Introversion vs. Extraversion video

[Stansmith]

A decent one, actually. Jung is mentioned, focuses on the cognitive aspect of it; how an introverted process can be expressed externally and an extroverted process through one's thoughts or inner world. What do you think?

 

[Agnes]

It is confusing cause it seems that all extroverts then use dominantly sensing and all introverts intuition that ain't right

 

[Stansmith]

It is confusing cause it seems that all extroverts then use dominantly sensing and all introverts intuition that ain't right

Yeah, that stood out to me a bit. Although the one about stopping pollution (6:35) could be Ne.

 

[uumlau]

It is confusing cause it seems that all extroverts then use dominantly sensing and all introverts intuition that ain't right

The examples are poor. I was seeing more Si introversion than Ni introversion, in the examples, in that her examples involved taking concrete things in the outer world and matching them with a concrete ideal in the inner world. The examples are necessarily concrete, because it's easy to explain concrete things in a simple way than abstract ideas in a simple way.

She misses one key aspect of extroversion vs introversion, in particular because she's stuck using concrete examples. EEG studies have been done showing people a movie screen. Sometimes the screen has something on it, and sometimes it doesn't. The extroverts react to the screen when something is on it, but their EEG goes blank when the screen goes blank. Introverts also react to the screen when something is on it, but when the screen goes blank, their EEG is still showing the introvert processing things in absence of an object to relate to.

In short, extroverted types require an external thing to relate to, while introverted types have no such requirement, and might even wish to avoid interacting with external things. As the video correctly points out, Jung noted that introversion/extroversion relates to particular functions, and isn't really an overall attitude about everything.

In particular, Se and Fe are stereotypical kinds of extroversion, as they're closely related to excitement/drama/parties (Se) or focusing on interacting with other people (Fe). Ne and Te are the more subtle kinds of extroversion. Ne is extroverted about ideas: the external world is necessary to generate ideas for Ne, whereas Ni needs no external stimulus to get its stereotypical "ah ha!" Similarly, Te is extroverted about organizing the external world. This might involve interacting with people, but isn't so much concerned with relating to people (Fe), but is more interested in organizing things, and organizing people is a subset of organizing things in general. So an ENTJ, for example, might be apparently outgoing and interact with people a lot, and correctly be classified as an extrovert, but an ENTJ could also instead by the guy who works late hours at the office with no one else around in order to get the Te-style business done without the distractions of dealing with people. An ENTP or ENFP, on the other hand, might seem to be bookish and nerdy and not want to interact with people, but that's because books have something to say about ideas (Ne), and unless the people they're interacting with are fairly bright, there are no interesting ideas being generated that would interest Ne.

So how do introversion and extroversion balance out? Let's use INTJ and ENTJ as an example. ENTJs, with Te dominant, need to interact with the outer world, primarily. They're perfectly capable of reflection, and do so in an Ni-ish way, but this is secondary, as a balance, to help solve the problems that charging in with Te doesn't solve right away. Conversely, for an INTJ, with Ni dominant, self-reflection on ideas is primary, with no overwhelming need to act upon those ideas. Te in an INTJ balances this out, as eventually, any idea, to be truly valuable, should be executed in the real world and produce results. INTJs that are actually executing their ideas can appear as direct and blunt as any ENTJ, the main difference being that the INTJ spent a lot more time thinking about doing it, while the ENTJ will go and just do it as long as it seems reasonable and moves things forward.

 

[Agnes]

In short, extroverted types require an external thing to relate to, while introverted types have no such requirement, and might even wish to avoid interacting with external things. As the video correctly points out, Jung noted that introversion/extroversion relates to particular functions, and isn't really an overall attitude about everything.

I think the only problem with I vs E is that I is underrated as E is generally considered to be a better trait.

As the video correctly points out, Jung noted that introversion/extroversion relates to particular functions, and isn't really an overall attitude about everything.

I mean, let's face it, we all know what is E and what I. I may spent whole week being by myself and want to get away from people, but that might happen cause they've hurt me or I got too carried away but that actually isn't where I want to be, but I know it's for my own good. Introvert get away cause he needs to, I feels drained from people and needs to recharge. E gets charged by interaction, completely the opposite. E needs people. I could stand loneliness better than E. Introvert may have problems interacting with others and less with himself. E won't have a problem interacting with others but will with himself. E will usually understand people better than himself and I the opposite. Cause E is focused outside (people) and I inside (self). E being explained as focus on things rather than people is bull to me; that ain't E. E and I can focus on things equally.

