Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

[Petter]

First of all, I don't think Keirsey's second ring and third ring are accurate.

My view is that Keirsey was mostly right, and Jung (and Aushra) were wrong. For example, SLI and SEI do not focus on their internal worlds more than ILE and IEE. All of them focus on both the external world and the internal world. But SLI's and SEI's "worlds" are more about reality, and ILE's and IEE's "worlds" are more about ideas. However, extroverted/introverted behavior is not related to this. Extroverts are more interested in the meaning of/interaction with objects than the exact definition/description (and vice versa). Therefore, extroverts are more active and spontaneous.


http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/keirs...erament-sorter

"Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas."



"The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive)

The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."



http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-in-Socionics

"Jung started describing psychological types with the directions of human psyche extraversion – introversion.

Every phenomenon in the world can be considered either from the point of view of objects or from the point of view of relationships.

So, we have divided all the information flow into two big parts:

1. information about objects;
2. information about relationships.

Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
Information aspects about relationships are called introverted.

Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself".

Differences in the personality types are determined by the mechanism (one of these two) which is more often, customarily, surely, successfully and effectively used by the person. Let us remind of the fact that we can speak about a harmoniously developed personality when a person uses his strong and weak features almost like the proportion of golden section: approximately 60:40. That is a harmoniously developed extravert in about 60% of cases uses the mechanism of extraversion: is interested in the objects of the outer world, people, affairs etc. And about 40% of his attention is drawn to his inner world: to himself, his own attitude to the objects (people, affairs). An introvert accordingly vice versa ."

[Pallas]

SLI and SEI lead with an involved perceiving function, while IEE and ILE lead with an abstract perceiving function, and this would be "outer world" and "inner world" in probably the most typical sense. Aushra's idea of extraversion vs. introversion is the thing about objects and fields (and she notably actually considers abstractions to be part of the "outer world"), and Jung's is something entirely different. Technical terminology like that tends to be really variable depending on what you're working with. This is why we need to have clear language and generally just avoid technical terminology that isn't defined first like the plague.

[Petter]

SLI and SEI lead with an involved perceiving function, while IEE and ILE lead with an abstract perceiving function, and this would be "outer world" and "inner world" in probably the most typical sense.

Okay, so you agree with Keirsey that N is about the inner world and S is about the outer world, right? I think neither intuitives nor introverts are more focused on the inner world.

Aushra's idea of extraversion vs. introversion is the thing about objects and fields (and she notably actually considers abstractions to be part of the "outer world"), and Jung's is something entirely different.

I disagree with you. Aushra's objects and fields correspond to Jung's objective extroverted functions (or extroverted attitude + function) and subjective introverted functions. What is the difference, according to you?

"Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"

[Exodus]

First of all, I don't think Keirsey's second ring and third ring are accurate.

My view is that Keirsey was mostly right, and Jung (and Aushra) were wrong. For example, SLI and SEI do not focus on their internal worlds more than ILE and IEE. All of them focus on both the external world and the internal world. But SLI's and SEI's "worlds" are more about reality, and ILE's and IEE's "worlds" are more about ideas. However, extroverted/introverted behavior is not related to this. Extroverts are more interested in the meaning of/interaction with objects than the exact definition/description (and vice versa). Therefore, extroverts are more active and spontaneous.


http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/keirs...erament-sorter

"Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas."
[/I]

I can't tell what category this is supposed to be for Keirsey but 1) in socionics, Ne can be roughly said to be about what is possible in the external world, which includes plans for the future as well as speculative futurism. When it comes to "pure imagination", dreams, etc., things that don't have any obvious connection to the real world, it's more about Ni. A dichotomous approach is not going to see these differences.

2) Since we're talking about type dichotomies it's worth remembering that ILEs and IEEs also have bold Te and Se, so they are concerned in a very real way about making actual results happen in the real world, not just coming up with ideas for it.

And for Si leading types, they are concerned with how the immediate environment affects them and others. It's introverted because it's how things affect you subjectively. But then they also have bold Ni and Fi, so they will be focused on the true "inner world" to that extent.

Other than that I do think this kind of discussion is too pedantic to give any new insight into the IM elements.

[Petter]

I can't tell what category this is supposed to be for Keirsey but 1) in socionics, Ne can be roughly said to be about what is possible in the external world, which includes plans for the future as well as speculative futurism. When it comes to "pure imagination", dreams, etc., things that don't have any obvious connection to the real world, it's more about Ni. A dichotomous approach is not going to see these differences.

