Introverted functions are more ________ than their extroverted counterparts

[uumlau]

Is "deep" superior to "shallow"?

No.

The real difference is that Xe is shared, while Xi is kept to oneself. The "depth" is something of an illusion. The truth is that Xi is unexpressed, and it requires effort to perceive it in others. What will happen is that Ni doms appear remarkably insightful, because they don't show how they figured something out, and will quickly change their answer if they learn they're wrong, often without you knowing. Fi doms will appear remarkably wise, because you don't know how much foolishness they kept hidden. Si doms will remember a remarkable amount of detail, but often misremember things and you will be none the wiser. Ti doms can be brilliantly logical, but you'll often not know how many completely stupid ideas they also believe, because they don't express them clearly enough to be evaluated.

Xe seems shallow because it can be publicly evaluated, and thus one's foolishness is visible for all the world to see.

Better to be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

[tcda]

Is "deep" superior to "shallow"?

No. You need both. A deep udnerstanding of something which does not lead to empirical immediate benefits in practice to others, is ultimately socially useless.

Just as you cannot answer peoples immediate problems, long-term, without a deep understanding of the root causes.

So both "shallowness" without "depth" and "depth" without "shallowness" are socially useless.

 

[Cimarron]

It has been decided that deeper is a better term.

This was the missing link between your OP and the issue. In general, people do use "deep" as a positive adjective, but in the functions, "deep" functions have their rewards as well as their consequences.

Fi can feel delightful, but it can feel horrible when trapped and drowning. Ti can give such a complete understanding, but it can also leave a web of logic impossible to reconcile in its threads that come so close to tying together, and yet not meet. (Something like that)

It is fun to immerse in the deep things, but deep places are that much more difficult to escape.

I agree that Extroverted functions are broad (Te, Se, Ne, Fe), whereas Introverted functions are deep (Fi, Ti, Ni, Si).

 

[Glycerine]

Is "deep" superior to "shallow"?

It really depends on the context. My views align with cimarron and tcda.

 

[Zarathustra]

No.

The real difference is that Xe is shared, while Xi is kept to oneself.

I understand the temptation to say this, but is it really true?

Is Fi always kept to oneself?
Is Ti always kept to oneself?
Is Ni always kept to oneself?
Is Si always kept to oneself?

I think not...

I think that I share my Ni insights and my Fi feelings all the time.

The "depth" is something of an illusion.

The truth is that Xi is unexpressed, and it requires effort to perceive it in others.

See above.

What will happen is that Ni doms appear remarkably insightful, because they don't show how they figured something out, and will quickly change their answer if they learn they're wrong, often without you knowing. Fi doms will appear remarkably wise, because you don't know how much foolishness they kept hidden. Si doms will remember a remarkable amount of detail, but often misremember things and you will be none the wiser. Ti doms can be brilliantly logical, but you'll often not know how many completely stupid ideas they also believe, because they don't express them clearly enough to be evaluated.

I think these are simply examples of Xi functions at their worst.

While understanding them at their worst is necessary to understand them as a whole, emphasizing just the worst is to miss the truth by overstating the bad.

I'm sure there's some kind of pretentious latin term for why that's a logical fallacy.

Xe seems shallow because it can be publicly evaluated, and thus one's foolishness is visible for all the world to see.

Better to be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

I dunno about this entire post...

I feel like you're trying to make the argument for why shallow is not worse than deep by making the depth of Xi seem more fraudulent than it is, and downplaying the shallowness of Xe by stating that it's simply for public consumption.

I think that there is a material difference between the depth of Xi and Xe functions.

No. You need both. A deep udnerstanding of something which does not lead to empirical immediate benefits in practice to others, is ultimately socially useless.

Just as you cannot answer peoples immediate problems, long-term, without a deep understanding of the root causes.

So both "shallowness" without "depth" and "depth" without "shallowness" are socially useless.

I think this is the most accurate answer so far...

Could we say that the deeper, more self-oriented functions are more important for getting into the depths of their particular subject matter, while the shallower, more community-oriented functions are more important for sharing the subject matter with one another?

Is this an apt way to express the truth, or could the terminology be improved upon? If so, how?

 

[Laurie]

Doesn't make a lot of sense, we all have both introverted and extroverted functions. Where are you going with this, is this just continuing an argument with someone in the forum?

 

[Zarathustra]

Doesn't make a lot of sense, we all have both introverted and extroverted functions.

Did somebody claim we didn't?

Where are you going with this, is this just continuing an argument with someone in the forum?

No. I'm simply trying to come to a definitive understanding of the pro's and con's of Xe and Xi functions.

And you're not really helping.

 

[SillySapienne]

Hmmm...

Lemme see, lemme think...

My thoughts:

I'm an NeFi dom-user-thingy-dingy.

Holistically, both functions render, dare I say, an insurmountable depth.

But, Fi, infused with my Ne, takes me to places, thoughts, ideas, feelings that, dare I say, alienate me from others.

Ne is my processing machine, Fi is my soul.