For me, in MBTI Te explanations are a little stupid. Like, what is the difference between Te and J? I only see a little. I read many ENTJs posts acting like they don't care for anyone and that they are 'the boss'. E will always value people cause they excite them on daily basis. Introvert will care for ones close to them and not so much for people in general. Also E will much more easily express anything than I. I may not like to show emotion in business world cause I don't think that is a place for it. But with love relationships I have no problem expressing my emotions. For E is natural to open, for I not so much. Introvert can open but it needs more time. E have no problem opening cause E can handle outside world, I will have more difficulties with that. Me 'caring' for people doesn't mean I let anything slide. I do find justice more important. That makes me T over F, I guess. But it doesn't mean I don't care for others in my own way. While valuing justice I don't want to act toward others the way I don't want others to act towards me. But the problem is that all that is individual. My sister INTJ is different. I think she may consider herself e.g. smarter than some people therefore in her eyes she is more important. That can lead T to be egoistic. Also experience is a key factor too. I may have a temperament of 'a leader' but with 5 years old I cannot have it all my way; unless I get spoiled. In the time of my parents tyranny I learned a lot how to manage in world. And to more appreciate things I didn't primarily understand.

 

[uumlau]

I think the only problem with I vs E is that I is underrated as E is generally considered to be a better trait.

There's a great book on the topic: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking: Susan Cain: 9780307352156: Amazon.com: Books

I mean, let's face it, we all know what is E and what I. I may spent whole week being by myself and want to get away from people, but that might happen cause they've hurt me or I got too carried away but that actually isn't where I want to be, but I know it's for my own good. Introvert get away cause he needs to, I feels drained from people and needs to recharge. E gets charged by interaction, completely the opposite. E needs people. I could stand loneliness better than E. Introvert may have problems interacting with others and less with himself. E won't have a problem interacting with others but will with himself. E will usually understand people better than himself and I the opposite. Cause E is focused outside (people) and I inside (self). E being explained as focus on things rather than people is bull to me; that ain't E. E and I can focus on things equally.

I think you're missing some of the subtleties, here.

E vs I isn't about "people" vs "self", but "object" vs "subject". The "people" vs "self" or "social" vs "antisocial" version roughly correlates with what Jung meant, but it's off by just enough to cause some serious misunderstanding. I did once subscribe to the belief you espouse, that introverts gain energy by being alone, and extroverts gain energy by being with others, and that is certainly a valid definition of those two terms, but that isn't what MBTI or Jung are talking about, that's just the popularization of Jung's original idea. (He coined the words "introversion" and "extroversion", so his opinion should carry some weight, here! )

Why should this make a difference to you? Because MBTI is about cognitive processes, i.e., "how you think". It's not about how you react, or what makes you happy, or how you spend your time. Extroversion specifically means that in order to really engage in thought, extroverts need that outside stimulation. More specifically, they think in terms of those external things/people/ideas. This affects their overall approach to everything, as there is always a relationship between their thoughts and the world around them.

For me, in MBTI Te explanations are a little stupid.

A lot of the function explanations are stupid. If you think the Te ones are stupid, you haven't paid much attention to the Ni threads floating around the MBTI forums.

I definitely see Te in you. The fact that you just say "Te explanations are a little stupid" is typical of Te. It's a clear, short, direct statement of your opinion. There isn't a lot of elaboration, just a quick judgment, and then moving on. That's entirely Te style thought patterns.

Like, what is the difference between Te and J? I only see a little.

Well, that's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison ... or perhaps apples and pictures of apples comparison. Te in dom/aux position is J. Period. The reverse isn't true, because J can also be Fe. You can think of "J" as what is common between Te and Fe. They tend to be clear, direct, and succinct. The difference is that Fe thinks in terms of what is or is not "acceptable" to oneself; this is also sometimes called "values", while Te thinks more in "objective" terms, e.g., whether a plan "works" is more important than whether the plan makes people happy. So Te and Fe have very similar approaches, but very different priorities.