What exactly do we mean by the external world, though?

I think that description is inaccurate. ILI and IEI are focused on plans for the future and "speculative futurism", not ILE and IEE.

Reinin:

Subjective intuition. The inner harmony. A state, a mood, and a sense of time. Personal evaluation of events, of people's actions and morals.

Objective intuition. The order of events from the beginning to the end, i.e. the sets of events known beforehand, the schedule. Potential opportunities. Behavior program, the way of life, the rhythm of life. Scenario of any action, acting in accordance to predetermined scenario.

2) Since we're talking about type dichotomies it's worth remembering that ILEs and IEEs also have bold Te and Se, so they are concerned in a very real way about making actual results happen in the real world, not just coming up with ideas for it.

I am skeptical of "bold" (and "valued") functions, and I don't see how this is relevant to extraversion/introversion or external/internal worlds.

And for Si leading types, they are concerned with how the immediate environment affects them and others.

I agree.

It's introverted because it's how things affect you subjectively. But then they also have bold Ni and Fi, so they will be focused on the true "inner world" to that extent.

What do you mean by "affect you subjectively"? Aren't all our experiences subjective?

[Exodus]

What exactly do we mean by the external world, though?

I think that description is inaccurate. ILI and IEI are focused on plans for the future and "speculative futurism", not ILE and IEE.

Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.

Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.

Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.

What do you mean by "affect you subjectively"?

Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.

Aren't all our experiences subjective?

That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:

That's a huge mountain (Se)
These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)

That being said, there are examples of Si information that are less subjective (more typically Si with Te).

[Petter]

Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.
Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.

Isaac: "We continue our look at hypothetical alien civilizations". Yes, this is typical Ni thinking, so it is in a sense more detached from reality. Ni visualizes a future scenario. But Ne is more detached from reality in another sense, since its ideas/concepts are radical and new.

My point is that Ni and Ne are not the subjective and objective versions of the same type of thinking. They are completely different.

Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.

I agree with you.

Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.

Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?

That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:

Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?

That's a huge mountain (Se)

These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)

Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?

[Exodus]

Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?

Yes, in the sense that it is an experience flowing into your physical body.

Augusta's definitions of static/dynamic and object/field aren't totally satisfactory but I do believe there is some truth to them.

Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?

Why doesn't it work? The information that a football is flying through the air is objective information about the physical world, hence Se. The information that the football hurt your head by hitting it is part of your subjective experience of the physical world, hence Si. I think you're reading too much into it. Se and Si are both subjective faculties but that doesn't mean that their information is equally subjective.

[Exodus]

@Petter I think we are pretty much on the same page. The only point I would make is that nobody starts with Augusta's aspect definitions and then derives what the types should be from that, exactly because of the issues you mention. In practice people associate a collection of themes with each element like the ones on my semantics page -- and if they are ambitious, then try to abstract out the essence of each element to form original definitions. These themes are generally agreed upon, but the abstract definitions are not (other than Augusta's early attempt). This is what my research aims to address.

[Petter]

@Petter I think we are pretty much on the same page. The only point I would make is that nobody starts with Augusta's aspect definitions and then derives what the types should be from that, exactly because of the issues you mention. In practice people associate a collection of themes with each element like the ones on my semantics page -- and if they are ambitious, then try to abstract out the essence of each element to form original definitions. These themes are generally agreed upon, but the abstract definitions are not (other than Augusta's early attempt). This is what my research aims to address.

The problem is that we don't agree on these themes. "That's a huge mountain" is Se in your view. I think it is Si instead. So we are not talking about the same types.

I am in general skeptical of SSS, but I think they got S (Si) right.

-----

+S — beauty and prettiness (spatial relations), harmony of lines, colours, forms; comfort, convenience, pleasant sensations; sensory delights, pleasure and tactile sensibility; vision of details, aspiration to concretize a scope.

−S — discomfort and comfort, aesthetics, beauty and ugliness, harmony and disharmony, contrast in sensations; vision of an overall picture and concrete details.

+F — defense, safeguard, shield, rebuff, battle for interests, acquisition, benefit, saving, thrift, accumulation of resources, profit... Depending on context, the concept «survival» may belong to +F-element (conservation of life) and -F-element (to survive due to the destruction of other). The same applies to the concepts of strength, will, living space)

−F — seizure, attack, assault, aggression, pressure, influence, authority, power, control, volitional pressure, loss, weakness, and all +F manifestations.

