Double Extraverts?

[Stormy]

I'm willing to accept the placement of most information elements in a type, but why is it the auxiliary (2nd) function must be opposite in attitude (extraversion/introversion) to the dominant (1st) function? Why can't a person be focused on using emotional interaction ( ) to increase personal territory ( ), for example, or is that behaviour necessarily unhealthy/unbalanced? I know the idea is fundamentally Jung's, but I'm interested in the theoretical basis.

[Raver]

I'm willing to accept the placement of most information elements in a type, but why is it the auxiliary (2nd) function must be opposite in attitude (extraversion/introversion) to the dominant (1st) function? Why can't a person be focused on using emotional interaction ( ) to increase personal territory ( ), for example, or is that behaviour necessarily unhealthy/unbalanced? I know the idea is fundamentally Jung's, but I'm interested in the theoretical basis.

I ponder this question as well for the main reason that there is no adequate explanation availabe of why opposite functions follow eachother in a ladder. My only guess is that extraversion is situated at one specific area of the brain and if too many functions were using it at once, it could lead to neurosis and a chemical imbalance.

[Stormy]

I ponder this question as well for the main reason that there is no adequate explanation availabe of why opposite functions follow eachother in a ladder. My only guess is that extraversion is situated at one specific area of the brain and if too many functions were using it at once, it could lead to neurosis and a chemical imbalance.

Could be. Jung postulated that too much conscious extraversion leads to maladaptive over-compensation of introversion from the unconscious, and vice-versa.

[Olga]

This is not a thoery but a common sense.
Soul must be clear as cristal to produce a rainbow of colours. The colours do not repeat themselves. To achieve balance we need to have a little bit of everything in the right combination, where functions do not repeat themselves but have different shades. For this it should be some sort of organisation but not a chaotic combination. Life is not a result of chaotic processess which happen to be by themsleves without any particular purpose or reason. I believe we are a part of the nature which is orgainsed (e.g. who eats whom) and can be described and associated in terms of socionics.

People associate intuitively without knowing anything about socionincs and functions. For example, they say *the wind of changes* which is associated with air - and irrational power of which is aimed to bring changes in immidiate environment. When the wind blows - this is your in nature and you can expect changes...in the whether
at least.

[Stormy]

Soul must be clear as cristal to produce a rainbow of colours.

|
|
|
V

This is not a thoery but a common sense.

Er...no.
-

At least, I can see a rainbow of colours in oil.

The colours do not repeat themselves. To achieve balance we need to have a little bit of everything in the right combination, where functions do not repeat themselves but have different shades. For this it should be some sort of organisation but not a chaotic combination.

I'm not saying the colours would repeat - all eight colours of the rainbow would still be present in a type, just in somewhat different orders. Those orders would hardly be chaotic, either - assuming double extraversion (and double introversion) merely expands the number of types from 16 to 32, which is still highly ordered compared to the total number of permutations of eight information elements.

[Raver]

This is not a thoery but a common sense.
Soul must be clear as cristal to produce a rainbow of colours. The colours do not repeat themselves. To achieve balance we need to have a little bit of everything in the right combination, where functions do not repeat themselves but have different shades. For this it should be some sort of organisation but not a chaotic combination. Life is not a result of chaotic processess which happen to be by themsleves without any particular purpose or reason. I believe we are a part of the nature which is orgainsed (e.g. who eats whom) and can be described and associated in terms of socionics.

Well, of course the order cannot be ordered in a chaotic matter because ability would be stigmatized and uncontrollable. Are you saying that and are the same colour in the rainbow?

Could be. Jung postulated that too much conscious extraversion leads to maladaptive over-compensation of introversion from the unconscious, and vice-versa.

Of course, that is our brain's way of balancing out an extremity of a state. The thing is that our brain is balanced with our all of the processes and not necessarily within one scale. Judging and perceiving functions are not balanced in every individual or else types would be non-existant. However, the total of all our functions in terms of usage equates to the same grand number. Strength could possibly be a randomized process, however I believe development is more applicable.