I read many ENTJs posts acting like they don't care for anyone and that they are 'the boss'. E will always value people cause they excite them on daily basis.

There are plenty of extroverts who really aren't that fond of dealing with people, but obviously have that extroverted energy that focuses on the external world. Perhaps you haven't met such people, or you have, and you just assumed they were introverted.

Introvert will care for ones close to them and not so much for people in general.

This isn't type-related. You also just insulted a bunch of IxFx types who care about humanity and the world in general.

Also E will much more easily express anything than I. I may not like to show emotion in business world cause I don't think that is a place for it. But with love relationships I have no problem expressing my emotions.

I've no problem expressing my emotions in love relationships, either, and I'm an INTJ. You're not talking about type-related stuff.

Interestingly, being able to handle emotional issues in the workplace is a valuable skill. Unhappy workers tend not to be very productive.

For E is natural to open, for I not so much.

Yes, but open what? It's function-dependent. There is a treasure-trove of information, here, where you can quickly see how even introverts are "extroverted" about some things, where they just seem to come alive, and how even extroverts hide particular parts of themselves very carefully. INTJs look like they hide themselves, while ENFPs are oh, so very open, but INTJs are very assertive about their ideas, and present them in forceful Te terms. ENFPs on the other hand often appear to be very emotional and excitable, but that just their Ne - they keep their true feelings/values/opinions/identity (Fi) hidden behind the Ne smokescreen of ideas. Don't believe me? Go ask them yourself: there's plenty on this forum, and plenty of existing ENFP threads to research.

Introvert can open but it needs more time. E have no problem opening cause E can handle outside world, I will have more difficulties with that. Me 'caring' for people doesn't mean I let anything slide. I do find justice more important. That makes me T over F, I guess.

Actually, that depends on your definition of "justice". "Justice" can be a very Fe-style value.

But it doesn't mean I don't care for others in my own way. While valuing justice I don't want to act toward others the way I don't want others to act towards me. But the problem is that all that is individual. My sister INTJ is different. I think she may consider herself e.g. smarter than some people therefore in her eyes she is more important. That can lead T to be egoistic. Also experience is a key factor too. I may have a temperament of 'a leader' but with 5 years old I cannot have it all my way; unless I get spoiled. In the time of my parents tyranny I learned a lot how to manage in world. And to more appreciate things I didn't primarily understand.

I think you're just beginning to learn, and would very much encourage you to look for the subtleties. How do you know there's a subtlety? Because your instinctive reaction is that the things others are talking about "are a little stupid" to you. Isn't it obvious to everyone that an apple is an apple is an apple? What's this bull about Granny Smith and Macintosh? They're just apples.

They aren't all just apples, is what I'm saying. There's knowledge that you can dig through and find things that are so deep, you cannot even put them into words, that you just need to see and experience to understand, just as I cannot explain the difference between apples to you, except by giving them to you to taste.

 

[Agnes]

E vs I isn't about "people" vs "self", but "object" vs "subject". The "people" vs "self" or "social" vs "antisocial"

I was aware that this statements don’t give justice I vs E but I said them as rough edges since that is not something that can be explained completely verbally.

version roughly correlates with what Jung meant, but it's off by just enough to cause some serious misunderstanding.

I am aware that there can be I vs E very close in someone, but I am not interested (at least not now) in that refined discussion, since I am clear case of E.

Extroversion specifically means that in order to really engage in thought, extroverts need that outside stimulation. More specifically, they think in terms of those external things/people/ideas. This affects their overall approach to everything, as there is always a relationship between their thoughts and the world around them.

I as Extrovert, don’t really agree with this. I have also Ni where I can imagine endless fantasies only in my head. And besides our character I don’t see anything else that could just come only from within me (explain this to me?). Everything comes from outside stimulation for everyone in a way; you’re just more or less aware of it. An invention is something entirely new but inspired by what already is there. I mean if what you’re getting at is that somebody e.g. got an idea of phone when there were no phones; even that idea came from outside stimulation. People talk so idea was that people can talk when they’re not near. Still a part of stimulation came from outside: people talking and objective to bear - distance.

A lot of the function explanations are stupid. If you think the Te ones are stupid, you haven't paid much attention to the Ni threads floating around the MBTI forums.

