, although that would make the original dimension that the graviton is not be three dimensional in practical application, but technically dimensions are just practical constructs that can be broken down into smaller dimensions, like the fact that you could consider our dimension to be one big dimension that the human mind views in three separate entities. Theoretically anything can be anything is the value you can get from the story. But what really what I'm trying to do is say that introverted is in the mind, but extroverted is out in the open space, but then theoretically you could say that the mind and open space are social constructed ideas. Then you could say that the idea of social constructed ideas is actually a social constructed idea. Then you could say that the idea of ideas of social constructed ideas is actually a socially constructed idea. Hell the concept of thought is a socially constructed idea. Would we be able to think if we didn't already create stereotypes. We stereotype everything with our eyes. We see wood box. What actually makes it a wood box though? Is it the concept of what a wood box supposed to be that actually makes the wood box what it supposed to be? How would we determine that the wood box is not a wood box without the idea that a wood box is not a wood is not a wood box. Where would we get the idea that a wood box is not a wood box? I'm pretty sure that the idea of a wood box not being a wood box came from somewhere. So basically your just stereotyping the concept that a wood box doesn't supposed to be a wood box because of the idea that we are not supposed to follow societies idea that a wood box is not supposed to be a wood box, which I find odd because the only way that a person can learn something is to actually stereotype. And to stereotype is an idea. An idea that we choose not to follow due to the fact that some stimulation from something has put it in our mind (which technically is a stereotype). And I could keep going on and on forever, but I would probably have an aneurysm. But then again, what is an aneurysm? Hmm?

[FDG]

you don't seem to understand what i mean by defining introversion by the idea of using introverted functions more than extroverted functions, if x is the use of extroverted function, and y is the use of introverted function, and y is used more, I am considering the person a introvert. I'm not using introversion in terms of concept, I'm using a system

There is only one possible way to define introversion, and it is the one I outlined.

[Hitta]

you don't seem to understand what i mean by defining introversion by the idea of using introverted functions more than extroverted functions, if x is the use of extroverted function, and y is the use of introverted function, and y is used more, I am considering the person a introvert. I'm not using introversion in terms of concept, I'm using a system

There is only one possible way to define introversion, and it is the one I outlined.

No, there is not way to define introversion.

[Gilly]

If there is no way to define it, than how can you suppose to categorize people with it? That makes zero sense; you can't lump people into a category if there are no set parameters for belonging/not belonging to that category.

[Gilly]

you don't seem to understand what i mean by defining introversion by the idea of using introverted functions more than extroverted functions, if x is the use of extroverted function, and y is the use of introverted function, and y is used more, I am considering the person a introvert. I'm not using introversion in terms of concept, I'm using a system

There is only one possible way to define introversion, and it is the one I outlined.

No, there is not way to define introversion.

I think in socionics...
Introversion/Extroversion is merely whether the leading function is introverted or extroverted.

It is not a matter of use in introverted function or extroverted functions, but whether it is conscious or unconscious.

Like ILE.. It means Intuitive Logical Extrovert, which is basically Ne 1st function Ti 2nd function. All the extrovert means is that extroverted Intuition is leading. Like LII, Logical Intuitive Introvert, is just a introvert because it's Ti 1st function, Ne 2nd function. This might have been what you were meaning to say.. but it was awkward.

There is no dichotomy of Introversion/Extroversion except when comparing functions. To call a person a "extrovert" in socionics is only saying the leading function is extroverted.

You are trying to divide introversion and extroversion based on cognition and expression, this is not a observation. This is your hypothesis and you're building a entire chain of logic on this hypothesis.

Introversion and extroversion are observations, they are not something you build a foundation of analysis on. Introversion is not cognition and extroversion is not expression.

Looking at Dichotomy like you are, and believing that it is measurable is sure to fail, because even the 4 primary dichotomy are just results not functions. Like Reinin Dichotomy, these results are the product of function, not the basis.

This is a good point. An "Intuitive Logical Extrovert" could easily be called "Intuitive Logical Static;" it's just a different way of annotating which of the two intuition-first logic-second types you are talking about.

[Hitta]

If there is no way to define it, than how can you suppose to categorize people with it? That makes zero sense; you can't lump people into a category if there are no set parameters for belonging/not belonging to that category.

I could find billions of ways to argue against this stuff, like the fact that EVERYTHING is a stereotype. Your computer is a stereotype. Your table, thats a stereotype. Just the fact that you see something the way you do makes it a stereotype. To be honest, theres no way to define anything. Nothing is real in terms of organization, everything appears the way it does because of how we have learned to perceive it. Now if you want to use the ideas behind introverted and extroverted functions, then theoretically the vast majority of people (say 99% of all people, the 1 percent is probably mentally ill) are introverted. People are thinking in their heads(although you could argue the concept of thinking and heads) more than they are reacting to the world. This would mean that a person uses the introverted version of a function more than they use the extroverted version of a function. So the person would use -Ti in most cases more than +Te. This is the case even for extroverted types. Homo sapiens are, according to evolutionary descriptions, beings of the mind/beings of thought. Thought is introverted. People are introverted. People use introverted functions more than extroverted functions.