[Stormy]

The thing is that our brain is balanced with our all of the processes and not necessarily within one scale. Judging and perceiving functions are not balanced in every individual or else types would be non-existant. However, the total of all our functions in terms of usage equates to the same grand number. Strength could possibly be a randomized process, however I believe development is more applicable.

Development in what sense?

To the extent that Jung implies extraverted functions are conscious in extraverts and unconscious in introverts, and vice versa, one would expect the strong functions in the mental loop (conscious) to be both extraverted/intraverted and the strong functions in the vital loop (unconscious) to be of the opposite attitude.

[Olga]

I am not sure about double extraversion. I just think there should be difference in energy level /qauntity and quality of the funciton. Anyway, please have a look in a moment at model B. I just noticed that it can explain why there are 16 types and no more and would like to show it. may be you will look at it and come to a different conclusions because you look from different perspective.

[anndelise]

I'm willing to accept the placement of most information elements in a type, but why is it the auxiliary (2nd) function must be opposite in attitude (extraversion/introversion) to the dominant (1st) function? Why can't a person be focused on using emotional interaction ( ) to increase personal territory ( ), for example, or is that behaviour necessarily unhealthy/unbalanced? I know the idea is fundamentally Jung's, but I'm interested in the theoretical basis.

Ok, this isn't an answer to what you are asking for, however, perhaps it will offer some insight regarding primarily using two extraverted functions.

I dominantly use Ne all the time. I cannot not use it. I have described it before as a lightning storm that goes on in my head each time I perceive an object/movement/etc. I can feel the branches of the connected associations rush through my head. Lately, it has become quite painful to me. (Lately I have been working towards developing introverted functions of Si and Fi.)

As a child, I was forced to develop Fe skills as best as I could. I had to keep constant alert for even the minutest possibility of mood changes in my father. His moods were volatile...and could change faster than a pin could drop. One could say, that my world revolved around him...but not in a good way.

When I finally left home (ran away...car chase and everything..hehehe), I had a very difficult time functioning in the "real" world. I was still using my Fe skills. My world was still revolving around others. There was no ME! I was highly reactive to even the slightest possibility of a negative reaction, and I was constantly scanning people and situations, trying to figure out how best to avoid conflicts and negative emotions in others. And, even the slightest thing could trigger a PTSD episode.

Finally, my family (my mom's side..and brothers who didn't grow up with my dad) encouraged me to seek help. (This was during what I refer to as my "meltdown" phase.) Unfortunately, medication didn't help, and neither did so called therapy. However, I was finally given a chance to ...withdraw...from the world and figure out what skills I needed to develop to move on. My search eventually lead me to learning about the functions. My search also lead me to techniques like evaluating what is important to me, and learning how to assert myself when those values are being "attacked". In essence, developing my Fi.

I have come a long way, but even now I can get so caught up in attempting to avoid all possible negative possibilities in a situation that I often become frozen and inable to take action.
---

I'd like to note that, even though I was using Fi to evaluate the possibilities as being possibly positive or possible negative, the Ne and Fi was being used to develop Fe like skills. However, the mere thought of not using an introverted function, of putting all one's passive and active energies into extroverted functions...makes me shiver....there would be no "individual", there would only be a "puppet" to whomever is pulling the strings...even if it were multiple people at the same time.

I also shiver at the thought of a person putting all their passive and active energies into introverted functions, as then, it is a closed system. There would be no incoming data. The person would be an island unto themselves, completely inable to function in the world.... a stagnant system.

[Rick]

I'm willing to accept the placement of most information elements in a type, but why is it the auxiliary (2nd) function must be opposite in attitude (extraversion/introversion) to the dominant (1st) function? Why can't a person be focused on using emotional interaction ( ) to increase personal territory ( ), for example, or is that behaviour necessarily unhealthy/unbalanced? I know the idea is fundamentally Jung's, but I'm interested in the theoretical basis.

Interestingly, the case here actually describes .

