Introverted functions are more ________ than their extroverted counterparts

[Zarathustra]

^ are you saying you lack sufficient insight and reflective depth in order to do so? Lack ... a certain cognitive power, perhaps? (ooooooh)

Consider it a personal challenge ... can you define both without negating either?

Edit: and please don't over-edit your posts after I read them; I can't adequately respond. Challenge still stands.

I'm saying there's no point.

Why would I want to bend something into some formulation that is not in accord with reality?

No offense, PB, but your point is futile.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ Well, that's your POV, isn't it? That's just one reality.

 

[Zarathustra]

Furthermore, sometimes viewing one object from the inherently partial perspective of another object is just as, if not more, important than simply trying to view the former through some supposedly neutral, impartial perspective.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ Well, that's your POV, isn't it? That's just one reality.

No.

This is reality reality.

This is the law of the jungle reality, not the chocolate rivers and rainbow sprinkles reality of one Miss PeaceBaby.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You know, we aren't in opposition, we are just at right angles to each other. I am asking - can you say what you believe without negating 60-70% of the population that leads with an extroverted function?

You can't, can you?

Edit: I am going to start quoting every post if you don't stop editing them after I read them!

 

[Zarathustra]

You know, we aren't in opposition, we are just at right angles to each other. I am asking - can you say what you believe without negating 60-70% of the population that leads with an extroverted function?

You can't, can you?

I already have.

Their lead function is more fit for making things more easily consumable in a public setting, sharing its object of focus with others, and translating the deeper insights of its corollary Xi function(s) with the world.

They're also, in my current opinion, quicker at processing their information and better at regularly engaging in broader contexts than their introverted counterparts.

If we wanted to start a thread called "The extroverted functions are more _________ than their introverted counterparts" we could, and we would likely end up saying things like: able to quickly process information, broad, ready for public consumption, and more.

Hell, start the thread!

The ideas have been kicked around a bit in this one, but the focus of this thread, as clearly implied by the title, was meant to be about which qualities the Xi functions have more of than the Xe functions.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Well, I was simply disappointed that the best you could come up with was that they (introverted functions) were superior, because that IS the gist of what you've said.

I was hoping for more ... alas, I leave the thread empty-handed.

 

[Zarathustra]

Edit: I am going to start quoting every post if you don't stop editing them after I read them!

Hey! You (admittedly) do the same thing!

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, I was simply disappointed that the best you could come up with was that they (introverted functions) were superior, because that IS the gist of what you've said.

I was hoping for more ... alas, I leave the thread empty-handed.

Superior only in a certain regard:

Depth, thoroughness, robustness, etc.

Introverted functions are superior in another regard:

Breadth, availability, ease of public consumption, etc.

Is that good enough? I've been willing to say this the whole time?

I will not, however, stoop to saying that they are equal (in all regards).

 

[PeaceBaby]

Hey! You (admittedly) do the same thing!

I do edit posts, but generally not in this kind of situation, when we are going back and forth rather rapidly.

I don't want you to say they are the same, do the same things. Your wording is just so black & white. It's this or it's that. I hear you saying they are almost the flip-sides of the same coin. I am saying - are they the same coin? Is that really true or fair? Are they separate coins?

 

[Zarathustra]

I hear you saying they are almost the flip-sides of the same coin. I am saying - are they they same coin? Is that really true or fair? Are they separate coins?

Now I (admittedly) have no idea what you're talking about...

 

[PeaceBaby]

I know ...

You say - Xi is deep therefore Xe is not as deep, even shallow
Xi is robust therefore Xe is weak, soft ...
Xi is thorough therefore Xe will always be somewhat incomplete ...
Xi is more substantive therefore Xe is somehow fake, facetious

Do you see what I mean? Flip-side of the same coin?

I am suggesting perhaps they are different coins, minted with similar material to be recognizable to each other, but different. Independent.

What do you think?

 

[Zarathustra]

Do you see what I mean? Flip-side of the same coin?

Yeah, I got you now.

What do you think?

I disagree.

You're just trying to satisfy your desire for total equality by pushing your attention away from the ways in which each are superior to the other.

You say - Xi is deeper therefore Xe is not as deep, even shallow...
Xi is more robust therefore Xe is weak, soft less robust...
Xi is more thorough therefore Xe will always be somewhat incomplete is less thorough...
Xi is more substantive therefore Xe is somehow fake, facetious less subtantive...

Corrections made.

