Originally Posted by
Ashton
Well. It's a little more complicated than what you're laying out here. Maybe I'll post about it later idk. Too much effort. Nvm I'll just re-paste something I wrote the other day:
Jung's approach to the functions/IEs gives us a phenomenological definition—i.e., we're given a portrait of what each IE process is essentially like from the experiential POV of those possessing it as a base function. Aushra's approach OTOH tries to give us more of an operational definition, attempting to illustrate more of the concrete manifestations of how IE processes generally appear when viewed externally.
I tend to like Jung's IE descriptions, because he explicitly acknowledges the fact that his perceptions of each IE will be necessarily biased by his own IEs (and actually warns us for this very reason, against taking a strongly operational approach in attempting to determine types). And I think he does succeed as best he can in partially overcoming these inherent limitations, in managing to accurately tell us something about what IEs are actually like from the user's perspective. Whereas I don't think Aushra ever acknowledges the problem of inherent IE bias… and so the result is that her IE descriptions exemplify this issue. Invariably, her descriptions tell us more about what each IE is like according to an ENTp perspective and less about what they are actually like apart from that.