Because of the logical relationship between the first and second functions, it simply doesn't make sense to have two extraverted functions. It would be unclear what the motivation of such a person would be. The information element corresponding to the first function is perceived as being objective and fundamental, while the second information element is perceived as being changeable and submitting to the logic of the first.

For example, . Reduced "formula" (from http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/formulas.shtml):
"Works with objects' emotional activity and expression to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in external qualities of objects and situations."

This doesn't make sense. How does stimulating people's emotional life relate to preserving the integrity of their external qualities?

Now take for contrast. This means we have a person who perceives objects' external qualities as being objective and fundamental and changes the subjective relationships between objects to reflect and match these qualities.

That makes more sense.

[anndelise]

Because of the logical relationship between the first and second functions, it simply doesn't make sense to have two extraverted functions. It would be unclear what the motivation of such a person would be. The information element corresponding to the first function is perceived as being objective and fundamental, while the second information element is perceived as being changeable and submitting to the logic of the first.

For example, . Reduced "formula" (from http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/formulas.shtml):
"Works with objects' emotional activity and expression to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in external qualities of objects and situations."

This doesn't make sense. How does stimulating people's emotional life relate to preserving the integrity of their external qualities?

Now take for contrast. This means we have a person who perceives objects' external qualities as being objective and fundamental and changes the subjective relationships between objects to reflect and match these qualities.

That makes more sense.

Reading your formulas, Rick...and I nearly threw up (no offense). Placing the Ne, Fe attempts, (and potential Se's role formula) together, and it's no wonder I was so messed up! Perceiving them together was almost as bad as a flashback.

Thank God (and others) that I've come a long ways from then.

[Stormy]

I'd like to note that, even though I was using Fi to evaluate the possibilities as being possibly positive or possible negative, the Ne and Fi was being used to develop Fe like skills. However, the mere thought of not using an introverted function, of putting all one's passive and active energies into extroverted functions...makes me shiver....there would be no "individual", there would only be a "puppet" to whomever is pulling the strings...even if it were multiple people at the same time.

I also shiver at the thought of a person putting all their passive and active energies into introverted functions, as then, it is a closed system. There would be no incoming data. The person would be an island unto themselves, completely inable to function in the world.... a stagnant system.

Thanks for your input, Ann. I can see what you mean about total extraverts being 'puppets' and complete introverts being 'islands', although maybe the other functions (especially the id block, which would be in the opposite attitude) would prevent totally maladaptive behaviour.

Because of the logical relationship between the first and second functions, it simply doesn't make sense to have two extraverted functions. It would be unclear what the motivation of such a person would be. The information element corresponding to the first function is perceived as being objective and fundamental, while the second information element is perceived as being changeable and submitting to the logic of the first.

For example, . Reduced "formula" (from http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/formulas.shtml):
"Works with objects' emotional activity and expression to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in external qualities of objects and situations."

This doesn't make sense. How does stimulating people's emotional life relate to preserving the integrity of their external qualities?

I see; your argument is basically that extraverted functions relate to objects, whilst introverted functions relate to fields (relations between objects)...in which case, I need answers to this:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4155

[detail]

It actually kinda answers to your other question about dynamic and static, in that an extraverted rationnal function as base implies an introverted irrationnal function as creative. So you could say they share "motion" and fields or objects depends on whether it's extraverted or introverted.

[Stormy]

It actually kinda answers to your other question about dynamic and static, in that an extraverted rationnal function as base implies an introverted irrationnal function as creative. So you could say they share "motion" and fields or objects depends on whether it's extraverted or introverted.

Why should a type share (lack of) motion, though; why can't a person 'work with and modify external qualities of objects and situations to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in physical and aesthetic sensations' - ?

[anndelise]

...why can't a person 'work with and modify external qualities of objects and situations to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in physical and aesthetic sensations' - ?

Something about the wording of this question is bothering me. I read it and it feels like those times when you talk to someone, both using the same word and yet are using different meanings of the word..... or those arguments that use one meaning for the premise part...and another meaning for the conclusion part.