So, I guess you can say my Fi soul is "deeper" than the Ne processing machine that fuels/facilitates it.

My Fi is all about depth, and my Ne is all about breadth, lateral thinking, analogous thinking.

But my Fi is something that has a base, and through life, and experience, grows, deeper, richer, and more complex, hahahaha, or simple.

Fi has a highly nuanced depth that strives for essentials, for simplicity, for core truths.

I digress...

Anyhow, I dunno.

I do think that you are on to something here.

But once again, I think/know/feel/believe that both my Ne and my Fi are inextricably connected.

 

[simulatedworld]

wow an INTJ wrote this go figure

 

[Zarathustra]

Just for you, Sim...

Just. For. You.

 

[redacted]

The introverted form of a function is by definition deeper than the extroverted version.

On the other hand, the introverted form is by definition more narrowly focused

Edit: whoa, how did my type get changed to INFP?

 

[Zarathustra]

My Fi is all about depth, and my Ne is all about breadth, lateral thinking, analogous thinking.

*

Anyhow, I dunno.

I do think that you are on to something here.

But once again, I think/know/feel/believe that both my Ne and my Fi are inextricably connected.

Well, actually, that's one of the things that I think is most interesting about this topic...

We all need depth and breadth, and, assuming the dominant model holds true, we all essentially have it -- just in different forms, combinations and extents.

 

[FDG]

Definitely true.

 

[uumlau]

Is Fi always kept to oneself?
Is Ti always kept to oneself?
Is Ni always kept to oneself?
Is Si always kept to oneself?

Strictly speaking, yes. It can be "expressed," but not "verbally."

I think that I share my Ni insights and my Fi feelings all the time.

No, you share translations of those thoughts. Actually sharing Ni would drive people bonkers. (Some INTJs actually try this on a regular basis and are quite bitter that no one understands them.)

I'm sure there's a pretentious Latin term for what kind of logical fallacy this is.

I dunno about this entire post...

I feel like you're trying to make the argument for why shallow is not worse than deep by making the depth of Xi seem more fraudulent than it is, and downplaying the shallowness of Xe by stating that it's simply for public consumption.

I think that there is a material difference between the depth of Xi and Xe functions.

Yes, you disagree with my premise. Disagreement isn't an argument.

Prima facie, the only difference between Xi and Xe is that Xi is introverted and Xe is extroverted, not that Xi is deep and Xe is shallow. Therefore, one should question why would people regard Xe as shallow and Xi as deep, when it's all just introversion/extroversion. Unless you just want to say "introverted == deep" and call an end to the discussion.

I don't believe I'm saying anything that's all that difficult to understand: extroverted functions are necessarily in the public playground. Everyone can readily observe the quality of others' extroverted functions, while the introverted functions are hidden close to the chest.

The virtue of an extroverted function, such as Te, is that while it isn't "personally" "deep", it has access to the shared knowledge of the group, which is often superior to one's own knowledge. Te can take several sets of ideas from several different sources, and compare and contrast and quickly figure out which set(s) have merit. Ti instead strives to develop one's own system of ideas, which is not directly shared with anyone else. In a way, this is "deep" in that, well, there really isn't any way to do this except build it all up in your own head. The "depth" is nothing more than saying that it is one's own personal understanding.

So unless you have some other concept of "deep" that isn't synonymous with "introverted," you're left with a circular argument.

 

[Kasper]

The introverted form of a function is by definition deeper than the extroverted version.

On the other hand, the introverted form is by definition more narrowly focused

Edit: whoa, how did my type get changed to INFP?

Exactly, deeper and narrower, but not stronger.

(left over from april fools, not gonna accuse you of having high S )

 

[Zarathustra]

Strictly speaking, yes. It can be "expressed," but not "verbally."

Possibly not expressed directly verbally, but it can be expressed via an extroverted function, which is some form of expression nonetheless.

No, you share translations of those thoughts. Actually sharing Ni would drive people bonkers. (Some INTJs actually try this on a regular basis and are quite bitter that no one understands them.)

Very true.

Same as I said above.

I'm sure there's a pretentious Latin term for what kind of logical fallacy this is.

Yes, you disagree with my premise. Disagreement isn't an argument.

Prima facie, the only difference between Xi and Xe is that Xi is introverted and Xe is extroverted, not that Xi is deep and Xe is shallow. Therefore, one should question why would people regard Xe as shallow and Xi as deep, when it's all just introversion/extroversion. Unless you just want to say "introverted == deep" and call an end to the discussion.

I don't believe I'm saying anything that's all that difficult to understand: extroverted functions are necessarily in the public playground. Everyone can readily observe the quality of others' extroverted functions, while the introverted functions are hidden close to the chest.

The virtue of an extroverted function, such as Te, is that while it isn't "personally" "deep", it has access to the shared knowledge of the group, which is often superior to one's own knowledge. Te can take several sets of ideas from several different sources, and compare and contrast and quickly figure out which set(s) have merit. Ti instead strives to develop one's own system of ideas, which is not directly shared with anyone else. In a way, this is "deep" in that, well, there really isn't any way to do this except build it all up in your own head. The "depth" is nothing more than saying that it is one's own personal understanding.

