Extraverts are doers

[Black Rose]

It became apparent to me that extraverts interact with the outside world. This creates a feedback loop between them and the external. Extraverted Feeling needs interaction to feel. Te needs to change something about the environment, experiment. Se absorbs its visual field. Ne realizes the potential in things.

This could all be simplified into doing because interacting with the environment is involved.

Opposite Introversion is interacting with the internal self. Ti is just thinking. Fi is a self-generating feeling. Ni is just a realization not triggered by anything. Si has imagined things in the unconscious.

Introverts bounce between the inside and the inside. Extraverts bounce between the outside and inside.

I often find it hard to know what I am feeling even when I interact with things. I find it hard to know what I am thinking because I do not see my thoughts. I often try to force myself to think and it does not work. I have a pen and paper and it's blank. I suppose my Ni is not working. I would really like to draw or do math. I don't like writing though. I do not want to do creative writing. I suppose something is not bouncing correctly though.

 

[Cognisant]

I think everyone needs external validation to turn the abstract into reality, it’s a lot easier to say write a story when you know someone's enjoying reading it.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There are stereotypes which are based in truth but I don't think they should represent everyone.

I've seen extroversion characterized by tendency towards positive emotion.

Introvert because shy? Or Introvert because everyone is annoying to them? Introvert because they don't see most people as having anything valuable to offer?

They tend to do different things. Reading a book is doing something. Publishing a book is doing something. Both things that introverts are more likely to engage in.

I would have to agree that introverts might have more energy to do things, but I'm sure that an extravert engaging in introverted activities wouldn't fair that well for long.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Ok Akitty, you know that I appreciate and respect you greatly, but let me take a stab at you.

Didn't you just write a post?

You're a doer, you have to be if you can bring yourself to write anything. Maybe you're also a writer?

 

[Black Rose]

I do not necessarily find math yucky, in fact I love simplicity and simple maths is beautiful. I just never got to the advanced part where symbols represent things. as a language, I find it obscure. I do not speak maths and that makes it hard to do a.i.

The idea I had that introversion is interacting internally and extraversion is interacting with the external really has nothing to do with stereotype extra intro but more to do with functions. If an extraverted function is constantly interacting externally it needs the external to function introversion doesn't. what may confuse things is what I can be generating and manipulating. Those two things would be the distinction of intelligence vs creativity but not inside and outside first.

That is:

generate internal or external

or manipulate internal or external

generating is not necessarily only internal. is a feedback between in and out

and you can manipulate internal is powerful to do

 

[Cognisant]

Ok Akitty, you know that I appreciate and respect you greatly, but let me take a stab at you.

Didn't you just write a post?

You're a doer, you have to be if you can bring yourself to write anything. Maybe you're also a writer?

Well I'm an asshole so if I offend you that’s your problem, I just wanted to say that post was profoundly autistic. Of course AK meant that extroverts are the only ones who can do anything ever by virtue of being do-ers as opposed to us not do-ers.

Edit: I intend only to tease.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I do not necessarily find math yucky, in fact I love simplicity and simple maths is beautiful. I just never got to the advanced part where symbols represent things. as a language, I find it obscure. I do not speak maths and that makes it hard to do a.i.

The idea I had that introversion is interacting internally and extraversion is interacting with the external really has nothing to do with stereotype extra intro but more to do with functions. If an extraverted function is constantly interacting externally it needs the external to function introversion doesn't. what may confuse things is what I can be generating and manipulating. Those two things would be the distinction of intelligence vs creativity but not inside and outside first.

That is:

generate internal or external

or manipulate internal or external

generating is not necessarily only internal. is a feedback between in and out

and you can manipulate internal is powerful to do

I guarantee you most scientists are introverts, thus the foundation of most things an extroverts is able to do is built off of something an introvert created.

Some things might of course not get done without extroverts, but that is my point, not to disagree.

Your click bait title elicits that in me. Extroverts are doers of extroverted things.

Then of course we have to think about people who are effectively niether introvert nor extroverted, which is most people honestly. Though now there is a growing number of people who would be considered introverted because the internet. People who rather, have a low social battery, than people who don't like interacting with others.

The functions are completely independent of sociability if you ask me. Extraversion is a thing of preference. So to me, the only difference that makes is what you are exposed to and liable to think about due to experience and desired experience.

 

[Daddy]

Pretty much, at least conceptually. But any introvert needs external validation as Cog says. And it all depends on how your mind is engaged. An introvert that spends a portion of their life focused on making the internal external is suddenly an extrovert, except not really, but yet they are. So whatever I guess.

Concepts are fun to think about, but life is too dynamic for it to be some kind of always constant or easily delineated truth. I like MBTI, socionics, enneagram, and they can be awesome tools for conceptualizing or understanding people to various degrees at certain points in their lives, but people seem to bicker over whether they are some kind of fundamental truth, without realizing the nature of life is just more complicated than that; and this focus on what's true and whether personality theories are true or not is actually completely irrelevant and a misleading inquiry. And it's probably why there is no consistency in these theories and really I find that kind of annoying, like having 20 different religions that all believe their God(s) are true, without realizing the other religions believe their God's are true too; instead they could seek to find consistency within each other, but they can't, choose not to, or don't even appreciate the problem with that to even try. That would almost be like different religions all using science, psychology, and philosophy as a consistent starting point to understand how their religions connect with other religions and validate them all as a complete picture. But rather, instead, "there can only be one" mentally always seems to prevail.