I actually saw them

I definitely see Te in you. The fact that you just say "Te explanations are a little stupid" is typical of Te. It's a clear, short, direct statement of your opinion. There isn't a lot of elaboration, just a quick judgment, and then moving on. That's entirely Te style thought patterns.

I would appriciate if you could state your opinion on Te vs Fe. Since I find T vs F biggest issue for myself personally. Maybe we should take this to visitor messages?

Te in dom/aux position is J. Period. The reverse isn't true, because J can also be Fe. You can think of "J" as what is common between Te and Fe. They tend to be clear, direct, and succinct.

I am also aware that there are FJ types but what I was getting at by J vs Te comparison is that their explanations sound similar to me.

The difference is that Fe thinks in terms of what is or is not "acceptable" to oneself; this is also sometimes called "values", while Te thinks more in "objective" terms, e.g., whether a plan "works" is more important than whether the plan makes people happy. So Te and Fe have very similar approaches, but very different priorities.

You scolded me for giving rough explanations of E and I, but you gave me rough ones of T vs F. I am aware of that “objective” vs “value” but it doesn't help me much, since those 2 are near for me.

There are plenty of extroverts who really aren't that fond of dealing with people, but obviously have that extroverted energy that focuses on the external world. Perhaps you haven't met such people, or you have, and you just assumed they were introverted.

I never said that those people aren't for sure ENTJs. That might be one option and the other is an unhealthy version of that type for me. But I do disagree with you about extroverted energy focused on external world. What that even means? I can see Se (experiencing world physically) and Fe (connecting to others), but where is Te here??
Making external structure? J does that too for me, so do explain. I cannot help it, since I’m such a clear case of E, I cannot consider extroverts those who only focus on external structure. Whatever Jung says. Maybe bad Te explanations are the main problem here

This isn't type-related. You also just insulted a bunch of IxFx types who care about humanity and the world in general.

I agree, I even thought this ain't right since I have INFJ mom but hey, couldn't really concentrate that much anymore, so I left it, what the hell. I do apologize to those denied ones. I know what I wanted to say but I made poor choice of words. Since English isn't my mother tongue, give me credit here. Have it in mind for my other maybe confusing statements too

I've no problem expressing my emotions in love relationships, either, and I'm an INTJ. You're not talking about type-related stuff.

Again, let me explain. As I said somewhere in my previous post that Introvert would possibly need more time, not that it has a problem with expressing emotions. But I agree this is maybe little stretched.

Interestingly, being able to handle emotional issues in the workplace is a valuable skill. Unhappy workers tend not to be very productive.

I said I don’t like to be emotional in workplace, not that I cannot handle emotional people in workplace if that kind of situation occurs; because I can. But I find emotions at work ridiculous. There might be extreme exceptions where it’s understandable, but that is rare case to me.

Yes, but open what? It's function-dependent. There is a treasure-trove of information, here, where you can quickly see how even introverts are "extroverted" about some things, where they just seem to come alive, and how even extroverts hide particular parts of themselves very carefully.

This is where I use my N and therefore whatever Jung says I will not simply accept cause he supposingly said it. “Is can be E sometimes” but that do not make them E generally. I do hide a part of me, sure you cannot be ‘out’ all the time, you would go mad. I do feel sometimes like I get carried away too much. But considering cognitive functions I can very much relate to Te and Fe as both very high for me. I have high Se too. Very strong E. But I think I’m definitely Ni, not Ne. I have high Fi too.

Don't believe me? Go ask them yourself: there's plenty on this forum, and plenty of existing ENFP threads to research.

Lol you're funny. I get this, I believe you and know that already. But I do not consider introvert opened about something to be so extroverted. But I may be too harsh on this subject since I’m strong E. In my experience and opinion Is are most opened with few people they are very close with. So Te in introvert ain't that significant to me, their introversion still dominates in general. Sure there may be cases where I and E are in close range for someone so there would be high E.
Btw someone will consider talking to people on forums as form of E; that is to me such a low form of E that isn't even worth mentioning.

Actually, that depends on your definition of "justice". "Justice" can be a very Fe-style value.

??? I usually read that justice vs mercy would usually be T vs F ??? I get justice can be used by T and F but I don’t think it’s more Fe style.

I think you're just beginning to learn, and would very much encourage you to look for the subtleties.

