Some peoples might have some misconception about the meaning of Introverted and Extroverted.
We will look at first the original definition of Introverted and Extroverted by Carl jung then the socionics one which interests us and we'll compare it to the the definition of it we find in modern psychology today
The first original definition of introversion and extroversion
By Carl jung
The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral viewpoint. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed. It might almost seem, although it, is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by objective factors would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of objectively given, facts is the normal one under all circumstances. Objective conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such con certainly conforms to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but, in relation to the universally valid laws of life. He is, in common with his milieu, in an abnormal position. The individual may, however, thrive in such surroundings but only to the point when he, together with his whole milieu, is destroyed for transgressing the universal laws of life. He must inevitably participate in this downfall with the same completeness as he was previously adjusted to the objectively valid situation.
He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type. On the one hand, the extravert owes his normality to his ability to fit into existing conditions with relative ease. He naturally pretends to nothing more than the satisfaction of existing objective possibilities, applying himself, for instance, to the calling which offers sound prospective possibilities in the actual situation in time and place. He tries to do or to make just what his milieu momentarily needs and expects from him, and abstains from every innovation that is not entirely obvious, or that in any way exceeds the expectation of those around him. But on the other hand, his normality must also depend essentially upon whether the extravert takes into account the actuality of his subjective needs and requirements; and this is just his weak point, for the tendency of his type has such a strong outward direction that even the most obvious of all subjective facts, namely the condition of his own body, may quite easily receive inadequate consideration. The body is not sufficiently objective or 'external,' so that the satisfaction of simple elementary requirements which are indispensable to physical well-being are no longer given their place. The body accordingly suffers, to say nothing of the soul. Although, as a rule, the extravert takes small note of this latter circumstance, his intimate domestic circle perceives it all the more keenly. His loss of equilibrium is perceived by himself only when abnormal bodily sensations make themselves felt.
These tangible facts he cannot ignore. It is natural he should regard them as concrete and 'objective', since for his mentality there exists only this and nothing more—in himself. In others he at once sees "imagination" at work. A too extraverted attitude may actually become so regardless of the subject that the latter is entirely sacrificed to so-called objective claims; to the demands, for instance, of a continually extending business, because orders lie claiming one's attention or because profitable possibilities are constantly being opened up which must instantly be seized.
This is the extravert's danger; he becomes caught up in objects, wholly losing himself in their toils. The functional (nervous) or actual physical disorders which result from this state have a compensatory significance, forcing the subject to an involuntary self-restriction. Should the symptoms be functional, their peculiar formation may symbolically express the psychological situation; a singer, for instance, whose fame quickly reaches a dangerous pitch tempting him to a disproportionate outlay of energy, is suddenly robbed of his high tones by a nervous inhibition. A man of very modest beginnings rapidly reaches a social position of great influence and wide prospects, when suddenly he is overtaken by a psychogenic state, with all the symptoms of mountain-sickness. Again, a man on the point of marrying an idolized woman of doubtful character, whose value he extravagantly overestimates, is seized with a spasm of the oesophagus, which forces him to a regimen of two cups of milk in the day, demanding his three-hourly attention. All visits to his fianceé are thus effectually stopped, and no choice is left to him but to busy himself with his bodily nourishment. A man who through his own energy and enterprise has built up a vast business, entailing an intolerable burden of work, is afflicted by nervous attacks of thirst, as a result of which he speedily falls a victim to hysterical alcoholism.
Hysteria is, in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type. The classical example of hysteria is always characterized by an exaggerated rapport with the members of his circle, and a frankly imitatory accommodation to surrounding conditions. A constant tendency to appeal for interest and to produce impressions upon his milieu is a basic trait of the hysterical nature. A correlate to this is his proverbial suggestibility, his pliability to another person's influence. Unmistakable extraversion comes out in the communicativeness of the hysteric, which occasionally leads to the divulging of purely phantastic contents; whence arises the reproach of the hysterical lie.
To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the side of the unconscious, which manifests its opposition to the extravagant extraversion in the form of physical disorders, whereupon an introversion of psychic energy becomes unavoidable. Through this reaction of the unconscious, another category of symptoms arises which have a more introverted character. A morbid intensification of phantasy activity belongs primarily to this category. From this general characterization of the extraverted attitude, let us now turn to a description of the modifications, which the basic psychological functions undergo as a result of this attitude
In the foregoing section I emphasized the tendency to a certain one-sidedness in the extraverted attitude, due to the controlling power of the objective factor in the course, of psychic events. The extraverted type is constantly tempted to give himself away (apparently) in favour of the object, and to assimilate his subject to the object. I have referred in detail to the ultimate consequences of this exaggeration of the extraverted attitude, viz. to the injurious suppression of the subjective factor. It is only, to be expected, therefore, that a psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay especial weight upon the subjective factor, i.e. we shall have to prove a strong egocentric tendency in the unconscious. Practical experience actually furnishes this proof. I do not wish to enter into a casuistical survey at this point, so must refer my readers to the ensuing sections, where I shall attempt to present the characteristic attitude of the unconscious from the angle of each function-type, In this section we are merely concerned with the compensation of a general extraverted attitude; I shall, therefore, confine myself to an equally general characterization of the compensating attitude of the unconscious.
The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It focusses libido upon the subjective factor, i.e. all those needs and claims which are stifled or repressed by a too extraverted conscious attitude. It may be readily gathered from what has been said in the previous section that a purely objective orientation does violence to a multitude of subjective emotions, intentions, needs, and desires, since it robs them of the energy which is their natural right. Man is not a machine that one can reconstruct, as occasion demands, upon other lines and for quite other ends, in the hope that it will then proceed to function, in a totally different way, just as normally as before. Man bears his age-long history with him in his very structure is written the history of mankind.
The historical factor represents a vital need, to which a wise economy must respond. Somehow the past must become vocal, and participate in the present. Complete assimilation to the object, therefore, encounters the protest of the suppressed minority, elements belonging to the past and existing from the beginning. From this quite general consideration it may be understood why it is that the unconscious claims of the extraverted type have an essentially primitive, infantile, and egoistical character. When Freud says that the unconscious is "only able to wish", this observation contains a large measure of truth for the unconscious of the extraverted type. Adjustment and assimilation to objective data prevent inadequate subjective impulses from reaching consciousness. These tendencies (thoughts, wishes, affects, needs, feelings, etc.) take on a regressive character corresponding with the degree of their repression, ie. the less they are recognized, the more infantile and archaic they become. The conscious attitude robs them of their relatively disposable energycharge, only leaving them the energy of which it cannot deprive them. This remainder, which still possesses a potency not to be underestimated, can be described only as primeval instinct. Instinct can never be rooted out from an individual by any arbitrary measures; it requires the slow, organic transformation of many generations to effect a radical change, for instinct is the energic [sic] expression of a definite organic foundation.
Thus with every repressed tendency a considerable sum of energy ultimately remains. This sum corresponds with the potency of the instinct and guards its effectiveness, notwithstanding the deprivation of energy which made it unconscious. The measure of extraversion in the conscious attitude entails a like degree of infantilism and archaism in the attitude of the unconscious. The egoism which so often characterizes the extravert's unconscious attitude goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it even verges upon the wicked and brutal. It is here we find in fullest bloom that incest-wish described by Freud. It is self-evident that these things are entirely unconscious, remaining altogether hidden from the eyes of the uninitiated observer so long as the extraversion of the conscious attitude does not reach an extreme stage. But wherever an exaggeration of the conscious standpoint takes place, the unconscious also comes to light in a symptomatic form, i.e. the unconscious egoism, infantilism, and archaism lose their original compensatory characters, and appear in more or less open opposition to the conscious attitude.
This process begins in the form of an absurd exaggeration of the conscious standpoint, which is aimed at a further repression of the unconscious, but usually ends in a reductio ad absurdum of the conscious attitude, i.e. a collapse. The catastrophe may be an objective one, since the objective aims gradually become falsified by the subjective. I remember the case of a printer who, starting as a mere employé, worked his way up through two decades of hard struggle, till at last he was the independent possessor of a very extensive business. The more the business extended, the more it increased its hold upon him, until gradually every other interest was allowed to become merged in it. At length he was completely enmeshed in its toils, and, as we shall soon see, this surrender eventually proved his ruin. As a sort of compensation to his exclusive interest in the business, certain memories of his childhood came to life. As a child he had taken great delight in painting and drawing. But, instead of renewing this capacity for its own sake as a balancing side-interest, he canalized it into his business and began to conceive 'artistic' elaborations of his products. His phantasies unfortunately materialized: he actually began to produce after his own primitive and infantile taste, with the result that after a very few years his business went to pieces. He acted in obedience to one of our 'civilized ideals', which enjoins the energetic man to concentrate everything upon the one end in view. But he went too far, and merely fell a victim to the power of his subjective infantile claims.