[niffer]

Hilariously, you @Petter are incredibly involved in your own subjective reality and ideas with the premise of this thread of yours. You clearly have some kind of agenda where you're trying to assert that your own type is not as subjective and inward-oriented as is defined or something like that, and you're not really offering the best practical example using yourself, more like proving yourself wrong actually...

[Petter]

Hilariously, you @Petter are incredibly involved in your own subjective reality and ideas with the premise of this thread of yours. You clearly have some kind of agenda where you're trying to assert that your own type is not as subjective and inward-oriented as is defined or something like that, and you're not really offering the best practical example using yourself, more like proving yourself wrong actually...

Lol... I can assure you, that is not my agenda. I am only trying to get it right, i.e. finding adequate definitions of the functions/IM elements and a good model of the types.

Ni is not more subjective and inward-oriented than other functions in my view (Se may be an exception... I am not sure yet). But it is focused on seeing new patterns which explain some aspects of reality. Other people don't see this pattern, so they may find the Ni-dominant type esoteric or full of himself.

[niffer]

Ni is not more subjective and inward-oriented than other functions in my view (Se may be an exception... I am not sure yet). But it is focused on seeing new patterns which explain some aspects of reality. Other people don't see this pattern, so they may find the Ni-dominant type esoteric or full of himself.

Huh. I agree with this actually. That's really weird.

Well. About it not being that subjective anyway, on some level, with you saying it's no more subjective than other IEs except Se. In the non-typological-pseudoscience-specific layman's understanding of "subjective" aka most of the world's.

As for "inward", I think "inward derived" rather than "inward oriented" is an idea I'd accept. Experiencing Ni is still subjective and derived from an internally-created interpretation of perception. An analogy would be like Ni is the neurons forming connections to Se's nerve/sensoric experience. It's the dual IE to Se and that's how the dual IEs work in connection in this case. Actually it's more or less really what it is too or is at least a large part of it, it's hardly even an analogy. I'm not a cognitive scientist but based on what I do know about the subject and the descriptions of these IEs if we were to take them seriously, there's really nothing else that it could be. Like it doesn't work by magic.

[Jeremy8419]

First of all, I don't think Keirsey's second ring and third ring are accurate.

My view is that Keirsey was mostly right, and Jung (and Aushra) were wrong. For example, SLI and SEI do not focus on their internal worlds more than ILE and IEE. All of them focus on both the external world and the internal world. But SLI's and SEI's "worlds" are more about reality, and ILE's and IEE's "worlds" are more about ideas. However, extroverted/introverted behavior is not related to this. Extroverts are more interested in the meaning of/interaction with objects than the exact definition/description (and vice versa). Therefore, extroverts are more active and spontaneous.


http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/keirs...erament-sorter

"Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas."



"The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive)

The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."



http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-in-Socionics

"Jung started describing psychological types with the directions of human psyche extraversion – introversion.

Every phenomenon in the world can be considered either from the point of view of objects or from the point of view of relationships.

So, we have divided all the information flow into two big parts:

1. information about objects;
2. information about relationships.

Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
Information aspects about relationships are called introverted.

Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself".

Differences in the personality types are determined by the mechanism (one of these two) which is more often, customarily, surely, successfully and effectively used by the person. Let us remind of the fact that we can speak about a harmoniously developed personality when a person uses his strong and weak features almost like the proportion of golden section: approximately 60:40. That is a harmoniously developed extravert in about 60% of cases uses the mechanism of extraversion: is interested in the objects of the outer world, people, affairs etc. And about 40% of his attention is drawn to his inner world: to himself, his own attitude to the objects (people, affairs). An introvert accordingly vice versa ."

[Petter]

lol...I love that movie. So you're back in business :-)

[Jeremy8419]

lol...I love that movie. So you're back in business :-)

Yeah. My other thread I just started in this forum explains the root of each element better.

There's another old one for reinin and another old one for how the J/P flip came about.

[DavidH]

Good Lord.

You are doing this on multiple forums?

What are you even looking for? Individuals imagined an idea from thin air. They spent time talking and writing about the idea. People liked it. It is no different than a work of fiction. Create your own idea. It is more simple than trying to tear down and rebuild other peoples'.

[Petter]

Good Lord.

You are doing this on multiple forums?

What are you even looking for? Individuals imagined an idea from thin air. They spent time talking and writing about the idea. People liked it. It is no different than a work of fiction. Create your own idea. It is more simple than trying to tear down and rebuild other peoples'.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...-vs-ti-53.html

You don't make any sense. From post 521...

[niffer]

I get what you mean but the way that you explain things is really strange @Petter .