I get that, but I cannot express it verbally since I wouldn't have an argument. I would only be able to say I feel that way/my N tells me, so…

I know what were you saying about considering Te, Fe, Se, Ne rather than just E, but here is my gut feeling; I am stubborn. I don’t agree with that Jung's philosophy bull, but more with popularized opinion.

To sum it up for I vs T, I could say that most distinctive explanation for me is that E has more energy than I. Es are very excited, very talkative, very expressive. Is are more calm and collected. These are their primal states; not saying that Is cannot be talkative or Es calm.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

She's discussing the idea that introverted processes can be expressed outwardly and extroverted processes can be expressed inwardly. She's stripping it down to whether your thoughts/words are forming around the external environment or around an inner concept. It doesn't matter if these are articulated aloud, or kept within--the point is that it involves the outer or inner world. That's ALL she's saying in this clip--she's only got 10 minutes to explain one simple concept.

For those who thought she had bad examples, I think this is what she intended:

"Wow! What a sunset! Don't you just feel like you're a part of the universe at times like this? Huh? Doncha?"
This is Se--the sense of merging with the physical environment.

"Another day ends in a blaze of glory. It gives me hope that tomorrow will be even better."
I'm not sure what this is, actually--Ni?? He's thinking about the concept of sunsets, and what they imply.


"Dude, this reminds me of my trip to Maui."
This is Si--he's referring to a stored memory, despite the fact that he's articulating it aloud.

"Check out those amazing waves!"
Se--he's noticing something in the physical environment, despite the fact that he's choosing not to express it out loud.

"Man, I could totally see myself surfing at this beach..."
Ni--he's expressing a vision for himself based on his concept of "this beach".

"There are so many ways to get the Earth's pollution problem cleaned up. What if--"
Ne--his mind is picking up on something on the outer world and spinning possibilities off it, he's just not verbalizing it outwardly.

"So is that a joke or some kind of pick up line?"
Ti--As near as I can tell, this is seeking for the underlying principle between his conceptualization of jokes and/or pick up lines, and what the other guy said to him. He's referencing his personal understanding of the system and giving it external voice.

"Hm, we'd better get going or we'll be late."
Te--an outward standard of measurement referenced but unspoken. Again, he's relating to the outer world.

"Mother nature is very important to me, pal."
Fi--he's expressing his personal value system outwardly.

"Will he like it if I sing 'Happy Birthday' to him?"
Fe--he's considering an outward value system inwardly.


Thanks for posting this video! It made me think, and cleared up my understanding on several points. Great food for thought.

 

[infinite]

She's discussing the idea that introverted processes can be expressed outwardly and extroverted processes can be expressed inwardly. She's stripping it down to whether your thoughts/words are forming around the external environment or around an inner concept. It doesn't matter if these are articulated aloud, or kept within--the point is that it involves the outer or inner world. That's ALL she's saying in this clip--she's only got 10 minutes to explain one simple concept.

Yeah that makes sense though I would add that extraverts shouldn't still be sitting all day thinking about the external things. Just at times, I think (OK, I don't know about Ne there. AFAIK Ne stays longer or more often inside the head.)

But yeah, extraverts would be just taking the objects as objects and nothing beyond that. Introverts "break down" the objects into abstract whatever stuff. Like it's functionally a whole separate system in the brain, an extra layer put in between input and corresponding output. Of course doesn't even have to get as far as connecting to an output, but it can. I guess this distinction applies to Ne too.

For those who thought she had bad examples, I think this is what she intended:

Yeah. Pretty good and pretty standard examples for the most part

"Wow! What a sunset! Don't you just feel like you're a part of the universe at times like this? Huh? Doncha?"
This is Se--the sense of merging with the physical environment.

I would never verbalize such a thought myself. I do feel like "WOW WHAT A NICE SUNSET" for a few seconds while my attention is there before it wanders away to something else. But the being part of the universe... that's just a given. If I want to feel spiritual about the greatness of the universe, I must first disconnect myself from my surroundings. I have to look inside or stare into empty space before I have a chance to think such things. I don't know why. Se-doms don't need to do this disconnecting first then?

"Another day ends in a blaze of glory. It gives me hope that tomorrow will be even better."
I'm not sure what this is, actually--Ni?? He's thinking about the concept of sunsets, and what they imply.