But the catastrophic solution may also be subjective, i.e. in the form of a nervous collapse. Such a solution always comes about as a result of the unconscious counterinfluence, which can ultimately paralyse conscious action. In which case the claims of the unconscious force themselves categorically upon consciousness, thus creating a calamitous cleavage which generally reveals itself in two ways: either the subject no longer knows what he really wants and nothing any longer interests him, or he wants too much at once and has too keen an interest—but in impossible things. The suppression of infantile and primitive claims, which is often necessary on "civilized" grounds, easily leads to neurosis, or to the misuse of narcotics such as alcohol, morphine, cocaine, etc. In more extreme cases the cleavage ends in suicide.
It is a salient peculiarity of unconscious tendencies that, just in so far as they are deprived of their energy by a lack of conscious recognition, they assume a correspondingly destructive character, and as soon as this happen their compensatory function ceases. They cease to have a compensatory effect as soon as they reach a depth or stratum that corresponds with a level of culture absolutely incompatible with our own. From this moment the unconscious tendencies form a block, which is opposed to the conscious attitude in every respect ; such a bloc inevitably leads to open conflict.
In a general way, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the process of psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual behaves invariably in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological happenings may be observed, in which the mechanism of introversion is concerned. A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one. Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. The extraverted feeling type is a classical example of this, for he enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with his entourage, yet occasionally opinions of an incomparable tactlessness will just happen to him. These opinions have their source in his inferior and subconscious thinking, which is only partly subject to control and is insufficiently related to the object ; to a large extent, therefore, it can operate without consideration or responsibility.
In the extraverted attitude the inferior functions always reveal a highly subjective determination with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias, thus demonstrating their close connection with the unconscious. Through their agency the unconscious is continually coming to light. On no account should we imagine that the unconscious lies permanently buried under so many overlying strata that it can only be uncovered, so to speak, by a laborious process of excavation. On the contrary, there is a constant influx of the unconscious into the conscious psychological process; at times this reaches such a pitch that the observer can decide only with difficulty which character-traits are to be ascribed to the conscious, and which to the unconscious personality. This difficulty occurs mainly with persons whose habit of expression errs rather on the side of profuseness. Naturally it depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening. But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities. Occasionally the former function gives the impression of normality, while the latter have something abnormal or pathological about them.
Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. Two persons, for example, see the same object, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference, both in kind and degree, in the psychic assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers preeminently to that which reaches him from the object, the introvert principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates [sic] in the subject. In an individual case of apperception, the difference may, of course, be very delicate, but in the total psychological economy it is extremely noticeable, especially in the form of a reservation of the ego. Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert. We must not forget—although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so—that all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was unassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch—an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
The same holds good for all the psychic functions: they have a subject which is just as indispensable as the object. It is characteristic of our present extraverted valuation that the word 'subjective' occasionally rings almost like a reproach or blemish; but in every case the epithet 'merely subjective' means a dangerous weapon of offence, destined for that daring head, that is not unceasingly convinced of the unconditioned superiority of the object. We must, therefore, be quite clear as to what meaning the term 'subjective' carries in this investigation. As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact. Now, in so far as the subjective factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself—since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same—it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially changeless reality would be altogether inconceivable, and any understanding with posterity would be a matter of impossibility. Thus far, therefore, the subjective factor is something that is just as much a fact as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. Thus far, also, the subjective factor claims the whole value of a world-determining power which can never, under any circumstances, be excluded from our calculations. It is the other world-law, and the man who is based upon it has a foundation just as secure, permanent, and valid, as the man who relies upon the object But, just as the object and objective data remain by no means always the same, inasmuch as they are both perishable and subject to chance, the subjective factor is similarly liable to variability and individual hazard.
Hence its value is also merely relative. The excessive development of the introverted standpoint in consciousness, for instance, does not lead to a better or sounder application of the subjective factor, but to an artificial subjectification of consciousness, which can hardly escape the reproach 'merely subjective'. For, as a countertendency to this morbid subjectification, there ensues a desubjectification of consciousness in the form of an exaggerated extraverted attitude which richly deserves Weininger's description "misautic". Inasmuch as the introverted attitude is based upon a universally present, extremely real, and absolutely indispensable condition of psychological adaptation, such expressions as 'philautic', 'egocentric', and the like are both objectionable and out of place, since they foster the prejudice that it is invariably a question of the beloved ego. Nothing could be more absurd than such an assumption. Yet one is continually meeting it when examining the judgments of the extravert upon the introvert. Not, of course, that I wish to ascribe such an error to individual extraverts; it is rather the present generally accepted extraverted view which is by no means restricted to the extraverted type; for it finds just as many representatives in the ranks of the other type, albeit very much against its own interest. The reproach of being untrue to his own kind is justly levelled at the latter, whereas, this, at least, can never be charged against the former.
The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever present subjective factor. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness. Were the ego identical with the Self, it would be unthinkable that we should be able to appear in dreams in entirely different forms and with entirely different meanings. But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which, moreover, is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, that he tends to confuse his ego with the Self, and to exalt his ego to the position of subject of the psychological process, thus effecting that morbid subjectification of consciousness, mentioned above, which so alienates him from the object.
The psychological structure is the same. Semon has termed it 'mneme',[2] whereas I call it the 'collective unconscious'. The individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures, and, therefore, a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process, which is born anew in every creature. Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the archetype. This term embraces the same idea as is contained in 'primordial image' (an expression borrowed from Jakob Burckhardt), and as such I have described it in Chapter xi of this book. I must here refer the reader to that chapter, in particular to the definition of 'image'.
The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object—incorrectly, at bottom—since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He reaches the unavoidable conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or a fantastic doctrinaire. Recently he seems to have reached the conclusion that the introvert is constantly influenced by an unconscious power-complex. The introvert unquestionably exposes himself to this prejudice; for it cannot be denied that his definite and highly generalized mode of expression, which apparently excludes every other view from the outset, lends a certain countenance to this extraverted opinion. Furthermore, the very decisiveness and inflexibility of the subjective judgment, which is superordinated to all objective data, is alone sufficient to create the impression of a strong egocentricity. The introvert usually lacks the right argument in presence of this prejudice; for he is just as unaware of the unconscious, though thoroughly sound presuppositions of his subjective judgment, as he is of his subjective perceptions. In harmony with the style of the times, he looks without, instead of behind his own consciousness for the answer. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of a more or less complete unconscious identity of the ego with the Self, whereupon the importance of the Self is reduced to nil, while the ego becomes inflated beyond reason. The undeniable, world-determining power of the subjective factor then becomes concentrated in the ego, developing an immoderate power claim and a downright foolish egocentricity. Every psychology which reduces the nature of man to unconscious power instinct springs from this foundation. For example, Nietzsche's many faults in taste owe their existence to this subjectification of consciousness.
An analysis of the personal unconscious yields an abundance of power phantasies coupled with fear of the dangerously animated objects, to which, as a matter of fact, the introvert easily falls a victim. For a peculiar cowardliness develops from this fear of the object; he shrinks from making either himself or his opinion effective, always dreading an intensified influence on the part of the object. He is terrified of impressive affects in others, and is hardly ever free from the dread of falling under hostile influence. For objects possess terrifying and powerful qualities for him—qualities which he cannot consciously discern in them, but which, through his unconscious perception, he cannot choose but believe in. Since his conscious relation to the object is relatively repressed, its exit is by way of the unconscious, where it becomes loaded with the qualities of the unconscious. These qualities are primarily infantile and archaic. His relation to the object, therefore, becomes correspondingly primitive, taking on all those peculiarities which characterize the primitive objectrelationship. Now it seems as though objects possessed magical powers. Strange, new objects excite fear and distrust, as though concealing unknown dangers; objects long rooted and blessed by tradition are attached to his soul as by invisible threads; every change has a disturbing, if not actually dangerous aspect, since its apparent implication is a magical animation of the object. A lonely island where only what is permitted to move moves, becomes an ideal. Auch Einer, the novel by F. Th. Vischer, gives a rich insight into this side of the introvert's psychology, and at the same time shows the underlying symbolism of the collective unconscious, which in this description of types I am leaving on one side, since it is a universal phenomenon with no especial connection with types.
Now that we looked at the original definition of introverted and Extraverted by Carl jung we look at the socionics definition.
2. SOCIONIC INTERPRETATION
Introduction
Extraversion as a socionic trait is defined by the leading function of a type. If the leading function is extraverted, the type is called "extraverted" or "extratim"; conversely if the leading function of type is introverted, then this type is called "introverted" or "introtim". It should be kept in mind that the model of every type has both extraverted and introverted elements. Depending on which element is involved, a person may appear to be more "extraverted" or more "introverted" in that moment.
In socionics, "extraversion" is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the characteristics and behavior of objects (people, things, events) outside the observer. In contrast, "introversion" means a focus on the observer's response to and perception of objects.
