Rayos
New member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 5
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5w6
So this is an idea inspired by Motes and Beams, a book written by YouTube typologist Michael Pierce. Basically, everything in typology is just different categories of extroversion and introversion. This includes perception and judgement, sensation and intuition, thinking and feeling. It even applies to the function axes Ni-Se and Si-Ne, and Te-Fi and Fe-Ti.
Now, when I say extroversion and introversion, I am using somewhat personal definitions, but it boils down to two opposing approaches to context: extroversion, which approaches context with a generalist, ad hoc perspective that orients itself by local data, and introversion, which comes at things with a specialist, a priori outlook attempting to contextualize everything with a global system.
Basically, if you give introversion a color, its first priority is to classify it along the color spectrum, refusing to deal with the color on its own terms. This is abstraction, the process of extracting an object from its given context so that it can be compared, contrasted, and referenced. Extroversion, on the other hand, takes the same color as a world unto itself, and so it's able to focus much more on the actual, concrete properties of the color, irrespective of its similarities or dissimilarities to other colors.
Both processes have their pros and cons.
Extroversion is fast and adaptable. It won’t waste time trying to get everything to make sense within some larger system. But for that same reason it’s prone to getting stuck in local maximums, coming up with solution after solution without realizing it’s encountering the same problem again and again. Introversion is much more thorough, attempting to come up with a global system that can account for everything, and therefore is more likely to actually find a global maximum, but it’s also slow and prone to getting thrown off by the truly unprecedented.
Applying this lens to the system as a whole, we can neatly chart out the functions according to their extroversion and introversion. If we go by the dichotomies, then the chart looks like this:
And if we go by the attitudes:
So we see that Te, for example, is not strictly speaking logical. It is extraverted Je, oriented by the given context and therefore able to optimize itself according to that context, something that can appear like logic at first but is ultimately different. Si is not about the past or tradition but is instead introverted Pi, focused on observations and impressions that that are true globally, not just locally. And Fe is introverted Je, acting according to laws of propriety, not harmony, that hold no matter the context.
If we look at the function axes and choose Ne-Si as an example, it represents the introverted perception axis, and thus — whether Ne or Si is more dominant — a focus on relating, comparing, and connecting local data to things outside the given context. When Ne leads, this looks like brainstorming and open-ended exploration of patterns in as many Si contexts as possible, and if it's Si, then the comparison is between the present and past data, not in a sentimental or nostalgic sense, but like a detective or investigator piecing together the truth behind the Ne perspectives.
As an aside, an interesting result of this is that you end up with the Quadra of Socionics, where NTJ's and SFP's represent both of the extroverted perception and judgment axes, NTP's and SFJ's represent the introverted ones, STP's and NFJ's extroverted perception and introverted judgement, and finally STJ's and NFP's represent introverted perception and extroverted judgement. Michael Pierce explores these temperaments in depth in his aforementioned book.
Ultimately, I think the advantage of this framework is that it offers a common language (extraversion and introversion) for describing most if not all typological constructs. I also think it allows for more universal descriptions of type that don't just describe how they present in modern, western contexts, which I think is a failing of the current system.
Now, when I say extroversion and introversion, I am using somewhat personal definitions, but it boils down to two opposing approaches to context: extroversion, which approaches context with a generalist, ad hoc perspective that orients itself by local data, and introversion, which comes at things with a specialist, a priori outlook attempting to contextualize everything with a global system.
Basically, if you give introversion a color, its first priority is to classify it along the color spectrum, refusing to deal with the color on its own terms. This is abstraction, the process of extracting an object from its given context so that it can be compared, contrasted, and referenced. Extroversion, on the other hand, takes the same color as a world unto itself, and so it's able to focus much more on the actual, concrete properties of the color, irrespective of its similarities or dissimilarities to other colors.
Both processes have their pros and cons.
Extroversion is fast and adaptable. It won’t waste time trying to get everything to make sense within some larger system. But for that same reason it’s prone to getting stuck in local maximums, coming up with solution after solution without realizing it’s encountering the same problem again and again. Introversion is much more thorough, attempting to come up with a global system that can account for everything, and therefore is more likely to actually find a global maximum, but it’s also slow and prone to getting thrown off by the truly unprecedented.
Applying this lens to the system as a whole, we can neatly chart out the functions according to their extroversion and introversion. If we go by the dichotomies, then the chart looks like this:
| Extroversion (E) | Introversion (I) | ||||||
| Perception (P) | Judgement (J) | ||||||
| Sensation (S) | Intuition (I) | Thinking (T) | Feeling (F) | ||||
| Extroverted Sensation(Se) | Introverted Sensation (Si) | Extroverted Intuition (Ne) | Introverted Intuition (Ni) | Extroverted Thinking (Te) | Introverted Thinking (Ti) | Extroverted Feeling (Fe) | Introverted Feeling (Fi) |
And if we go by the attitudes:
| Extroversion (E) | Introversion (I) | ||||||
| Perception (P) | Judgement (J) | ||||||
| Extroverted Perception (Pe) | Introverted Perception (Pi) | Extroverted judgement (Je) | Introverted judgement (Ji) | ||||
| Extroverted Sensation (Se) | Extroverted Intuition (Ne) | Introverted Intuition (Ni) | Introverted Sensation (Si) | Extroverted Thinking (Te) | Extroverted Feeling (Fe) | Introverted Feeling (Fi) | Introverted Thinking (Ti) |
So we see that Te, for example, is not strictly speaking logical. It is extraverted Je, oriented by the given context and therefore able to optimize itself according to that context, something that can appear like logic at first but is ultimately different. Si is not about the past or tradition but is instead introverted Pi, focused on observations and impressions that that are true globally, not just locally. And Fe is introverted Je, acting according to laws of propriety, not harmony, that hold no matter the context.
If we look at the function axes and choose Ne-Si as an example, it represents the introverted perception axis, and thus — whether Ne or Si is more dominant — a focus on relating, comparing, and connecting local data to things outside the given context. When Ne leads, this looks like brainstorming and open-ended exploration of patterns in as many Si contexts as possible, and if it's Si, then the comparison is between the present and past data, not in a sentimental or nostalgic sense, but like a detective or investigator piecing together the truth behind the Ne perspectives.
As an aside, an interesting result of this is that you end up with the Quadra of Socionics, where NTJ's and SFP's represent both of the extroverted perception and judgment axes, NTP's and SFJ's represent the introverted ones, STP's and NFJ's extroverted perception and introverted judgement, and finally STJ's and NFP's represent introverted perception and extroverted judgement. Michael Pierce explores these temperaments in depth in his aforementioned book.
Ultimately, I think the advantage of this framework is that it offers a common language (extraversion and introversion) for describing most if not all typological constructs. I also think it allows for more universal descriptions of type that don't just describe how they present in modern, western contexts, which I think is a failing of the current system.
Last edited:
