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.