Extraverts: qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects.
Introverts: interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships.
Augusta likened the difference between extraverted and introverted perception to the difference between bodies and fields in physics. "Bodies" are objects with mass and certain qualities, while "fields" are the realm of interaction between bodies.
Carl Jung believed that introversion and extraversion were present in everyone, but that one attitude-type is invariably dominant. He described the extravert as trusting what is received from the outside world while regarding implicit factors and motivations of secondary importance, while the introvert may be well aware of external conditions, but he is not motivated by them, rather he responds primarily to his internal impressions of the external events. See the extraverted type, the introverted type, and extraversion and introversion.
In socionics, IM elements, information aspects, and types can all be treated as extraverted or introverted.
The probable cause of this is that modern psychology focuses on quantifiable external behavior, while socionics focuses more on qualitative internal differences. If one applies the psychological meaning of extraversion and introversion to diagnosing socionic types, there will be numerous mistakes, and the supposed intertype relations between these types will not match reality. In socionics, gregarious introtims and reclusive, focused extratims are possible, though in many or most cases the psychological definitions can be applied.
According to Carl Jung, introversion and extraversion refer to the direction of psychic energy. If a person’s energy usually flows outwards, he or she is an extravert, while if this energy normally flows inwards, this person is an introvert. Extraverts feel an increase of perceived energy when interacting with a large group of people, but a decrease of energy when left alone. Conversely, introverts feel an increase of energy when alone, but a decrease of energy when surrounded by a large group of people.
Most modern psychologists consider theories of psychic energy to be obsolete. First, it is difficult to operationalize mental "energy" in a way that can be scientifically measured and tested. Second, more detailed explanations of extraversion and the brain have replaced Jung's rather speculative theories. Nevertheless, the concept is still in popular usage in the general sense of "feeling energized" in particular situations. Jung’s primary legacy in this area may be the popularizing of the terms introvert and extravert to refer to a particular dimension of personality.
In other words, while Jung's understanding of extraversion and introversion are related to that of modern psychology, the terms are now interpreted differently in practice.
From Wikipedia:
Extraversion (also "extroversion") is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.
Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less dependent on the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and more time alone to re-charge their batteries.
Sample Extraversion items:
While there is probably some correlation between outgoingness and socionics extraversion, this connection is not actually implied in the theory. People of the same type can differ on psychological scales of extraversion, and some socionic introtims are more "extraverted" (i.e. gregarious, sociable) than some extratims. Also,
Gamma and Delta
types may on average be less extraverted than Alpha and Beta types due to subdued extroverted ethics.
3. PROBLEM WITH MODERN INTERPRETATION OF INTROVERTED AND EXTROVERTED
Review of Definitions and Confusions
Modern psychology
"Introversion – is a passive, but energy-saving and defensive orientation of the psyche, leading to familiarization and deepening of what already exists. Due to their reserve, introverts, compared to extroverts, are rarely found in leadership roles, especially when it comes to large groups Extraversion – is an active, but energy-expending orientation of the psyche, leading to extension,expansion. In most cases, the communicative as well as the intellectual leader in a society turns out to be an extrovert"
Socionics
We have no fundamental objections to the formulation of this dichotomy through the energy-exchange processes. Yes, introversion is related to preservation of energy, and extroversion - to high energy expenditures. However, the tight connection of this dichotomy to leadership in a society evokes perplexity. Whether a person will become a leader or not is depends, firstly, on his personal qualities (for example, having a desire to become a leader, having ambition), secondly, on the social conditions (in some circumstances leaders of extroverted type are in demand, in others, on the contrary, introverted leaders), and thirdly, on the specifics of transpiring events (someone "got lucky", someone withdrew due to health issues, etc.).
In many cases, when social conditions worked in favor of introverted orientation, the leaders (even of large groups) were people with introverted TIMs, in particular: Robespierre (Ti,Ne), Nicholas I (Ti,Se), Alexander III (Fi,Se), Stalin (Ti,Se), Khrushchev (Si,Fe), Mao Zedong (Fi,Se), Brezhnev (Fi,Se), Andropov (Ni,Te), Putin (Ti,Se), Lukashenko (Ti,Se).
Concerning intellectual leadership, this trait cannot be a priority, as there is no harsh struggle for power: if a person has far-reaching ideas - then he or she becomes the intellectual leader. For example, one of the most authoritative figures (and in fact leaders) of Russian culture of the past decades has been the intellectual D. S. Lihachev, "classic" representative of TIM Fi-Ne. In the modern Russian cinema one of the brightest leaders is N. Mikhalkov, TIM Ti-Se.
"Extrovert:* oriented at what is happening outside of himself;* open to everything that happens around him;* correlates his opinions to the opinions of people around him;* loves to act, to take initiative;* prefers to change the situation if it doesn't suit him;* easily makes new contacts, quickly settles into a new group;* tends to immediately express what is on his mind;* with interest relates to new people, easily becomes acquainted with them;* if relations didn't work out, leaves just as easily, not trying to change anyone to his own way;* often inclined to take risks.Introvert:* oriented at his own sensations, thoughts, impressions of what is around him;* tries to shut out (to protect himself) from an abundance of new information;* prefers to adapt to the situation rather than changing it, even if it's not acceptable to him;* seems pensive, silent, outwardly calm;* has a narrow circle of friends;* rarely makes any new contacts;* gravitates to mental focus and silence;* dislikes unexpected visits and doesn't make them himself;* works well alone".
The excessive categorization of most elements in the above description is of note. This definition becomes invalid due to its tight and invariant form. In particular, even the most "extroverted" extrovert "correlates his opinions" not with everyone around him, but only with those people whose opinions are of importance to him. Any extrovert is also quite able to brush off someone's opinion or not take into account the views of a number of people, if these are non-authoritative. Further, the phrase "loves to act" is unclear: it turns out that introverts always appear idle? To act (in one or another directions) means to live: this means that introverts don't like to live?! It is ridiculous to even talk about the proposition "expresses all he's thinking about": every adult person conceals a wealth of information – without this, any relationships with others become extremely problematic. It is hard to find a person who wouldn't filter their thoughts at least a little before voicing them.
The proposition that the extravert "easily leaves if relations didn't work out" is also implausible. The collapse of relations are painful for any person (but not everyone knows how to show it); any separation – is a psychological trauma, to a greater or lesser degree, and even ethical extroverts, who are inclined to self-sufficient management and direction of their relations, worry and feel upset if someone has dropped all contact with them.
Description of "thoughtful, silent, outwardly calm" does not apply to all introverts: in particular, Si-Fe is usually socially active and likes to "talk" (as do other ethical introverts).
Liking "surprise visits", in our opinion, cannot be considered a socionic factor. This is related to a person's upbringing and education: people who were brought up well, typically don't make surprise visits - they were taught to warn about their intentions to visit someone beforehand. In practice, most extroverts prefer to know in advance about a visit of someone else, and feel apprehensive if they hear an unexpected doorbell.
"One fundamental difference that divides people into two broad categories is expressed in terms "extroversion" and "introversion". These contain succinct characteristic of individual psychological differences between people, expressed in terms of predominating orientation of the person either at the world of external objects and events or at his own subjective the world "
This formulation is quite correct. Particularly relevant is the mention of predominance: because in the world there's nothing absolute, and in the human psyche - even more so; the introvert can react to external events – there is no "abnormal" inability for him to observe what is happening around. Another thing is that such observations for the introvert are tedious, thus he engages in them when it is necessary, mainly in complex, critical situations (when the ID block of model starts to work intensively.
"The extrovert is always in the midst of people, sociable, open to others, has many friends. In activities he is active and enterprising, uninhibited in his statements, capable of undertaking risky actions. For the extravert the most important thing – is the objective outside world, the actual objects. Their properties are secondary for him, and thus changeable as required. ...He doesn't pay attention to poor working conditions, if he feels that he is needed, that without him it would be difficult, however, does not accept coercion even for high goals. He tries to fulfill routine work as soon as possible to switch to doing something creative. His element – is travel, movement. He easily takes off, sometimes unexpectedly even to himself.The consciousness of introvert is turned to his inner world; he is well aware of the aspirations of his soul, his feelings, thoughts, and experiences. With difficulty absorbs large amounts of new information. Outwardly he seems calm and smooth. Quiet atmosphere is more fitting to him; he works best alone. The relationships between the objects for him are more important than the objects themselves, which can be changed to achieve the desired results. Surprises, new acquaintances, sudden visits can knock him off balance. He cherishes existing relationships, with difficulty breaks them, preferring to change himself and others to save the relationship. Friends with few, but for a very long time. Does the work well when he considers it to be his duty, but does not like responsibility, which he perceives as a punishment "
First of all, even the most expressed extroverts need more or less long periods of solitude, so that "always being in the midst of the people" - is a completely incorrect proposition. Further, the extroverted (as the introvert), of course, pays attention to his working conditions regardless of whether he is "needed" or not. Nobody wants to work for low wages in an antediluvian building with nasty co-workers. "Having a lot of friends" doesn't happen to anyone: true friends are always very few; another thing is that the extravert usually has more contacts and acquaintances on the average than the introvert. But this, of course, is not a reliable diagnostic feature for this given dichotomy
Our understanding
This dichotomy, apparently, is a motivating one: it determines what "triggers" information metabolism. For the extrovert the "trigger" occurs when a signal is received about events in the outside world, while for the introvert – with a change in his inner condition.