[Stormy]

...why can't a person 'work with and modify external qualities of objects and situations to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in physical and aesthetic sensations' - ?

Something about the wording of this question is bothering me. I read it and it feels like those times when you talk to someone, both using the same word and yet are using different meanings of the word..... or those arguments that use one meaning for the premise part...and another meaning for the conclusion part.

I think you're referring to equivocation, and I agree, it's quite possible on my part - I'm seeking elucidation of the information elements; if I misinterpret the meanings, it is precisely because they are too vague.

[Olga]

If you are INTP you collect info internally through your function then you surely need to give it back into external world your . Your Ni was triggered by Ne in the external environment. That means you are sensitive to any sort of analysis of objective world around you. You can sensor the way the discussion leads and ready with the next question while the others may have not diagested the meaning of the previous ones.

Back to your question:

If you would have another introverted function as creative - it would be no sense. Functions should serve *give and take" realtionships. I am surprised that you ask questions which people usually not question. However, for INTP type it is quite normal. They can start fire out of nothing realy, just for a fun of it. Which is good because it stimulates a thought andpotentially brings changes to environment (Gamma).

[Raver]

The thing is that our brain is balanced with our all of the processes and not necessarily within one scale. Judging and perceiving functions are not balanced in every individual or else types would be non-existant. However, the total of all our functions in terms of usage equates to the same grand number. Strength could possibly be a randomized process, however I believe development is more applicable.

Development in what sense?

To the extent that Jung implies extraverted functions are conscious in extraverts and unconscious in introverts, and vice versa, one would expect the strong functions in the mental loop (conscious) to be both extraverted/intraverted and the strong functions in the vital loop (unconscious) to be of the opposite attitude.

Doesn't that sound contradictory?

[anndelise]

...why can't a person 'work with and modify external qualities of objects and situations to achieve harmony and preserve integrity in physical and aesthetic sensations' - ?

Something about the wording of this question is bothering me. I read it and it feels like those times when you talk to someone, both using the same word and yet are using different meanings of the word..... or those arguments that use one meaning for the premise part...and another meaning for the conclusion part.

I think you're referring to equivocation, and I agree, it's quite possible on my part - I'm seeking elucidation of the information elements; if I misinterpret the meanings, it is precisely because they are too vague.

Turns out that what was bothering me were what I perceive to be "missing pieces" of Rick's formula. Perhaps it's my "Ti PoLR", but the more I attempted to make sense of the formula, the less it made sense to me.

Basically, it's saying that we 'take action X for purpose Y'. Anything can be inserted as X, and anything inserted as Y, (including two perceiving functions, or two judging functions, or two extraverted functions, or two introverted functions) and one could still find meaning in it.

The formula includes nothing about how we know/decide which actions to take, nor how we determine the success/failure of said action.

To avoid contributing to further confusion, perhaps it's best if I drop out of this particular conversation.

Good luck.

[Rick]

Turns out that what was bothering me were what I perceive to be "missing pieces" of Rick's formula. Perhaps it's my "Ti PoLR", but the more I attempted to make sense of the formula, the less it made sense to me.

The "formulas" are just a logical game that don't reflect all the qualities of these 2 functions, but just attempt to express the essence of a type in as few words as possible. I think the first socionist who did this was Gulenko, who is a LII and sometimes seems to arbitrarily create categories. His formulas were even more reduced and maybe made more sense than mine:

___(2nd function)___ from ___(1st)___

So, ILE is "structure from idea"
LII: idea from structure
ESE: comfort from emotions
SEI: emotions from comfort
etc.

The idea is that one (the element of the 1st function) determines the other (the 2nd). This particular information product is the principle "communicative contribution" of each type, says Gulenko.

Anyways, I don't think all of this needs to be taken that seriously at all, nor does it really provide an answer to Stormy's question. Just a new angle to look at things.

[Rick]

I think you're referring to equivocation, and I agree, it's quite possible on my part - I'm seeking elucidation of the information elements; if I misinterpret the meanings, it is precisely because they are too vague.