[Hitta]

If there is no way to define it, than how can you suppose to categorize people with it? That makes zero sense; you can't lump people into a category if there are no set parameters for belonging/not belonging to that category.

I could find billions of ways to argue against this stuff, like the fact that EVERYTHING is a stereotype. Your computer is a stereotype. Your table, thats a stereotype. Just the fact that you see something the way you do makes it a stereotype. To be honest, theres no way to define anything. Nothing is real in terms of organization, everything appears the way it does because of how we have learned to perceive it. Now if you want to use the ideas behind introverted and extroverted functions, then theoretically the vast majority of people (say 99% of all people, the 1 percent is probably mentally ill) are introverted. People are thinking in their heads(although you could argue the concept of thinking and heads) more than they are reacting to the world. This would mean that a person uses the introverted version of a function more than they use the extroverted version of a function. So the person would use -Ti in most cases more than +Te. This is the case even for extroverted types. Homo sapiens are, according to evolutionary descriptions, beings of the mind/beings of thought. Thought is introverted. People are introverted. People use introverted functions more than extroverted functions.

Introversion and extroversion do not mean what you're trying to define them as.. You are using a non-agreed upon, and seeming without basis understanding of introversion and extroversion to prop up a hypothesis. You entire construct of logic is shaky and unsound.

Um, having you ever studied the readings of socionics, and Jung. If you would have, you would see that they agree with what I say. How in the hell does one think extroverted? Its not possible. If you've ever read the definitions of the extroverted functions according to Jung and Augustinavičiūtė, you would know that extroverted functions are external and have to be external reactions. Just because the people of this forum jack up the concepts of what they think is extroverted or not extroverted or introverted or what ever the heck they think supposed to be what doesn't make it right. You can't think extrovertedly. By definition of what extroverted means, even in the common dictionary, this is impossible. There has to be an introverted function connected. In previous socionics theory it was suggested that an "introverted person" communicates through the creative function, and only through the creative function. I completely disagree with this notation. I believe that ever function a person uses has both an introverted and extroverted alternative. It has to be this way if you think about it. It has been commonly noted that INTjs dominate function is Ti and that they do not use Te. If this were the case INTjs would not be able to logically influence the outside world(although outside world interferon is a combination of introverted and extroverted functions due to the idea behind the thought process and the idea that all internal functioning is probably influenced by the extroverted functions that bring in the information). But through empirical studies, one could state that an INTj does infact logically influence the world through a direct function due to the empirical study that an INTj is not as "out-there" and more logical in interpretation than an ENTp. INTjs appear logical, so they must have an extroverted function.

[Hitta]

Um, having you ever studied the readings of socionics, and Jung. If you would have, you would see that they agree with what I say. How in the hell does one think extroverted? Its not possible. If you've ever read the definitions of the extroverted functions according to Jung and Augustinavičiūtė, you would know that extroverted functions are external and have to be external reactions. Just because the people of this forum jack up the concepts of what they think is extroverted or not extroverted or introverted or what ever the heck they think supposed to be what doesn't make it right. You can't think extrovertedly. By definition of what extroverted means, even in the common dictionary, this is impossible. There has to be an introverted function connected. In previous socionics theory it was suggested that an "introverted person" communicates through the creative function, and only through the creative function. I completely disagree with this notation. I believe that ever function a person uses has both an introverted and extroverted alternative. It has to be this way if you think about it. It has been commonly noted that INTjs dominate function is Ti and that they do not use Te. If this were the case INTjs would not be able to logically influence the outside world(although outside world interferon is a combination of introverted and extroverted functions due to the idea behind the thought process and the idea that all internal functioning is probably influenced by the extroverted functions that bring in the information). But through empirical studies, one could state that an INTj does infact logically influence the world through a direct function due to the empirical study that an INTj is not as "out-there" and more logical in interpretation than an ENTp. INTjs appear logical, so they must have an extroverted function.

You might think you understood what Jung and Augusta wrote, re-read it. Not every book is a dictionary.

Introversion and Extroversion are not defined, they're observed. All Jung/Augusta did was wrote down what they observed, and hypothesized some consequences.

Riiiiiiight

[tcaudilllg]

Observation is definition.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

You can't think extrovertedly. By definition of what extroverted means, even in the common dictionary, this is impossible. There has to be an introverted function connected.

As defined by socionics, an extroverted function looks at (and thinks about) external manifestations of the outside world, separate from the individual. An introverted function looks at (and thinks about) intrinsic relations between external objects.

If you define extroverted elements as only action, how do you figure Ne (a mostly mental function) manifests?