Definition:
Extraversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by developments in the outside world.
Introversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by intrapersonal (or individual) factors.
Objectivity and realism
C. G. Jung considered a person's tendency towards objective or subjective judgments and estimates in relation to this dichotomy. He wrote:
"... introverted type is different from the extroverted type in that he is focused primarily not on the object and not on at what is objectively present, as is the extroverted type, but on the subjective factors. ... for introverted type between the perception of the object and his own action comes a subjective opinion, which interferes with the action of taking on a character corresponding to the objectively given" [8, p. 415]."If a person thinks, feels, and acts ... and it directly relates to the objective conditions and requirements ... then he is extraverted" [8, p. 371].
In actuality, in the mental ring of an extroverted TIM all introverted aspects are functionally dependent of the extraverted aspects, for example, Se > Fi. For the extroverted type, the reality is primary (denoted by extrovert aspects), but a subjective reflection of reality is secondary. The introvert, on the contrary, is guided by his own sensations, and only in the presence of the corresponding signal does he come in contact with reality.
G. A. Shulman considers that introverted aspects are responsible for a reflection of reality, and extroverted - for the reality itself.
"... in addition the Beta quadra "turned out" to be dominant on "white[introverted]" functions, functions of reflection of reality, the idealizing functions, which is how it has received the name: quadra-idea, while Delta quadra – on "black" logic and intuition, the functions of reality, and thus it was called quadra-reality" [10, p.93]."... Alpha quadra corresponds to the intuition of reality (Ne) ... Beta corresponds to logic of reflection of reality - "white" logic (Ti); - Gamma - sensing of reality (Se) ... while Delta corresponds to function of reflection of emotions - "white" ethics (Fi) "[10, p.93].
TIM LIE for example: his notion of time, its expenditure, the dynamics of events, directly depend on the presence or absence of prospective projects, business ventures, efficient technologies (Te). If such are found, there will be time for them, that is, for TIM LIE the logical (or technological) reality is primary. Not so for TIM ILI. He is guided by his own (subjective) sense of time and is ready to work only when he considers is timely (Te as a function of Ni). For NiTe the primary is not reality, but the subjective sense of time.
In general, the program aspects of introverts in a certain way differ from the identical (taking sign into consideration) creative aspects of extroverts. For the latter, the creative aspect is always closely associated with the program one, which brings information about the reality, so the creative (introverted) aspect also acquires realism. In introverts, the program aspect does not depend on anything and is the most subjective (or arbitrary) in any "introverted" model A.
In particular, for TIMs LII and LSI there is always some sort of own logical system, that is not (or is weakly) associated with the existing systems; for TIMs SEI and SLI there are their own (sufficiently far from common) representations of sensations: fashion, acceptable appearance, sexuality, etc.; for TIMs ESI and EII there are their own ethical systems are often far removed from the current social standards; TIMs IEI and ILI have their own perception of time, their own ideas about what is timely, speed, pace, time consumption norms, etc.
Philosophical part
If we diverge from the topic of socionics research and take a broader look at the subject of the article, then we can arrive at interesting philosophical conclusions. Extraversion, as by C. G. Jung was inclined to think of it (see quotes above) gives priority to the information about external environment before information born out of internal impressions and reasoning. This - from a philosophical point of view - is nothing else but the priority of existing reality over individual consciousness. This reflects the quote by Karl Marx: "being determines consciousness". Only K. Marx (NeTi) has extrapolated this orientation at all people, and therefore, to all TIMs. However, for introverts it is the individual consciousness that determines being. For the extrovert, the current existence is the reality (extrovert aspects in his mental ring are accepting), and for introvert the reality is his own individual considerations concerning reality (accepting introverted aspects).
Thus, it is clear that this dichotomy has pronounced philosophical implications, which, in turn, illustrates the profound ideological differences among real people of extraverted and introverted TIMs.
Diagnostics
It is easier to diagnose this dichotomy with the help of energy-exchange orientations or temperaments [3], [9]. Extroverts have energy-expending orientation, introverts - energy-saving.
During diagnosis it is also necessary to consider the effect of subtypes on this trait [3]. There are fewer errors in typing extroverts with subtype accentuation of left (inert) block of model A – most often these are typical extroverts, without any additional subtype temperaments. Equally typical are introverts with strengthened left (inert) block of their model: most often these people look introverts in everyday sense (or "ayzenkovsky" plan). It's quite a different situation with type diagnosis of extroverts and introverts with strengthened right (contact) block of model A; they have a subtype temperament: for rational extroverts (e.g. Ni-EIE) - receptive-adaptive, for irrational extraverts (e.g. Ti-ILE) - balanced-stable, for rational introverts (e.g. Ne-LII) - flexible-maneuvering, for irrational introverts (e.g. Fe-IEI) - linear-assertive. These additional subtype temperaments often confuse typers during type diagnoses; to avoid errors, observe the dynamics of energy of individual in question preferably in different socio-psychological conditions.
A set of diagnostic methods for this (and other) dichotomies is given in
We will look at first the original definition of Introverted and Extroverted by Carl jung then the socionics one which interests us and we'll compare it to the the definition of it we find in modern psychology today
The first original definition of introversion and extroversion
By Carl jung
The Extraverted Type
In our descriptions of this and the following type it will be necessary, in the interest of lucid and comprehensive presentation, to discriminate between the conscious and unconscious psychology. Let us first lend our minds to a description of the phenomena of consciousness.The General Attitude of Consciousness
Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him ; yet we see that this may be the case in a way that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become hardened finds this unnecessary; one man admires the new tenor because all the world admires him, another withholds his approbation not because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable; one submits to a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions. Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity, not of course without a struggle; which, however, always ends in favour of the objective determinant. His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. But it comes to him from without, only because that is where he expects it. All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude. Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment. Not only persons, but things, seize and rivet his interest. His actions, therefore, are also governed by the influence of persons and things. They are directly related to objective data and determinations, and are, as it were, exhaustively explainable on these grounds. Extraverted action is recognizably related to objective conditions. In so far it is not purely reactive to environmental stimuli, it character is constantly applicable to the actual circumstances, and it finds adequate and appropriate play within the limits of the objective situation. It has no serious tendency to transcend these bounds. The same holdsgood for interest: objective occurrences have a well-nigh inexhaustible charm, so that in the normal course the extravert's interest makes no other claims.The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral viewpoint. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed. It might almost seem, although it, is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by objective factors would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of objectively given, facts is the normal one under all circumstances. Objective conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such con certainly conforms to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but, in relation to the universally valid laws of life. He is, in common with his milieu, in an abnormal position. The individual may, however, thrive in such surroundings but only to the point when he, together with his whole milieu, is destroyed for transgressing the universal laws of life. He must inevitably participate in this downfall with the same completeness as he was previously adjusted to the objectively valid situation.
He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type. On the one hand, the extravert owes his normality to his ability to fit into existing conditions with relative ease. He naturally pretends to nothing more than the satisfaction of existing objective possibilities, applying himself, for instance, to the calling which offers sound prospective possibilities in the actual situation in time and place. He tries to do or to make just what his milieu momentarily needs and expects from him, and abstains from every innovation that is not entirely obvious, or that in any way exceeds the expectation of those around him. But on the other hand, his normality must also depend essentially upon whether the extravert takes into account the actuality of his subjective needs and requirements; and this is just his weak point, for the tendency of his type has such a strong outward direction that even the most obvious of all subjective facts, namely the condition of his own body, may quite easily receive inadequate consideration. The body is not sufficiently objective or 'external,' so that the satisfaction of simple elementary requirements which are indispensable to physical well-being are no longer given their place. The body accordingly suffers, to say nothing of the soul. Although, as a rule, the extravert takes small note of this latter circumstance, his intimate domestic circle perceives it all the more keenly. His loss of equilibrium is perceived by himself only when abnormal bodily sensations make themselves felt.
These tangible facts he cannot ignore. It is natural he should regard them as concrete and 'objective', since for his mentality there exists only this and nothing more—in himself. In others he at once sees "imagination" at work. A too extraverted attitude may actually become so regardless of the subject that the latter is entirely sacrificed to so-called objective claims; to the demands, for instance, of a continually extending business, because orders lie claiming one's attention or because profitable possibilities are constantly being opened up which must instantly be seized.
This is the extravert's danger; he becomes caught up in objects, wholly losing himself in their toils. The functional (nervous) or actual physical disorders which result from this state have a compensatory significance, forcing the subject to an involuntary self-restriction. Should the symptoms be functional, their peculiar formation may symbolically express the psychological situation; a singer, for instance, whose fame quickly reaches a dangerous pitch tempting him to a disproportionate outlay of energy, is suddenly robbed of his high tones by a nervous inhibition. A man of very modest beginnings rapidly reaches a social position of great influence and wide prospects, when suddenly he is overtaken by a psychogenic state, with all the symptoms of mountain-sickness. Again, a man on the point of marrying an idolized woman of doubtful character, whose value he extravagantly overestimates, is seized with a spasm of the oesophagus, which forces him to a regimen of two cups of milk in the day, demanding his three-hourly attention. All visits to his fianceé are thus effectually stopped, and no choice is left to him but to busy himself with his bodily nourishment. A man who through his own energy and enterprise has built up a vast business, entailing an intolerable burden of work, is afflicted by nervous attacks of thirst, as a result of which he speedily falls a victim to hysterical alcoholism.
Hysteria is, in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type. The classical example of hysteria is always characterized by an exaggerated rapport with the members of his circle, and a frankly imitatory accommodation to surrounding conditions. A constant tendency to appeal for interest and to produce impressions upon his milieu is a basic trait of the hysterical nature. A correlate to this is his proverbial suggestibility, his pliability to another person's influence. Unmistakable extraversion comes out in the communicativeness of the hysteric, which occasionally leads to the divulging of purely phantastic contents; whence arises the reproach of the hysterical lie.
To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the side of the unconscious, which manifests its opposition to the extravagant extraversion in the form of physical disorders, whereupon an introversion of psychic energy becomes unavoidable. Through this reaction of the unconscious, another category of symptoms arises which have a more introverted character. A morbid intensification of phantasy activity belongs primarily to this category. From this general characterization of the extraverted attitude, let us now turn to a description of the modifications, which the basic psychological functions undergo as a result of this attitude
The Attitude of the Unconscious
It may perhaps seem odd that I should speak of attitude of the 'unconscious'. As I have already sufficiently indicated, I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory. The unconscious, according to this view, has as good a claim to an I attitude' as the conscious.In the foregoing section I emphasized the tendency to a certain one-sidedness in the extraverted attitude, due to the controlling power of the objective factor in the course, of psychic events. The extraverted type is constantly tempted to give himself away (apparently) in favour of the object, and to assimilate his subject to the object. I have referred in detail to the ultimate consequences of this exaggeration of the extraverted attitude, viz. to the injurious suppression of the subjective factor. It is only, to be expected, therefore, that a psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay especial weight upon the subjective factor, i.e. we shall have to prove a strong egocentric tendency in the unconscious. Practical experience actually furnishes this proof. I do not wish to enter into a casuistical survey at this point, so must refer my readers to the ensuing sections, where I shall attempt to present the characteristic attitude of the unconscious from the angle of each function-type, In this section we are merely concerned with the compensation of a general extraverted attitude; I shall, therefore, confine myself to an equally general characterization of the compensating attitude of the unconscious.
The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It focusses libido upon the subjective factor, i.e. all those needs and claims which are stifled or repressed by a too extraverted conscious attitude. It may be readily gathered from what has been said in the previous section that a purely objective orientation does violence to a multitude of subjective emotions, intentions, needs, and desires, since it robs them of the energy which is their natural right. Man is not a machine that one can reconstruct, as occasion demands, upon other lines and for quite other ends, in the hope that it will then proceed to function, in a totally different way, just as normally as before. Man bears his age-long history with him in his very structure is written the history of mankind.
The historical factor represents a vital need, to which a wise economy must respond. Somehow the past must become vocal, and participate in the present. Complete assimilation to the object, therefore, encounters the protest of the suppressed minority, elements belonging to the past and existing from the beginning. From this quite general consideration it may be understood why it is that the unconscious claims of the extraverted type have an essentially primitive, infantile, and egoistical character. When Freud says that the unconscious is "only able to wish", this observation contains a large measure of truth for the unconscious of the extraverted type. Adjustment and assimilation to objective data prevent inadequate subjective impulses from reaching consciousness. These tendencies (thoughts, wishes, affects, needs, feelings, etc.) take on a regressive character corresponding with the degree of their repression, ie. the less they are recognized, the more infantile and archaic they become. The conscious attitude robs them of their relatively disposable energycharge, only leaving them the energy of which it cannot deprive them. This remainder, which still possesses a potency not to be underestimated, can be described only as primeval instinct. Instinct can never be rooted out from an individual by any arbitrary measures; it requires the slow, organic transformation of many generations to effect a radical change, for instinct is the energic [sic] expression of a definite organic foundation.
Thus with every repressed tendency a considerable sum of energy ultimately remains. This sum corresponds with the potency of the instinct and guards its effectiveness, notwithstanding the deprivation of energy which made it unconscious. The measure of extraversion in the conscious attitude entails a like degree of infantilism and archaism in the attitude of the unconscious. The egoism which so often characterizes the extravert's unconscious attitude goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it even verges upon the wicked and brutal. It is here we find in fullest bloom that incest-wish described by Freud. It is self-evident that these things are entirely unconscious, remaining altogether hidden from the eyes of the uninitiated observer so long as the extraversion of the conscious attitude does not reach an extreme stage. But wherever an exaggeration of the conscious standpoint takes place, the unconscious also comes to light in a symptomatic form, i.e. the unconscious egoism, infantilism, and archaism lose their original compensatory characters, and appear in more or less open opposition to the conscious attitude.
This process begins in the form of an absurd exaggeration of the conscious standpoint, which is aimed at a further repression of the unconscious, but usually ends in a reductio ad absurdum of the conscious attitude, i.e. a collapse. The catastrophe may be an objective one, since the objective aims gradually become falsified by the subjective. I remember the case of a printer who, starting as a mere employé, worked his way up through two decades of hard struggle, till at last he was the independent possessor of a very extensive business. The more the business extended, the more it increased its hold upon him, until gradually every other interest was allowed to become merged in it. At length he was completely enmeshed in its toils, and, as we shall soon see, this surrender eventually proved his ruin. As a sort of compensation to his exclusive interest in the business, certain memories of his childhood came to life. As a child he had taken great delight in painting and drawing. But, instead of renewing this capacity for its own sake as a balancing side-interest, he canalized it into his business and began to conceive 'artistic' elaborations of his products. His phantasies unfortunately materialized: he actually began to produce after his own primitive and infantile taste, with the result that after a very few years his business went to pieces. He acted in obedience to one of our 'civilized ideals', which enjoins the energetic man to concentrate everything upon the one end in view. But he went too far, and merely fell a victim to the power of his subjective infantile claims.
But the catastrophic solution may also be subjective, i.e. in the form of a nervous collapse. Such a solution always comes about as a result of the unconscious counterinfluence, which can ultimately paralyse conscious action. In which case the claims of the unconscious force themselves categorically upon consciousness, thus creating a calamitous cleavage which generally reveals itself in two ways: either the subject no longer knows what he really wants and nothing any longer interests him, or he wants too much at once and has too keen an interest—but in impossible things. The suppression of infantile and primitive claims, which is often necessary on "civilized" grounds, easily leads to neurosis, or to the misuse of narcotics such as alcohol, morphine, cocaine, etc. In more extreme cases the cleavage ends in suicide.
It is a salient peculiarity of unconscious tendencies that, just in so far as they are deprived of their energy by a lack of conscious recognition, they assume a correspondingly destructive character, and as soon as this happen their compensatory function ceases. They cease to have a compensatory effect as soon as they reach a depth or stratum that corresponds with a level of culture absolutely incompatible with our own. From this moment the unconscious tendencies form a block, which is opposed to the conscious attitude in every respect ; such a bloc inevitably leads to open conflict.
In a general way, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the process of psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual behaves invariably in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological happenings may be observed, in which the mechanism of introversion is concerned. A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one. Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. The extraverted feeling type is a classical example of this, for he enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with his entourage, yet occasionally opinions of an incomparable tactlessness will just happen to him. These opinions have their source in his inferior and subconscious thinking, which is only partly subject to control and is insufficiently related to the object ; to a large extent, therefore, it can operate without consideration or responsibility.
In the extraverted attitude the inferior functions always reveal a highly subjective determination with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias, thus demonstrating their close connection with the unconscious. Through their agency the unconscious is continually coming to light. On no account should we imagine that the unconscious lies permanently buried under so many overlying strata that it can only be uncovered, so to speak, by a laborious process of excavation. On the contrary, there is a constant influx of the unconscious into the conscious psychological process; at times this reaches such a pitch that the observer can decide only with difficulty which character-traits are to be ascribed to the conscious, and which to the unconscious personality. This difficulty occurs mainly with persons whose habit of expression errs rather on the side of profuseness. Naturally it depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening. But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities. Occasionally the former function gives the impression of normality, while the latter have something abnormal or pathological about them.
The Introverted Type
The General Attitude of Consciousness
As I have already explained in section 1 of the present chapter, the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors. In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation. Naturally, this is a special case, mentioned by way of example, and merely intended to serve as a simple illustration. But now we must go in quest of more general formulations.Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. Two persons, for example, see the same object, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference, both in kind and degree, in the psychic assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers preeminently to that which reaches him from the object, the introvert principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates [sic] in the subject. In an individual case of apperception, the difference may, of course, be very delicate, but in the total psychological economy it is extremely noticeable, especially in the form of a reservation of the ego. Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert. We must not forget—although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so—that all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was unassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch—an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
The same holds good for all the psychic functions: they have a subject which is just as indispensable as the object. It is characteristic of our present extraverted valuation that the word 'subjective' occasionally rings almost like a reproach or blemish; but in every case the epithet 'merely subjective' means a dangerous weapon of offence, destined for that daring head, that is not unceasingly convinced of the unconditioned superiority of the object. We must, therefore, be quite clear as to what meaning the term 'subjective' carries in this investigation. As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact. Now, in so far as the subjective factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself—since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same—it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially changeless reality would be altogether inconceivable, and any understanding with posterity would be a matter of impossibility. Thus far, therefore, the subjective factor is something that is just as much a fact as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. Thus far, also, the subjective factor claims the whole value of a world-determining power which can never, under any circumstances, be excluded from our calculations. It is the other world-law, and the man who is based upon it has a foundation just as secure, permanent, and valid, as the man who relies upon the object But, just as the object and objective data remain by no means always the same, inasmuch as they are both perishable and subject to chance, the subjective factor is similarly liable to variability and individual hazard.
Hence its value is also merely relative. The excessive development of the introverted standpoint in consciousness, for instance, does not lead to a better or sounder application of the subjective factor, but to an artificial subjectification of consciousness, which can hardly escape the reproach 'merely subjective'. For, as a countertendency to this morbid subjectification, there ensues a desubjectification of consciousness in the form of an exaggerated extraverted attitude which richly deserves Weininger's description "misautic". Inasmuch as the introverted attitude is based upon a universally present, extremely real, and absolutely indispensable condition of psychological adaptation, such expressions as 'philautic', 'egocentric', and the like are both objectionable and out of place, since they foster the prejudice that it is invariably a question of the beloved ego. Nothing could be more absurd than such an assumption. Yet one is continually meeting it when examining the judgments of the extravert upon the introvert. Not, of course, that I wish to ascribe such an error to individual extraverts; it is rather the present generally accepted extraverted view which is by no means restricted to the extraverted type; for it finds just as many representatives in the ranks of the other type, albeit very much against its own interest. The reproach of being untrue to his own kind is justly levelled at the latter, whereas, this, at least, can never be charged against the former.
The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever present subjective factor. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness. Were the ego identical with the Self, it would be unthinkable that we should be able to appear in dreams in entirely different forms and with entirely different meanings. But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which, moreover, is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, that he tends to confuse his ego with the Self, and to exalt his ego to the position of subject of the psychological process, thus effecting that morbid subjectification of consciousness, mentioned above, which so alienates him from the object.
The psychological structure is the same. Semon has termed it 'mneme',[2] whereas I call it the 'collective unconscious'. The individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures, and, therefore, a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process, which is born anew in every creature. Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the archetype. This term embraces the same idea as is contained in 'primordial image' (an expression borrowed from Jakob Burckhardt), and as such I have described it in Chapter xi of this book. I must here refer the reader to that chapter, in particular to the definition of 'image'.
The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object—incorrectly, at bottom—since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He reaches the unavoidable conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or a fantastic doctrinaire. Recently he seems to have reached the conclusion that the introvert is constantly influenced by an unconscious power-complex. The introvert unquestionably exposes himself to this prejudice; for it cannot be denied that his definite and highly generalized mode of expression, which apparently excludes every other view from the outset, lends a certain countenance to this extraverted opinion. Furthermore, the very decisiveness and inflexibility of the subjective judgment, which is superordinated to all objective data, is alone sufficient to create the impression of a strong egocentricity. The introvert usually lacks the right argument in presence of this prejudice; for he is just as unaware of the unconscious, though thoroughly sound presuppositions of his subjective judgment, as he is of his subjective perceptions. In harmony with the style of the times, he looks without, instead of behind his own consciousness for the answer. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of a more or less complete unconscious identity of the ego with the Self, whereupon the importance of the Self is reduced to nil, while the ego becomes inflated beyond reason. The undeniable, world-determining power of the subjective factor then becomes concentrated in the ego, developing an immoderate power claim and a downright foolish egocentricity. Every psychology which reduces the nature of man to unconscious power instinct springs from this foundation. For example, Nietzsche's many faults in taste owe their existence to this subjectification of consciousness.
The Unconscious Attitude
The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness involves an inferiority of the objective factor. The object is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introverted. To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjectified, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable. The object is a factor of undeniable power, while the ego is something very restricted and transitory. It would be a very different matter if the Self opposed the object. Self and world are commensurable factors; hence a normal introverted attitude is just as valid, and has as good a right to existence, as a normal extraverted attitude. But, if the ego has usurped the claims of the subject, a compensation naturally develops under the guise of an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object. Such a change eventually commands attention, for often, in spite of a positively convulsive attempt to ensure the superiority of the ego, the object and objective data develop an overwhelming influence, which is all the more invincible because it seizes upon the individual unawares, thus effecting an irresistible invasion of consciousness. As a result of the ego's defective relation to the object—for a will to command is not adaptation—a compensatory relation to the object develops in the unconscious, which makes itself felt in consciousness as an unconditional and irrepressible tie to the object. The more the ego seeks to secure every possible liberty, independence, superiority, and freedom from obligations, the deeper does it fall into the slavery of objective facts. The subject's freedom of mind is chained to an ignominious financial dependence, his unconcernedness of action suffers now and again, a distressing collapse in the face of public opinion, his moral superiority gets swamped in inferior relationships, and his desire to dominate ends in a pitiful craving to be loved. The chief concern of the unconscious in such a case is the relation to the object, and it affects this in a way that is calculated to bring both the power illusion and the superiority phantasy to utter ruin. The object assumes terrifying dimensions, in spite of conscious depreciation. Detachment from, and command of, the object are, in consequence, pursued by the ego still more violently. Finally, the ego surrounds itself by a regular system of safeguards (Adler has ably depicted these) which shall at least preserve the illusion of superiority. But, therewith, the introvert severs himself completely from the object, and either squanders his energy in defensive measures or makes fruitless attempts to impose his power upon the object and successfully assert himself. But these efforts are constantly being frustrated by the overwhelming impressions he receives from the object. It continually imposes itself upon him against his will; it provokes in him the most disagreeable and obstinate affects, persecuting him at every step. An immense, inner struggle is constantly required of him, in order to 'keep going.' Hence Psychoasthenia is his typical form of neurosis, a malady which is characterized on the one hand by an extreme sensitiveness, and on the other by a great liability to exhaustion and chronic fatigue.An analysis of the personal unconscious yields an abundance of power phantasies coupled with fear of the dangerously animated objects, to which, as a matter of fact, the introvert easily falls a victim. For a peculiar cowardliness develops from this fear of the object; he shrinks from making either himself or his opinion effective, always dreading an intensified influence on the part of the object. He is terrified of impressive affects in others, and is hardly ever free from the dread of falling under hostile influence. For objects possess terrifying and powerful qualities for him—qualities which he cannot consciously discern in them, but which, through his unconscious perception, he cannot choose but believe in. Since his conscious relation to the object is relatively repressed, its exit is by way of the unconscious, where it becomes loaded with the qualities of the unconscious. These qualities are primarily infantile and archaic. His relation to the object, therefore, becomes correspondingly primitive, taking on all those peculiarities which characterize the primitive objectrelationship. Now it seems as though objects possessed magical powers. Strange, new objects excite fear and distrust, as though concealing unknown dangers; objects long rooted and blessed by tradition are attached to his soul as by invisible threads; every change has a disturbing, if not actually dangerous aspect, since its apparent implication is a magical animation of the object. A lonely island where only what is permitted to move moves, becomes an ideal. Auch Einer, the novel by F. Th. Vischer, gives a rich insight into this side of the introvert's psychology, and at the same time shows the underlying symbolism of the collective unconscious, which in this description of types I am leaving on one side, since it is a universal phenomenon with no especial connection with types.
Now that we looked at the original definition of introverted and Extraverted by Carl jung we look at the socionics definition.