So unless you have some other concept of "deep" that isn't synonymous with "introverted," you're left with a circular argument.

I liked this part. Actually, I liked this whole post.

I certainly don't think it's circular logic, though.

I love your example of Ti and Te, cuz, well, it's the first time I can admit about myself that a function that's important to me is indeed less "deep" than its corresponding introverted function, and, thus, demonstrate that this argument isn't simply an Ni glory fest.

See, even "deeper" isn't a perfect word; I just think it's better than the word I started with originally, which was "powerful". I also think "robust" and "substantive", the two other words I've used, are helpful in pointing to what it is that I'm trying to express.

See, I have no doubt in my mind that, when it comes to what it is that T does, Ti is more something than Te, and it's not simply more introverted.

It's more robust, more substantive, and more powerful, all in some particular sense of those words.

That's not to say that Te can't be more useful, or even more powerful, in certain contexts, but that, well, there's just something about Ti that is more something-other-than-simply-introversion than Te.

And I believe the same holds for all other functions: Ni over Ne, Fi over Fe, and Si over Se.

The Xi functions all seem to be more deep, substantive, robust, powerful, thorough, and focused than their Xe counterparts...

 

[Andy]

If I had to insert one word into the space in the title, I think that it would be "contemplative". And if the title had asked what extroverted functions were more of, I would go for "pragmatic". Mind you, these statements are about as much use as any one word summary of a complex issue. I mean, Ne is probably more explorative than pragmatic, for a start. Se is experimental.

Certainly, I wouldn't say that either type is intrinsically superior to another. I need my Te. Without it, I wouldn't be able to cope with the world. All my knowledge and insights would be useless, because I wouldn't have any means of sending them into the world. I's be stuck in an Ni-Fi loops, lost in world of self contemplation as I slowly gather dust and become increasingly irrelivant. In fact, I need my Se as well, for what is the value of living without experiencing life? Pitty it's so hard to get a grip on.

 

[sculpting]

Ne is my processing machine, Fi is my soul.

So, I guess you can say my Fi soul is "deeper" than the Ne processing machine that fuels/facilitates it.

My Fi is all about depth, and my Ne is all about breadth, lateral thinking, analogous thinking.

But my Fi is something that has a base, and through life, and experience, grows, deeper, richer, and more complex, hahahaha, or simple.

Fi has a highly nuanced depth that strives for essentials, for simplicity, for core truths.

The Xi functions all seem to be more deep, substantive, robust, powerful, thorough, and focused than their Xe counterparts...

you know Z for some reason this topic bugs me. In a personal way, so please forgive the potential deviation from logic. You are using very positive words above to describe Xi relative to Xe.

It almost points towards dom Xi as always being more powerful than dom Xe-your original wording I might add. (Aux Te doesnt throw things out willy-nilly, I kinda think you really meant powerful.)

But then the counter suggestion was made that aux Xi gives depth. But aux will never have the depth that a dom will have. No ENFP will ever have the refinement in use of Fi that an INFP will have. Thus an extrovert will always be inferior to an introvert it terms of power? You kinda see the oddness here? You dont say it directly...but yeah. In spite of the logical arguments, the tone conveys the implication.

Ne is my processing machine, Fi is my soul.

So, I guess you can say my Fi soul is "deeper" than the Ne processing machine that fuels/facilitates it.

My Fi is all about depth, and my Ne is all about breadth, lateral thinking, analogous thinking.

But my Fi is something that has a base, and through life, and experience, grows, deeper, richer, and more complex, hahahaha, or simple.

Fi has a highly nuanced depth that strives for essentials, for simplicity, for core truths.

For me Ne is Everything. When I think of where my personality is seated, I sit on the very edge of Ne, an endless vista looking out onto everything. It endlessly connects. Ne is self defining for me. I claim it as my soul.

When I took my mbti certification class the instructor made us draw a room decsribing out personality. I drew a massive window looking out upon an ocean, covered in vines. The picture began at the window itself, teetering on the edge of falling out.

I "think/feel" with Ne. I suppose Fi has a set of core truths-as of late far more developed than I originally thought, albeit quite odd core truths. Te has a set of objective, external observables, a whole library of them stored away for comparison.

By being "seated" in Ne, I can step away from Fi/Te and observe, compare, contrast, see every side of an argument, then try to perceive a perspective very different from my own base, dare I say meta cognition of some sort? I dunno...

yeah Ne is my soul ...

 

[sculpting]

Holy shit. I love Ne....!!!!!!

Where are the entps when I need them.....*sigh* sprinkles out bird seed.....

 

[Asterion]

Holy shit. I love Ne....!!!!!!

Where are the entps when I need them.....*sigh* sprinkles out bird seed.....

bird seeds lure ENFPs, to get ENTPs you need high powered electromagnets I think

Think back to the looney tunes: Road Runner vs Coyote