i am not sure if jung brought leeway for change between extroversion and introversion, but i don't think the MBTI does:
an introvert becoming an extravert means your dominant function changes places with the auxilary, the teritary function changes places with the inferior, and if you add th extended version of the MBTI, then the same happens with the shadow functions (showing itself under stress). that's 4 major changes in how someone processes information... that's a hell of a drastic change.
Right, yeah, I agree. But the functions are really about explaining people@projection, imo.
The first (dominant) function summarizes overall behavior into an abstract containing idea to illustrate that behavior; illustration meaning that it doesn't really explain it in terms of causation.
The second (auxiliary) function isn't really supposed to supersede the first, but explain two ways in which the first function manifests.
The idea of the unconscious then really applies only to the first (dominant) function because by coloring your behavior intensely with that particular function, its philosophical dual orientation of being in the world (inferior function) has to be ignored or suppressed; but ignoring it completely has negative consequences on the ego, affecting it the way Jung tries to describe analytically and based on his empirical evidence.
Once that first function changes, the idea becomes less useful because now we have to look at causation, which gets complicated.
compare that to the keirsey vresion, where (from my exp) its entirely possible for someone to drive energy from both socializing and being alone at different times in their lives, or the common use of I/E, where it's entirely someone shy who doesn't like public speaking might get over their fear and become a social butterfly, while someone who has spent a lot of time socializing might find their life empty and decidee to take some time to themselves.
I don't really like the idea of needing to describe it outside abstraction because then we are trying to pinpoint causation to the functions. And it's not that simple.
I only really started to make sense to myself when I decided that I was an extravert. And this is primarily the sense in which I am an extravert.
I wish I remember where I read it.. but some typology blog said something along the lines of, "Extraverts need external input to function properly. It just so happens that people are very good sources of input." If I have a problem that I'm trying to work out, or something I am trying to understand, and if I try to work it out only in my head, then it can become quite a struggle.
If I start depicting the problem on a piece of paper, I process so much better. And If I talk to somebody, I'm a peak efficiency. There are so many ideas and things that I've gone into loops and stalled in progress when on my own, to only gain very deep understandings of when I start blabbing it to another person. I have trouble properly grasping things unless I express it externally first.
same here. as a sideaffect, it also happens to mean tons of records of my ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc sometimes just documents or papers, but often in the form of emails i've sent, PMs, posts, and by contacting other people who remember stuff about me better then myself, and then usually i will have the associations to what brought me there, and thus it allowed me to compensate for my inferior Si.
But this isn't really what extroversion is about either. What you're describing are good ways to learn. It's usually recommended that teaching is a good way to see if you understand something because it requires that your mind take the disconnected thoughts in your head and structure them; sometimes people think they understand something and find out that when it comes to being tested on that knowledge, they can't apply it or explain an understanding, which this is all good for, and probably for all people, as you both show.
They did. Extraversion is simply a perceptual orientation towards information outside of one's self. Extraverted intuition, thinking and sensing might very well not be concerned about other people, even though since we're humans, they eventually have to.
I don't really prefer this either though. Introverts don't necessarily provide their own stimulus, just as extroverts don't necessarily require outside stimulus to provide their own.
How does this sound?
Introversion is the process in which the world is processed into causation. Extroversion is the process of creating causation.
Of course, everything here is open for criticism. I'm willing to discuss this in length if anyone wants to, so that we all may better understand this without the effects of 'Argumentum ad baculum' or 'Argumentum ad populum' that seems to be what typology pretty much amounts to, especially MBTI.