Case in point, little if anything regarding introversion and extroversion survives in the MBTI portraits of types. Where Myers-Briggs considered I/E to be a behavior, Jung considered it to be an attitude. Much could be deduced about behaviors resulting from attitudes, but social psychologists have known for decades (and studies prove it) that attitudes do not necessarily correspond with behaviors. The science of social psychology is practically based on this fact.
The relevant part of this quote comes in the first sentence, "General attitudes are poor predictors of behaviour e.g., attitude to environment." That is, introversion and extroversion, as general attitudes, are poor predictors of behavior. (It does not mean attitude toward environmentalism or ecology...)Can Attitudes Predict Behaviour?
General attitudes are poor predictors of behaviour e.g., attitude to environment
However, attitudes are likely to predict behaviour when:
The attitude and behaviour are specific
Environmental reinforcement matches attitude
Important others share the same attitude
Can Attitudes Predict Behaviour?
...attitudes are likely to predict behaviour when:
Attitudes are implicit (unconscious)
Attitudes are strong
Attitude has developed from personal experience
A difference in general attitude toward one's environment can be visualized through a simple question: When you lose something such as the TV remote, do you immediately: A. ask someone if they've seen it (assuming anybody is around to ask), or B. start looking for it yourself and only ask someone more or less as a last resort?
True, introverts are more "self-sufficient" in the latter sense. However, one cannot predict, with certainty, on any given occasion of losing something whether or not the introvert or extrovert is going to act out with either A (ask someone immediately, if possible) or B (start hunting around without asking for help).
So the insertion of introverted and extroverted behaviors into the MBTI was not based on any kind of scientific fact or study, when there is supposedly some kind of root or origin with Jungian typology regarding general attitude. It is simply original Myers-Briggs typology granted, without warrant, the intellectual reputation and dignity of Jung's great theory of types by mashing it together into one homogeneous blend of theories.
I have nothing against VagrantFarce's theory of communication styles quoted above. But it is reminiscent of some superficial, pre-Jungian idea Myers and Briggs may have come up with before they met up with Jungian typology. And as usual it is being given the respectability, not only of Jung, but of the MBTI which has gained much popular (although not scientific) credibility since it originated around 1940.