Are Te/Fe more 'extroverted' than Se/Ne?
In light of the Gulenko articles that I've been reading, which speak of dynamic functions as causing 'excitation' as opposed to causing 'breaking'...
Is it safe to say that dynamics (Ip's & Ej's) are as a rule more expressedly extrovert than statics (Ij's & Ep's) when they are 'extroverting'?
From my perspective it looks a lot like the dynamic extrovert functions (Te and Fe) always seek to set a sequence of events in motion, thus having their user expect to be reacted to in the right manner. Static extrovert functions (Se and Ne) on the other hand just throw a piece of info 'out there' and don't expect a specific reaction. The first is ritualistic in the sense that 'socializing' is. The second, while unmistakenly extroverted, is more self-contained.
But is this in line with what people are experiencing their daily lives? Everybody, please share your perspectives.
Re: Are Te/Fe more 'extroverted' than Se/Ne?
I suspect it would appear that way to rational types, being more in tune to the rational functions. It may also have something to do with whether you're focusing on types vs. types. It has been said that types don't necessarily "seem" very extraverted; whereas SEEs are generally acknowledged to seem quite extraverted. One might choose to relate this to the "definition" of being "internal statics of objects"...though here the word "internal" may not be so helpful by itself.
Originally Posted by labcoat
In my experience, it seems that individual differences have more impact than actual types in this regard. That is, the difference between two people of the same type in terms of apparent extraversion or introversion is liable to be greater than the general difference between the extraversion/introversion of Ej vs. Ep types. This may also have something to do with subtypes.*
*(When talking about extraversion and introversion, of course, because there is some controversy about those terms on the forum, a little bit of clarification is needed to head off what some people will assuredly say anyway. It seems whenever I and E are discussed, some people will take the extreme position of failing to acknowledge that extraverted functions all have something in common, and same with all introverted functions. Naturally, extraverted functions must all be aimed to the external environment...or, forgoing the word "external," they must be aimed at "objects" rather than "fields"...not that those words are much help either...I think most of us have a sense of what the difference is between I and E, though the official words used have never been satisfactory.)
Where do you get that?
Originally Posted by machintruc