Also, remember, this is assuming all else is equal, which is not the case in many circumstances.

I am suggesting perhaps they are different coins, minted with similar material to be recognizable to each other, but different. Independent.

Why contort reality in this way?

(a desire to make all things equal, due to being raised in a society dominated by Lockean principles and misguided Nietzschean relativity)

According to the theory, there are four functions (N,S,T,F), and each has two attitudes (i/e).

Hence, Xi and Xe are two sides to the same coin (i.e., function).

And where one is superior the other is inferior.

And each has its particular ways in which it is inferior and superior.

 

[sculpting]

No.

This is reality reality.

This is the law of the jungle reality, not the chocolate rivers and rainbow sprinkles reality of one Miss PeaceBaby.

Te reality does not equal Fe reality. This is likely the greatest unrealized weakness of the INTJ.

I do edit posts, but generally not in this kind of situation, when we are going back and forth rather rapidly.

I don't want you to say they are the same, do the same things. Your wording is just so black & white. It's this or it's that. I hear you saying they are almost the flip-sides of the same coin. I am saying - are they the same coin? Is that really true or fair? Are they separate coins?

Now I (admittedly) have no idea what you're talking about...

PB you are onto something here-they are very different coins. I would argue that Ti and Fi are much more alike than Te and Fe. There are Ne patterns I see in Ti and Fi that are amazingly similar in how they function. Z, You are correct in depth perhaps for the purposes of the thread-but perhaps the thread is not so useful in what it is trying to compare? Intellectual explorations are always of value though, it just may be we have gone off on a tangent of sorts trying to compare apples to oranges and see the resulting confusion. (plus you made all the Xe doms turn into pokey puffer fishes- "POOF")

As for my earlier question regarding dom Xi vs Aux Xi. It will be an exceptionally rare and and, I would suggest even unhealthy, ENFP that develops Fi to the extent an INFP does. I will continue to develop Fi my entire life-but it will never be used to the skill level of PB or Udog. (Albeit I learn much from them and find them very wise.)

Aux Fi will always be slightly more unrefined and even childlike in its deployment as compared to the Dom Fi. As PB has noted before-enfps can sort of pop off at the mouth with a value judgment that, due to that Ne, has not been well thought through, and thus externalize a judgment in haste innappropriatly.

Even at the level we are at, ENFPs do this all the time and can be quite rude. As we continue to refine those Fi rules, they will become more crystalline, more refined, more-prickly-dare I say? Thus if we continue to use Ne and "think aloud" in an extroverted manner and share our Fi judgments-well this could be sorta obnoxious to those around us. I mean, I dunno...it just seems problematic....a thought I have been ruminating on outside of this thread already.

I revived an old thread "How much Fi do you use" and it looks as though a bunch of the companions to this are floating around now as well. It might be very interesting to observe the facets in those threads and observe how Xi doms vs Xi auxs fare. (Sorry I ne'd on your thread, didnt I?)

one last note-as you chatted with PB-I noticed you incorporated "babe" and called teslashock "sim's lady friend". I think you may mean this as a way to soften the tone of a critique, which is kind of you, but I would suggest caution, as after being in science and corporate america for fifteen years, gender specific words kinda come across as demeaning. As women we can stand on our own. Again, my apologies as I think you meant well, it just sounded a little funny.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Z: People get uppity about wording (Ti). I like to throw out words quickly just to get the gist out of what I am saying (Te), but I've learned around here that it doesn't pay to do that because you spend way more time fixing damaged conceptions about what you were really trying to say, than you would have spent considering your word choices early on. I agree with you that Xi and Xe functions are inherently and fundamentally different, but I'm not sure about better/worse comparisons. As others have said, it's all about what you are trying to do.

There is a reason 70+% of people are extraverted. It takes so long to evolve that it's not a recent phenomenon that people are extraverted; it must have been needed in our past, perhaps for collective group thinking or tribal living, etc. As we move more into an individual and cyber type of living, where we are connecting through our computers, introversion might, over time, become selected for and indeed become more of the norm. Perhaps, if we look closely enough, we can see the purpose in that, which leads to questions of "why do we need so much extraversion?"

I think the word "substantive" is not very apt for describing introverted functions because it's become infused with conflicting meanings over the years from its original Latin root. I like

"deep"
"focused"
"exacting"
"deliberate"
"exponential"

Especially exponential when another Xi function is paired with it, allowing it to go deeper than it would normally go tethered to an Xe function. Introverted functions are not merely mirror copies of extraverted functions because once they are mired in the mind, there are millions of pathways they can take, never necessarily arriving at the same place twice.

Xe is the same except in a worldly way, an infinite number of possibilities likely. It spreads out and encompasses more, but in a swifter way, which makes it more difficult to dive deep. I like the words

"broad"
"all encompassing"
"sharp"
"swift"
"infinite"

I think it's enlightening to look at function pairs and the differences they seem to command. There even seems to be some correlation with function pairs and type of achievement. If introverted functions were superior wouldn't they be able to just work on their own? And remember, Jung called dominant introverted irrationals basically worthless. Why? Because what do we achieve in large numbers for the greater society? Not much overall. Perhaps that will change as our world become more cyber linked, but it's a perfect example of having different ideas of what it means to be "successful" or "useful."

If you consider a mind meld, which is the interwebz, or even all of us in this here forum, we are like a web, interconnected. We each all touch others outside of us-outside our computers. That is an Ne network in infinitesimal opportunity. It seems like we are using an introverted function Ni to do this because perhaps one person at a computer represents Ni, but put together we represent Ne. Without Ne, what would the internet be? How would it exist? Perhaps that model would look like an intra organizational system, unable to go out of its own network.

Same with Ti/Te. Yes, some of the greatest thinkers have utilized Ti, and it gets shit figured out, but without Te to broadcast that data, and have it spread to the masses, where would we be? There would just a be a bunch of smart guys with brilliance in their own heads, and no way to disseminate that information. What's more brilliant? An original thinker, or one who can take an idea and change the world with it? (intp or entj?)

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 ...

I love this. I feel like this about my Ni (the bolded). I think it's especially interesting how you used descriptions of your dominant irrational function as if it were a 'judging' function. That is also how I feel about my Ni. Yes, Fe and Te for me can "judge" if hard-pressed, but Ni is truly the "gatekeeper" and responsible for what goes in and what goes out, whereas usually Fe and Te just gather data for it to use.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Corrections made.

I don't agree with your corrections. By saying what something is, by doing so you are saying what it is not. It becomes less palatable to present it that way though, doesn't it?

(a desire to make all things equal, due to being raised in a society dominated by Lockean principles and misguided Nietzschean relativity)

INTJ obfuscation there folks ...

According to the theory, there are four functions (N,S,T,F), and each has two attitudes (i/e).

Hence, Xi and Xe are two sides to the same coin (i.e., function).

And where one is superior the other is inferior.

And each has its particular ways in which it is inferior and superior.

Well, I don't disagree per se, I just think there's nothing there that says it has to be the same coin, fused.

> > Even identical twins don't like being called the same.

Even at the level we are at, ENFPs do this all the time and can be quite rude. As we continue to refine those Fi rules, they will become more crystalline, more refined, more-prickly-dare I say? Thus if we continue to use Ne and "think aloud" in an extroverted manner and share our Fi judgments-well this could be sorta obnoxious to those around us. I mean, I dunno...it just seems problematic....a thought I have been ruminating on outside of this thread already.

They'll become more soft, more accepting, more wise - yet rooted, even more firmly. An apparent contradiction.

Xi ... I like

"deep"
"focused"
"exacting"
"deliberate"
"exponential"

Xe ... I like the words

"broad"
"all encompassing"
"sharp"
"swift"
"infinitesimal"

I like those words too; they provide understanding without negating each other's perspective.

I hear what you are saying Z; that you feel this is some sort of sugar-coating of reality on my part, and the world is a hard place where you shouldn't be afraid to say one thing is good and another bad, superior vs inferior. I just don't think this is one of those times where it's necessary in order to facilitate discussion or understanding.

If you consider a mind meld, which is the interwebz, or even all of us in this here forum, we are like a web, interconnected. We each all touch others outside of us-outside our computers. That is an Ne network in infinitesimal opportunity. It seems like we are using an introverted function Ni to do this because perhaps one person at a computer represents Ni, but put together we represent Ne. Without Ne, what would the internet be? How would it exist? Perhaps that model would look like an intra organizational system, unable to go out of its own network.

Very nice aphrodite!

 

[Zarathustra]

I hear what you are saying Z; that you feel this is some sort of sugar-coating of reality on my part, and the world is a hard place where you shouldn't be afraid to say one thing is good and another bad, superior vs inferior. I just don't think this is one of those times where it's necessary in order to facilitate discussion or understanding.

Well... when do you?

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ I called you arrogant the other day, does that count?

 

[Zarathustra]

Te reality does not equal Fe reality. This is likely the greatest unrealized weakness of the INTJ.

I was talking about objective reality.

Not the subjective "reality" of each of our minds.

Hence, law of the jungle: the reality of the harsh, cruel natural world.

An Fe (or Te) user can think whatever they want about the nature of the world, but when they find themselves standing alone in the middle of an African savannah and a starving pack of hyenas just happens to stroll along their way, they will clearly learn that, whatever their opinions about the ultimate nature of reality, that supposed nature becomes immediately subservient to the law of the jungle.

PB you are onto something here-they are very different coins. I would argue that Ti and Fi are much more alike than Te and Fe. There are Ne patterns I see in Ti and Fi that are amazingly similar in how they function.

Ti and Fi more alike than Te and Fe?

I mean, I agree that there are similarities between Ti and Fi, but if you want to be making a comparison that's relevant to this thread, you need to argue that Ti and Fi are more similar than Ti and Te...

Tesla has attempted to make essentially this same argument about Ni and Si vs. Ni and Ne, but, at least in my opinion, trying to say that one is more similar or less similar ultimately fails, as each is more similar and less similar in a particular regard. The difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

Z, You are correct in depth perhaps for the purposes of the thread-but perhaps the thread is not so useful in what it is trying to compare? Intellectual explorations are always of value though, it just may be we have gone off on a tangent of sorts trying to compare apples to oranges and see the resulting confusion. (plus you made all the Xe doms turn into pokey puffer fishes- "POOF")

I don't know.

I feel the thread has very much accomplished its purpose.

And Xe doms (or Xi doms, for that matter) don't need to feel... honestly, I have no idea what pokey puffer fishes feel like... but, however it is that they feel about this thread, if it's caused by what this thread has ultimately determined, that in certain ways, all other things being equal, that introverted functions are superior to extroverted functions (i.e., depth, robustness, etc.), and that, in other ways, all other things being equal, extroverted functions are superior to introverted functions (i.e., speed, breadth, availability, etc.), maybe they should just take that feeling and learn from it.

Maybe it will help them realize that they should seek a better balance of introversion and extroversion in their lives, so as to have more breadth and depth to their personality.

That's what a nobler, stronger-willed person would do...

If someone just wants to sit around and whine that their dominant function is, all other things being equal, less deep or broad than its opposite-oriented counterpart, well, I don't really have pity for them. That's their weak-willed choice.

As for my earlier question regarding dom Xi vs Aux Xi. It will be an exceptionally rare and and, I would suggest even unhealthy, ENFP that develops Fi to the extent an INFP does. I will continue to develop Fi my entire life-but it will never be used to the skill level of PB or Udog. (Albeit I learn much from them and find them very wise.)

Aux Fi will always be slightly more unrefined and even childlike in its deployment as compared to the Dom Fi. As PB has noted before-enfps can sort of pop off at the mouth with a value judgment that, due to that Ne, has not been well thought through, and thus externalize a judgment in haste innappropriately.

Even at the level we are at, ENFPs do this all the time and can be quite rude. As we continue to refine those Fi rules, they will become more crystalline, more refined, more-prickly-dare I say? Thus if we continue to use Ne and "think aloud" in an extroverted manner and share our Fi judgments-well this could be sorta obnoxious to those around us. I mean, I dunno...it just seems problematic....a thought I have been ruminating on outside of this thread already.

Just think of the most mature ENFP, particularly with regards to his or her Fi use, and the least mature INFP.

I would assume the mature ENFP would have better use of his or her Fi than the immature INFP would.

That was my point. And I think it stands.

one last note-as you chatted with PB-I noticed you incorporated "babe" and called ________ "sim's lady friend". I think you may mean this as a way to soften the tone of a critique, which is kind of you, but I would suggest caution, as after being in science and corporate america for fifteen years, gender specific words kinda come across as demeaning. As women we can stand on our own. Again, my apologies as I think you meant well, it just sounded a little funny.

The first was in reference to her name, and, well, I didn't mention the name of said lady friend intentionally.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Hence, law of the jungle: the reality of the harsh, cruel natural world.

So you think you see this law in truest form?

Maybe it will help them realize that they should seek a better balance of introversion and extroversion in the lives, so as to have both more breadth and depth to their personality.

Good advice for all.

PS you have a double post above; suggest you delete the one you haven't been editing.