It does sound Ni-ish.

"Check out those amazing waves!"
Se--he's noticing something in the physical environment, despite the fact that he's choosing not to express it out loud.

Good note/point, that it's not expressed aloud. It's definitely still Se, you don't need to keep talking all the time to have Se working. I don't express most of these thoughts. Might be my social introversion. But, I don't even put them into words in my head. I just look, find something awesome for a second, then usually move on. Something has to be really really great before I'm willing to give it more than half a sec. The waves might be such an exception if I can get in the water and ride them

"Man, I could totally see myself surfing at this beach..."
Ni--he's expressing a vision for himself based on his concept of "this beach".

Why is that Ni? I always thought this was Se too.. though yeah it's a bit fantasy-based as it's put, but if possible, execute it in real life too, of course. I'd have thought that Ni is a tiny little bit more complex than just imagining a beach and a physical activity associated with it. ?? let me know if you disagree and if so, why.

"There are so many ways to get the Earth's pollution problem cleaned up. What if--"
Ne--his mind is picking up on something on the outer world and spinning possibilities off it, he's just not verbalizing it outwardly.

Yeah I'm pretty goddamn sure the ENxP's wouldn't manage to go one single day in this world if they verbalized all of their thoughts outwardly constantly.

"So is that a joke or some kind of pick up line?"
Ti--As near as I can tell, this is seeking for the underlying principle between his conceptualization of jokes and/or pick up lines, and what the other guy said to him. He's referencing his personal understanding of the system and giving it external voice.

Haha yes a good example of expressing Ti outwardly. I do this a lot myself. I say stuff like this more often than Se stuff.

"Hm, we'd better get going or we'll be late."
Te--an outward standard of measurement referenced but unspoken. Again, he's relating to the outer world.

Don't know if that's Te tbh.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

Yeah that makes sense though I would add that extraverts shouldn't still be sitting all day thinking about the external things. Just at times, I think (OK, I don't know about Ne there. AFAIK Ne stays longer or more often inside the head.)

Well, as an Ne dom I spend a lot of time in fantasy land. It's more like my thoughts just keep forming tangents. I mainly keep my thoughts and stuff inside, but that's largely because I have no one to tell them to. I also interact with the environment based upon my ideas.

I would never verbalize such a thought myself. I do feel like "WOW WHAT A NICE SUNSET" for a few seconds while my attention is there before it wanders away to something else. But the being part of the universe... that's just a given. If I want to feel spiritual about the greatness of the universe, I must first disconnect myself from my surroundings. I have to look inside or stare into empty space before I have a chance to think such things. I don't know why. Se-doms don't need to do this disconnecting first then?

No idea. But yeah, those thoughts don't always need to be spoken. Saying them out loud might just be kind of awkward, actually.

Why is that Ni? I always thought this was Se too.. though yeah it's a bit fantasy-based as it's put, but if possible, execute it in real life too, of course. I'd have thought that Ni is a tiny little bit more complex than just imagining a beach and a physical activity associated with it. ?? let me know if you disagree and if so, why.

Well she's using it to describe an introverted process, so that leaves us Si, Ni, Fi, and Ti. I think this is a perceiving function rather than a judging function (so not Ti/Fi), and not one that's dependent on subjective memory (Si). That leaves us at Ni, which makes sense since it complements the unspoken Ne also used in the example.

I think Se is more about the literal present moment. Ni is more about the future vision based on Se facts. So, the Se is implicit in his perception of the beach; but the thought revolves around his internal model of what "could" be.

That's what I think.

Yeah I'm pretty goddamn sure the ENxP's wouldn't manage to go one single day in this world if they verbalized all of their thoughts outwardly constantly.

It's not so much that I couldn't manage as that my mouth couldn't keep up with my brain! Luckily, I currently have no one to torture with this. My monologues are terrible indeed.

Don't know if that's Te tbh.

What do you think it is?

 

[highlander]

A decent one, actually. Jung is mentioned, focuses on the cognitive aspect of it; how an introverted process can be expressed externally and an extroverted process through one's thoughts or inner world. What do you think?

I've watched that before. I like it a lot. I especially like her examples.

I took her course, "Can You Spot It". It's really good. It basically trains you to recognize the functions through the language a person is using.