Yes, they are vague. They are more easily demonstrated in practice than defined on paper.

[schrödinger's cat]

As a child, I was forced to develop Fe skills as best as I could. ....
I have come a long way, but even now I can get so caught up in attempting to avoid all possible negative possibilities in a situation that I often become frozen and inable to take action.

Hey. This is weird. It was a lot like that for myself, minus the car chase. Odd.

However, the mere thought of not using an introverted function, of putting all one's passive and active energies into extroverted functions...makes me shiver....there would be no "individual", there would only be a "puppet" to whomever is pulling the strings...even if it were multiple people at the same time.

I also shiver at the thought of a person putting all their passive and active energies into introverted functions, as then, it is a closed system. There would be no incoming data. The person would be an island unto themselves, completely inable to function in the world.... a stagnant system.

True.

[Stormy]

Your Ni was triggered by Ne in the external environment.

The way I understand it, is triggered by, well, ; the information element of a function acts a as 'sensor' to pick up that information element.

To the extent that Jung implies extraverted functions are conscious in extraverts and unconscious in introverts, and vice versa, one would expect the strong functions in the mental loop (conscious) to be both extraverted/intraverted and the strong functions in the vital loop (unconscious) to be of the opposite attitude.

Doesn't that sound contradictory?

How so? I mean, extraverts would have their 1st and 2nd functions extraverted and their 7th and 8th functions introverted, and introverts would have their 1st and 2nd functions introverted and their 7th and 8th functions extraverted. This would be in accordance with Jung's notion that extraverts have their conscious extraverted and their unconscious introverted, and introverts have their conscious introverted and their unconscious extroverted. To the extent that the strong functions represent the domain of consciousness of their respective tracks, at least.
- :wink:

Turns out that what was bothering me were what I perceive to be "missing pieces" of Rick's formula. Perhaps it's my "Ti PoLR", but the more I attempted to make sense of the formula, the less it made sense to me.

Basically, it's saying that we 'take action X for purpose Y'. Anything can be inserted as X, and anything inserted as Y, (including two perceiving functions, or two judging functions, or two extraverted functions, or two introverted functions) and one could still find meaning in it.

It seemed that way to me at first, but upon closer examination introverted/extraverted pairs are disallowed - basically, extraverted information elements are concerned with 'objects', whereas introverted information elements are concerned with 'fields'; the 1st function is preservative, the 2nd function seeks to change. Thus, if the 1st and 2nd functions were both extraverted, the person would be concerned with both preserving and changing objects, with is a contradiction.

Anyway, thanks for your input.
-

I think you're referring to equivocation, and I agree, it's quite possible on my part - I'm seeking elucidation of the information elements; if I misinterpret the meanings, it is precisely because they are too vague.

Yes, they are vague. They are more easily demonstrated in practice than defined on paper.

...Fiddlesticks.
-

[Rocky]

@Stromy: yes it is possible what you are saying with the conscious functions, 1st/2nd stuff, etc... but I think the important thing to remember what seperates the types is the static/dynamic scale. For example, an ILI is always dynamic and an LII is always static. So whether you claim they both use a lot of and , the ILI will always fall back on what the dynamic world tells him to do, and the LII the opposite (meaning that is the determing function/flow for ILI, and is determing for LII).

[Stormy]

@Stromy: yes it is possible what you are saying with the conscious functions, 1st/2nd stuff, etc... but I think the important thing to remember what seperates the types is the static/dynamic scale. For example, an ILI is always dynamic and an LII is always static. So whether you claim they both use a lot of and , the ILI will always fall back on what the dynamic world tells him to do, and the LII the opposite (meaning that is the determing function/flow for ILI, and is determing for LII).

'Stromy'? Roxy.
-

So, what are static and dynamic?

[Raver]

To the extent that Jung implies extraverted functions are conscious in extraverts and unconscious in introverts, and vice versa, one would expect the strong functions in the mental loop (conscious) to be both extraverted/intraverted and the strong functions in the vital loop (unconscious) to be of the opposite attitude.