But anyway.

 

[Black Rose]

if you are interacting with yourself you are introverted.
if you are interacting with the environment you are extraverted.
you can do both of course. but there is a preference.

you cannot just be interacting with nothing.
because you would not exist.
at any moment you are being introverted or extraverted.

It just takes a little introspection to tell if you interact with yourself more or your environment. And in what way you interact. I interact with my unconscious more than anything, I am introverted. But that is just interacting with myself, the way I interact with the environment is more social. I often express myself in a way I can feel satisfied with my interactions. If I don't I feel dead inside. Because I need real social interaction I often do not get it. Instead, I just go more introverted interacting with myself.

I often don't gt to do anything interactive. Everything builds up and needs to get out.

There comes a point where I cannot interact with only myself. When this happens I usually get on media.

It is a balance between inside and outside. But it is finding things to do that is hard because I am not a generator. I cannot just make things up to interact with.

 

[Daddy]

Right, well preferences do change sometimes. Everyone is different and circumstances are always changing. Nature isn’t always set it stone since it depends on a lot of different things that can change.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Simply switch the introverted switch in your brain to extroverted. Simple.

The reason we all land on, on just about every subject or topic is designed to make us comfortable. Or rather it tends to be.

I had that thought yesterday, and it was terrifying. To me it encapsulates one thing. If you aren't uncomfortable while you're thinking about something, then you aren't really thinking, you're just spouting of your preconceived notions that you have already accepted.

Do you feel uncomfortable when you write what you are writing? Not just on an emotional level, but all your sensibilities. Are you even ACTUALLY interacting with yourself?

Most of my time spent writing is thinking about how I want to say something or making sure that it's understood. I rarely stop and have to deconstruct and manipulate my thoughts.

And when I am working on diction and grammar, am I not interacting with outside rules of the world? A schema in my mind of course, but it's still something that came from interfacing with the world no?

The language you're using is not something internal, it is something intuitive maybe. That's why we have trouble understanding each other when we communicate.

This internal external dichotomy just complicates things in my eyes. Is that complexity needed? Do please elaborate if it leads anywhere. It seems that this is a tool that is working for some other purpose than pointing out that extraverts do something.

 

[Black Rose]

The language you're using is not something internal, it is something intuitive maybe. That's why we have trouble understanding each other when we communicate.

This internal external dichotomy just complicates things in my eyes. Is that complexity needed? Do please elaborate if it leads anywhere. It seems that this is a tool that is working for some other purpose than pointing out that extraverts do something.

What does it mean to introvert perception or judgment? I said it was to stop interacting with the external world and start interacting with the internal world. What would this mean for judgment, it would mean decisions would be oriented at something internal. The thinking or feeling object would not be located outside the self. It would not be at something but rather inside the person. Oriented inside is as close to what I can say introversion is. And it is not about writing that defines thinking as extraverted or introverted. Any function can be used to write. But whether you direct at something or inside yourself.

To be an introvert or be an extravert has to be what Jung originally meant. I do not think what I said complicates that at all. inside outside is much easier to understand than Jung saying a person either is oriented to the self or to the object. What does that mean?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Ok Akitty, you know that I appreciate and respect you greatly, but let me take a stab at you.

Didn't you just write a post?

You're a doer, you have to be if you can bring yourself to write anything. Maybe you're also a writer?

Well I'm an asshole so if I offend you that’s your problem, I just wanted to say that post was profoundly autistic. Of course AK meant that extroverts are the only ones who can do anything ever by virtue of being do-ers as opposed to us not do-ers.

Edit: I intend only to tease.

I'm actually autistic so it doesn't stick to me. Autism gives me +10 to INT and WIS and -10 to CHA, I'll take that minmax every time in chargen. Congrats, only took ya what, 9 years to notice that? Ya bogan-chasin' cunt-legged wanker (Context for autists: Just kidding, it's a joke m8)

I just reacted to the bit where AKitty said that he can't do drawing or math. Emotional reaction, ok?

So in the spirit of not derailing his thread I'll say that it's rather obvious for the MBTI to describe NeTeSeFe as focused externally and therefore acting on the world or "doing". What's new here? Someone with dominant Xe function will be more focused on the outside.

 

[Cognisant]

Ya bogan-chasin' cunt-legged wanker

You get points for bogan-chasin' but lose them for cunt-legged because that doesn't make sense, the classic wanker at the end makes it passable.

With some slight alterations we've got some real poetry:
Ya bloody-bogan cunt-sniffin' wanker.

Which in Her Majesty's English means:
You masturbate to the smell of low class women on their period.

Simply marvelous a real tip-top insult.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Ak cleared it up but now I'm confused again.

So now cognitive functions belong to a certain orientation?

You'd typically say reading is introverted, but now it seems it could be both or extraverted. Could it be intent for reading?

