Introversion vs Extroversion

[DividedsGhost]

Something seems weird about the following:

An introvert allows reality to impact them and then they extrovert in reality (impact reality).

But an extrovert doesn’t seem to have to introvert at all. They can theoretically extrovert without introverting; although the more their extroversion is based on introversion, I suppose theoretically the rational probability of their extroversion being more fulfilling goes up.




But that wouldn't make much sense. So is it supposed to conceptually be like a methodology of mind, akin to:
the extrovert trying something and quickly introverting to evaluate what it caused?
the introvert lengthily introverting and trying something to create a cause?

I kind of think this would explain a lot, but I just thought about it now and really have no idea. So I would like to hear what other people have to say.


Oh, and for anyone that might complain about me making this thread or pretend like none of this makes any sense, my implied and unposted response is "I don't care".

[WVBRY]

Give me what drugs you're taking.

[DividedsGhost]

Gice me what drugs you're taking.

Get out from my topic!!!

.

[WVBRY]

asdfasdfasdfasdf

[Beautiful sky]

Something seems weird about the following:

An introvert allows reality to impact them and then they extrovert in reality (impact reality).

But an extrovert doesn’t seem to have to introvert at all. They can theoretically extrovert without introverting; although the more their extroversion is based on introversion, I suppose theoretically the rational probability of their extroversion being more fulfilling goes up.




But that wouldn't make much sense. So is it supposed to conceptually be like a methodology of mind, akin to:
the extrovert trying something and quickly introverting to evaluate what it caused?
the introvert lengthily introverting and trying something to create a cause?

I kind of think this would explain a lot, but I just thought about it now and really have no idea. So I would like to hear what other people have to say.


Oh, and for anyone that might complain about me making this thread or pretend like none of this makes any sense, my implied and unposted response is "I don't care".

Are you saying that extraverts do things with a purpose, an outcome? I did this because this happened so this must be caused by this?
I'm going to do something if this happens; introverts are intention driven; if I do this i think this will happen?

[Leader]

Gice me what drugs you're taking.

Rofl, but yeah Divided care to elaborate on what you mean?

[ClownsandEntropy]

The thing is, an introvert allows reality to impact them because they prefer to not extrovert in reality (i.e. impact reality) whereas an extrovert prefers to impact reality, and hence they are extroverted. I don't see why introversion needs to be associated with creating a cause/intention, and extrovert merely engaging in reality?

[DividedsGhost]

The thing is, an introvert allows reality to impact them because they prefer to not extrovert in reality (i.e. impact reality) whereas an extrovert prefers to impact reality, and hence they are extroverted. I don't see why introversion needs to be associated with creating a cause/intention, and extrovert merely engaging in reality?

Then what does it mean conceptually to extrovert or to introvert? Even abstractions have to have some kind of abstract meaning. What you say doesn't mean a thing other than arguing semantics as meaning in itself, which is very non-insightful.

[DividedsGhost]

Rofl, but yeah Divided care to elaborate on what you mean?

Yeah, why not, this was a bust anyway. Nothing to lose now, if I have no expectations.

the extrovert trying something and quickly introverting to evaluate what it caused?

Basically, the extrovert would act with little or no conception of what their act will cause. It's like an experiment and they will evaluate what is caused only after they acted, albeit subconsciously. More in the moment thinking.

the introvert lengthily introverting and trying something to create a cause?

Basically, the introvert is removed from acting, so they are processing the world into some kind of mental activity and framework. When they act, it will be based on that framework or mental activity and will have much more of an expectation of what will result from their act.

Edit: And I want to know how you see it.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Then what does it mean conceptually to extrovert or to introvert? Even abstractions have to have some kind of abstract meaning. What you say doesn't mean a thing other than arguing semantics as meaning in itself, which is very non-insightful.

Not sure I understand the question, but can I say: "something about extroversion being directly interacting and doing things in the world, whereas introversion preferring less stimuli and less energy intensive interaction"?

I mean, if people interact less with the world and consider more they may have a greater expectation of what will happen (and the extroverts have less expectations; is that what you're saying?), but that seems to be more of a result rather than a cause of the extroversion.

Perhaps extroversion/introversion is somehow related to an energy and electrochemical thing, regardless of how dull it sounds.

[DividedsGhost]

Not sure I understand the question, but can I say: "something about extroversion being directly interacting and doing things in the world, whereas introversion preferring less stimuli and less energy intensive interaction"?