Doesn't that sound contradictory?

How so? I mean, extraverts would have their 1st and 2nd functions extraverted and their 7th and 8th functions introverted, and introverts would have their 1st and 2nd functions introverted and their 7th and 8th functions extraverted. This would be in accordance with Jung's notion that extraverts have their conscious extraverted and their unconscious introverted, and introverts have their conscious introverted and their unconscious extroverted. To the extent that the strong functions represent the domain of consciousness of their respective tracks, at least.
- :wink:

Oh, I was trying to make sense of what you wrote using socionics and then I began to really get confused. I wasn't aware that you were formulating your own theory. I wouldn't try to use the 7th and 8th functions as prominent functions because subjectively looking at it, they appear to be the hidden individual that is the complete opposite. However, I can see what your getting at because the 7th and 8th functions naturally should be the weakest and opposing functions and unconscious.

I somewhat understand your concerns because Jung doesn't really mention anything about a second function that is almost comparatively strong as the primary function. He only labels people as the extraverted thinking type and etc... This can lead one to believe that every individual only has one strong function, but then the confusion arises when you see major differences between dominants or dominants. Are you trying to imply that a functions that would follow could possibly be or rather than or . Well, that would seriously be a major blow to socionics and have you seen these functions in that order empirically from your observations?

Aside - As I will continue an earlier discussion about development. I personally believe that everyone has preference over certain functions, however how strong the function is depends on the individual. Would strength of a function be a result of intelligence or practice?

[Stormy]

Are you trying to imply that a functions that would follow could possibly be or rather than or . Well, that would seriously be a major blow to socionics and have you seen these functions in that order empirically from your observations?

I was trying to imply that, yes, but then I became informed and inferred:

...upon closer examination introverted/extraverted pairs are disallowed - basically, extraverted information elements are concerned with 'objects', whereas introverted information elements are concerned with 'fields'; the 1st function is preservative, the 2nd function seeks to change. Thus, if the 1st and 2nd functions were both extraverted, the person would be concerned with both preserving and changing objects, with is a contradiction.

Which, unfortunately, leads me to another conundrum, specifically, the difference between dynamic and static information elements. As Rick implies, though, my desire for literal interpretations of the information elements is probably doomed to failure.
-

Aside - As I will continue an earlier discussion about development. I personally believe that everyone has preference over certain functions, however how strong the function is depends on the individual. Would strength of a function be a result of intelligence or practice?

To the extent that personality is inborn, I'd be against practice, but I wouldn't exactly say it's intelligence either...

[Rick]

Which, unfortunately, leads me to another conundrum, specifically, the difference between dynamic and static information elements. As Rick implies, though, my desire for literal interpretations of the information elements is probably doomed to failure.

I think this depends on progress in the field. At the moment there are no exact logical descriptions. Maybe someone will make the breakthrough eventually.

[Stormy]

Which, unfortunately, leads me to another conundrum, specifically, the difference between dynamic and static information elements. As Rick implies, though, my desire for literal interpretations of the information elements is probably doomed to failure.

I think this depends on progress in the field. At the moment there are no exact logical descriptions. Maybe someone will make the breakthrough eventually.

The trouble is that for Model-A to stand, any definition of the information elements must explain why , for example, accommodates the support of only and , whilst and themselves will have to have similar stipulations...the whole system is interdependent.

[Rick]

Which, unfortunately, leads me to another conundrum, specifically, the difference between dynamic and static information elements. As Rick implies, though, my desire for literal interpretations of the information elements is probably doomed to failure.

I think this depends on progress in the field. At the moment there are no exact logical descriptions. Maybe someone will make the breakthrough eventually.

The trouble is that for Model-A to stand, any definition of the information elements must explain why , for example, accommodates the support of only and , whilst and themselves will have to have similar stipulations...the whole system is interdependent.

Alas, gone are the days when you could create a few functions, say they came from observation, and everyone would listen to you and buy your books and say, "What a wise old man Jung was."

[Rocky]

Big words coming from a guy who said he never really studied Jung's books.