Doesn't that add a dimension on intent to any activity then?

If I say "anyone who reads this is an idiot" is this an extroverted phrase, then "reading this is idiotic" is this an introverted phrase?

This is all in the eye of the beholder as far as I can see. We here on this forum would be extroverts for many many introverts.

This whole notion of externalizing or internalizing energy is bogus to me. Jung himself said it's a parlor trick without much substance.

Even linguistically, we can turn just about anything into an object. So YES it does complicate things because your description doesn't account for human ability to objectify everything. Including itself.

Any agreement on this matter would come from consensus and very little else would support it in the event someone comes by who doesn't have your vocabulary or perspective nothing would protect this idea.

The modern conception of extroversion is way better because it simply defines the difference between introverts and extroverts. Propensity for positive emotions. Positive meaning a specific thing.

Ability to be Enthusiastic, and Assertive given any situation. Simple.

 

[Black Rose]

if you are going by energy as an introvert extravert difference, sure.

 

[Black Rose]

 

[Black Rose]

introvert - recurrent network
extravert - feedforward network

add - functions

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think you're wrong. Let me leave it there. Maybe it's about how broadly your applying introspection and exteroception. Or how you're depicting extraverts, which you would apparently have little to no experience being. Or maybe you just aren't communicating it well, that picture doesn't help.

What of ENXX types? Intuition implicitly demands internal qualitative assessments before acting on things. Your solution to this is just say that E and I are the most dominant factors to someone's cognition.

Psychology has failed to yield anything useful from this whole introvert extrovert debate outside of understanding trends ones life may have gone through. Neuroscience has found some things useful, but they are linked to formation of the brain and key experiences that change the brain.

We are pretty much all the same neurologically. I as a introvert, have found that I have a poor amount of introspection. In fact, I often am focused on the outside world, and I do it better than most people. Perhaps it's FOR THE SAKE of bettering myself internally, but this is not an introverted thing to do. It's a common sense thing to do.

 

[Black Rose]

.

 

[Black Rose]

.

 

[scorpiomover]

It became apparent to me that extraverts interact with the outside world.

Coma victims don't interact with the outside world. Everyone else does.

This creates a feedback loop between them and the external. Extraverted Feeling needs interaction to feel. Te needs to change something about the environment, experiment. Se absorbs its visual field. Ne realizes the potential in things.

This could all be simplified into doing because interacting with the environment is involved.

Opposite Introversion is interacting with the internal self. Ti is just thinking. Fi is a self-generating feeling. Ni is just a realization not triggered by anything. Si has imagined things in the unconscious.

An intraverted function without an extraverted function, is like a theory without any data. Might be true. But you have no clue.

Introverts bounce between the inside and the inside. Extraverts bounce between the outside and inside.

That would only be true if Introverts' top 2 functions are both introverted, while extraverts' top 2 functions would be 1 introverted function and 1 extraverted function.

Introverts and extroverts have 1 introverted function and 1 extroverted function.

I often find it hard to know what I am feeling even when I interact with things. I find it hard to know what I am thinking because I do not see my thoughts.

Sounds like disassociation, or something else that is in the same vein. It's often co-morbid with severe depression and/or anxiety

I often try to force myself to think and it does not work. I have a pen and paper and it's blank.

You could write ANYTHING. Sounds like a symptom of depression and/or anxiety.

I suppose my Ni is not working. I would really like to draw or do math. I don't like writing though. I do not want to do creative writing. I suppose something is not bouncing correctly though.

You say you'd like to draw or do math, but not do creative writing. So what's stopping you? I suspect that you're worrying about what to do or not do, so much, that you're talking yourself out of it.

Instead, remember this joke:

There's a flood in a town where a man lives. The water keeps rising, and the man doesn't know how to swim.

Along comes a rowboat. The owner asks the man if he wants a lift. "Oh no thanks", says the man. "G-d will save me."

The water gets higher. Along comes a speedboat. The owner asks the man if he wants a lift. "Oh no thanks", says the man. "G-d will save me."

The water gets higher. Along comes a helicopter. The owner asks the man if he wants a lift. "Oh no thanks", says the man. "G-d will save me."

Then the water covers his house and the man drowns. When the man gets to Heaven, he asks G-d why G-d didn't save him? G-d replies: "What do you mean? I sent you a rowboat, and a speedboat and a helicopter."

Religious people tell this joke to each other, because if the universe has a plan, then opportunities are intended, and if the universe has no design, then it doesn't matter if you take the opportunities that come your way, and so you might as well.

Life is an endless stream of opportunities, like a constantly moving conveyor belt of presents.

 

[Black Rose]

It is hard to know what introversion is if you are constantly interacting outside yourself. But only because the outside is the main focus. When focussing internally a switch is made. So that you are only external when you need to be.

Ne constantly is making sh*t up. Ni has to become synchronized.
Se is most obvious is pulled into the images outside. Si is hallucinatory.
Te is fixated on correct causality. Ti confirms everything deductively.
Fe needs everything affirmed to feel. Fi passes feeling through the self.

 

[sushi]

no extroverts are talkers

 

[ZenRaiden]

No