2. SOCIONIC INTERPRETATION
Introduction
Extraversion as a socionic trait is defined by the leading function of a type. If the leading function is extraverted, the type is called "extraverted" or "extratim"; conversely if the leading function of type is introverted, then this type is called "introverted" or "introtim". It should be kept in mind that the model of every type has both extraverted and introverted elements. Depending on which element is involved, a person may appear to be more "extraverted" or more "introverted" in that moment.
In socionics, "extraversion" is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the characteristics and behavior of objects (people, things, events) outside the observer. In contrast, "introversion" means a focus on the observer's response to and perception of objects.
Extraverts: qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects.
Introverts: interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships.
Augusta likened the difference between extraverted and introverted perception to the difference between bodies and fields in physics. "Bodies" are objects with mass and certain qualities, while "fields" are the realm of interaction between bodies.
Carl Jung believed that introversion and extraversion were present in everyone, but that one attitude-type is invariably dominant. He described the extravert as trusting what is received from the outside world while regarding implicit factors and motivations of secondary importance, while the introvert may be well aware of external conditions, but he is not motivated by them, rather he responds primarily to his internal impressions of the external events. See the extraverted type, the introverted type, and extraversion and introversion.
In socionics, IM elements, information aspects, and types can all be treated as extraverted or introverted.
Extraverted and introverted types
- Extraverted IM types are: ILE, ESE, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, LSE, and IEE.
- Introverted IM types are: SEI, LII, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, EII, and SLI.
- Using the four-letter code: Extraverted types have an E, introverted types have an I as first letter.
Typical characteristics
Extraverted types
- Psychic energy more often flows outwards.
- Energy level increases when interacting with a large group of people.
- Energy level decreases when they are alone.
- Energy level is generally higher.
- More often focused on their surroundings.
- Tend to be more active and initiating.
- Often make new friends easily.
- Often better at presenting themselves.
- Often prefer to work in a team.
Introverted types
- Psychic energy more often flows inwards.
- Energy level increases when they are alone.
- Energy level decreases when interacting with a large group of people.
- Energy level is generally lower.
- More often focused on their thoughts and feelings.
- Tend to be more passive, less initiating.
- Often do not have many friends.
- Often better at concentrating.
- Often prefer to work alone.
Note on sociability and extraversion/introversion
A common misconception, also compounded by some interpretations of MBTI or even of Jung's typology, is that extratims are extraverted as in "socially outgoing", and intratims are introverted as in "socially reserved". In socionics terms, however, that is not the case. An introtim may be socially outgoing and even prefer a situation with broad and intensive social interaction as in a large group; an extratim may be socially reserved in terms of preferring social interactions limited to a very small number of select individuals. What is more important, in terms of socionics extraversion/introversion, is whether the individual is inclined to take the initiative in establishing the social interaction (of whatever kind), or prefers to let others take this initiative.
Extraversion and introversion (psychology)
The terms extraversion and introversion in modern psychology have somewhat different meanings from socionic extraversion and introversion and even from those of Carl Jung, who popularized the term.The probable cause of this is that modern psychology focuses on quantifiable external behavior, while socionics focuses more on qualitative internal differences. If one applies the psychological meaning of extraversion and introversion to diagnosing socionic types, there will be numerous mistakes, and the supposed intertype relations between these types will not match reality. In socionics, gregarious introtims and reclusive, focused extratims are possible, though in many or most cases the psychological definitions can be applied.
Extraversion and introversion according to Jung
From Wikipedia:According to Carl Jung, introversion and extraversion refer to the direction of psychic energy. If a person’s energy usually flows outwards, he or she is an extravert, while if this energy normally flows inwards, this person is an introvert. Extraverts feel an increase of perceived energy when interacting with a large group of people, but a decrease of energy when left alone. Conversely, introverts feel an increase of energy when alone, but a decrease of energy when surrounded by a large group of people.
Most modern psychologists consider theories of psychic energy to be obsolete. First, it is difficult to operationalize mental "energy" in a way that can be scientifically measured and tested. Second, more detailed explanations of extraversion and the brain have replaced Jung's rather speculative theories. Nevertheless, the concept is still in popular usage in the general sense of "feeling energized" in particular situations. Jung’s primary legacy in this area may be the popularizing of the terms introvert and extravert to refer to a particular dimension of personality.
In other words, while Jung's understanding of extraversion and introversion are related to that of modern psychology, the terms are now interpreted differently in practice.
Extraversion and introversion in psychology
In modern psychology, extraverts (sometimes called "extroverts") are gregarious, assertive, and generally seek out excitement. Introverts, in contrast, are more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable. They are not necessarily asocial, but they tend to have smaller circles of friends, and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts. According to the Big Five factors, extraversion denotes energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.From Wikipedia:
Extraversion (also "extroversion") is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.
Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less dependent on the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and more time alone to re-charge their batteries.
Sample Extraversion items:
- I am the life of the party.
- I don't mind being the center of attention.
- I feel comfortable around people.
- I start conversations.
- I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
- I am quiet around strangers. (reversed)
- I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed)
- I don't talk a lot. (reversed)
- I have little to say. (reversed)
- I keep in the background. (reversed)
Extraversion and introversion in socionics
Socionics' understanding of extraversion and introversion is closer to carl jung than to that of modern psychology. An individual is extraverted if his perception is primarily directed at objects in the outside world, whereas introverts' perception is primarily directed at the way these objects resonate with each other and within the observer's psyche. Extraversion and introversion are not absolute qualities, since half of one's psychic function are extraverted and half introverted. One's perception skips around between extraverted and introverted functions. However, the leading function is most dominant and defines the individual's extraversion or introversion.While there is probably some correlation between outgoingness and socionics extraversion, this connection is not actually implied in the theory. People of the same type can differ on psychological scales of extraversion, and some socionic introtims are more "extraverted" (i.e. gregarious, sociable) than some extratims. Also,
Gamma and Delta
types may on average be less extraverted than Alpha and Beta types due to subdued extroverted ethics.
3. PROBLEM WITH MODERN INTERPRETATION OF INTROVERTED AND EXTROVERTED
Review of Definitions and Confusions
Modern psychology
"Introversion – is a passive, but energy-saving and defensive orientation of the psyche, leading to familiarization and deepening of what already exists. Due to their reserve, introverts, compared to extroverts, are rarely found in leadership roles, especially when it comes to large groups Extraversion – is an active, but energy-expending orientation of the psyche, leading to extension,expansion. In most cases, the communicative as well as the intellectual leader in a society turns out to be an extrovert"
Socionics
We have no fundamental objections to the formulation of this dichotomy through the energy-exchange processes. Yes, introversion is related to preservation of energy, and extroversion - to high energy expenditures. However, the tight connection of this dichotomy to leadership in a society evokes perplexity. Whether a person will become a leader or not is depends, firstly, on his personal qualities (for example, having a desire to become a leader, having ambition), secondly, on the social conditions (in some circumstances leaders of extroverted type are in demand, in others, on the contrary, introverted leaders), and thirdly, on the specifics of transpiring events (someone "got lucky", someone withdrew due to health issues, etc.).
In many cases, when social conditions worked in favor of introverted orientation, the leaders (even of large groups) were people with introverted TIMs, in particular: Robespierre (Ti,Ne), Nicholas I (Ti,Se), Alexander III (Fi,Se), Stalin (Ti,Se), Khrushchev (Si,Fe), Mao Zedong (Fi,Se), Brezhnev (Fi,Se), Andropov (Ni,Te), Putin (Ti,Se), Lukashenko (Ti,Se).
Concerning intellectual leadership, this trait cannot be a priority, as there is no harsh struggle for power: if a person has far-reaching ideas - then he or she becomes the intellectual leader. For example, one of the most authoritative figures (and in fact leaders) of Russian culture of the past decades has been the intellectual D. S. Lihachev, "classic" representative of TIM Fi-Ne. In the modern Russian cinema one of the brightest leaders is N. Mikhalkov, TIM Ti-Se.
"Extrovert:* oriented at what is happening outside of himself;* open to everything that happens around him;* correlates his opinions to the opinions of people around him;* loves to act, to take initiative;* prefers to change the situation if it doesn't suit him;* easily makes new contacts, quickly settles into a new group;* tends to immediately express what is on his mind;* with interest relates to new people, easily becomes acquainted with them;* if relations didn't work out, leaves just as easily, not trying to change anyone to his own way;* often inclined to take risks.Introvert:* oriented at his own sensations, thoughts, impressions of what is around him;* tries to shut out (to protect himself) from an abundance of new information;* prefers to adapt to the situation rather than changing it, even if it's not acceptable to him;* seems pensive, silent, outwardly calm;* has a narrow circle of friends;* rarely makes any new contacts;* gravitates to mental focus and silence;* dislikes unexpected visits and doesn't make them himself;* works well alone".