I mean, if people interact less with the world and consider more they may have a greater expectation of what will happen (and the extroverts have less expectations; is that what you're saying?), but that seems to be more of a result rather than a cause of the extroversion.

Perhaps extroversion/introversion is somehow related to an energy and electrochemical thing, regardless of how dull it sounds.

No, that's fine. Thanks for giving some thought behind the semantics. One problem with seeing things this way is that we would be arguing no relationship to how people will introvert or extrovert. Instead we see things as if they are archetypal, which we can't prove; and we would be suggesting that say Te can exist without Ti and Ti without Te. I know model A uses the ID functions to keep the relationships open for discussion or debate or why is it there, you know? Would you agree a more sensible approach is to take account of both?

[Beautiful sky]

From reading this thread, one thing is very clear to me. No one has identified a clear enough distinction between E/I. Everything all of you write can be observed in both E and I types. Jung is very clear on this; what is the only distinction is ORIENTATION.

Orientation:
The determination of the relative position of something or someone (esp. oneself).
The relative physical position or direction of something.

Take Fe and I for instance. Fe and I date a person we both find attractive. Fe looks at the guy (the object) who is the determinant of the kind of feeling they will have for them. If the guys meets the qualifications of their tradition as a fit husband (this qualification includes but not limited to same race, height, family tradition/culture) that person is an object they can love and Fe is such that they will love who they choose so the object only need have certain qualifications and bam it's done. Me, no way. The object just have a mutual interest (I don't care about it's standards to my culture and tradition for him to qualify as someone I would choose as a lifelong mate, although certain things would make it easy, like communication and such, but all that can be worked out - the very fact that I said "can be worked out" is something as though Fe can't value as a determinant). The relative position of the man to Fe, the Fe is qualified based on the object and what feelings than can be given to it. The relative position of the man to me is base on what qualities of mutual compatibility I find in us (he keeps the house clean - and example). I afford my mate personal feelings based on my rules, they afford it feelings based on the rules given to them. The right mate assimilates the Fe into them because the mate is an object and they are oriented to the object.

Fe -" extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person.....Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. "

[Beautiful sky]

To figure out whether the person is an E or an I, you have to first figure out what the object is and where the orientation stands.

[The Ineffable]

But that wouldn't make much sense. So is it supposed to conceptually be like a methodology of mind, akin to:
the extrovert trying something and quickly introverting to evaluate what it caused?
the introvert lengthily introverting and trying something to create a cause?

I don't know why you say it doesn't make much sense. In the end the Introvert's Creative function (working intermittently as a helper) is the Bodies one, while the Base is the Fields, the one that continuously builds one's inner view; and vice-versa for Extroverts. I don't see any problem with that except that finding a cause I view as a particular case, other forms of rationalization are equally applicable (classification, meaning, relationships and so on).

[DividedsGhost]

I don't know why you say it doesn't make much sense. In the end the Introvert's Creative function (working intermittently as a helper) is the Bodies one, while the Base is the Fields, the one that continuously builds one's inner view; and vice-versa for Extroverts. I don't see any problem with that except that finding a cause I view as a particular case, other forms of rationalization are equally applicable (classification, meaning, relationships and so on).

Well, it isn't that I see a problem so much as an incomplete axiomatic model. There's more to describe in relation to it. An ILE, for instance, doesn't just use their base and creative without the unconscious. Conceptually the functions that are the same, but differ in extroversion and introversion, have a common link, that is different than the link they have to other functions. If the axioms aren't at least complete, then anyone can say whatever they want and there's no rhyme or reason to it, nor anything I can say in return that won't be circular logic.

[Beautiful sky]

Relative orientation, comparing me to my BF...

On Sunday we wake up, I'm still toppling in bed, he's reading all of his morning favorite sites (these would be about 4 to 6); he gets up after that and writes, I get up and we eat, he asks me for my plans of the day. I have no idea what my plans are (because I'm Te seeking and would rather just do whatever needs to get done); he tells me his plans (they are usually filled with activities, interactions with such and such a person, more work, more reading, etc); there's never a time where he lays on the couch doing NOTHING; Never. If he's caught on the couch, he's watching a particular show, reading a particular book, talking on the phone. There's never a time of detachment from objects to lay back and think of the things in his head.

My relative orientation to objects equals not relatively oriented.