The excessive categorization of most elements in the above description is of note. This definition becomes invalid due to its tight and invariant form. In particular, even the most "extroverted" extrovert "correlates his opinions" not with everyone around him, but only with those people whose opinions are of importance to him. Any extrovert is also quite able to brush off someone's opinion or not take into account the views of a number of people, if these are non-authoritative. Further, the phrase "loves to act" is unclear: it turns out that introverts always appear idle? To act (in one or another directions) means to live: this means that introverts don't like to live?! It is ridiculous to even talk about the proposition "expresses all he's thinking about": every adult person conceals a wealth of information – without this, any relationships with others become extremely problematic. It is hard to find a person who wouldn't filter their thoughts at least a little before voicing them.
The proposition that the extravert "easily leaves if relations didn't work out" is also implausible. The collapse of relations are painful for any person (but not everyone knows how to show it); any separation – is a psychological trauma, to a greater or lesser degree, and even ethical extroverts, who are inclined to self-sufficient management and direction of their relations, worry and feel upset if someone has dropped all contact with them.
Description of "thoughtful, silent, outwardly calm" does not apply to all introverts: in particular, Si-Fe is usually socially active and likes to "talk" (as do other ethical introverts).
Liking "surprise visits", in our opinion, cannot be considered a socionic factor. This is related to a person's upbringing and education: people who were brought up well, typically don't make surprise visits - they were taught to warn about their intentions to visit someone beforehand. In practice, most extroverts prefer to know in advance about a visit of someone else, and feel apprehensive if they hear an unexpected doorbell.
"One fundamental difference that divides people into two broad categories is expressed in terms "extroversion" and "introversion". These contain succinct characteristic of individual psychological differences between people, expressed in terms of predominating orientation of the person either at the world of external objects and events or at his own subjective the world "
This formulation is quite correct. Particularly relevant is the mention of predominance: because in the world there's nothing absolute, and in the human psyche - even more so; the introvert can react to external events – there is no "abnormal" inability for him to observe what is happening around. Another thing is that such observations for the introvert are tedious, thus he engages in them when it is necessary, mainly in complex, critical situations (when the ID block of model starts to work intensively.
"The extrovert is always in the midst of people, sociable, open to others, has many friends. In activities he is active and enterprising, uninhibited in his statements, capable of undertaking risky actions. For the extravert the most important thing – is the objective outside world, the actual objects. Their properties are secondary for him, and thus changeable as required. ...He doesn't pay attention to poor working conditions, if he feels that he is needed, that without him it would be difficult, however, does not accept coercion even for high goals. He tries to fulfill routine work as soon as possible to switch to doing something creative. His element – is travel, movement. He easily takes off, sometimes unexpectedly even to himself.The consciousness of introvert is turned to his inner world; he is well aware of the aspirations of his soul, his feelings, thoughts, and experiences. With difficulty absorbs large amounts of new information. Outwardly he seems calm and smooth. Quiet atmosphere is more fitting to him; he works best alone. The relationships between the objects for him are more important than the objects themselves, which can be changed to achieve the desired results. Surprises, new acquaintances, sudden visits can knock him off balance. He cherishes existing relationships, with difficulty breaks them, preferring to change himself and others to save the relationship. Friends with few, but for a very long time. Does the work well when he considers it to be his duty, but does not like responsibility, which he perceives as a punishment "
First of all, even the most expressed extroverts need more or less long periods of solitude, so that "always being in the midst of the people" - is a completely incorrect proposition. Further, the extroverted (as the introvert), of course, pays attention to his working conditions regardless of whether he is "needed" or not. Nobody wants to work for low wages in an antediluvian building with nasty co-workers. "Having a lot of friends" doesn't happen to anyone: true friends are always very few; another thing is that the extravert usually has more contacts and acquaintances on the average than the introvert. But this, of course, is not a reliable diagnostic feature for this given dichotomy
Our understanding
This dichotomy, apparently, is a motivating one: it determines what "triggers" information metabolism. For the extrovert the "trigger" occurs when a signal is received about events in the outside world, while for the introvert – with a change in his inner condition.
Definition:
Extraversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by developments in the outside world.
Introversion – the predominant motivation of thinking by intrapersonal (or individual) factors.
Objectivity and realism
C. G. Jung considered a person's tendency towards objective or subjective judgments and estimates in relation to this dichotomy. He wrote:
"... introverted type is different from the extroverted type in that he is focused primarily not on the object and not on at what is objectively present, as is the extroverted type, but on the subjective factors. ... for introverted type between the perception of the object and his own action comes a subjective opinion, which interferes with the action of taking on a character corresponding to the objectively given" [8, p. 415]."If a person thinks, feels, and acts ... and it directly relates to the objective conditions and requirements ... then he is extraverted" [8, p. 371].
In actuality, in the mental ring of an extroverted TIM all introverted aspects are functionally dependent of the extraverted aspects, for example, Se > Fi. For the extroverted type, the reality is primary (denoted by extrovert aspects), but a subjective reflection of reality is secondary. The introvert, on the contrary, is guided by his own sensations, and only in the presence of the corresponding signal does he come in contact with reality.
G. A. Shulman considers that introverted aspects are responsible for a reflection of reality, and extroverted - for the reality itself.
"... in addition the Beta quadra "turned out" to be dominant on "white[introverted]" functions, functions of reflection of reality, the idealizing functions, which is how it has received the name: quadra-idea, while Delta quadra – on "black" logic and intuition, the functions of reality, and thus it was called quadra-reality" [10, p.93]."... Alpha quadra corresponds to the intuition of reality (Ne) ... Beta corresponds to logic of reflection of reality - "white" logic (Ti); - Gamma - sensing of reality (Se) ... while Delta corresponds to function of reflection of emotions - "white" ethics (Fi) "[10, p.93].
TIM LIE for example: his notion of time, its expenditure, the dynamics of events, directly depend on the presence or absence of prospective projects, business ventures, efficient technologies (Te). If such are found, there will be time for them, that is, for TIM LIE the logical (or technological) reality is primary. Not so for TIM ILI. He is guided by his own (subjective) sense of time and is ready to work only when he considers is timely (Te as a function of Ni). For NiTe the primary is not reality, but the subjective sense of time.
In general, the program aspects of introverts in a certain way differ from the identical (taking sign into consideration) creative aspects of extroverts. For the latter, the creative aspect is always closely associated with the program one, which brings information about the reality, so the creative (introverted) aspect also acquires realism. In introverts, the program aspect does not depend on anything and is the most subjective (or arbitrary) in any "introverted" model A.
In particular, for TIMs LII and LSI there is always some sort of own logical system, that is not (or is weakly) associated with the existing systems; for TIMs SEI and SLI there are their own (sufficiently far from common) representations of sensations: fashion, acceptable appearance, sexuality, etc.; for TIMs ESI and EII there are their own ethical systems are often far removed from the current social standards; TIMs IEI and ILI have their own perception of time, their own ideas about what is timely, speed, pace, time consumption norms, etc.
Philosophical part
If we diverge from the topic of socionics research and take a broader look at the subject of the article, then we can arrive at interesting philosophical conclusions. Extraversion, as by C. G. Jung was inclined to think of it (see quotes above) gives priority to the information about external environment before information born out of internal impressions and reasoning. This - from a philosophical point of view - is nothing else but the priority of existing reality over individual consciousness. This reflects the quote by Karl Marx: "being determines consciousness". Only K. Marx (NeTi) has extrapolated this orientation at all people, and therefore, to all TIMs. However, for introverts it is the individual consciousness that determines being. For the extrovert, the current existence is the reality (extrovert aspects in his mental ring are accepting), and for introvert the reality is his own individual considerations concerning reality (accepting introverted aspects).
Thus, it is clear that this dichotomy has pronounced philosophical implications, which, in turn, illustrates the profound ideological differences among real people of extraverted and introverted TIMs.
Diagnostics
It is easier to diagnose this dichotomy with the help of energy-exchange orientations or temperaments [3], [9]. Extroverts have energy-expending orientation, introverts - energy-saving.
During diagnosis it is also necessary to consider the effect of subtypes on this trait [3]. There are fewer errors in typing extroverts with subtype accentuation of left (inert) block of model A – most often these are typical extroverts, without any additional subtype temperaments. Equally typical are introverts with strengthened left (inert) block of their model: most often these people look introverts in everyday sense (or "ayzenkovsky" plan). It's quite a different situation with type diagnosis of extroverts and introverts with strengthened right (contact) block of model A; they have a subtype temperament: for rational extroverts (e.g. Ni-EIE) - receptive-adaptive, for irrational extraverts (e.g. Ti-ILE) - balanced-stable, for rational introverts (e.g. Ne-LII) - flexible-maneuvering, for irrational introverts (e.g. Fe-IEI) - linear-assertive. These additional subtype temperaments often confuse typers during type diagnoses; to avoid errors, observe the dynamics of energy of individual in question preferably in different socio-psychological conditions.
A set of diagnostic methods for this (and other) dichotomies is given in